CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
ACTION REQUESTED:
title
Receive the Special Events and Community Arts (SECA) Grant Fund presentation and reach consensus on modifications to the SECA Policy and Procedures Manual
body
DEPARTMENT: Community Services
SUBMITTED BY: Jake Fiedler, Special Events Coordinator
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW:
N/A
BACKGROUND:
SECA History and Grant Fund Overview
In 2004, Councilwoman Ellingson introduced the idea of creating the Culture Fund (later renamed the Special Events & Cultural Amenities [SECA] Grant Fund) to be used to supplement, and cover, the expenses associated with hosting social and artistic events. Funds would be generated from a 1% food and beverage tax, and City financial support of these events would be removed from the General Fund.
The SECA Commission (“Commission”) was established to receive and review annual SECA Grant Fund applications and provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the annual allocation of the SECA Grant Fund portion of the food and beverage tax. The Commission’s powers and duties also include assisting and advising the City Council and staff in furthering the arts, cultural experiences, and special events in Naperville and providing recommendations to the City Council regarding the SECA policy, procedures, and application process in accordance with the SECA mission statement. In 2022, supporting community arts through the administration of the City of Naperville Public Arts Program was added to the Commission’s powers and duties.
Since its inception, the SECA Grant Fund program has been reviewed annually by the SECA Commission following the annual grant allocation process, and regularly by City Council through periodic SECA workshops.
SECA Timeline
March 23, 2004 City Council Budget Workshop
• Council directed staff to draft an ordinance adopting a 1% Food & Beverage Tax
April 1, 2004 Special City Council Meeting (Ordinance 04-051)
• Council adopted a 1% Food and Beverage Tax
April 6, 2004 City Council Meeting (Ordinance 04-056)
• Council created a Culture Fund to be used solely for funding social and artistic events, moving funding for outside agencies and events out of the General Fund, and directing all taxes collected from the Food & Beverage Tax to be deposited in the Culture Fund.
• $956,728 in grant funding was awarded to 10 applicants
2005
• Council established the Social Service Grant (SSG) program, using $250,000 of Food & Beverage Tax dollars
2008 (Ordinance 08-031)
• Council created the Advisory Cultural Commission to review applications and make allocation recommendations to City Council
2010 (Ordinance 10-028)
• Council reduced the Food & Beverage Tax deposit to SECA from 1% to .75% and directed remaining .25% to be deposited into the General Fund
• Special Events and SECA Fund responsibilities transferred to the City Clerk’s Office
2011
• City Council dedicated $600,000 for three years for Carillon repairs and maintenance
• Council adopted Commission, Master Plan, and application modifications in addition to a SECA logo contest
2013 (Ordinance 13-029)
• Continuing the .75% Food & Beverage Tax deposit to SECA, Council capped the SECA Fund at $2M annually with a 2% escalator adjusted for inflation
• Council directed .25% of Food & Beverage Tax to be split equally between public safety pension funds
• Council directed remaining revenue to fund the annual Social Service Grant Program up to $500,000, and then apply funds to long-term debt obligations
2014
• Council removed the 2% escalator from SECA and awarded it to the Naperville Park District for three years of Sportsman’s Park renovations
2015 (Ordinance 15-160)
• As part of the Home Rule Sales Tax implementation, Council reduced the SECA Grant Fund cap to $1.9M
2016 City Council SECA Workshop
• Council concurred with the recommendation to revise the SECA mission statement and change the Commission name from the “Advisory Cultural Commission” to the “Special Events and Cultural Amenities (SECA) Commission”
• Developed event metrics to ultimately create objective application scoring criteria including event attendance, other revenue sources, and plans to become self-sustaining
• Confirmed SSG would be a separate program and review process from SECA
• Changed “Existing Agreements” to “City Obligations” and instituted a separate approval timeline in October
• Removed employee benefit costs from City Services charges
• Created a “Legacy Event” category for Ribfest and the Last Fling
• Approved a definition for “fundraisers”
• Redefined discretionary funding categories to include special events, cultural amenities, first year initiatives, capital projects, legacy events and fundraisers
• Clarified change-in-scope request protocol
2018 City Council SECA Workshop
• Created objective scoring criteria based on 2017 and 2018 data
• Affirmed the importance of maintaining diverse SECA Grant Fund program awards
• Reinstated the 2% annual escalator or CPI
• Eliminated the “Legacy Event” category to ensure all events receive the same funding and logistic scrutiny
2019 City Council SECA Workshop
• Updated the SECA funding application and SECA workshop schedule
• Made funding decisions for the final year of Ribfest and Christkindlmarket
2020-2021
• Staff created an Exploratory Task Force (ETF) of community partners and subject matter experts to evaluate processes related to public art in Naperville, explore opportunities for improvement, and develop Public Arts Program recommendation
• ETF presented recommendations to the City Council and received feedback
• Century Walk Capital & Maintenance added as a three-year City Obligation
2022 (Ordinance 22-053)
• City Council concurred with the ETF recommendation and approved the creation of a Public Arts Program
• Expanded the SECA Commission to 11 members
• Revised SECA mission statement
• Changed the Commission name from “Special Events and Cultural Amenities” to “Special Events and Community Arts”
• Rebranded SECA with a new logo
DISCUSSION:
Policy Overview
The SECA Commission has spent the past several months closely reviewing its policies and procedures to better define the application process, clarify how funding decisions are made, and improve transparency.
