Housing & Human Services Advisory Board - Special Meeting Funding Deliberations - Dec 22, 2020
8:34PM Jan 4, 2021
Speakers:
Keywords:
housing stability
funded
liberto
agencies
funding
karen
model
priority
alberto
areas
score
caitlin
board
motion
points
agree
money
justice
organizations
housing
Why don't we go ahead and call the meeting to order at 401. And we do have a quorum, so there was going to be a guest that joined us, but I don't see anybody. Yes.
She's not calling yet chair.
Okay, so let's go ahead and move on. liberto are you going to walk us through our main and only agenda item item three? Alberto?
Yes, yes, I can do that. But I need to do I have a sharing? Yes.
I just made you co host you should be good.
All right. And we have a quorum.
We do. We're only missing and Madeline and Councilmember Christiansen
and right? Ellie Berto, before you get going, Did everybody get their their evaluations in?
Yes. Everybody got devaluations in and then I? Yeah, then I spent a lot of time working on. It was quite the interesting challenge.
Oh, well, I thank you, everybody for getting your revaluations in. I still feel shame whenever I think of Graham, because he did it timely and early. And I thought about him a lot as I was filling out my own. So you You are the standard to which we must rise to Graham.
All right. Take it away. Hold on. I gotta open up the other one. There are three spreadsheets that I'm about to show you. They're all interesting. All right. Give me one second, folks. Just the right one. Yes, this is the right one. Okay. And Karen, she'll be joining us in a second. All right, which one? Are you? You start with you. Sure. This is not after? Oh, wait. Is this a 4.1? on top? or four dash one? I can't tell which. Yep.
Yes, it says four dash one here.
Perfect. That's the first one. Then we're gonna have version five and then version six. But let's start with four dash one. This is the one that this is the original one that I shared after Kate and I met and set up the and I'm going to show you what the allocation formula looks like. And then we'll come back to the matrix. And then I think Karen will join us here in a second. She's not on yet. So come on. There we go. So again, this is starting, this is starting at 4.5. Nothing changes as far as the priority areas and CDs. And I bet that's that's standard across the board. Not that we're going to not that we're going to delve too much into it. But I want to show you Carrie and I got together and we looked at the activities. And here's how we broke up the the you know, the point system, 10 points of view in their priority area, and 10 points if you actually did something. So that is the what we did. That's something in the board is involved in, but I want to show you that. Alright, here's the fun part. So here are all your scores. And we'll we'll go I broke them up into impact area. And I'm going to show you one more. When we get done with these. I'm going to show you one more of these worksheets. So you can see how we do on their priority area allocations. Okay. So as you can see, so here, here's a 2020 Award what they got, that's column D column is their request. Here's the score. This is what Karen and I do say okay, so this is Caitlin, I came up with 10 points for being in the area, and 10 points. So mostly everybody got those original 10 points. I don't think there might have been one that didn't get any duty and feel like they were they were really doing really doing anything that we were doing. So 10 points are getting in the area and then 10 points for for being we want to the sponsor the priority activities. And then here's the board averages, that's column G. Here's the staff averages. As I mentioned, typically staffs are lower than boards. A part of that is just because of the equation. Staff only has seven questions and board has eight to score on and typically me They're different, they they're a little more technical. Sometimes it's their lower because, you know, budget issues or a diversity of spending of not spending revenue sources, all that kind of stuff. So we look at, then that's the thing that is total score, and then we add, you know, the 10, or the 20. They got, and then here in the final is the, the allocation based on this formula. So, I don't know, if you won't we were gonna go through all of them, or if I'm not sure, what's the best way chair to move forward? I can scroll down and go through all of them. Or if anybody has any questions. What would you prefer? I do, you're, you're muted.
liberto, you had mentioned that there were three different sheets? Are they all? Same? Or
Yes, the only difference is right here. So this is that's a good question. So what I did, was, on the on this one, it was really high expectation. In other words, you had to average a 4.5 to get 100%. I don't think anybody got 100%, or maybe a few to see, tend to give us an 87.5. That's what that works out to. And you scroll down. f i got an 88. Voices for children got an 87. Five, that puts them at 100%. And the listener got an 88. And that puts them Ah, here's a good point, the listener because they asked for so they actually they actually hit the individual speeding limits within their priority area. But they were the only three because yeah, 123 that that that hits 100%.
So
can you just give us kind of some summaries? I'd start with of the money we have available, I see a negative 68,000. Does that mean we're 68,000? over our limit? No.
We're 68,000 under in this because of
using this calculation
using this calculation and because of the high level that the the threshold that I put was really high. It it. It made it that it was hard to get fully funded. And this happened to us in 20. I forget I think it was 2018. Yes, Caitlin.
So I'm looking at the I think
column. F
I didn't mean to interrupt you, Alberto. So if you wanted to finish what you were saying no, that's fine. Okay. Um, and I'm looking at the ones that did that look like they got the zero. Right, because they didn't hit one of they didn't hit the area. One I was like, what I'm confused about is focused reentry, and why that didn't even get the 10 for Safety and Justice.
Ah, that's a good question. I don't,
I'm not I'm not 100% Sure, it would make a difference. But I'm like that one stands out to me is like their agency, it seems like they fit really well under that. But maybe I'm missing something.
Well, I wouldn't make a difference at 10, even if they got the 10 day or still will be low. But
I think Karen here, so I think we went off of what the definition is for what fits into seeking justice. And that was that was right. So we we we we assigned points based on the definition for what is in the Safety and Justice buckets. And that one was not there.
What was the definition on that
one? I can look it up right now. It's so this comes from what we what we did with the city has done for a while and we give this different to the council every year, ensuring safe and supportive environments for vulnerable children and adults. That's the Safety and Justice definition that we have now.
I
so I guess my question is why would focus reentry not, like meet that because they provide services specifically to vulnerable adults who are being released from incarceration into the community? So, I mean, I, the definition seems a little like narrow in terms of like what we consider justice,
that that's the definition that we use it fits with.
Yeah, totally understand,
I guess I'm just not sure why they wouldn't even fit that definition. Cuz I mean, like, a lot of what they described in their application, for example, was around folks that are vulnerable to to really know they're vulnerable. And
we're kind of looking at what is in terms of the protection for children who are victims of violence. And for, you know, like, what, what, even when we did the voices for children program, so so one of those get in the in the cat? Well, I should be quiet. I don't know if that's exactly true. But we, you know, we really just tried to look at what would fall under that definition. And it's, it's usually not re entry of people who have been in the justice system, it's really about people who more or less have been victimized. It's really been a difference. Yeah, I
mean, but a lot of what they do is around ensuring that people that there's low recidivism, which in turn affects, like, potential,
I understand that's just the interpretation that we, you know, that we made based on that definition.
Right. And I'm suggesting that that interpretation is not one that like, fully encompasses what, like what we need to accomplish with that.
So Caitlin, if we can, let's put a I totally understand your point. I want to see if there's agreement or disagreement from other board members on that specific item, and then let's put a pin on it. So we can circle back as we consider the what the other funding impacts are. Is there any thoughts on Caitlin's points, regardless regarding focus, reentry, and in support or, you know, different perspective? Karen Phillips, well,
maybe it should be classified under health and well being or maybe it should be under a different category. Okay. Anybody else?
