Memorandum

City of Lawrence

City Manager’s Office

 

DATE:

3/09/09

TO:

David L. Corliss, City Manager

FROM:

Casey Toomay, Budget Manager

CC:

Cynthia Boecker, Assistant City Manager

Diane Stoddard, Assistant City Manager

Jonathan Douglass, Assistant to the City Manager

RE:

Social Service Funding Advisory Board

 

Attached is a draft ordinance creating a Social Service Funding Advisory Board.  The purpose of the board would be to review social service agency applications and make recommendations for funding to the City Commission as part of the annual budget process.  This newly created board would replace the existing Special Alcohol Fund Advisory board and the Housing Trust Fund Board, both of which are currently inactive. 

 

Background

Each year, the City Commission allocates almost one million dollars to agencies in our community that provide social services through the annual budget process.  As we begin development of the 2011 budget, the City is faced with declining revenues.  It is unlikely that the City will be able to provide any increase in funding to outside agencies.  Instead, it may be necessary to reduce the level of funding for these agencies.  

 

Over the years, City Commissioners and staff have tried different methods of reviewing funding applications, however, issues related to the efficiency and effectiveness of these methods remain.    

·         Processes vary greatly according to funding source.  Under Article 14 of the City Code, requests for special alcohol funding are to be reviewed by an advisory board that develops a recommendation to the City Commission.  The Code does not provide an advisory board or review process for applications for funding from the City’s General Operating Fund or Special Recreation Fund.  In the past, these applications have been reviewed by the City Manager or by an ad hoc committee of two City Commissioners before being recommended to the City Commission.  Having different processes creates a perception of inconsistency among the agencies and the public and leads to confusion as to how much total funding an agency is receiving from the City.

·         Application and Reporting Requirements Vary.  Each funding source has its own unique application and reporting requirements.  This creates a burden on the agencies that apply for multiple sources of funds by requiring them to provide the same information in multiple forms.  It also creates a burden for staff, which has to keep track of multiple copies of the same information, and monitor compliance to a variety of requirements. 

·         There is little focus on the outcomes of these agencies.  While outcomes are required on some of the application materials and reports for some city funds, little attention is paid to how effectively the agencies are achieving the outcomes. 

·         Funding is not always aligned with the City Commission’s goals and objectives.  Community Building and Neighborhood Quality are the two City Commission goals that address social services.  However, some agencies that receive funding do not fit neatly into any of the Commission’s goals and objectives.

·         New agencies are shut out of the process.  Due to limited resources, agency funding levels have been held flat and agencies making first time requests have not been funded at all.  This is another indication that the existing process may not being addressing all the needs in the community.

·         City Programs are competing with outside agencies for resources.  Advisory boards are often reluctant to allocate funding to City programs or improvements because it is viewed as taking funding away from other agencies in the community.  Advisory boards generally view outside agencies as having more need for the funding than City programs. 

·         There is a lack of understanding of the big picture.  There are a number of citizen advisory boards aimed at addressing social service needs such as public health, drug and alcohol issues, the needs of youth and families, affordable housing, homelessness, art, etc.  Each board has its own procedures and practices.  Some make funding recommendations to the City Commission while others do not.  Often these boards lack a full understanding of how much total funding is going to a particular agency or toward addressing a particular issue because funding comes from multiple City sources. 

 

 

Options to Consider

There are a number of options for addressing some of the issues outlined above.  The process used for the 2010 budget could be repeated.  An Ad Hoc committee, made up of a City Commissioner, staff, a United Way representative, and the remaining active member of the Special Alcohol Board reviewed the applications and made recommendations to the City Commission.

 

Alternatively, staff could review all applications and provide recommendations to the City Commission as part of the City Manager’s recommended budget each year. 

 

A special committee made up members of the City Commission could review the applications and make recommendations to the Commission as a whole.  A study session could be held where the entire City Commission could review the applications.

 

If additional members were appointed to the Special Alcohol board, the board could continue to review the applications for special alcohol funding.  Their scope could be broadened to include a review of applications for other funding sources.    

 

Finally, a new Social Service Funding Advisory Board could be established to review all funding applications. 

 

 

Social Service Funding Advisory Board

A new Social Service Funding Advisory Board could be created by consolidating the membership and responsibilities of the Special Alcohol Fund Advisory Board and Housing Trust Fund Board.

 

The board would be charged with making recommendations to the City Commission for funding from the following funding sources:  The General Operating Fund, the Special Alcohol Fund, the Special Recreation Fund, and Housing Trust Funds.  The board would be responsible for developing a universal application for City budget funding that would require agencies to request all desired City funding on one annual budget application.  This board would also be responsible for developing universal reporting requirements for all agencies receiving City funds through the budget process, focusing on clearly stated outcomes and measures of agency performance.  The board would review these materials and report to the City Commission.  Consistent review of agency outcomes could better ensure funding was being allocated to achieve the goals of the City Commission.

 

Membership of the board would consist of seven citizens.  One member would be a representative of the United Way, who could provide valuable insight into the operations of the applicant agencies.  The remaining six members would be citizens from the community at large who have an interest in social service issues including but not limited to affordable housing, homelessness, arts and culture, alcohol and drug related issues, public health and safety, and youth and families.  Representatives of the agencies applying for or receiving funding from the City through the annual budget process would be eligible for membership. 

 

This board would not review applications for CDBG or HOME funding.  Instead, they would work in partnership with the Community Development Advisory Committee to ensure both groups understand the total amount of funding social service agencies are receiving each year.  

 

Required Changes to the City Code

A draft ordinance establishing this board is attached.  The ordinance would amend Article 14 of the City Code related to the Special Alcohol Fund Advisory Board.  The ordinance would repeal Section 1-1805 through Section 1-1808 of the City Code related to the Housing Trust Fund Board.  Section 1-1801 through 1-1804 pertaining to the creation of the Housing Trust Fund and eligibility requirements for the use of housing trust funds would remain in effect. 

 

Charter Ordinance 33, which exempts the City from the State laws pertaining to the use of local alcoholic liquor funds, would not need to be changed.  Instead, it would continue to provide the guidelines for use of funds from the City’s Special Alcohol Fund and Special Recreation Fund.  

 

Requested Action

Staff requests direction from the City Commission on how to proceed.