- the update recording in progress yeah I'm trying to help you all right Virginia can you turn your camera
- on for roll call okay yeah I'm a stoplight
- Yeah, we can see you. You're good. And we have Jane. Great. Is everything okay? No surgery. Okay, good.
- We also do have a quorum without you here, so if you do need to go. Okay. All right. All right. Welcome,
- everyone, on this beautiful Wednesday afternoon in Bloomington.
- springtime, so we'll start with roll call. Do we want to start online, Virginia? Do you want to start
- roll call for us? Sure. Virginia Gethneri, BUEA. Felisa Spinelli, BUEA. Michael Hilger, BUEA. BUEA.
- Katerina Ka, BUEA. Heather Robinson, BUEA. Jane Cougarsmith, BUEA. Tegan Garner, staff. D'Dorosa, staff.
- Hey Rosenberger, BBA. All right. Welcome, everyone. OK. The directors? No, minutes. We've got minutes.
- Sorry. I'll just get them out of myself here. OK. Minutes from our last meeting, which was in March,
- because we did not meet in April. Were there any comments, corrections, questions about the minutes
- from that meeting? I've got no questions. It looks good to me. All right. Hearing none, do we have a
- motion to approve?
- Motion approved. Second. Second. And then we'll need to do a roll call for the approval. So we'll, Felisa,
- you want to start the roll call for approval of minutes? Felisa Spinelli, yes. You're on mute. Virginia
- Gutierrez, yes. Great. Michael Hover, yes. Kevin DeKalb, yes. Heather Robinson, yes. Jane Cougarsmith, yes.
- OK, Rosenberger, yes. OK, minutes are approved. Thank you. OK, now directors report. OK, it's pretty
- short and sweet. So I don't know if I mentioned it last meeting, but Dana Kerr will be covering Alex
- Pratt as our legal counsel while Alex is on leave. So if we have any questions that need to be directed
- towards legal, they'll be going to Dana. Just let me know, and I'll take care of that.
- We have two new potential EZ participants. One is Tradewinds Contractor Accelerator. Tradewinds is pretty
- cool. It's run, one of the partners is Jane Nelson who I've had the most contact with and it
- is an accelerator for contractors to get into owning their own business and it's kind of like support
- networking access to lawyers, accountants, things like that. Really amazing effort to undertake for
- our tradespeople. And so that property, he gave me permission to say this. So the property is on West
- Kirkwood behind Klendorfers. So yeah, so I think that property has been available for a really long
- time, so it's really nice to see something go in there.
- And then I'll have details on the second one. We're still kind of like trying to figure out some logistics
- on it. It is eligible, but the company is kind of trying to figure out some old paperwork from an older
- one from way before I think any of us were in this room. And then just this tiny little update on the
- Business Economic Enhancement Scholarship.
- This is the first time that I've had like three out in the first quarter, which is really exciting.
- That one's picked up a lot of traction and I'm really happy that people are starting to know about it.
- Yeah, so I think that we'll have all of that money expended pretty soon out of that grant line. So that's
- really all that I have that's pressing or exciting or fun. Yeah. Great. You did want to talk about this.
- grant, kind of where we are with the grant disbursements and what we've committed. Absolutely.
- So let me see. I'm going to jump in again here. Let me see if I can share this. Where do I have it open?
- I have it open here. Wonderful. Guys, I'm sorry. I'm having a hard time right now. So I appreciate your patience.
- Um, I just feel like with every update, everything gets moved. Okay. So I'm going to put this up here.
- Um, can everybody online see that? Are we good? Yes. Great. Um, so, uh, as of May,
- We have distributed two of our grants in the education section. So MCCSC, hand delivery to check to
- them, that was really fun. And Lemonade Day, I'm really excited to be able to participate in Lemonade
- Day. If you are new to it or don't know about Lemonade Day, Boys and Girls Club, it has an initiative
- to teach young people about entrepreneurship. And there are lemonade stands
- All over the city, it's super fun. And the kids are adorable. And it's not just lemonade. Sometimes
- they sell cookies. Sometimes they make crafts. Sometimes they do things like that. And it's probably
- my favorite thing that we do. So at this point, we've expended $77,500 out of that grant line.
- with a remaining balance of $15,000 just to the resident economic independent scholarships. I do have
- a couple of applications in that right now. I'm just trying to get some information for some people
- before I approve them. Entrepreneurship for the Cook SBDC grant, we have
- Oh, I think I made a mistake. That line should have been taken out. We actually have not expended anything
- out of that yet. But it is $45,000 as per usual. No, I'm right. I'm right. OK, we're good. We haven't
- spent anything out of that. I do have that contract, and I'm waiting to figure out some details on that
- before I send it around. Business economic enhancement, I think at the bottom it shows we have three.
- that have been approved for a total of $3,200, leaving you $68,000 for those scholarships. A lot of
- conferences that people are interested in, and I'm super excited about that. No expense on the mill
- zone day passes. I feel like I should probably update that to amplify.
