SECA COMMISSION AGENDA ITEM
ACTION REQUESTED:
title
Review and approve the 2027 SECA Grant Fund Application Timeline and Process
body
DEPARTMENT: Community Services
SUBMITTED BY: Jake Fiedler, Special Events Coordinator
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW:
N/A
BACKGROUND:
CY27 SECA Grant Fund draft timeline is attached based on last year’s schedule.
DISCUSSION:
Approve CY27 SECA Grant Fund Application Timeline
As part of approving the CY27 SECA application timeline, the Commission is asked to determine whether to maintain the current meeting schedule or add an additional meeting between the November public comment meeting and the December allocation meeting to allow for more robust application review and discussion. (Tentatively November 18, 2026)
Provide Direction Regarding Mandatory SECA Applicant Meetings
Assuming the Commission intends to maintain mandatory annual meetings for SECA applicants, the Commission is asked to provide direction on the preferred meeting format, including whether the requirement should be fulfilled through in-person meetings, live virtual sessions, or a required recorded webinar with applicant certification.
Public Review or a Public Summary of each Application
Residents have requested public access to SECA applications. The Commission discussed publishing short summaries but took no formal action. Staff is exploring whether a one-page summary of each applicant and request could be provided to enhance transparency. The Commission is asked to identify which application elements or criteria are most important when reviewing applications, so that these items can be included in the one-page summary.
Disclosure of Conflict of Interest
The Commission is asked to confirm that all Commissioners, including Student Commissioners who do not vote, disclose any affiliation or personal interest when speaking on behalf of a SECA application to ensure transparency in the review process.
Late or Missing Commissioner Allocations
The Commission is asked to establish a policy for Commissioners who submit allocation recommendations late or fail to submit. Should their allocations be excluded from the average, or counted as zero, which could reduce the overall average?
Final Allocations with Remaining Balance (Commissioner Recusals)
When a Commissioner does not fully allocate their available funds, any remaining balance is currently absorbed into the overall funding process to ensure full distribution. The Commission is asked to review the following options and confirm its preferred approach. Under either option, the Commission retains full discretion to adjust and adopt a unified funding recommendation as it deems appropriate.
Option 1: Maintain Current Practice
Under the current process, unallocated funds are not reassigned. Because final funding recommendations are based on an average, the presence of unallocated funds does not prevent the Commission from amending allocations as it sees fit. This option maintains flexibility and reflects existing practice.
Option 2: Reallocate Unallocated Funds
Under this approach, if a Commissioner leaves funds unallocated, the average would be calculated based only on the number of allocations actually made. Any remaining funds would then be reallocated as part of the final funding recommendation to ensure all available funds are distributed.
Confirm Use of Set-Asides
The Commission is asked to consider whether to continue the use of a set-aside, or instead incorporate all available SECA funds into the standard application and allocation process to promote consistency, transparency, and equitable consideration of all requests.
Zero Funding by Majority
If a majority of Commissioners allocate $0 to an organization, the organization receives no funding. The Commission is asked to confirm whether this process is acceptable.
Small Funding Requests Threshold
The Commission is asked to determine whether funding requests under $5,000 should be fully funded, subject to eligibility and available SECA funds.
Staff Review of Applications
Staff currently performs a cursory review and provides all SECA applications to the Commission to ensure full transparency. As a potential enhancement, staff could add a notation if an application appears not to meet all eligibility criteria, while still providing the full application to the Commission for review. The Commission is asked to confirm whether this approach would be acceptable or if additional staff evaluation should be incorporated.