INC NEWS - County and municipal budgets are 'difficult' every year

[Mike - Hotmail]

While we can't go back and completely identify a year when the budget 
process was simple and all our funding wants were met,  I can attest to at 
least the last 15 (since 1992) as being difficult.

Even when the economy was going gang busters,  folks like Laura Gill and 
Lamont were having these same questions come up while trying to satisfy 
everyone (non-profits, basic services, city council goals, etc).

This year is no different.

As a political observer,  I guess it is as it should be.

But I can reaffirm what Ronnie stated in yesterdays email.

Staff was very sensitive to the proposed changes in how to handle NCA 
applications, review and monitoring processes and as far as I am aware 
worked very hard to provide workshops, meetings and individual consultation 
with non-profit agencies at least since last winter in preparing for the 
next budget cycle.

No one tried to 'hide' any of this from anyone.

This Spring, public notices were also posted to all applicants and the 
public in at least two public work sessions to address concerns from the 
original draft.   Those improvements were incorporated into the final draft 
and consequently approved appropriately.

Given these set of facts,  I have to agree with Barry....why all the 
kvetching?


mike


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Barry Ragin" <bragin at nc.rr.com>
To: "Ronnie Griffin" <res1m28r at verizon.net>
Cc: "Mike - Hotmail" <mwshiflett at hotmail.com>; <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 9:28 PM
Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Column: City cuts would hurt arts scene in Durham 
(Herald-Sun)


