Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outside Agencies Appropriations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews draft guidance for appropriations to outside agencies; seeks scorecard and multi-year comparison
Summary
Staff presented proposed criteria that would cap total appropriations to outside agencies at up to 1% of general fund revenue and impose limits on individual requests; the committee asked staff to provide a scorecard and prior-year comparisons and debated distinguishing service-delivery partners from other nonprofits.
The Budget and Finance Committee reviewed draft guidance for the city's appropriations to outside agencies and asked staff for additional analysis, including a scorecard and a two- to three-year comparison of applicants and awards.
Michael Walters Young, the city's Chief Budget and Performance Officer, and Norma Lockney described the purpose of the program: to fund nonprofit and other organizations that deliver services the municipal government does not. The draft criteria presented to the committee include guidance that total appropriations should not exceed 1% of estimated general fund revenue (about $1.25 million under the amended budget) and suggested caps on individual requests: first-time applicants may request no more than 5% of their operating expenses; repeat applicants may request up to 3% inflation plus special requests; and no request may exceed 25% of an organization's operating expenses. The draft also recommended a simple scorecard for evaluation and quarterly distributions to awarded agencies.
Committee members supported the direction but sought more context. Alderman Barnhill asked staff to run the proposed scorecard against the 2024 applicants and awards so aldermen can see how last year's recipients would have scored. Alderman Baggett and others asked for a three-year trend and for a column indicating whether a funded group is a "service-delivery partner" (for example, organizations that operate in direct partnership with city departments, such as an animal-control contract or child-advocacy services used by police or courts) versus a quality-of-life or community organization.
Members also discussed the policy rationale for limits on city funding to any single nonprofit and noted the practical effect of large cash-funded capital projects on the city's investment portfolio. One alderman raised the issue of residents effectively paying twice for some services funded by both county and city (libraries and other county-level services) and asked staff to identify government entities among applicants.
Next steps: Staff agreed to prepare a scorecard populated with prior applicants and to return with the requested comparative data and refinements to the guidance at an upcoming meeting. The committee did not take formal action during the session.
