ATTACHMENT B:
CITY OF PACIFICA
ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY
No. _____
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION FUNDING POLICY AND
THE PROCESS FOR APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION OF
GRANT AWARDS [DRAFT]
DATE ISSUED:
ARTICLE 1. ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS
These eligibility criteria aim to ensure that grant awards are allocated to community service agencies with the capacity, integrity, and vision to address pressing needs and contribute to the well-being of Pacifica residents.
1. Alignment with City Goals: Community service agencies must demonstrate how their proposed project(s), program(s), or service(s) align with the Strategic Plan of the Pacifica City Council. The initiative(s) should address identified needs within the community and contribute to the overall well-being and prosperity of Pacifica residents.
2. Financial Responsibility: Organizations seeking grant funding must exhibit financial stability and responsible fiscal management. This includes providing audited financial statements, evidence of diversified funding sources, and a clear budget plan for the initiative(s), demonstrating prudent use of grant funds.
3. Compliance with Legal and Regulatory Requirements: Applicants must be in good standing with relevant local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and licensing requirements.
4. Capacity to Execute: Community service agencies should demonstrate the organizational capacity, expertise, and resources necessary to effectively implement the proposed project(s), program(s), or service(s). This may include the availability of qualified staff, partnerships with other stakeholders, and access to necessary facilities or infrastructure.
5. Community Benefit: Proposed project(s), program(s), or service(s) should clearly outline how they will benefit the Pacifica community and an estimate for the potential number of people served, or other similar measure of impact.
ARTICLE 2. APPLICATION PROCESS
1. Standard Application: The application form will gather necessary information such as organization details, objectives of the project(s), program(s), or service(s), budget breakdown, and intended outcomes.
2. Application Window: The call for application will be open for a one-month period beginning in April of each year. Applications received during the application window will be considered by City Council during the budgeting study sessions for the next fiscal year and evaluated based on an objective scoring system.
3. Scoring Process: Applications received during the application window will be published with the City Council Agenda for the meeting at which they will be ranked by City Councilmembers. At the meeting, Councilmembers will individually evaluate each application against the 5 eligibility criteria using a score sheet provided at the meeting.
Scores ranging from 1 to 5 will be assigned without verbal commentary, based on alignment with the City Council's Strategic Goals, with 1 being the lowest ranking score, and 5 being the highest (see Exhibit A for example rubric).
The City Clerk will collect these score sheets and compute the total score from each Councilmember for every applicant. These cumulative scores will determine each applicant's overall score, which will be announced during the meeting and entered into the official record.
4. Public Review and Input: Each applicant’s overall score will be published with the agenda for the budget study session at which City Council will make its funding determination, allowing a period of time, no less than 72 hours, for the public to review and provide input before City Council makes their decision.
5. Award Announcement: Awards will be officially announced within two weeks of the meeting at which they were determined.
ARTICLE 3. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:
Awarded organizations will be required to submit a detailed report by May 31 of the fiscal year in which they received the award. The report should provide a comprehensive overview of how the funds were utilized, the impact achieved, and the lessons learned throughout the initiative. This report serves as a vital tool for accountability, transparency, and learning, ensuring that grant funds are used effectively to benefit the City of Pacifica and its residents. Failure to provide the report will result in ineligibility for funding the next award year.
EXHIBIT A
EXAMPLE RUBRIC FOR RANKING NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION FUNDING APPLICATIONS 5 POINTS 4 POINTS 3 POINTS 2 POINTS 1 POINT
Alignment with
City Goals:
Initiative aligns closely with
the strategic priorities and
goals identified by the
Pacifica City Council.
Initiative partially aligns
with the city's goals but
may have some minor
deviations.
Initiative demonstrates
some alignment with city
goals, but significant
discrepancies exist.
Limited alignment with city
goals, requiring substantial
modifications to meet the
city's objectives.
Initiative does not align
with the city's goals and
objectives.
Financial
Responsibility:
Strong evidence of
financial stability, including
audited financial
statements, diversified
funding sources, and a
well-defined budget plan.
Generally stable financial
position, with some minor
concerns or areas for
improvement.
Moderate financial stability,
but some significant
concerns or risks are
identified.
Limited financial stability,
with notable weaknesses
or uncertainties regarding
fiscal management.
Significant financial
instability, indicating high
risk or potential for
mismanagement of funds.
Compliance with
Legal and
Regulatory
Requirements:
Full compliance with all
relevant laws, regulations,
and licensing
requirements, with no
outstanding issues.
Generally compliant, with
minor or isolated instances
of non-compliance that are
being addressed.
Partial compliance, with
some significant areas of
non-compliance requiring
corrective action.
Limited compliance, with
multiple instances of
non-compliance or
unresolved legal issues.
Severe non-compliance,
indicating systemic or
pervasive violations of
legal or regulatory
requirements.
Capacity to
Execute:
Strong organizational
capacity, including
qualified staff,
partnerships, and
resources necessary for
successful initiative
implementation.
Adequate capacity, but
some gaps or challenges
may need to be addressed
to ensure effective
execution.
Moderate capacity, with
significant deficiencies or
limitations that may impact
initiative delivery.
Limited capacity, with
serious obstacles or
barriers that could impede
initiative success without
intervention.
Insufficient capacity,
indicating a high likelihood
of failure or inability to
complete the initiative as
proposed.
Community
Benefit:
Initiative clearly
demonstrates significant
benefit to the Pacifica
community, particularly
underserved or
marginalized populations.
Substantial community
benefit, but some groups
or individuals may be
underserved or
overlooked.
Moderate community
benefit, with potential
improvements needed to
address equity and
inclusivity concerns.
Limited community benefit,
with minimal impact on the
broader community or
specific populations.
Negligible community
benefit, indicating little to
no positive impact on the
target audience or
community as a whole.