Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Social services and staff present FY26 outside‑agency funding recommendations to council
Summary
The Social Services Advisory Board recommended funding 16 partner agencies at $555,000 total; city staff recommended funding 21 outside agencies with a combined recommendation of about $3.66 million for FY26.
Two advisory bodies presented their recommendations to the City Council on outside agency and human services partner funding for fiscal year 2026.
John Morgan, chair of the Williamsburg Social Services Advisory Board, reported the board reviewed 18 applications and recommended funding for 16 agencies totaling $555,000 — an increase of $28,700, or 5.5 percent, over FY25 awards. Morgan said the board evaluated requests based on utilization, other funding sources and how services support city goals, and that it did not recommend funding for two applicants (Lackey Clinic and William & Mary Foundation) because of limited utilization or pilot‑scale service to city youth.
Economic development staff member Yuri Matsumoto presented staff’s citywide outside‑agency funding recommendations. Matsumoto said staff received 26 applications (five new this year) and recommended funding for 21 agencies totaling $3,658,588.50, a 9.4 percent increase over FY25 awards. She noted staff did not recommend increases unless tied to council‑adopted goals, and that the largest proposed increase within the packet was for the Williamsburg Area Transit Authority to implement a 15‑minute‑city goal. Matsumoto said arts, culture and tourism applicants requested $2,665,250 and staff recommended $2,640,250; public safety requests totaled $78,766 with staff recommending $48,766 after a recalculation by one provider.
Both presenters said full application details and supplemental funding information are available in the council packet. Council members thanked the boards for their review and said they would consider the recommendations during the budget process.
The council did not take final budget action at the meeting. The council then moved to adjourn; the motion carried on a voice vote recorded as unanimous by the clerk.
