Sanders responds to Council questions about Vibrant Community Funds process

In a year when the City Manager’s recommended budget is built on tax rate increases, the document also recommends about an additional million in spending on nonprofits and outside agencies. The adopted budget for the current fiscal year allocated just under $2.3 million to the Vibrant Community Fund and that overall amount is set to increase to $3.367 million in FY25. 

“The four primary priority areas continue to be similar,” said Hunter Smith, a human services planner in the city’s Department of Human Services. “Youth and Family Education, Economic Impact and Jobs, Health and Safety, and Arts & Culture.”

An important item to note is projects related to affordable housing now go through separate funding processes. More on that later in the week. (view the presentation)

Applications for the Vibrant Community Fund go through a ranking and scoring process and are summarized in a 40-page report. Smith said those who participated in the review process received a stipend for their time. 

This year, several organizations were deemed to be fundamental and were pulled out of the competitive process even though they still had to technically apply for the funds. This made more funding available to other groups. The fundamental groups are:

• Charlottesville Free Clinic — funding recommended to increase 35.67 percent from $119,404 in FY24 to $162,000 in FY25
• Child Health Partnership — funding recommended to increase 4 percent to $291,720 in FY25
• Foothills Child Advocacy Partnership — funding recommended to increase 115.08 percent from $46,493 in FY24 to $99,999 in FY25
• Offender Aid and Restoration of Charlottesville/Albemarle  — funding recommended to increase 16.13 percent from $378,246 in FY24 to $439,287 in FY25
• Public Housing Association of Residents — funding recommending to increase 70 percent from $40,000 in FY24 to $68,000 in FY25
• Shelter for Help in Emergency —funding recommended to increase 66.85 percent from  $171,169 in FY24 to $285,600 in FY25

Councilor Lloyd Snook pointed out there have been years were PHAR did not make the cut for funding and said he was uncertain why now the group is considered fundamental. Smith said he did not review their application, but had an explanation.

“I can tell you the reason why they want ‘fundamental’ basically is a historical analysis of them being funded year to year,” Smith said. “Typically what we would see is that they were funded at a lower rate across all Councils, they would be funded anyway at some point.” 

Mayor Juandiego Wade endorsed the additional funding and had previously asked that they get assistance filling out their application.

“I know the work that they’re doing, they’re doing the work, but sometimes they weren’t putting it down on paper,” Wade said. “And I know the difference that they make in the community.” 

City Manager Sam Sanders said he recalled that PHAR is considered fundamental because of its success with outreach, youth engagement, and training public housing residents how to understand planning.

“All of that collectively spoke to why they were being considered to be eligible for the fundamental category because that was deemed to be essential work that we wanted done for that population within our community,” Sanders said. 

Smith said applicants in the competitive process were asked for statements on how well they advanced Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion goals. 

“Typically [the process] encouraged applicants to review their process more than it does relate to the application so we’re pretty confident that it’s having a successful impact on different people,” Smith said. 

Then there’s also another $15,971,143 in what’s now referred to as “Intergovernmental Funding.”

“Essentially [for] most of these agencies, the funding are either regional types of agencies or they’re government by some sort of [memorandum of understanding] or agreement,” said Krisy Hammil, the city’s budget director. “Most of these, the city’s budget office works closely with the county’s budget office as well so that if there is a request for positions or new things it doesn’t make sense for one of us to do half of it if the other is not meeting in the middle as well.” 

With all of those definitions out of the way, Councilors went through some of the recommendations that came through the Vibrant Community process. 

City Councilor Michael Payne said there appears to be a lot of city funding going to nonprofits to provide various services such as the BUCK Squad which saw their recommended funding jump from $161,000 in FY24 to $456,000 in FY25. 

“It’s the amount of money that’s starting to reach the point where I look at that and think if that’s the direction we’re going, that’s almost becoming a service that is part of the city and I’m very curious to know as much information when there’s an application receiving almost half a million dollars,” Payne said. 

According to the Vibrant Community Fund report, the BUCK Squad asked for $480,000 for a project called Gun Violence Intervention – South First Street. The group describes itself as conducting “proactive civilian patrols within predominantly Black communities with low-income households in Charlottesville.” Sanders’ budget recommended a lowered amount of $456,000 and the review panel called the application “Exemplary.” 

Payne sits on the Board of Commissioners of the CRHA and said the BUCK Squad does not have a memorandum of understanding to operate on any public housing properties, such as those on South First Street. 

