This is separated out because it contains some pretty big news for non-profits and their supporters. In fact, if you ask me, it was the only news of the evening. Therefore, its not anywhere in the news! 🙂
CONTEXT
Funding for non-profits is kinds of a mess. It used to be a mostly political process where alders helped various non-profits when they heard a huge need. It resulted in long council meetings listening to awful news about the huge unmet needs in the community for those who are struggling, the least among us. And there was never enough money. And the process felt unfair.
Former Mayor Dave didn’t like hearing the bad news, he first merged and re-organized the divisions and departments. Then, he had the staff in the Community Development Division (Community Services and CDBG) set up a process with the committees. We spent a year engaging in meetings about the process and guess what. The process still sucked. Its a process where non-profits apply for funding every two years. We gave them feedback 2 years ago, they decided to have staff have more control and again, 2 years later, the process sucked again – its just not fair and the results don’t feel like they meet the goals of the community. This year, neighborhood centers didn’t have to apply for funding and they all got their full funding while others were subject to the 5% cut in the mayor’s budget and then new programs got funded by the Mayor. So, while the council has decided that the CDBG and Community Services Committees should just make decisions and then they will rubber stamp them, they Mayor decided to have his own priorities that are different than the almighty “process” that has been the subject of years of debate.
As a result, at the meeting last night, we needed a 22 page handout about the budgets in these areas, Alder Rhodes Conway declared the system “dysfunctional” and the Mayor declared that when the new Director of the Community Development Division (CDBG, Community Services and Senior Center) Director is hired next week, they will spend a year redesigning the process.
One last thing, the Community Service and CDBG budgets are at the end of the budget and are considered nearly last. The practical result of that is that after nearly 10 hours of meetings over 2 nights, they finally get around to discussing this and people are somewhat exhausted and most people just want the meetings to be over. The other practical result is that amendments have usually been passed and there is very little money left before they reach the levy limit when they get to these items because they spent what money they have elsewhere in the budget.
Anyways, here’s the discussion . . . “live blogged” with very little editing.
1. An addition of approximately $50,000 in total net levy support for programs administered by CDBG and the Community Development Division (CDD). This is the first year the two-year funding cycle for Community Agency programs. Detailed program allocations as recommended by the Community Services Committees can be found at the following website or by request to the CDD Office www.cityofmadison.com/cdbg/docs/2013_CDD_contracts.pdf
2. A transfer of levy funding of approximately $1.6M from the Community Development Division to CDBG for funding related to Neighborhood Center and related programming.
3. The transfer of the Grant Writer position to the Finance Office, as approved via a 2012 budget amendment.
4. No reduction in funding for Child Care Tuition Aid and Child Care Grants.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT
1. An addition of approximately $50,000 in total net levy support for programs administered by CDBG and the Community Development Division (CDD). This is the first year the two-year funding cycle for Community Agency programs. Detailed program allocations as recommended by the CDBG Committee can be found at the following website or by request to the CDD Office: www.cityofmadison.com/cdbg/docs/2013_CDD_contracts.pdf
2. A transfer of levy funding of approximately $1.6M from the Community Development Division to CDBG for funding related to Neighborhood Center and related programming.
3. No change in the anticipated level of Federal HUD and other grant funding, which is sufficient to support CDBG operations. However, unresolved Federal budget issues may require funding adjustments if Federal grant awards are reduced for 2013. If more funding becomes available, funding will be allocated to programs according to a supplementary “B-list” for Federal fund allocations as recommended by the CDBG Committee. This “B-list” can be found at the weblink noted in Highlight #1, or by request to the CDBG Office.
4. A reduction of approximately $4.6M in Federal Department of Energy grant revenues associated with the Green Energy program. However, the presented reduction is a reflection of the anticipated loan amounts that the CDBG Office might process in 2013, rather than an actual reduction in the total DOE grant award of approximately $7.2M, which remains intact.
5.This budget includes authorization to allocate reprogrammed and other HUD-approved funds for continuing CDBG, HOME, and ESG funded projects for the first two quarters of 2013, through revisions to previously approved Action Plans, and allocate later-approved funds to those or to new projects during the latter part of the year, (provided the total budgeted amount per project does not exceed the amount approved by the Common Council upon the adoption of the 2013 budget) if HUD were unable to provide for the release of the year 2013 CDBG, HOME, or ESG funds by January 1, 2013.
These two budgets came after the Special Funds. There is a 22 page hand out.
Cnare asks about the process, letting the community committees make recommendations and why are the end results different than the B-lists. She says he gave a good explanation of that. Hickory Hurie says at the end of the summer process they targeted 95% and they struggled with priorities and recommendations. He says at the end of the process we had 5 different recommendations for the B list and no mechanism to put them in one list. And they didn’t have time. So he did it himself as a service to the mayor and it was a staff recommendation to consolidate the B list – to address new programs, places there were gaps, places there were emerging needs that couldn’t be addressed and that is list on page 18. He says the top nine were funded and those below came from the committees. As a council you have a choice of taking the recommendations at the 95% level and use the 5% more strategically or sit back or restore the other funding.