Okay. Let's Okay, so if we can, let's just hold that one. We'll make sure to come back to it. I have a note. And we'll first tackle the general structure and then any individual items that appear to be inconsistent. Does that sound good, Caitlin?
Okay, all right.
So I'm gonna start. So I want to show you the next one. So this is, this was at 4.5 was the average. And so we underspend what we have by 16 $8,008. And then I also wanted to before I go to the next spreadsheet, I want to show you the priority allocations. So here is give it a second, it'll, it'll change. So the red means that in demand, the red means we overspent in those particular areas. And if they're black, it means that we understand. That's the color scheme. And this is and this has been very typical, every year, in particular around education and skill building, we always overspend in that area, and that has a lot to do with how many folks apply and what they asked for. And again, we don't control that. Okay, this is this is, this is the the first spreadsheet we are under spending 68,000. All right. I'm gonna stop sharing this one, to make sure that we make a clean break. And then I'm going to share the next one. Where are you
Elberta, while you find that I'm surprised that we underspend in housing stability,
we always do, Ryan. Okay. We always do. I don't know why, but we always do. me guys. Go ahead.
I was just gonna say maybe because a lot of that has actually comes through the block grants the CB, cb dg, or.
Yeah, that is that that could be that could definitely play a role. Definitely. I think the other piece too, again, is that we don't we, you know, the board or previous board really did not want us to tell people to apply for it, or to tell agencies what to apply for. And so, you know, we're not apply for more of the priding housing stability, they're gonna apply for what they usually apply for or, and so then that's part of it. So, so efa, for example. Yeah. So they only apply for 16,000. Yeah, I have no idea what they could do if they got 32,000. Right. Could they help people get into faster cuz, you know, I don't know. But that's what they apply for.
Yep. Got it. Thank you.
All right. So now I have it. And so I'm going to share it. Here we go. Alright, so this is the difference here is now one. Can you guys see it? Sorry? Nothing? How about now?
Yeah.
Okay. So the big difference here is that we went from, so I lowered the threshold to funding, right? I said, Okay, so instead of starting at 4.5, to get your 100%, if you average 4.25, you can get 100%. Right. And so what you'll see here is that you're gonna see more people. Let's see, we overspend by 27,000. On this one. And a few people get more of the 100%. And I don't remember all who get 100%. But it does, it does open it up to more people getting more money. So for example, I know that in this one, if I remember, right. Where are you? in health and well being? So I think that the free clinic goes from the same base goes from not being funded to being funded. A few others go, I don't know exactly which ones but some of them go from, you know, 50 to 75%. And say, if I do 100%? Yeah. You know, it will head bread.
And your scores are the same right?
Score should not change if they change, and then there was a copying issue, but they shouldn't change it. And I do spot check. We don't audit every single one, but I do spots it and every time I check, it's 100% accurate. Okay. I spot check all the times I make sure that you know if this was a score they got in this spreadsheet, the same scores and on the other spreadsheet.
Yeah. Okay. Got it. Thank
you.
Could you Would you mind going to the priority area allocations? Yes, please, anybody jump in if you have thoughts, but that one in particular I find useful.
Yeah. So on this one, you know, we we we still overspend. And on the same on typically the same place? Well, usually we overspend on self sufficiency. But we did it. You can see we're a little bit we are closer. We do understand in in how the stability but not as much. It did increase some of the housing stability funding that went up. But it's very typical to overspend on education and skill building. And food and nutrition.
liberto. If you add up the over under, if you just highlight those to get the sum on the bottom, what does that come out to? You're so
good.
Okay, so that's our negative 27. Got it.
We're overspent by 27,000. So
I'm sorry, we allocated about 40,000 in this model that we hadn't done the previous model.
Right, right, because people went up or people went from not being funded to being funded. Okay.
I recommend we now look at model number three and then oh, Graham, go ahead.
Oh, we have a three model to look at.
We do have a third model. I call it the Goldilocks model. Karen and I called it because you know, it's not too hot, not too cold. So it's, it's a 4.3. I experimented. And so like what did the average was four point what it looked like it was 4.3. And so let me show you all what that is. I'm gonna stop sharing this and then we come back for conversation.
Well, Ellie Berto is doing that. Any questions from board members on what you've seen so far? Or any clarifying questions? Okay, your time is up for clarifying questions.
Okay, can everybody see this one? This This should say this should have a six on top. I can't see it. Got a green you are sharing screen? Yeah, this is it. This is the 4.3.
Yeah, version six,
version six. That's how many versions I have. So version. So the big difference is that we start we have 4.3 3.8 5.5, if the if the spread, is really doing all of them. And numbers don't change a lot. Some did go down. But basically, we are at 6000 overspending on this one. And if you look at their priority area allocations. It's still the same ones. But it's a little a little better.
dialed a little closer on health and well being and we were before,
right, but we did lose a little bit on housing stability, because it did go along. So yeah, so that's kind of the trade offs. Okay.
Were there. Do you recall organizations that dropped out or came in, depending on the model like, you know, ones that weren't going to get any funding, but all of a sudden found themselves funded in one of these models?
On my other screen? While I look at this, let me let me look at version, the strictest version, which is the 4.1.
We can double check, but I think it was primarily St. Benedict's health clinic.
Yeah, they got zero and 4.1.
And then came in, in some of the other scenarios and were funded. And I think the only one that changed from unfunded to funded in in these scenarios, but we can double
Thank you.
That's largely because they went from we went basically from funding zero to funding 50% of them, because they asked for so much. Right. Like, they asked 50,000 they asked for 20,000 we wouldn't have seen such a big jump, they're getting zero and 50%. Right. Okay.
Okay. So that is one of the reasons. Caitlin, are you saying that's one of the reasons that we're now over in the third in the Goldilocks model? Okay, got it? Yeah,
well, you know, like, I guess I in my head, I'm thinking a little bit about like, what does it What would it look like if instead of going from zero directly to funding 50%? What if there was some step in between there? Which I don't know if that makes sense. But I'm, you know, going from $0 to $25,000 for them, because they requested so much make a huge difference. Whereas for, you know, 80% of these requests, going from zero to 50%. wouldn't have made such a huge jump. Yeah.
Okay. Graham, did you want to go with your question?
I don't have a question. I guess I would just say, I think the last version, we should we should go with that one. You know, if the goal is to pick a model, that leverage is the scoring to fairly distribute the model, which gets us closer to to the zero would be preferable. And then, you know, take the Delta, the six k overage, and I don't know, lower the individual ceiling limits on those who went out and try and see if we can get closer to zero, right? Because the goal is to pick a model that's fair and distributes the money. Right? So yeah, I say model three, or, you know, version six.
Other thoughts, Caitlin?
I have a contrary take sorry, Graham, I hear where you're from for the one thing that concerns me about going with model three is that drop, we're not even hitting the the full sort of bucket for housing stability, which we've identified is fairly clearly the highest priority of the city. So the fact that we're not even spending all of the money in model three for housing stability that we have is really concerning to me. Like, I would like us to see like, how do we essentially fill in that top part, like spend the money for that top priority first, before we even like, go over in one of the like, third and fourth priorities?