> Then why all the kvetching?
>
> Also, i'm pretty sure that staff did not change the grant review and 
> funding process on their own. There was guidance (at least) from Council 
> on this, no?
>
> Barry Ragin
>
> Ronnie Griffin wrote:
>> Barry,
>>
>> Clear, specific and concise NCA Grant applicant information was provided 
>> by the City Staff to the NCA applicants well before the 2008 funding and 
>> budgeting cycle.  The City Staff did an excellent job preparing and 
>> allowing sufficient time for each NCA grant applicant to seek 
>> clarification and / or assistance in preparing their applications as well 
>> as addressing any concerns and answering their questions.  The grant 
>> review and funding process did change this year and it was not done 
>> without adequate disclosure to those seeking grant funding.
>>
>> There are many other NCA non-profit organizations and agencies in Durham 
>> as important and equally deserving for our limited tax dollar funding 
>> pool. Private and business funding sources are available within our 
>> community. When applicable, some of the agency programs could be included 
>> with existing city programs.
>>
>> I understand and agree that City Hall cannot and should not be expected 
>> do it all.
>>
>> Ronnie Griffin
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: <bragin at nc.rr.com>
>> To: "Mike - Hotmail" <mwshiflett at hotmail.com>
>> Cc: <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 4:29 PM
>> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Column: City cuts would hurt arts scene in Durham 
>> (Herald-Sun)
>>
>>
>>> "The Non-City Agency funding changes being implemented by the City 
>>> Council
>>> are attempting to address this."
>>>
>>> that's one of the key points right there, Mike. Read the news articles 
>>> and you'd get the impression that staff came up with this idea all by 
>>> themselves. But this is, as far as i am aware, a policy decision made by 
>>> Council some time ago.
>>>
>>> Why wasn't this communicated to the non-profits before the funding cycle 
>>> began? For that matter, why wasn't the 54 cent property tax limit 
>>> communicated to staff *before* the budget cycle began? If Council had a 
>>> tax increase limit in mind, wouldn't it have made sense to let the 
>>> manager and budget director know *before* they put the budget together? 
>>> Or does someone actually think that by rejecting the proposed budget, 
>>> our elected leaders look as though they are standing up for the 
>>> taxpayers?
>>>
>>> Really, the whole budget process this year has been disgraceful.
>>>
>>> Barry Ragin
>>> ---- Mike - Hotmail <mwshiflett at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> =============
>>> Mr. Pickle's post is a good one to read.
>>>
>>> Durham City government is having difficultly addressing an ever 
>>> increasing
>>> list of maintenance priorities while also trying to address the number 
>>> of
>>> new initiatives that require additional funding.
>>>
>>> Everything (and every organization) from non-profits to DDI and Hayti
>>> Heritage Center are being asked to find more $$$ themselves rather than
>>> continuing to ask the city for annual funding.
>>>
>>> The recent budget hearing at City Hall on Monday focused a lot of 
>>> attention
>>> on many deserving non-profits that have been dependant on the city (and
>>> county) for on-going support.
>>>
>>> With ever increasing demands on providing basic services (police & fire
>>> protection, minimum housing code enforcement, roads, sewer and water, 
>>> trash
>>> pickup/yard waste, other services) residents need to understand that 
>>> there
>>> is not an unlimited amount of money to go around.
>>>
>>> Just reread Randy's post again.  City Hall can not do it all!
>>>
>>> The Non-City Agency funding changes being implemented by the City 
>>> Council
>>> are attempting to address this.
>>>
>>> Agencies that have received annual allotments year after year will have 
>>> to
>>> understand that this trend is not sustainable until core essential 
>>> services
>>> and functions of city government can be accomplished.   The process 
>>> change
>>> in handling grants and processing of applications had to change.
>>>
>>> I'm a supporter of the arts,  but I don't expect the city to delay 
>>> paving a
>>> street/installing sidewalks or preventing a sewer leak to support an 
>>> event
>>> I'd like to attend if it means by-passing these projects another two or
>>> three years!
>>>
>>> Except for Andy (Fraternal Order of Police seeking pay increases) I 
>>> didn't
>>> hear anyone else speak on prioritizing those needs.
>>>
>>> The City and County will continue to fund Arts, youth programs, 
>>> community
>>> development and crime (read gang) fighting non-profits in the future, 
>>> but
>>> not at the expense of providing the basic services we expect from them 
>>> in a
>>> timely manner.
>>>
>>> The way this funding application and evaluation process has changed is
>>> appropriate for these austere times.
>>>
>>> But please be reassured that the city (as far as I am aware) is not
>>> abandoning NCA's.
>>>
>>> It's only trying to do the most with what it's got while providing seed
>>> money and smaller incremental funding for the dozens of well deserving 
>>> non
>>> profits that need (not want) this support and have proven their worth to 
>>> the
>>> community.
>>>
>>> It is also very logical for our elected officials and the manager to ask
>>> those departments that are currently in existence to assist in this 
>>> process
>>> by providing transparent evaluations and accountability standards for 
>>> the
>>> areas of expertise they have rather than continuing the practice of
