Item 15: Non-Profit Agencies Human Services Grant Funding

Status
Not open for further replies.

COSM_Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Consider approval of Resolution 2022-279R, allocating to non-profit agencies Human Services Grant funding of $500,000.00 from the City’s General Fund; authorizing the City Manager, or her designee, to act as the Official Representative of the City in matters related to said grant funds, including authorization to execute fundings contracts with selected agencies on behalf of the City; and declaring an effective date.
 

JHughson

CoSM Members
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?

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.

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.

Do the members make site visits now? I can understand not doing this during the height of Covid but we are past that now.

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.

What verification is done regarding addresses? One applicant shows their address at a mailbox rental space that has been vacant for months.

Is there ever discussion with the applicants as to what they can accomplish with less funding?

Please provide the list of applicants from last year and the amount of funding received and requested.
 

COSM_Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Additional request provided by Mayor Hughson:
Please also provide the direction given by council to the staff for the HSAB and the date of the meeting. I'd like to review that guidance in context - to see what else was happening at the time. Was it when we had twice as much funding as we did last year only is an example.
 

COSM_Admin

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

Attachments

  • TallyTables_RiskScores.pdf
    95.5 KB · Views: 190
  • FinalFunding2022.pdf
    88.5 KB · Views: 192
Last edited:

COSM_Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Additional request provided by Mayor Hughson:
Please also provide the direction given by council to the staff for the HSAB and the date of the meeting. I'd like to review that guidance in context - to see what else was happening at the time. Was it when we had twice as much funding as we did last year only is an example.
Response provided by Amanda Hernandez, Interim Director of Planning & Development Services:
In 2020 and prior years, the Board’s liaison was Finance. In 2021 & 2022 P&DS took over as liaison. P&DS Staff carefully reviewed the Board’s charge and City Manager direction to make the process more transparent, accountable, and objective. We are not sure if any additional direction was received by Council.

In response to the Board’s charge and CM direction staff added a scoring system and trained the HSAB members on how to use it. The Board scored the applications, heard the agency presentations, then discussed the allocation of funds. Staff has had a “hands off” approach to the Board discussions for the most part, making suggestions here and there and facilitating the discussion by presenting the scores to the Board. The Board decided independently that they wanted to fund all agencies, and that they wanted to use a percentage method.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top