So what happened in the first model? Did we we spend that priority?
I think in the second one, we came really came a lot closer.
Yeah, because the second one was, was was that 4.25? Yes, it would it would have, I think, for example, in that 4.25, what you guys are seeing, I think, attention homes are all of those 7500s, go to full, go to the full 10,000. So that adds, right, so somebody get fully funded.
I think, Caitlin, I'm on, I'm on version two now.
So let me point out version two, hold on, I'm gonna, I'm gonna stop sharing version three, and go to version two.
And while you're doing that, do your shapes.
And your it gives us more like that we have to work with to get back to like, zero. But I think that that priority area being a priority area, like we want to make sure that we're actually and none of those are. I mean, now, we could look and see if anyone's hitting like individual limits there. Whereas like with some of the others, we do have folks hitting individual limits.
Alright, so here we go. Here's Britain. Now we're in version five here. And you can see it's 43. And that's primarily because when you go back to the matrix, yeah, see all these go to 10,000? Yeah. So yeah, so it just it just, we just fund. This goes to 65, I think was a 48 in the other version, because it wasn't 75 versus 100%. Okay, so So yeah, so that's, that's the difference. That's what makes a difference. Okay, so
let me get comments from Deanna and Karen Phillips real quick on just kind of reactions.
So I think I agree with Caitlin. I'm looking at the numbers here for the housing stability. And if you look at if we were only giving them 7500, then we would be giving them less than Am I right that column D is what they got last year. Am I correct?
Yeah. But I wanted to to that point. I remember last year, Karen, didn't we have extra funding from somewhere that we were allowed to? And we pushed up? folks? That just in my mind that I think like for example, I think we've been pushed up that 6300 I think we've pushed up a few others. So I don't so yes, I think we need to consider last year and there was some extra funding last year that we weren't anticipating that we'll have more decided, well, let's just push up certain the different priority areas. I think that's what happened last year. Okay. So
does that mean then that I should not be super concerned about the fact that maybe last year was a one off, and we were able to give some extra money to those organizations? Right,
right. So I think for example, recovery cafe last year, we're in recovery cafe, because I remember this. So recovery cafe only got five was only awarded 5000. Last year, technically, that's what they scored. But because Kelvin being was a higher priority, and we had this extra we gave him 1300 1300. So that put them to 63. I think that happened with housing as well. Last year, but again, we you know, this does give this does useful for mounts to the housing folks. And then the only question would be how do we make up this? 27,000?
That's 27,000 left in the in the total pool? Correct?
No, that's 27,000 we need to remove from funding somewhere else. Wait,
is that right? Oh, yes. Sorry.
Karen, Ronnie,
what did you hear from all the other board members and then you can call on me.
Okay, thank you. Karen Phillips, do you have any feedback that you'd like to share? No, I'm
kind of confused. I'm just listening, trying to figure this out. So. Okay. Oh, no.
Shakira, I know we're going through a very visual exercise that you can't see. But do you have any thoughts or anything that you wanted to add?
Um, yes, it is a very visual access what you all are going through and I can't see it. But um, I do agree with the second model. But how can we I mean, how often do you have to take away from other areas Bartow to leverage it to where we're not overspending that much.
It's a great question in my time, and I haven't been here a whole lot. We've never had to do that. As far as I remember. We typically underspend or it was so small, the carrier would find the dollar somewhere, we could lobby carrier to find the dollar. So
about this discovering money thing. doesn't really happen. So you know, I think so I, you know, this year, we, we might have talked about it. When we were deciding what kind of scoring and weighting method we were going to use. So this year, we we took away from the the waiting, based on, you know, in what area, they were applying for money. And so, and, and so in the past, we just, we just spent, we just want to overspent we just allocated more money to lesser priority areas. And I think this year, if indeed, what we said, we're not going to do an additional waiting for the area in which the agencies are applying because we're using, we're applying that weighting to the entire buckets of money that's available that we would end up with seem like because what la birthday and I were talking about is that if indeed if you wanted to go with the 4.4, point two, five, and we're $27,000 over then then how to balance that would be to take it from those lower priority areas that we have overfunded. So in education and skill building, you say we haven't we have an extra 85,000. That's over what we said was the priority amount to put in that bucket. So that and food nutrition. So so we just chatted briefly before we came on to this meeting is about if we wanted to look at how to make up that $27,000 that we remove that from some of those lower priority areas that we have over funded.
Thank you. Graham, you had a comment?
Yeah. Alberto, could you share this same tab for version one, the priority version one, and I'm wondering if that one was, like 6065. Grand underspend, and I'm wondering if we started with extra money, and then filled the housing buckets, if we could quickly see what that might look like.
Here you go. And I haven't done the I didn't do the auto somebody will
help 41. So what if we just gave 41 distributed evenly among housing stability?
If we went with one, yeah, we could do that. I mean, that's what the board wants.
So
go ahead, Caitlin. Yeah, I
mean, I think that still puts us with like, I mean, obviously, we're 50,000 over and 40,000 over in two of the things and then like, only 50% of the very last one. Which I guess that that makes more sense to me than like underfunding housing.
So are we are we saying? So just to be clear, we were talking about going with the 4.5, the higher restrictions.
So, I think Graham's proposal is to go with the first model, which is 4.1. If I understand correctly, liberto it's the only model where we're actually understanding and total. Is that correct?
Yeah, it says 68,000 here, so I'm not sure why that is happening.
Yeah. Okay. But the numbers are rising. We have on the second sheet because it's safer.
I know. I mean, this is the correct, right, because this is we have 877455 to spend. And so I subtract, you know, 809 this is what we're spending and that that's the same on both right? So it's 8094488. That's what you should be. And that's 809448. So this is the amount we have. That's the correct amount. 68 Oh, you know, 68 eight.
Yeah, okay. So real quick before we make a decision, I I just wanted to for the benefit of Karen Phillips and Chiquita who can't see what we're doing. And you know, the process we're going through, we've basically built a machine that has three different dials. And if you change these dials, the, you know, the sausage comes out slightly different each time, you know, depending on how it's made. So what we're really just talking about is how to optimize the functionality of the machine without having to do special things to it. to result in the funding outcomes we want, we want the formula to do most of the work. So the question is, which formula is working most efficiently? I do like the idea of working with the first version where we have a surplus, because I think it's easier to make decisions about who will get more funding than it is about who will get less funding. Graham, what is your thought?
Yeah, that's where I'm leaning. I think, you know, we Yeah, we have we have extra money in this model. And so we know housing stability is a top priority based on our data. So let's distribute figured out a way to distribute that 68 k amongst those organizations.
Karen and liberto. Does that seem? Is that okay? I mean, does that feel? Right? Or does it feel arbitrary?
I have a question before they answer that. So they could answer my question as well. So I remember I think I heard correctly in the first model that there were organizations that weren't receiving anything. Is that correct? Correct. Was that the first model? Yeah. Or what? Yeah. Okay. So if we're taking the surplus and putting it into housing, housing, in the housing bucket, so those organizations was still not receive anything, is that correct?
Correct.