Mayor says that the answer looking forward is that he is not pleased with the process we have. Our committees are strapped by the way it is organized, we had a year and half or a year and when we hire the new director will be to devise a new system. He says he has observations but no answers. At one point the funders all used the same process. Also, there are categories which are labeled and he wonders if we need to have goals instead of “youth” for example. He says it is hard to say no to old friends and can’t fund new projects. He was disturbed there was no recommendation to fund Mentoring Positives and it is on the cutting edge and on the other hand they have Operation Fresh Start which is outdated in program but the methodology is brilliant. We have to find ways to show our partners new ways of thinking. When they housing crisis came about, they should have looked a new models. Maybe they should have been retrofitting green energy items instead of rehabbing homes. People are emulating the Operation Fresh Start model, but doing it differently. He sees the problems but as a community we have to spend they next year to be responsive to the community and work with our non-profit partners who are not always perfect.
Hurie says that they did a survey at the end of the process and got their suggestions and we are still collecting and analyzing that data.
Rhodes-Conway says she was horrified by the process, it was dysfunctional. She says we should not wait for a new director. Mayor says it will be next week. She says it starts with the committees. She hopes Hickory shares his thoughts before he leaves. She says there is confusion and fear out there, agencies are afraid to call you. They are afraid to ask why things happened. They don’t know how to figure out the process and don’t know how to have input or get information. She says that staff has to reach out to people. Rhodes-Conway asks when they will have the information. She says we need a letter saying this is how we did it and why. Hickory says it will be out on Friday.
Hurie says the funding process starts with a plan, that has to be base don information about needs and trends and input of people. We have to have consensus about the funding priorities. Some committees are better at that than others.
Rhodes-Conway wants to hear his thoughts on this.
Rhodes-Conway asks about levy funding transfer from Community Services to CDBG. Why?
Hurie says he prefers a agency budget be presented in one place and then talk about two services. One is grant contract and the other is the programming budget, including tuition assistance. He says that is an easier way to grasp what is happening. He says you can then sort it however you want, one sort is on page 9. He says that the labels on Senior Center, CDBG and Community Resources. He sees the department in 5 teams, Community Services, Senior Center, CDBG, Green and Childcare. He says it would be helpful to have it in one place, but which box it goes in was because of the federal funding. Can’t put the federal funds in the other box.
Rhodes-Conway says neighborhood centers want to know if they will have to have federal funding requirements for all their funds and will they have new contract contacts. Hickory says that it depends upon the neighborhood study and the reporting requirements of the feds are not onerous. I missed some. He says they can approach the reporting to get the info they need to perform well. Rhodes-Conway asks about their grant managers? Hickory can’t promise they will remain the same, there are key grant manager will remain, but there are other back up staff and this is a pretty large pool of funds and his assessment is that it is too much for any one person.
Rhodes-Cownay ask about the Green Madison Program. Hurie says there is an old grant that they drew the last amount on . . . .sorry, break time . . . . its 5 hours into the meeting . . . sorry . . . but sigh . . . my hands and arms hurt from holding my laptop on my lap . . .
Rhodes-Conway asks about CDBG float. Hurie explains it, says that they can fill the same need in a different way.
Maniaci asks about the list. She says that they heard about a need for neighborhood community centers in several neighborhoods but it isn’t here. If we wanted to look at that, should it be in here, or else where in the budget.
Mayor says that in certain areas, with a modest start, we need neighborhood centers, doesn’t think the city can fund them, thinks we can fund capital to construct them. They ask about rentals. Mayor says that we have to work on this in two tracks, one for sites and make the sites available and the other is to find operators. They could be current community centers, hopefully they can step in.
Maniaci asks if they need a placeholder. Mayor says they should not budget for operations and we should find partners to operate them. And then maybe there will be a budget amendment. Hurie says that one strategy is to help an agency acquire an asset and if we can help with that, then we can expect or partner with an agency to use the asset. To leverage it.
Maniaci is says people are looking for a fluid method to deal with emerging needs, they are looking for something simple and they want to do it on their own as a neighborhood group, or a group of neighbors who care. They are saying that the placement of current centers is inconvenient or too over stretched. They are looking to rent an apartment on their block where there are 40 to 50 children.
Mayor asks what the question is.
Manaici says there are agencies that are partners of the city, would you see something like we are getting testimony on, should this be in your agency or looked at elsewhere. She wants to direct the citizens as to where to go. Hurie says it is the right agency. Creating new resources to create new centers is hard, and it is hard to keep the current agencies going. He says neighborhood center costs is about 150K in operating costs just to start, and then a level of support is a pretty steep curve. He says that starting in an apartment sounds great, but it is increasing pressure to go to a second apartment and then a building and residential units are not a good place to start. He appreciates the enthusiasm, but there will be a chance to have the discussion more later.
Maniaci asks how between the final recommendations and the executive budget there are differences in the federal funds. How did the federal funding change.
Hurie says congress hasn’t acted yet, so this is all premised on approximately the same level of funding. If there is a difference, he would have to check it. Maniaci asks about the Boys and Girls Club as an example. Hurie says that the section is off by a line. It should be the same across the board, there should be no difference.
And then they moved on to other items . . .