Mayor Wade said he and Sanders are aware that CRHA and the BUCK Squad have had disagreements in the past. 

“We can’t force that marriage to take place but I know that they’re working at it,” Wade said. 

Staff said they could not adjust the entire process based on one application. Sanders said Council did not give direction to put a limit on how much any one organization could ask for in a budget cycle. 

“Because you all did not set up a cap as an expectation on how the funding could be allocated,” Sanders said.

“It never occurred to me that we’d be talking about half a million dollars,” Snook said. 

“But if you don’t set up a cap you’re going to ask for whatever and if there’s enough money available, you would get it,” Sanders said. “That’s part of my soapbox.”

Staff said there may be a cap in future years, but the rules for this year have to apply. 

For this year, Councilor Brian Pinkston said he was not willing to fund the request for the Buck Squad at the full recommended amount.  

“I would need more information about that organization in terms of what they’d be able to stand up,” Pinkston said. “It’s a lot of money. It’s a lot of money.” 

For reference, each additional penny added to the real estate tax rate brings in $1.1 million. 

Housing programs have been pulled out of the Vibrant Community Fund and moved to other pools. Council was briefed on those applications on March 18 as I previewed in the Week Ahead but have not yet been able to write up the details. 

As of March 14, Councilor Michael Payne did not know if CRHA’s $150,000 request for funding for Resident Services had been recommended. He suggested the agency might also be considered essential. 

“If CRHA needs to rely on the city for core staffing, does it make more sense to think about that as a contractual agency or intergovernmental agency rather than a competitive process,” Payne said. “CRHA is in a very strange, unique position of us appointing their whole board. No other nonprofit is in that situation.” 

That $150,000 request through the Housing Operations Program Support was not recommended for funding, according to the staff report. A work session on CRHA will come back to the Council in the near future. 

After Councilors asked other questions about funding for other agencies, Sanders said the Vibrant Community Fund process is different each time and that is not a good thing. 

“It sounds like we need a Vibrant Community Fund work session again,” Sanders said. “And in that work session what would be helpful because I don’t think anyone has said this to you in this way and I’m the matter of fact guy that you hired who has always been this way, you’re going to have to make some decisions, and when you make those decisions, we will bring you exactly what we believe is the strongest result-oriented response to that when we have that clarity.”

Sanders said he believes Council questioning results undermines the process. He said Council going against recommendations of the Vibrant Community reviewers can be seen as a waste of their time. 

Pinkston said he felt the process had improved but Councilors has the right to ask questions about potential projects and he continued to express caution concern about level of funding for the BUCK Squad. 

“I think that the Buck Squad is an outlier and everyone has agreed is an outlier,” Pinkston said. “That doesn’t mean that the work they do isn’t good or anything like that, but it’s a newer organization that has issues with the CRHA that we know about.” 

Wade defended the funding and sought ways to explain to reluctant Councilors what the BUCK Squad does. 

“A lot of their work is what’s not happening,” Wade said. “Some of the things that they help prevent, but we can have the discussion on that. I think that that may be a two on two on meeting with you if you all want that.”

A two-on-two meeting refers to a practice where Councilors meet below the threshold of a quorum in order to evade public meeting rules. There is no record of how many such meetings take place. 

Sanders asked Councilors if there other programs they felt should be adjusted.

Wade said he would like adjustments to the Light House Studio and the Women’s Initiative. The Light House asked for a total of $36,000 for two programs and the process recommended $21,600. The Women’s Initiative asked for $50,000 and was recommended for $40,000.

Councilor Natalie Ochsrin wanted $12,000 for the Fralin Museum of Art’s outreach program to be reconsidered and for no more consideration of University of Virginia-related organizations. 

The next budget work session is on Thursday and will deal with the capital budget. Still waiting for me to review at the three public hearings on the tax rate increases and the public hearing on the budget. 

Before you go: The time to write and research of this article is covered by paid subscribers to Charlottesville Community Engagement. In fact, this particular installment comes from the March 26, 2024 edition of the newsletter and podcast.  An audio version of this story be included in the next podcast edition as well as the radio version that will air on WTJU 91.1 FM Saturday at 6 a.m. For other radio editions, check out the Charlottesville Podcasting Network.

To ensure this research can be sustained, please consider becoming a paid subscriber or contributing monthly through Patreon.