But in the second model with those same ones, I don't know, I'm just trying to figure out at least in the other, I think are the other two models, everybody received something? Oh,
no. firefight, Chiquita. There's only one scenario where an agency that was not funded would receive funding all the rest of them that are receiving zero, they receive zero in all of the scenarios. So the only difference is, I think the final one, there's one scenario where think Benedict's
health clinic
goes from zero to be to be funded, all the rest of them remain non funded. Okay. Or
Chiquita? I think in large part, with some exceptions, I'm sure, that's probably indicates that the model is working well. Because there's some kind of base threshold of performance that organizations need to meet in order to really be be funded. And some of the organizations just don't meet that threshold and need to do a little more work. So I'm comfortable with that outcome. And but it we can still explore exceptions, like focus re entry was brought up. And then also, of course, just kind of massaging with I don't want to say individual numbers like oh, well, let's give these guys 20,000. More I do like them and but kind of a, an organized approach to distributing funds that haven't been allocated. So how do as a board how do we feel about taking the approach of moving the majority of the surplus into our first priority housing stability? Thumbs up? Yeah. All right. I kind of took an informal survey that look like a few thumbs went up and some nothing happened. So because what we want to do is arrive At a an organized way, if we're going to go with model one, with the surplus, we want to arrive at an organized way to distribute those funds that has some kind of rule, like, housing is our first priority. So we should fund it, that's a rule and, and then we can figure out, you know, an equal way to do that, or pro rata or something.
So, if you find if we were to just fund housing at 100%, for all the housing ones, you are left, it's 46 to 50. difference and you're left with 21 758. to work with. Okay.
The so let's hold that. Are there any agencies we have focus reentry on the list? Are there any other agencies that somebody just feels like? There's no way they can't get funded?
And Roberto, can you scroll up again, just so I can eyeball who hasn't been funded on the top of the list?
Sure. Let's start. So Calvary does not get funded this, this one. Also doesn't get funded this one. Growing gardens, Olin farms of new Colorado, the free clinic and focus, reentry, and generations and volunteer connection. Okay.
Karen, did you have something you wanted to add?
I think Brian, I'm, I'm cringing a little bit at that question. Because, because that kind of starts to sound like, Hey, what do you want? versus I think what Caitlin? Question is, you know, did did we apply the appropriate definition of vulnerable, vulnerable adults, if you will? So I think I think that kind of question makes some sense, versus Hey, is there any other agency that you want to have funded? I think we need to stick with the criteria. So did we, is there something in terms of applying the, you know, the points to the activity or to the buck or to the priority area? That there's a question what whether we apply those correctly? Yeah, that that seems totally appropriate to have that discussion.
It was my intention.
I want to just then, rephrase it.
So that the question is asked in the spirit of if something seems out of whack, let us know. And then let's talk about why it seems out of whack. And why it has the score, it has like does it have the wrong categorization? Are there things we simply don't know about the agency that we've assumed. But I just want to make sure that the board members are comfortable that this process does work. So Deanna, and then Caitlin,
I was just going to say the reason I wanted to see the organizations that God's here was to assess whether anything seemed like it might be out of whack with the model, not so much to say like, I want to cherry pick and find some organizations that I like, that aren't getting cash. So I'm sensitive to what Karen was saying. And I didn't mean to look at them to imply that I was doing otherwise. But I was just trying to make an assessment whether it was out of whack as well. Okay.
Thank you.
And that wasn't about Deanna. I just was what? When Brian asked a question, I thank you for clarifying that you really meant to say something different. He was like, Oh, my gosh. Can you ask that question a little differently.
I meant to say exactly what I said, I just hadn't gotten to parts B and C yet. So we're good. All right, Caitlin.
Yeah, um,
so this isn't quite answering the question. You were looking at Brian. But on the same note, Alberto, could you scroll back up again, to see like that first half?
I was just looking at what the the breakdown of the those weighted ones to see.
And the only other one to me that sticks out on the weighted scores is potentially saloon. Got 20 suggesting that they hit one of the priority areas, like one of the not just one of the like buckets, but one of the priority areas. Do you mean? Yeah, sorry. The activities. Yes. Sorry. Thank you, Alberto.
And I think
the thing that stands out to me is that they're like they're a as an agency. They do that but the activity they applied for, I am not sure that I agree. That it would do things like increase access to suicide prevention care or behavioral health care. Or even increasing access to physical health care in Spanish, like the two programs they had were very, very targeted on what, like childhood obesity. And one other thing that I wasn't sure fit within those activity areas. So that's my only, those are the two where I'm like looking at that weighted matrix and seeing like, those from what I saw, I'm not sure that those necessarily match what I would have expected. And so I don't know if there's others that stand out to people, but
Okay, so let's put that on the list. In in the clarified interest of the question. Does a slide from focus and the solute? Are there any you know, any agencies that feel like they may have been misconstrued or rated improperly. I will go with a no on that. So liberta I like what you did with the allocating back into housing and housing stability. Can I get a straw poll with thumbs clearly raised?
Are you gonna need to speak
for up or just say yes? Or Ram? Do you have a thumb up? Oh, look at you with your digital. Alright. Chiquita, take that as a thumbs up.
Phillips What do we have a thumbs up and about?
The question is liberto redistributed some of the surplus into housing stability. Okay, which is one of our high priorities. Okay, good. So that leaves 27,000 to distribute that 21,000 21,000. Thank you. And so before we move forward with that in a more organized way, I do want to make sure we finish the conversation on focus reentry. Is there any other feedback? Go ahead, Deana?
It didn't it didn't pop on or contribute my thoughts initially on this, because I was sort of thinking it through still. But and for a practical matter, it may not make a huge difference if adding those bonus points doesn't change the funding allocation. But I do think it merits discussion for future awards, I have to agree, I think that maybe the definition is too narrow kids who are in Justice Programs are still and protecting them. the justice system, to me is a pretty big function of protecting those kids. So I'm a little concerned about maybe too narrow of a definition for that. But practically speaking, maybe it really doesn't matter if they don't hit the threshold anyway.
Thank you.
Any other feedback on focus reentry and, and their definition? Right, I'll just add that
I.
I happen to like their program. And it felt like it has real value in the community, because of the way I looked at it as well. And this isn't in the waiting, I don't think this would affect the waiting. Just the saved expense of keeping people out of the justice system and the saved heartbreak that, you know, happens when they go back in I think is a real value. So I think for the next the next time, we do go through the civil warrants, discussion of making sure that we're really clear on how those criteria are going to be interpreted. Caitlin.
Yeah, I was gonna add, you know, we spent a good bit of time this summer talking through some of the various ways that you know, race and racism show up in things like the justice system. And I think that what focus reentry does, you know, there, obviously, their assistance is not based on that, but they, the way that they are supporting folks coming out of incarceration is very much aligned with, you know, concepts around addressing, you know, sort of the historical inequity in our justice system, which I think, you know, goes to the safety of communities and the safety of children and families and adults who are vulnerable to the justice system. And you know, and that is one way to sort of mitigate ate those harms when you know, you don't necessarily have levers to pull in terms of like, what cases are brought, and so forth. mitigating that by making sure that people can show up for their court cases, which is one of the things that they talked about doing is giving people phones, so they can actually show up to their court date is a huge aspect of community safety and addressing, you know, some of that inequity that can come from being poor, and not being able to access the justice system
adequately.
