Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Events Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff proposes scoring matrix for event co‑sponsorships as committee weighs $80,000 in requests
Summary
Staff proposed a 100‑point co‑sponsorship scoring matrix to prioritize fee waivers and city support for events, recommending exclusion of sheriff/EMS costs from full city support; staff said event co‑sponsorship requests total roughly $80,000 and committee members pressed for attendance data, incident reporting and post‑event financial summaries.
City recreation staff proposed a new scoring matrix to prioritize event co‑sponsorships and limit the city's outlay for public‑safety costs during the Parks & Recreation Advisory Committee meeting on April 21.
"We're looking at approximately $80,000 in requests," Mandy said while describing a tiered model that would reserve full city support for permit waivers, staff support, equipment and marketing but exclude sheriff and EMS costs from the city's full support level.
Under the proposed 100‑point scale, events would be scored on community benefit, alignment with city goals, financial impact, organizational capacity, past performance and uniqueness. Tier‑one events (high scores) would receive application and permit fee waivers plus staff support and equipment; tier two would get limited fee reductions and partial services; tier three would not be recommended for co‑sponsorship.
Committee members pushed for consistent data collection and post‑event reporting to justify public subsidies: attendance counts, local business impact, charitable contributions, incident reports (fire, EMS, police) and whether organizers are truly nonprofit or de facto for‑profit operations. One member asked that hardship requests for fee waivers include documentation to make exceptions rare and defensible.
Staff said they will pilot the matrix this year and bring after‑action reports for any approved co‑sponsorships; the committee is advisory and will forward recommendations to the commission for any final funding decisions.
Next steps include formation of a special events review group to score incoming applications, development of a public grid comparing events by funding needs and transparency about which events are privately funded versus co‑sponsored.
