Neighborhood Reinvestment Program proposed amendments continued

The San Diego County Board of Supervisors plan to update the Board of Supervisors policy covering the Neighborhood Reinvestment Program to allow for one-time website and food bank expenditures, but the scheduled revisions were continued to allow more clarification on a policy requiring that the county rather than an individual supervisor receive credit for the grants.

The next discussion of the Neighborhood Reinvestment Program at a public hearing will be on Oct. 21, as a 5-0 Board of Supervisors vote Sept. 23 approved the motion to continue the hearing and refer the issue of prohibitions on individual supervisor recognition to staff. “To get this right is important,” said Supervisor Ron Roberts.

“This, I believe, is poorly written,” said Supervisor Dave Roberts. “It needs to be clarified.”

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Program is intended to provide grants to non-profit organizations for the furtherance of public purposes at the regional and community levels. In addition to non-profit organizations, county supervisors can also fund schools and fire departments, and supervisors can also use money from their budgets to supplement other county funding for specific county projects such as parks, roads, and libraries.

Each county supervisor recommends the allocation of his or her Neighborhood Reinvestment Program funds, although those allocations must be approved by a majority of the board. The Neighborhood Reinvestment Program is funded by balances in the previous year’s general fund and is intended to reflect the county’s policy of spending one-time revenues for one-time projects rather than for ongoing programs.

Because Neighborhood Reinvestment Program grants must be approved by the Board of Supervisors, the public comment opportunity for any proposed grant also exists. “Any member of the public can address any recommendation,” said Supervisor Greg Cox.

Supervisor Bill Horn noted that the board letter dockets a recommendation which can be discussed by the other county supervisors as well as by members of the public. “The rest of us vote on that and consider that. I think that process is very open and very transparent,” he said.

The Neighborhood Reinvestment Program was called the Community Projects program when it was created during fiscal year 1998-99 with a total budget of $5 million, or $1 million per county supervisor. The budget was expanded to $10 million for fiscal year 1999-2000.

In September 2009, the Board of Supervisors changed the program’s name to the Neighborhood Reinvestment Program while also creating Board of Supervisors Policy B-72, which included process and eligibility requirements. The original policy included a statement that a higher priority shall be given to requests for capital projects and one-time expenditures but did not specify restrictions on the types of projects for which the funds could be used.

“The Neighborhood Reinvestment Program has evolved over the years,” Cox said.

In March 2010, the supervisors reduced the total budget to $5 million while directing the county’s chief administrative officer to redirect the one-time resources available from that reduction towards priorities consistent with the supervisors’ strategic initiatives. That reduction amount was used to implement the county’s fire response plan and the spending included facility improvements, training facilities, and geographic information system technology needs.

In September 2010, Policy B-72 covering the Neighborhood Reinvestment Program was revised. “These reforms brought the Neighborhood Reinvestment Program back to its original intent,” Cox said.

The 2010 revisions prohibited funds from being used for food and beverages or for fundraising activities, allowed the county to use legal means to seek the return of funds not spent according to the grant agreement, required that public acknowledgment of funding credited the County of San Diego rather than an individual county supervisor, and prohibited county supervisors from receiving gifts with a value of at least $50 from organizations to which they have provided Neighborhood Reinvestment Program funds. Ron Roberts was in Washington, DC, when the other supervisors voted 4-0 in favor of those revisions.

Following the September 2010 revisions, Policy B-72 stated that the program provides grant funds to county departments, other public agencies, and non-profit organizations for one-time community, social, environmental, educational, cultural, or recreational needs which benefit the county’s neighborhoods and communities. Language was added that the grants must serve lawful public purposes and cannot be used for purposes prohibited by law for public funds such as religious, political campaign, or private purposes.

Grants to county departments or other public agencies can still be used for any lawful purpose or activity meeting the policy criteria, but grants to public non-profit community organizations must now be used for capital improvements, equipment, materials, goods, or supplies. Capital improvement projects can include contracted labor, contracted consultant costs, and other professional services, but grants to purchase tangible items cannot be used for the purchase of food, beverages, or items used for fundraising activities.