So when I think of Safety and Justice, that definition that Karen read, it's fairly narrow. But I also think that like when we think about what constitutes vulnerability, like thinking about it, in terms of that historical inequity, seems like something that we really need to include in that. And I think to Diana's point, like maybe it's, maybe it doesn't functionally change what happens for their funding this year. But thinking about that definition, and how we approach those, I think is pretty important in the longer term.
Great, thank you. And they did rate highly, just to note amongst board members, their agency score was relatively low, which is I think, what ultimately caused their them not to meet that threshold, because to everybody's point, even adding the 10 points into the weight wouldn't push them up high enough to get them into the funding pool. Okay, so let's table that for a moment. Just to say that it doesn't look like any decision to change, the weighting based on this conversation will actually move the needle in a direction, you know, beyond where they are now. So there's, I don't think it's worth visiting that at this time, but certainly, making sure that in the future, we're aware of these kinds of dynamics. The other one that came up was salute. And that just being a question about, do they in fact, meet the activity? That the activity areas that have been identified? And Karen or liberto, do you recall kind of how you interpreted that one, just so we, we have it for education purposes.
But I think basically, we waited that, based on what that agency didn't provide these activities. So right, Alberto, so we didn't necessarily go to what they were asking for, you know, specifically.
Okay.
But, but in terms of, you know, what they do, they have a behavioral health program, which also is, would address suicide and their physical health, and they provide dental health. So we, we basically looked at that, that agency provides addresses, you know, certainly addresses that activity, more than one of those activities.
And, Karen, is, is that a common approach for all the agencies like, data for
all of them?
Okay. All right. Go ahead, Caitlin.
Yeah, I
was just gonna say, again, like, I don't necessarily think we need to change it for this one. My thought is that maybe in, you know, future years, we think about whether like that, first 10 points is what is whether the, you know, it fits within one of those bucket areas, but then actually looking at the program they're trying to find, because I could see an organization looking at this and being like, cool, my agency as a whole does this thing. But I want the city of Longmont to fund this thing that has zero to do with the city of Longmont priorities. And I don't think that like we should say, well, because your agency does this other thing that we like, we're gonna fund this program that doesn't actually meet Longmont city priorities.
Anybody else have thoughts on that?
Agree.
So this weighting this activity weightings is new this year, correct? Okay,
right.
Yeah. So
because we're waiting, like it was all of it, all the agencies to go into, you know, differentiation, to lining that up with the activities that they're requesting funding, which totally makes sense. That makes sense. We could do that. But we did apply this across. Yep.
Okay, so I think it's good. You know, the most important thing is that whatever the criteria, one of the most important things is that it's applied consistently and fairly comfortable that that's been done. So I think the, the area to think about is when we go through this process, the process again, next year of reviewing the model, talking about priority areas, etc, that we're, we're clear on that activity area, and what the expectation is of how it will act as a filter for these applications. The uncomfortable with the the outcome was salute I you know, I mean, that, that it's always so hard, but I think it's a reasonable outcome, given the way that criteria was applied. So I suggest we stick with it and make notes on how we're going to improve this process, because that's really where the win is. Caitlin, are you comfortable with that?
Yeah, and I think, you know, with the, the needs assessment, I know liberto, and I talked a little bit about this, it would be great. If, you know, in our next funding round, if we actually pointed applicants to that needs assessment and encouraged them to think about what programming they have that meets the like, clearly identified right now, I don't think we sort of like tie that together, and tell folks like, hey, think about what, like, we just have them put those like big bucket areas, but really directing them to say like, we're really trying to address the things that are identified in this needs assessment, the better you can do it telling us how your program addresses the like, these core needs that have been identified that we, you know, the city paid a lot to have this needs assessment done, did a lot of work to do it. And I think really encouraging agencies to like, at least do some due diligence on that and try to match what programs they want the city to fund to their like to our knees, would be really beneficial in the long term for us, and encouraging them to think through that.
He I agree, as a matter of process, I think one of the challenges we had is that the needs assessment, this round, the language was very different from the last round, it was more like tactical versus strategic, or, you know, not outcome based. And maybe that's something that we just kind of need the city can bake into with its consultants is, here's how these needs need to be framed so that we can consistently apply them to for fun for agencies. Okay, so liberto, would you mind on this spreadsheet going back to the allocation priority allocations. So we've pretty much made housing stability whole in terms of what was asked for, and using some of that surplus funding to two words,
but I'm gonna throw something out there that I threw with Karen, too, and the board can completely rejected, that's totally fine. You know, one of the things that I've asked the board before to think about was, if we are serious about that these are priority areas. What do we ever considering? Will we ever consider providing more funding to these more than what they asked for? Right. So we still have $21,000. You know, we could go down to health and well being because they're under spend. They're underspending. Well, and, and so is Safety and Justice. We they're in the same family, we could do that. You know, I don't think I mean, self sufficiency and education and skill building, as you can see, are very much overspent. Yeah, not too much. But why could Why couldn't we just say, we will spend that $21,000. I will add it up here. And it would be an ask, during the scope of work process, ask efa. If we gave you an extra $6,000, what could you do with it? What would you add to your scope of work with it? Yeah, I'm just throwing that out there as a suggestion to the board.
That's Graham.
I think that's a great idea. liberto I guess, I wonder if instead we should say, look, one of the models, the one one of them that we didn't select funded a program that's not getting funded. funded by the model, we did select. And so we should fund that in accordance with the model we didn't select with the 21,000. Which I think is a health and safety. You know, those underfunded buckets?
Right? It would be it would be the the free clinic one.
Any thoughts on on La what liberto said or gram?
Well,
I'll just say it's complicated. It's this is the Facebook status. It's complicated. Because there's, you know, what, in one way, we have to leave it to the agencies to know what they need, and and what they're asking for. On the other hand, if they can actually create more benefit, not more comfort or more, you know, whatever, but actually more beneficial outcomes. And we're in a priority area like housing where we need lots of beneficial outcomes, then I think that can make sense. In the absence of that, I think Graham's solution, suggestion is a reasonable one as well. Caitlin?
Yeah, I was gonna also so we have that one organization that would have been funded under a different model. I'm also I, I can't see because I don't have the different ones in front of me. I'm also curious whether there are any. So obviously, we have like, I think health and well being and Safety and Justice that were both quote unquote, underfunded for their areas. I'm wondering if there are any that are in like, health and well being that also address, for example, some of the the race bait issues that we had identified earlier this year, like if there's something in one of these that is not fully funded to what they asked for, but that addresses some of that, sort of, in a different area that might be worth bumping up specifically for some of that. I, it's hard to know who's not like, who's at like 75%, or something like that. But I'm wondering if there's anyone that's sort of like, you know, on the cusp of being 100% funded, but they're at 75% of the, you know, maybe they specifically deal with, you know, immigrants or language or things around that, that might fit into our concepts of race. I think like El Paso, one of the El Paso groups was expanding their program, for example, to you to think Somali immigrants, and not just Spanish language.