>>> directing a Budget and Finance department to handle them.
>>>
>>> It made no sense to have non-profits submit grant proposals to the 
>>> Budget
>>> and Finance Departments when some of them had basic missions that were 
>>> more
>>> suited for review and evaluation under existing City Departments 
>>> (Police,
>>> Neighborhood Improvement Services/Housing and Community Development, 
>>> Parks
>>> and Recreation).
>>>
>>> It also didn't make any sense to have NCA's funded under a City budget 
>>> that
>>> had mission statements that were clearly under the jurisdiction of 
>>> Durham
>>> County (education, social services, judicial and court recidivism) 
>>> roles.
>>>
>>> Mr. Pickle's post is full of facts and figures about how far behind we 
>>> are
>>> in capital improvement projects and maintenance needs, even with the 
>>> passage
>>> of the 2006 bond referendum.
>>>
>>> Until residents can say that they'd rather give non-profit's tens of
>>> thousands of taxpayer dollars each year instead of having a police 
>>> officer
>>> on patrol or their graffiti removed quickly,  then we all will need to 
>>> tuck
>>> in our belts and support the arts the way most people have over the 
>>> years
>>> and that's by buying a ticket or sending in a donation to these valuable
>>> non-profits ourselves.
>>>
>>> Dependence on governmental funding (at any level) is going to get more 
>>> and
>>> more scarce.
>>>
>>> Which would you want your tax dollars to go for as a priority?
>>>
>>> The City of Durham is trying to address both 'needs' while trying to not
>>> ignore either of them.
>>>
>>> Mike Shiflett
>>>
>>> ps-I am in total support of having a focus group of concerned citizens,
>>> artists, arts related non-profits and the Arts Council to meet with City
>>> staff, administration and elected officials to better define a process 
>>> that
>>> addresses all three concerns (citizens, governmental responsibility, 
>>> good
>>> will of supporting the Arts) regarding ongoing support of the Arts 
>>> Master
>>> Plan.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "RW Pickle" <randy at 27beverly.com>
>>> To: <inc-list at durhaminc.org>
>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:34 PM
>>> Subject: Re: INC NEWS - Column: City cuts would hurt arts scene in 
>>> Durham
>>> (Herald-Sun)
>>>
>>>
>>>> There's a whole lot more to this funding cut than meets the eye. I
>>>> represent INC on the CCIP that looks at the projects our City
>>>> needs/wants/or must do by law. This year there were  more than $147M 
>>>> worth
>>>> of projects and only $30M to get anything done with. So it becomes a
>>>> matter of priority (or mandated law) that some get done before others 
>>>> (or
>>>> get funded as it is some cases).
>>>>
>>>> We worked for an entire year developing a scoring system for projects.
>>>> This way, as a group (because in total there are 26 citizens supposedly
>>>> representing a bunch of different groups from our City; realistically
>>>> there are probably less than 10 of us who regularly attend meetings), 
>>>> we
>>>> could easily and quickly compare apples to apples. The City Budget and
>>>> Finance Office also has their own scoring system they used for years. 
>>>> But
>>>> as one might think, what citizens might find important, the 
>>>> administration
>>>> might not.
>>>>
>>>> So this year, with our first scoring opportunity (and very little to 
>>>> work
>>>> with$ wise), there was only enough funding to deal with the first 20
>>>> projects that scored the most. And when the Administration did their
>>>> scoring, 17 of the top 20 projects the citizens came up with were the
>>>> same. So one could draw the conclusion that we're all pretty much on 
>>>> the
>>>> same wavelength when it comes to what has/needs/wants to be done. But 
>>>> that
>>>> doesn't answer the problem of what to do about the other $100M+ of 
>>>> things
>>>> we didn't even get to consider because there just wasn't enough money 
>>>> in
>>>> the first place to fund them.
>>>>
>>>> Between the City/County, we're looking (at least right now) at a $.15
>>>> increase (per $100 evaluation; and our recent evaluation just makes the
>>>> number we pay higher). Realistically, we probably need a $.45-$.60 per
>>>> $100 just to begin to get caught up. There's just not enough money to 
>>>> do
>>>> everything that is needed/wanted to be done. That's the bottom line.
>>>>
>>>> This coming year we are going to try to establish the 
>>>> first-ever-time-line
>>>> into the future so we can plan on funding (versus debt load) projects 
>>>> that
>>>> just never make it to the top of the list. It doesn't mean we don't
>>>> need/want them, it just means there are other things that have to be 
>>>> done
>>>> that require the funding we currently generate. How successful we will 
>>>> be
>>>> at delivering this down-the-road projection is yet to be known. But at
>>>> least with a plan, we should be able to begin to see some light at the 
>>>> end
>>>> of the tunnel...
>>>>
>>>> I don't see anything getting better in the short term. We are just so 
>>>> far
>>>> behind, catching up is going to be a struggle. Both in manpower and
>>>> funding. We are short on both...
>>>>
>>>> RWP
>>>> 27 Beverly
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> INC-list mailing list
>>>> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>>>> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> INC-list mailing list
>>> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>>> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> INC-list mailing list
>>> INC-list at rtpnet.org
>>> http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/listinfo/inc-list
>>>
>>
>