Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Budget Appropriations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff previews new appropriations scorecard for outside agencies; committee endorses further refinement
Summary
City staff presented a new two‑part scorecard and draft guidance for appropriations to outside agencies at the Oct. 16 Budget & Finance Committee meeting, aiming to standardize application materials, document ties to city strategic goals and core services, and flag large or atypical funding requests for committee review.
City staff presented draft guidance and a two‑part scorecard to standardize appropriations to outside agencies and to help the Budget & Finance Committee evaluate requests ahead of the next budget season. The committee reviewed examples and suggested refinements.
Why this matters: the city provides annual appropriations to multiple outside agencies and nonprofits. A standardized scorecard is intended to improve transparency, highlight which requests tie to city core services and strategic goals, and flag large or atypical funding requests during budget deliberations.
Michael Walters Young, the city's chief budget and performance officer, and Norma Lochni (Office of Budget & Performance) described two scorecards: Scorecard 1 (administrative checklist) verifies completeness of applications and supporting materials (audit, proof of tax‑exempt status, board list, certificate of insurance, vendor registration, IRS W‑9, etc.). Scorecard 2 summarizes the request — requested amount, organization budget, percent of organization budget represented by the request, whether the request is new, the applicant's claimed strategic plan tie‑in, an assessment whether the activity constitutes a core city service and which department it most closely supports, and the amount city staff recommends funding.
Staff said the tool will automatically flag requests that exceed proposed guidance thresholds (for example, a request representing more than 25% of an organization's budget, more than 5% in the first year of a new ask, or requests that individually would exceed 1% of the city's total budget). The committee asked for additional columns and data to improve trend visibility (for example, number of years the city has supported an organization and whether other governments or large funders also provide support). Staff agreed to add historic support years where records permit and to require applicants to list other governmental and major funders and amounts where applicable.
Committee members suggested several improvements: require applicants to identify how their work aligns with the city's strategic plan and which city department(s) interact with the organization; request multi‑year budget data when available; add a running totals section showing commitments across categories; offer applicant guidance/training (recorded guidance or a short orientation) to explain core‑service definitions and how to complete the new form; and retain the administrative checklist to ensure applications are complete. Staff said they will incorporate feedback, publish tightened guidance to applicants and return with refined materials for review ahead of formal appropriation decisions.
Ending: Staff will revise the guidance and scorecard based on committee feedback, add historic support and major funder information when available, provide applicant guidance materials, and present the refined tool to the committee before the appropriation cycle.