I don't know if that's
a criteria that we might want to use for that additional 21,000.
Oh, can I say something? If you're done, Caitlin? I cannot. I'm sorry. Please, please
go ahead.
Um, first of all, I just want to say carrying you on fire you everything you've been saying tonight, it's just been awesome. I do agree with Graham. About I don't know, it's just something about Liberty yet. I get what you're saying. But I feel like I feel like the mother that, you know, want to give more for people who's not asking for more? Or my kids who's not asking for none, but no, no, take it out. And then my other kid is not eating. So um, I kind of just the way I feel when he was given us that scenario. I don't know if I'm making sense right now. But, um, but I do agree more with Graham and also, Caitlin, I agree with you with El Paso because they are, I believe they're accepting teaching refugees. And I think that's a really cool idea as well. It's just you know, since we are now doing this, this news, this system, you know, 2020 you know, we all feel like man, everybody should get something and you know, hopefully next year, we will be better with the criterias you know, and everything I do agree with, I love the ones who started off with the knee who talked about the needs assessment, and talking about the gaps and all of those things because that helped that helped me to go through those quicker. I think that should be a part of the process for next year, as well, especially this year was my first year so I was a little confused a little bit but, um, so I guess I I know I'm just rambling, but I do agree with what Graham said. And And basically pretty much everything Caitlin was saying tonight. Yeah, so I don't know what else I am trying to say. But it is difficult is difficult.
Yeah.
Thank you, Chiquita. I'm glad you weighed in. Okay, so we got to make some decisions. Karen, Ronnie, did you have something that?
Can you? Alberto, can you go back to the priority allocation? Yeah.
Can you see that?
I can. Okay. Basically out of out of that.
We
still have a, we still have our underfunded in housing stability?
Well, I haven't added the 42,000 though. I can go back and add that. Right. Right. But But
even adding that looking at, you know, 300,000 off of that, I can see that. But but but if we add to that, what are we going to get? What additional housing resource might we get? I don't know. Right? So it might not be anything. That's true down that way. But you know, it might not yield more housing opportunities for folks. So, so then it's like, do we want to pick up like, the next highest priority is health and well being? So is there something that we can do with those dollars that that bump set up? Or do we try to bump up? All of the, you know, basically, that and Safety and Justice? You know, is there is a way to? Yeah, that out.
So, Karen, I and board members, I would suggest that we we either identify Safety and Justice or her health and well being to allocate those remaining funds of 21,000. And whether it involves grant Graham's process of looking at the next model, and, you know, what would have happened if we adjusted the criteria a little bit, or just simply doing a pro rata distribution of those awards that have already happened? I because there are some agencies for sure that I would have liked to have seen funded and weren't. But I do support that we need to be as as objective as possible in the way that we do this so that it's fair to all applicants that at least we follow the process. Graham,
so I say we put all the 21 excess in health and well being and then I will satirically say we request 43,000, from the police department to shore up the Safety and Justice since that is their whole departments purview. Right, thank
you. So let's start with part A of Graham's suggestion, and that is reallocating the 21,000 into health and well being any is, let's just say Is there anybody who's would like something else to happen?
If there's a vote for Safety and Justice, then we'll just put it to a vote. And I'm okay with putting it to a vote. That was not to discourage anybody. Because I, this is a hard decision, because Safety and Justice is a big a big area right now. It's something that needs to be addressed. And health and well being is like one of those critical needs to go ahead, Caitlin
liberto, could
you switch back to the matrix and filter to show us just the agency, just the health and well being and the Safety and Justice so we can see that? Like, those two categories? I
can't filter because it's not a table. But I can show you so here's the health I can highlight. This is all the health and well being.
Oh, it goes up a little more. Right.
Yeah, right here.
Hold on. All right here.
One Agency there. That's not funded.
Right.
Pretty clinic.
Right. Okay.
And then could you do the same for Safety and Justice?
Well, before we go just you know, some can border county aids project is being another matters, but just so you're aware what kind of AIDS project is losing some money. And so as mental health partners, you're not losing a lot. And so is dental aid. Okay. So just just to be aware of that, and I'm going to go to safety, justice, and there's a lot of loss there.
So risk justice, but Bruce is actually taking that new step. 3800, again, was part because they got that 200 extra, were kind of the same situation. We've had extra funding,
but we had extra there, but the total was still only 788. Last year. Yeah, it was given and we have what 890 something this year?
877 455
Yeah, so we're still like up, you know, $100,000. But some of these are getting less than they did last year. Right.
So one thing we could do is when looking at these,
Okay, so here's how I would do it in a non organized way. I would say take the 21,000 split between the two areas and make sure that I would give focus re entry some money, because they got zero, and I would give the other one and help them see, well being who got zero some money, because I think meeting people on the streets is an important aspect. And I would also be kind of reticent to suggest that because they did get low scores, and there's a reason they get low scores. And you know, so that may not be the wisest use of the city's money to to follow that kind of rationale. Karen, Roni, I saw your mouth open
to the free clinic is the organization that gets funded under a different model. Right. It's the one organ. Yeah, so I
think that's the thing that causes me heartburn, Brian is that then we're, we're going back to a different model. So it seemed like if you want to, if you want to distribute those dollars between the two areas, either, you know, then then have Alberto kind of run it and do it, like I said, a pro rata share or based on what their score is. So okay, really apply the the math to that based on what their scoring is, so that we can have fidelity to the model. If we start to pick something from another model, then I think it gets away from, you know, what we're trying what we're trying to do. Okay, a lot or not, but I think if what the board is saying is, I want to take the two areas that we have underfunded, and we want to, you know, allocate those dollars based on the pro rata share, then then let us do that and, and still have fidelity to the model.
Okay. Caitlin,
I like that idea. I
do think that if we're going to go back and do that, then I think we should look at adjusting the the weighted points for focus re entry, to see to see if that how that makes a difference in in keeping with the model, but like re weighting them, so that to see where they fall in sort of the stack ranking of those. So that then we can use sort of a numerical basis versus saying like, let's make up a number that we give to them. Like, I think it would be more helpful to have like, Okay, well, if they come in, if they got 20 points is to that, then, you know, maybe they come close to that bottom tier, maybe it makes sense, then to fund them.
If they got 20 points, they would be funded at 60%. Yeah, points, they would not be funded.
Right. But if we are going to adjust it to to a model, then making sure that we actually have the right number in there, I think would make sense for that one. Okay.
It would, I think it would, in terms of the 10 points, or the buckets probably make sense when we look at the with the activities. I don't think the activities, I don't think they meet the activities that we have listed here, but I think they they would need a broader interpretation of the definition for the bucket.
Okay, so following the same logic you use for the other agencies. Okay, so let's let's see if we can put pin in it. So we're agreed to allocate the majority of the surplus to housing and housing stability, as liberto has already done bringing those agencies up to their full ask. We are agreed to take the remaining 21,000 split between Safety and Justice and health and well being with the addition that focus reentry will get a reweighted that rescored on their weight in order and le Berto, you will take a crack at allocating those funds within those areas, in a way that is true to the model's intention. And Caitlin, you had a question or comment?