The initial language of Policy B-72 stipulated that if an organization wished to give recognition for the funding the wording should be “Funded by the County of San Diego at the recommendation of Supervisor [Name].” The 2010 revision stated that if an organization chooses to give written recognition the organization shall recognize the County of San Diego and not individual supervisors.

When the county supervisors approved the 2014-15 budget in June, the $2 million allocation per supervisorial district was restored. The county collects approximately $24 million in sales tax from unincorporated communities annually. “The Neighborhood Reinvestment Program is one small way for the county to return some of this money to the communities,” Horn said.

Horn noted that he tries to use his allocations to leverage donations. “I think that’s a motivating factor,” he said. “These are good for the community.”

In 2012, Horn proposed a $50,000 grant to the North County Economic Development Council for the “Prosperity on Purpose” comprehensive economic development study. A waiver was needed for the grant to be spent on a purpose other than capital improvements, equipment, materials, goods, or supplies. The grant passed on a 3-2 vote with Dianne Jacob and Pam Slater-Price (Dave Roberts’ predecessor) in opposition, and the motion also created a subcommittee of Ron Roberts and Cox to work on revising the restrictions to allow for economic development programs.

Several other restrictions also had unintended consequences. The prohibition on spending money for food and beverages was intended to cover community events, but it also prohibited food banks or social service agencies from feeding the needy and prevented animal shelters from purchasing food. The proposed revisions stipulate that grants may be used to pay for food and beverage only if the food or beverages are provided to individuals in need through organizations which provide meals to needy individuals or families while also adding that grants may be used to pay for feed for animal shelters to support the rehabilitation of animals.

The restrictions to tangible items also precluded information and technology services, including websites and data bases, which for formation are more one-time expenses than ongoing programs. The proposed amendment would allow grants to be awarded for one-time website, software, and related information and technology development services. “Websites are considered to be the bricks and mortar of the 21st century,” Cox said.

The prohibition against supervisors receiving gifts from organizations to which they have provided Neighborhood Reinvestment Program funds resulted from a controversy over symphony tickets. A proposed amendment stipulates that the ban does not apply to admission or participation in a non-profit fundraising activity allowed under the California Political Reform Act or to anything received which is not defined under that act as a gift or income.

Another proposed amendment will require that the recipient organization maintain a governing body or employ an administrator or staff which will be responsible for the funds’ expenditure, and applications will require acknowledgment of a commitment to such a governing body or administrator or staff.

On the Board of Supervisors side of applications, the proposed amendments would require each supervisorial office to post on its website that district’s priorities which guide funding recommendations and cite specific examples of projects funded while including information about requirements, add a hyperlink on the county website application page which directs potential applicants to the grant instruction web page, and require board offices to maintain applications for at least three years.

“I wanted to make the application more easily accessible,” Dave Roberts said.

“These reforms will standardize information,” Cox said.

The changes would also prohibit late docketed items, or items docketed between a meeting’s initial docketing deadline and the Friday deadline for urgent items to be heard at the following week’s meeting, unless the recommendation satisfies requirements for immediate action.

“We felt that the current board letter was a step in the right direction,” Dave Roberts said.

The new language as heard Sept. 23 would prevent a county supervisor or any of his or her staff members from publicly presenting an actual or mocked-up check to grant recipients while also preventing the posting of such awards on a supervisor’s social media site. The additional clause also requires that any post on a social media site refer only to the county as the granting agency and not any individual supervisor or staff member as responsible for recommending or awarding the grant.

The initial rationale behind the prohibition on credit to individual supervisors involved organizations crediting a specific supervisor on buildings or vehicles funded by the program. The eligibility requirements now require that if an organization chooses to give written recognition it should recognize the county rather than a particular supervisor. “They sign a grant agreement which puts those rules in place,” said county counsel Tom Montgomery.

“Each organization has an obligation to follow those rules,” Jacob said.

The supervisors tried to address the issue of organizations’ newsletters and social media sites providing simple written recognition before realizing that continuing the matter and allowing for staff to provide specific wording would minimize confusion and subsequent debate.