By Dominique Tassell
A motion at last week’s Southern Downs Regional Council (SDRC) meeting regarding the Grants to Community Policy was met with intense debate, with one councillor stating that SDRC is “neglecting their obligation to support in some small financial way their community’s vision”.
The purpose of the Grants to Community is for SDRC to support local not-for-profit organisations and to undertake projects or activities that will benefit the Southern Downs residents and community.
The motion put to SDRC sought to amend the policy so that assessment would be undertaken by staff, grants would be capped at $2000, and the program would be offered year-round.
Other changes would also address how applicants can access both the Community Grants and RADF programs.
While organisations can apply for both a Community Grant and RADF grant, they must request funding for different projects.
There is $96,553.71 remaining in the Grants to Community budget for the 2021/2022 financial year.
Councillor Marco Gliori spoke up to state he did not agree with the funding amount being lowered, citing that in previous years there have been two streams of funding; grants of up to $10,000 as well as grants of up to $2000.
“We as a council in this term, I think have gone right in the middle with the $5000, we’ve had successful funding allocations based on that $5000 cap.”
He questioned whether the feedback that led to this decision was from the community or staff.
A staff member confirmed it was a SDRC-driven decision.
Councillor Gliori asked if there was an appetite to leave it at $5000, stating he would not be supporting the change.
Mayor Vic Pennisi then put it to the room for a consensus to change this.
Councillor Stephen Tancred stated that the $2000 figure was the result of a workshop, and he was happy to stick with that outcome.
Councillor Jo McNally stated she supported going to $5000.
“The budget has already been allocated for this, so still $96,000 to be spent,” she said.
She stated that less should have been allocated in the budget if SDRC wanted to change this, and she believed it should stay at this amount until the next budget when it could be adjusted accordingly.
Councillor Gliori then moved a motion to remain at $5000, which was seconded by Councillor McNally.
Councillor Gliori stated $5000 is a “fair and reasonable” amount that is “in the middle of the playground of what we were working with before”.
“It will not stop applicants from asking for anywhere between $500 and $5000 depending on their project needs. I believe $2000 as the cap will limit some projects.
“I’ve heard in these chambers comments that suggest there is an appetite for weaning communities off any community grants offered by this council. For them to go and find it somewhere else.
“I believe this council have been neglecting their obligation to support in some small financial way their community’s vision with these modest amounts.
“And $5000 in this day and age is still a modest amount. But $2000 is so close to zero that I fear we will limit the community grants to $2000, in doing so we will be sliding down a slippery slope towards a big fat nothing.
Councillor Gliori stated he was concerned that the “crumbs” they offered next year through the $2,000 amount may end up resulting in nothing in future budgets.
“I don’t want to go down that road,” he said.
“I think it would leave a sour taste in the mouths of the community groups who have relied on that little leg up occasionally here and there.
“I know times are tough, but they are not this tough.”
Councillor McNally stated that Covid-19 has decimated volunteer groups over the last two years, and to reduce that grant money from $5000 to $2000 is “short-sightedness”.
Councillor Andrew Gale then spoke against the motion to have the funding remain at $5000.
He said there were processes to review the budget, and that amount can be reduced in the next review.
“Or we can leave it the same, and it gives more opportunity to more groups,” he said.
He stated it “should be a hand up, not handouts”.
He said groups might have to scale back, “but that’s what happens when you have a budget”.
Councillor Tancred said he would vote against the motion as well.
He stated that SDRC has “done a lot for the vulnerable in our community during Covid-19” and cited their decisions not to increase rates, and to freeze fees and charges for vulnerable businesses.
“We have been generous.”
He said this is not about weaning people off community grants, but about distribution.
He stated that in community groups people apply for more than they need by applying for a “core” thing and then adding “bells and whistles” to “jack it up to just under the maximum”.
“I think that’s human nature.”
He stated that he thinks a lot of groups will be pleased council is “going to spread the love further”.
Councillor Cynthia McDonald stated that SDRC should be focusing on its core business of roads, rates, and rubbish, and she would like to see the program maintained at $2000.
Councillor Ross Bartley stated “we can do it now, or at budget time” as grants amount will get reduced then if not reduced now.
He agreed with Councillor Tancred about clubs often adding things into their applications to pad them out, and said affluent clubs often take money from SDRC when they don’t need it.
He said there is a sentiment from clubs that there is no point taking money out of their reserves when they can get it from SDRC.
“It’s not what it’s for, it’s actually to help a group up that is struggling,” he said. He cited community halls being unable to afford insurance as an example of who the funding is for.
“It’s for people that are in trouble.”
Councillor Gliori stated he has “full confidence in the community” that they don’t pad out their applications, but stated the solution to that would be to call those groups out.
He stated that SDRC are being gatekeepers to the public purse.
Councillor McNally said she was a “bit concerned” by some of the discussion around core business.
She raised the drag strip, which was also discussed at the meeting, where SDRC may need to use public money even though it’s not necessarily a “core” focus.
The motion was then voted on, with only Councillors Gliori and McNally in support of it.
The program will now see grants capped at $2000.
Councillor Tancred then moved a motion to amend the guidelines to reinstate the requirement for a letter of support.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Gale, and was carried.
Councillor Tancred then moved a second motion that recommendations from the Manager of Community and Cultural Services be referred to SDRC for approval.
The motion was seconded by Councillor Gale, but was lost.
A final motion to approve the amended Grants to Community Policy and Guidelines was then successfully moved by Councillor McNally and seconded by Councillor McDonald.
