Council members question Financial Partners scoring after proposed funding for low‑scoring applicants

Council members pressed staff on the integrity of the Financial Partners grant process after several line items proposed during the budget‑adjustment session included organizations that had not met procedural requirements or that scored far below other applicants under the rubric the council previously adopted. Councilmember Mayfield and others said the committee and scoring process must be honored to be fair to organizations that completed the application, submitted required financials and attended a mandatory information session.

Budget staff (notably Cherry Smith and the strategy team) said the scoring system was applied to eligible applicants and described the scoring components (alignment with council priorities, mid‑year reporting, mandatory sessions and the 30% budget threshold). Staff acknowledged exceptions and other funding sources (including prior embedded departmental support and one‑time ARPA monies in prior years) that explain why some entities do not appear in the Financial Partners packet. Council asked staff to return a written memo clarifying: which applicants were ineligible or exempt, what sources (departmental, special funds or one‑time pots) may have supported an organization previously, and what options exist to honor the scoring rubric while addressing urgent service needs.

Several councilmembers said they would not support adding organizations outside the agreed process except where a clear justification is returned in writing. Staff promised to provide the documentation and to enumerate potential offsets if the council chooses to move forward with additional awards.