Response provided by Amanda Hernandez, Interim Director of Planning & Development Services:
Regarding "Each applicant except two made a five-minute presentation to the board, which was followed by a five-minute question and answer period. HOME Center and Hands of Hope were inadvertently skipped in the presentation scheduling."
Did the two applicants get to present at any time?
If not, why not?
The presentation meetings had already been held by the time the fact that they’d been skipped was discovered. The Board needed to move on to discussion meetings, so staff informed HOME Center and Hands of Hope that it would not be possible for them to present.
I find the Risk Assessment criteria, but not the list of applicants and the associated risk scores in the packet. If I missed it, please advise of the page number. I'm looking for the actual scores (averaged is ok) not a "low" or "medium" or "'high" notation.
I didn't have time to watch all the meetings, but a list was displayed briefly at the Oct 27 meeting at 3:44 minutes into the video. Carl Griffith noted there were none with a high risk score and a few with medium risk score.
Attached.
There are also discrepancies in the minutes as to attendance. For example, the most recent minutes, Oct. 27, (draft) shows the list of members present as all, but roll call shows 5 and that's what I saw for the video. If other members joined in late, there is not a notation of that in the minutes.
August 18 2022 minutes shows six voting members present (assuming the chair and co-chair are voting members), but under item II roll call, it states that five voting members were present without listing them.
Similar for the September 1 2022 meeting. The list of members present shows 6 present (assuming the chair and co-chair are voting members) but under item II roll call, it shows four voting members present.
I didn't check the rest.
All minutes this fall have been checked. Attendance was correct. Staff was not noting in the minutes that members came in late, but this can be added to the minutes.
Do the members make site visits now? I can understand not doing this during the height of Covid but we are past that now.
Site visits were cancelled when the administration of the grant changed from the Finance Department to the Planning Department, not because of COVID. The City Manager asked staff to make the process more transparent and accountable. Staff does not support site visits for the following reasons:
- Site visits do not inform the Board well enough since only one or two Board members receive the information directly and then relay it to the Board.
- Site visits may cause the Board members to favor the agencies they visited.
- Site visits are inefficient use of time for the Board members, who need to be consistently reviewing the documentation submitted.
- The public cannot attend the site visits.
Overall, it is more informative, objective, efficient, and transparent to have the agencies present to the Board in public meetings.
In the October 27 minutes, I was glad to see discussion about services specifically for the SM community, but yet it appears those who didn't serve many in SM still received significant funding. I also see a notation about lack of requested documentation, yet all received some funding.
Documentation was complete. The Board desired to fund all applicants.
What verification is done regarding addresses? One applicant shows their address at a mailbox rental space that has been vacant for months.
No verification of addresses occurs.
Is there ever discussion with the applicants as to what they can accomplish with less funding?
No. This question was not asked by the Board members during the question and answer periods.
Please provide the list of applicants from last year and the amount of funding received and requested.
Attached.