During this review, the Commission identified a growing concern regarding a trend of event cancellations and emphasized that confidence in an organizer’s ability to successfully deliver an event is becoming an increasingly important factor in funding recommendations. The Commission is also in the process of updating its mission statement to provide clearer direction and to establish a framework against which applications can be evaluated.
The Commission explored implementing a formal scoring system; however, given the wide range of programs supported by SECA, it has been challenging to develop a method that is fair, equitable, and usable by all commissioners. As a result, the Commission will continue to review applications individually and make funding recommendations based on the overall strength of each proposal, using the following criteria as guidance:
• Quality of event, clear project objective, uniqueness, experienced organizers
• Strength organization’s fiscal management and variety of funding used to support the event
• Clear organization mission statement
• Evidence of organization’s commitment to diversity
• History of event
• Alignment with SECA mission statement
• Benefit to the community, location, community support, number of attendees
The Commission is also working toward an evaluation approach grounded in a shared standard, specifically whether a project creates meaningful shared experiences and fosters a sense of belonging within the Naperville community. This approach will continue to be refined and incorporated into future updates to the Policy and Procedures Manual.
With that context in mind, the following are key focus areas the Commission reviewed, and the recommendations tied to each. The following items reflect administrative updates and clarifications developed by the Commission and are presented for City Council concurrence as a whole.
Administrative Updates
Application Timeline
To allow for a more meaningful review of applications, an additional meeting has been added to the timeline. Following the Saturday public meeting with applicants in November, the Commission will meet one more time to address any remaining questions after presentations and prior to making allocation recommendations.
Clarify “promoting religion or religious organizations”
The SECA Application Workshop presentation currently states that applicants must not promote religion or religious organizations; however, this requirement is not reflected in the current Policy and Procedures Manual. The Commission proposed adding the following clarifying language to the manual:
While SECA guidelines prohibit the promotion of religion or religious organizations, many cultural traditions - particularly in music, dance, and art - have historical or symbolic connections to religious practices. Funding eligibility should be evaluated based on the intent, content, and presentation of the event, rather than its historical origins alone. Events that are presented as cultural, educational, or artistic experiences, and that do not include religious instruction, worship, or advocacy, do not constitute the promotion of religion and may be considered eligible under SECA guidelines.
Eligibility Criteria:
An event may be eligible if:
• It is presented primarily as a cultural, educational, or artistic performance
• It is open to the general public
• It does not include:
o Religious services or rituals intended for worship
o Instruction in religious doctrine
o Calls to adopt, practice, or support a specific faith or religious organization
• Marketing materials emphasize culture, history, or art, not religious observance
An event would be ineligible if:
• The primary purpose is religious worship, prayer, or faith formation
• The event functions as an extension of a religious service
• Funding would directly support a religious organization’s ministry or evangelization efforts
Promotion of Political Organizations
Federal 501(c)(3) law prohibits political campaign activity. The Commission confirmed that SECA policy should continue to align with federal 501(c)(3) requirements, and that applicants remain prohibited from participating in, or supporting, political campaigns on behalf of any candidate or political party.
Consequences for Noncompliance
Currently, the SECA policy does not outline consequences for noncompliance. The Commission proposed the following language to be incorporated into the application and grant administration process.
Recipients of SECA grant funds are required to comply with all program policies, procedures, and conditions outlined in the manual and in the grant agreement. Failure to comply with these requirements may result in corrective action, including but not limited to:
• Withholding of awarded grant funds;
• Ineligibility for future SECA funding opportunities for a period determined by the Commission; and/or
• Referral of unpaid balances to collections, in accordance with City policies and procedures.
The SECA Commission reserves the right to evaluate noncompliance on a case-by-case basis and determine appropriate action to ensure accountability and protect the integrity of the program.
Applicant Attendance Requirement (Saturday Public Meeting)
The Commission clarified that new applicants or requests for more than $25,000 in SECA funding are required to have a representative attend the public meeting to allow the SECA Commission to hear comments from applicants and ask questions related to their funding requests. Failure to attend may negatively impact the Commission’s consideration of the request or may not be considered for funding.
If these four administrative updates are supported by Council, the intent would be to move forward with implementation and incorporate these updates into the Policy and Procedures Manual.
Policy Considerations Requiring Council Direction
The following four policy changes are presented for Council consideration and direction. A Decision Matrix is attached to assist you with the recommendations.