Yeah, I
think kind of going back to Graham's point about like putting in health and well being and we've got the the free clinic that's at zero. I'm sort of looking at that one. And, you know, obviously, it's going from 01 of the reasons we ended up with this model was because they went from zero to 25,000, which is a huge jump in terms of the amount of money, you know, we don't have anything sort of below that 50% threshold. I'm wondering if it makes sense to think about whether there's a sort of a 25% threshold. It's not a ton of money, necessarily. But that might be one way to like, think about how we distribute between them. I don't know if that makes sense.
I would be reluctant because that's changing. That's really changing up the methodology. So,
I mean, we kind of changed it up for all of the housing stability, though, by funding everybody. And 100%.
I understand that we can make a different change about that. But I think to go down to 25%. I just think that starts to really change that.
The my concern with doing that as the impact may be much larger than we would expect. So we kind of be back at Ground Zero in terms of evaluating. But so that it This isn't, in fact, a very imprecise process, despite all of our procedural elements to it. Well, I wouldn't say very, I mean, there are imprecise elements or imperfect elements, but so we're gonna go with the idea that if nobody's happy, that we've arrived at the right conclusion. And so I, I think we are probably overall, I think the models working well, I think agencies are going to get funded that are going to give outcomes that benefit the city of Longmont that they're going to do so efficiently. There are some areas we have some opportunities for funding that can fill in where there is a there's some underfunding. So that's primarily that 21,000 because I don't I have trouble saying Safety and Justice is more important than health and well being, or vice versa. Right now. My suggestion is we split it and let liberto divided in a way that seems to make sense, given all the considerations. How's everybody feel with that? Karen Phillips is okay, Deanna? Go ahead. Well,
I just want to circle back to this. The free clinic versus Salut. And just I have two thoughts on this. And I, I don't want to belabor this point too much. But it's just strikes me and looking at it. And I know we're not supposed to think of this from like a prioritizing programs, but basing it just off of criteria. So I have two thoughts on this. The first one is that it just seems to me logically that a free clinic that gives homeless people health care certainly fits the definition of certain needs more our priorities more than a program that helps address concerns for obese children, and based on our priorities that we that the city has conducted. That said, I'm also really cognizant of the fact that the problem for the free health clinic is frankly, the staff scores. And I don't want to undercut staffs analysis by trying to do something different. And I would feel offended if you guys came in and said the board's analysis on this should be gutted because we don't agree with it. So I I guess I'm just saying I have two minds of this. But I am trying to give credibility to the fact that the free clinic was ranked very low by staff and there's a reason for that. So maybe it's fine that they don't get funded. Even though in my heart it sort of hits me wrong. Right.
Any thoughts? Karen, I mean, I think I tend to feel the same way, it seems like the free clinic in deep, particularly in the time we're in now serves a really critical need that's been unfilled. But I don't know the reasons why it did score low.
So basically, what we, what the staff is looking at is, we are looking at the programs, we're looking at their agency operations and their financials and how they are managed. And that's why they scored low. If the if the CIO and that that happens, so you might have a really good program or a good idea. But if your operations and your management is not, doesn't score high, you know, that that basically happens. I don't mean that to sound like it just did. But you know, so the other thing, just to let you know, that we haven't funded in the last couple of years is really the hope light clinic and the hope light clinic that's on Collier that had some funding from us, and then they stopped applying, we don't know why. They also provide services to individuals experiencing homelessness. You know, so there is there are services that are out there for that particular for folks that need needs a service, and they do not have to pay for that. So hope like clinic also fits that particular
healthcare need.
Okay. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. So we put a pin in it earlier, I'd like to put a nail in it now. Because I think it's going to just start getting circular. We just have to make some difficult decisions. Why don't I This doesn't require a formal vote, I don't think does it? Does it Karen, the, how we settle out on the final? Why do
you know? So? Um, so there's a couple things. So one, yes, we would want a final a final decision? Because that's what gets rolled into the the, to the council recommendations. Right. Now we could, and we have another meeting in January, probably before we are able to bring this back to the city council. You know, so so either, because we haven't worked all the rest of the number. So we could bring this back of the January meeting. And you could do a you know, a formal vote on that. Or you could vote on this direction. But we do need a formal vote yes.
Okay. All right.
Is there a motion? And remember, I'm unable to offer one myself.
I can make a motion. I'm just trying to make sure I'm comprehensive about what we're trying to accomplish here. So is the motion to
adopt
the 100% funding for housing, and allocate the additional funds that are available between health and well being and Safety and Justice and ask staff to allocate those funds and come back to us?
The
Yes, I I would say that that's very close to the way I'm seeing it. So the motion is to approve $42,000 surplus to go to housing stability, the other 21,000 to be shared between health and well being Safety and Justice, with staff discretion on how those funds will be distributed. And then we do have to give the entire thing a final approval. Is that right? Karen?
Yes, and we only distribute that based on a pro rata share based on their scores. So we would it wouldn't just be how we want to do that. So we would have Yeah.
Caitlyn.
I mean, I think there's motion on the floor. So I don't have I will second the motion, I guess.
Nicely done. All right. And any discussion? So there is our comments, Graham.
If this motion passes, that means that the free clinic and focused reentry will remain unfunded. So true.
If If staff decides to to allocate those funds based on a pro rata allocation and score then the answer is yes. Okay. Okay, when
I seconded the motion i i think i i Deanna, what you said about feeling like there was something off here in terms of funding, like childhood obesity screenings versus a free clinic, just like feels wrong in terms of the city priorities, and then leaving, like focus reentry unfunded, like, also feels wrong in light of like the city priority funding priorities. I don't want to throw like, I think the same thing, as you said, of like, those staff scores and how the agency operates are, are important. It just, it's like, you know, giving 17,000 or $14,000 to childhood obesity, when we have people who don't have health care in our community just feels like a very, like, it just doesn't, it doesn't sit right with me. And so.
Okay, that's my, that's my main concern.
Any other discussion on the motion that's on the floor? Deanna?
I mean, I was just going to say to i, yes, I agree with all of that, even though I made the motion, I have some concerns about how we're allocating those to two agencies. But I am also trying to be mindful of staff's experience and analysis of the agency's weaknesses. So I don't know if it's possible to take some stuff back to these organizations and say that we really struggled with funding for these because we believe in your mission, and we believe that it fits within the priorities, but we have concerns about your agency and certain weaknesses, and this is what you need to do to fix it and get funding in the future
might be helpful. If it's possible. I don't know.
We certainly have done that. You know, so if you give it that direction, we can reach out to them. Oftentimes, it's entities that come to us, and then we provide them with input. If you would like us to reach out we certainly could.
Okay, thank you, Karen Philips is giving a thumbs up to that. So if there is, so what we should do is just vote on this motion. And if there's an inclination to if this vote is a down vote, and the motion does not pass, there will be the opportunity to make another motion that will perhaps address some of the nuances that have come up in discussion. I find that to be a little easier than amending the motion. But I am open to those of you who are more Robert's Rules. Familiar on that. Caitlin, you had a comment?
No, I thought I did. I'm sorry. I've been talking a lot. I
fine. Okay.
