Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Impact Grants topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects additional Senior Resources funding; members debate process for recurring nonprofit support
Summary
Council declined both a substitute motion to raise Senior Resources funding to $350,000 from community-impact balances and the original fund-balance allocation, after counsel and several members said committee caps and process constraints limit reallocations. Several councilmembers urged a longer-term plan for recurring funding for social-safety-net nonprofits.
Richland County Council on June 4 considered competing proposals to increase funding for Senior Resources but rejected both a substitute proposal to add $150,000 from community-impact grant balances and the primary motion to allocate money from fund balance.
Councilwoman Terio offered a substitute motion to use the unallocated community-impact grant balance to raise Senior Resources to $350,000; members immediately questioned whether the community-impact process permits such a change and whether the remaining pending awards could be funded. County Attorney Bernie Wright advised that reallocating awards requires the council to state which other organizations would receive less funding if the substitute is approved: "If you're going to change it you have to say what other organization is getting less money," he said.
Members argued both legal/process and policy points. Supporters said Senior Resources provides essential services for vulnerable seniors and called for sustainable recurring funding. Opponents and some committee members said the community-impact process has rules, including a single-award cap that committee recommendations honored, and that last-minute reallocations would undercut committee integrity. Several council members urged the body to develop a year-round plan to consider making recurring funding (for example, millage agency status or a dedicated revenue stream) instead of ad-hoc increases at budget time.
Vote and context: The substitute motion to allocate $350,000 from community-impact balances failed on roll call; the council then returned to the original item (a fund-balance allocation) and that motion also failed. Administration and staff noted there are remaining pending community-impact requests and that the unallocated balance would not cover all pending requests without additional cuts.
What happens next: Council members committed to a follow-up conversation outside the crunch of budget votes to explore options for sustainable funding, including committee-led proposals and possible structural changes for certain social-safety-net organizations. Staff was asked to provide a full accounting of community-impact balances and pending requests for the next (third-reading) session.