1. Memorial Day Parade - City Obligations
The Memorial Day Parade is a longstanding, civic event that provides community benefit by honoring those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country and fostering a shared sense of community and remembrance. In 2024 and 2025, due to enhanced security measures, the total City Services costs for the event exceeded the annual SECA allocation. In both years, the remaining balance was covered using unspent SECA funds available. The current 2026 estimate is $40,280, with an anticipated funding gap of approximately $4,028. Prior to 2024, SECA allocations consistently covered the full cost of City Services for this event.
|
YEAR |
REQUEST |
AWARD |
FINAL COST |
DIFFERENCE |
|
2026 |
40,280 |
37,000 |
|
4,028 |
|
2025 |
35,464 |
31,000 |
33,355 |
2,355 |
|
2024 |
32,334 |
29,080 |
32,024 |
2,944 |
Given the civic nature of this event and its consistent reliance on City services, the Commission recommends that the Memorial Day Parade be considered a City Obligation rather than discretionary.
Decision: The Commission is seeking Council direction on whether to authorize staff to explore and formalize an approach to fund the Memorial Day Parade as a City Obligation.
2. Change of Scope Request Process
The Commission clarified what constitutes a Change of Scope under SECA policy, as well as the process for reviewing and addressing such changes.
For the purposes of SECA administration, a Change of Scope is defined as a substantive modification to the nature, purpose, scale, or primary components of a funded project or event that differs materially from what was described in the approved SECA application.
Changes of Scope include, but are not limited to:
• A change in the primary purpose, concept, or artistic intent of the project or event;
• A change in the type of event or project (e.g., changing from an installation to a performance);
• Changes that affect the primary audience, format, or core deliverables of the funded project; or
• Changes that alter the fundamental use or justification of SECA-funded expenses.
Changes of Scope do not include routine logistical or administrative adjustments necessary to implement the project, provided the overall purpose, nature, and public benefit of the project remain substantially the same.
Examples of changes that are not considered a change of scope include:
• Change of venue within Naperville;
• Adjustment of event date or time;
• Minor adjustments to programming or event components;
• Vendor substitutions or operational adjustments; or
• Cost reductions or reallocations made to align with the awarded funding amount.
The purpose of this review is to ensure that the funded project remains substantially consistent with the approved application.
If the Commission determines that a change of scope has occurred, Council will be notified via Manager’s Memo or Friday Confidential, along with any related recommendations.
Decision: The Commission is seeking Council consensus with this approach
3. Confirm Support for Organizational Self-Sufficiency
The Commission discussed implementing a sunset provision or graduated funding reduction to encourage long-term financial sustainability for events. However, this approach was not supported due to the administrative complexity it would introduce, including tracking reductions over time, defining qualifying events, and establishing an appropriate funding baseline.
The current SECA application already includes questions related to supplemental funding and long-term sustainability. However, the Commission recommends placing greater emphasis on applicants demonstrating measurable progress toward securing alternative funding sources and applying this information more consistently as part of the evaluation process.
To support this approach, the Commission is proposing refinements to the existing application questions to better capture year-over-year progress, actions taken, and measurable outcomes related to alternative funding efforts. This information would be used as a consideration in evaluating applications and informing funding allocation decisions.
Proposed revised application questions:
• 2.5 Supplemental Funding: Explain why supplemental funding is necessary for the project/event. Include a breakdown of current and anticipated revenue sources (e.g., sponsorships, ticket sales, donations, grants), and identify any new or expanded funding sources pursued since your last SECA application.
• 2.8 Self-Sustainability: Provide your organization’s plan for reducing reliance on SECA funding. Include:
o Specific actions taken in the past 1-2 years to secure alternative funding
o Measurable outcomes of those efforts (e.g., increased sponsorships, new revenue streams)
o A projected timeline for reducing reliance on SECA funding
Decision: The Commission is seeking Council consensus with this approach, as well as feedback on a broader policy consideration of whether demonstrated progress toward long-term financial sustainability carry greater formal weight in future SECA funding decisions.
4. Parades - Standard Routes and Protection Devices
The Special Events Team is evaluating potential enhancements to parade safety and operational consistency. One option under consideration is requiring all parades to utilize a standard route. Establishing a consistent route would allow for improved safety planning, including designated observation points for Police, more effective traffic control, and reduced congestion on major roadways. It would also help mitigate risks associated with vehicle access and potential threats, while creating greater consistency in staffing levels and City service costs.
Currently, City vehicles are used to block access points along parade routes. As an alternative, staff is exploring dedicated anti-vehicle barriers for use at events, which could improve safety, efficiency, and long-term resource management.
Decision: Staff is seeking Council feedback on the following options:
Option 1: Implement a standardized parade route
Establish a consistent route for all parades to improve safety planning, traffic management, and cost predictability.
Option 2: Purchase anti-vehicle barriers
Acquire dedicated infrastructure protection devices to replace the use of City vehicles at access points along parade routes.
Option 3: Pursue both options
Implement a standardized route and purchase anti-vehicle barriers as a comprehensive approach to improving parade safety and operational efficiency.
Option 4: Maintain the current approach
Continue using flexible, event-specific routes and City vehicles to manage access points.
FISCAL IMPACT:
N/A