All right, let's take a vote on the motion that's on the floor. And then like I said, if it doesn't pass, we will have to come up with a different motion that that feels like it can get enough favorable support. So all in favor of the motion to fund housing to put 42,000 surplus into housing, take the remaining 21,000 and divide it between health and well being and Safety and Justice. To be distributed based on scores as a pro rata distribution. Please, those in favor please. say aye. Aye.
Aye.
Any opposed? Please say nay. Learn. gram, Caitlyn. Chiquita. What's your vote a yay or nay?
I say Yay.
Yay.
Yes.
Okay.
I m&a because I like the idea of going back to the funder and seeing if some of the shortcomings can be addressed. So they can deliver on those services. However, that leaves us at a split vote. Because we have six voting members,
well, if you can go back and and have those agencies redo it, and they still could funding but that you can't do that right.
Now. I don't know that that that I don't think would be because then yeah. Next year,
it'd be for next year to have them. Oh,
I thought, you know,
next year,
next year. only happen now.
Okay, then I'm a thank you for the clarification. So with my affirmative vote, the Motion passes.
Kaitlyn,
I have a question for staff, not at somewhat related to this. I know last year when And the recommendation went to city council from this board. They didn't approve it exactly as it was presented from the board is, is my recollection correct on that? Or they? They sort of approved it, but then they actually allocated some additional funds to El Camino de maybe. And maybe one other organization. Is that? Is my recollection, correct there?
Yeah, I don't I don't remember that. So yeah, so they they did put more money in for I think
that was one last year. Last year, it was only one year before that it was two, but this year,
they upheld the recommendations that they added money in for outcome.
So the reason I ask is because obviously, we're making a recommendation, we're using this funding formula that we're presenting to them. I'm, I'm wondering if it's something if it if our recommendation can come with, you know, some, you know, additional, you know, sort of thoughts on how this broke down, particularly with a few of these agencies. I don't know if that makes sense. Or if it just like, muddies the water too much for counsel. But it sort of feels like counsel are the ones who are in the position to like, you know, stamp it say yes. Or, you know, make decisions that like, you know, the board got something wrong a little bit here. Like, you know, more into specifics.
Not, that would not be my recommendation. Okay. I think if you if the board wants to figure this out? Yeah. I mean, that's really I think you're, you know, okay, go with what you recommended, or, but I don't think that's something that you want to go to Council and say, Hey, you should do something. I think that's really the Board's decision to make.
That's what I was trying to get at. So I appreciate that.
Okay.
So not the not an ideal outcome. I think there's a fair amount of concern about, you know, the value of the free clinic and disappointment that it didn't make the cut. But to Karen's point, I think we're, the process was developed, specifically to make sure that it's fair and as objective as possible. And so in a large part, it certainly has met that objective.
And I think, at least in terms of the consistency, and we're, you know, we're sticking with that framework, and and certainly, we we can reach out, you know, to, to see Benedictine Saint Benedict and, and really talk about how to strengthen their application or, you know, certainly we can we absolutely can do that. We've done that many times. Yeah.
I think there's certainly a lot of will on the board to do that. Deana.
Am I correct that this was the first year they applied to us to for funding?
I think it's they have they apply? I think one other time before
the system?
Yeah. So I think because they they are one of the medical providers. That's our center. And again, I think what they talked about, is it because the our center was not because of COVID. They were trying to figure something else out. But yes, so I think they applied one other time. It's been a few years ago. And yeah,
so I guess my thought on that is that since it's their first or it's been a while since they've applied that they might be more receptive to the I mean, who wouldn't want positive or, you know, feedback that would help them succeed in funding applications in the future? But yes, because my heart feels heavy with this decision that I really would appreciate it. I know stuff. I know, you guys are so busy, and I really, really appreciate everything you do. But if we could give some feedback to them and some information so they, I would appreciate it a lot.
We can do that.
Agreed. Agreed.
And just for new board members, in my limited experience, it's not unusual for agencies who did not receive funding or the funding that they had requested to come and make a personal appeal to council during when when this agenda item is on the agenda. So you know, that has that that can carry weight. I've seen it move Council in one direction or another. All right, Graham, did you have anything you wanted to add?
No.
Okay.
I mean, I guess I have a lot of disorganized thoughts around the role of Models versus subjective input. And I think that there's there's a place for, for the humanity part to have more power, I think overall in the deliberative process, but that's, we can pin that for another. Another topic.
Yeah, it's an important one. You know, running an agency that works with 230, small independent businesses, I've, I've realized the value of having a system that can be referenced so we can check our assumptions. And whether the guiding the guardrails are the wrong ones in terms of outcomes aren't being met. And the in particular on the housing and Human Services Advisory Board, and there's we're dressing people in with need. And it doesn't feel good to say no to anybody with need. And so it can be difficult, I think what I value in the process is that it doesn't feel I it's easy to say to the person who got the funding, we're happy to fund you. What it's much harder to the person who didn't get it to justify why they didn't in light of the person who did. But I think we can certainly.
Yeah,
I mean, it's the intention is not to have it be mechanical. So that's certainly a point I think we should discuss and make sure that we're dialing it in as closely as possible. And definitely don't want it to be inhumane. And in the meantime, if we bump into any, any philanthropists who want to fund the free clinic, then we can always direct them that way.
Okay.
So you have what you need Alberto and Karen, other business.
I just want to say thank you all, for your insight and your patience with me by this VMR first year and trying to understand everything. Thank you, Alberto for having patience with me as well. And, Karen, I know you have to have patience with us, especially me. I just want to say thank you for all that you do. And I know there's pretty probably quite a few organizations that the staff would like to, you know, see receive money to this probably heart wrenching for you when you see this and they're not receiving it as well. So understand that this process, hopefully, that is as equitable as we hope it to be, as well. But we do know that systems need to be in place. So I you know, I appreciate the process, and us learning as we go. And hopefully, we all make equitable, equitable decisions for these, you know, for these organizations, because I know is heavy on my heart, too. You know, so anyway, I just wanted to make sure that you all know that I appreciate you and your time during this holiday season. So thank you.
Thank you should kita we appreciate you too. And it's really it has been a challenge putting up with you this year, but we've really tried to step up to it.
I do not confer.
Chiquita knows that will mean that I did Oh, I did what Chiquita says to so I'm racing boat she is. And thanks for everybody. And I wish everybody could have money. But I guess that just can't happen. So. And I think it is important to note that, you know, one of the largest problems we run into is there's just not enough money. So that's where the hard decisions need to be made. Thank you all have a wonderful, wonderful holiday. I hope everybody gets at least one or two days off during this next period. And it's this is a wonderful board. I really appreciate that you're outspoken, thoughtful, you know, really are willing to discuss these issues and put it out there because it results in better decisions. And that's why you're on the board is because your voices are invaluable. And I'm really glad that you're willing to let them weigh in. So have a wonderful holiday and we'll reconvene afterwards and I'm sure we'll get an email from Nicole
that's what I'm good for email.
Wow.
So many The other things that your emails are very important. I look forward to the
chair. Don't forget to adjourn.
And the meeting is now at well let's Is there a motion to adjourn and a second. so moved by Caitlin seconded by Deanna and we are now adjourned.
