How do city councils generally feel about people offering to donate money for government-administered programs? I've wondered about this and imagined that they might consider it improper influence in their budgeting and policy-setting practices and that it might actually be forbidden by law in some places. (But clearly some people are able to negotiate "public-private partnerships" on particular issues and projects and people have also been able to donate large amounts of money for certain infrastructure projects, like the recent Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital project.)

If I showed up with a group of people and a couple of thousand dollars for an earmarked public works project, how might it be received in different places?

"Sure, cool?"

"Against our budgeting laws?"

"Contrary to our notions of democracy or equity in public spending?"

"Improper in public administration terms because it results in overhead or management costs that can't be properly accounted for or budgeted?"

Some cities embrace neighborhood funded programs, for example, in Sacramento, CA:

If your street qualifies for speed lumps, but has not been funded by the City, you may pay for installation yourself. The cost will include design, construction and inspection of the City, speed lumps. Your street must meet all qualifications including two-thirds majority approval through the ballot process. Your neighborhood must have the funding and obtain approval from the Department of Transportation before speed lumps may be installed. The cost of a speed lump and associated signage is approximately $3,000.

http://www.cityofsacramento.org/Public-Works/Transportation/...

I love the term "speed lump". Local government should have more of this.

I've also head "speed hump".

Setup a non-profit for redevelopment "blessed" by the city with cronies in key positions?