- Sorry, guys. However, since I've been doing one day at the resource desk, I'm trying to kind of push
- that a little bit to people that come visit me there. So trying to get more people to utilize that.
- And then we eliminated the uncategorized grants and unbudgeted grants in that section. We have not expended
- at this juncture or when I was putting this together, I did not put any expenses in any of the arts
- categories.
- yet. I do know that there are some grants that are going out and some payments that have been submitted.
- But I want to finalize that and get a decent number before I put that in there with the search for the
- new AD and having a consultant. It's been a different system than we've usually used. And so I apologize
- for not having that update. But I will have something for you next month.
- And then for zone improvement, we have approved two minor repair grants, which is really great. I have,
- I think, another one in the hopper that I just got, I think, yesterday. So we still have about $8,100
- in that. Sean and I have talked, I'm sorry, the assistant director of sustainability, Sean Mia, and
- I have discussed
- expending the two potential seal grants. I think that they're still doing pretty well on that budget
- line for the city budget. So I think that this is kind of the they will expend all of that money in
- the city budget. They do every year. So hopefully this will be the two extra ones that can really help
- out the zone.
- The historic facade grant, we added an additional $40,000 to make it $90,000 this year to accommodate
- for the first Christian church grant. That payment is actually in for payment. We have their receipts,
- and that should be moving along shortly.
- to get them paid out. I started it before this meeting. Oh, great. Yeah. So they're going to get paid
- really soon. So very exciting. And it looks like all of that work is completed there. I was going to
- have found then $130,000. That is mathematically on my part. You're adding instead of subtracting. It
- added instead of subtracting. And I am so very sorry. OK. It carries down to the next. So the total
- at the bottom is $227. Yeah.
- No, actually your next line is you need 35, should be 25. Guys, I am so sorry. It picked up adding instead
- of subtracting energy. I am so sorry. I see. Oh, okay. I will fix that. Small Business Safety and Security
- Grant, there was $5,000 out for the Fox Capital improvements. That didn't make it out of
- last year's budget. So it is coming out of this one, which is fine because I actually have not had a
- small business safety and security grant asked this year at this juncture. So working on seeing if we
- can assist any people with that. Business building improvement, that's the rub. And then we've got the
- Wonder Lab. And I think that's just the two for those. So those are the two that we've done for this year.
- Both were approved, or that's where it was approved in December. So that's why it's hitting our books
- now. And then the Wonder Lab was from last month. And no asks or requests on the business accessibility
- modification grant. So I think we're actually doing pretty well as far as getting some grants out there.
- First quarter is always pretty slow. I feel that in the next month or two is when
- I'm really going to see more applications come in because it is the season to start doing improvements
- and figuring out how to pay for that. But I'm feeling pretty good about where we are with the grants.
- So as far as the full financial report, we did not receive statements from German American Bank.
- to complete the quarterly report. So we will have that next month. And I did not receive the January
- and February statements until right before the meeting. So I did not include them into the budget because
- I didn't even get a chance to look at them really. So we'll have a full financial report next month,
- which is June. So yes, we will. Well, I'm just curious and I understand
- administrative in the office, but March statements from the bank should be easier to obtain. I mean,
- you know, I'm just asking that question. Oh, like we legitimately have not received a statement from
- German American Bank. That seems like there should be some corrective action. Yeah. Being able to get
- that online or some kind of way for reconciliation. When that happened, when we got the ask about that,
- It wasn't until yesterday, I think. So yeah, that is an administrative issue and I'm trying to rectify
- it. I understand there's a lot going on in the controller's office, but I just think that, you know,
- that seems like an excessively long time to be waiting for a statement. And I think that this could be
- grabbed offline. There's online accounts so you can go grab your statements. So I'm wondering if there's
- a way to maybe work with the controller's office to speed that up a bit, access to that if possible.
- See what I can do? Yeah. Thanks, Dee. I understand you're working with others. And there's plenty of
- other things that they're doing in the controller's office outside of DUA. I get that. Hello. There she is.
- Hey, Virginia. Welcome. Thank you so much. Virginia Dental Line, we didn't get Brad. We did not get
- Brad. So welcome, Brad. Welcome, Brad. Thank you. I did this quick math, Dee, on your spreadsheet. And
- it looks like then our total balance is 152,536. Thank you.
- just as a note for the meeting, correcting those three mathematical calculation, Excel doing more than
- you wanted it to do there. Yeah, that's what I get for trying to do the conditional formatting.
- That's okay. All right, great. Well, thanks for that update. Yeah. Hopefully we'll have some more applicants
- coming through the door.
- So we can disperse some of the monies that we have budgeted. So hopefully, to your point, with the weather
- change in the summer, when things really kind of start to heat up for businesses that want to be able
- to do things, hopefully we'll see an increase there. All right. Can I go back? I missed in the March
- minutes. My name is spelled wrong in two places. Oh. Oh, no.
- So your first name or your last name? It's my first name. It has an E instead of an A. It's K-A-T-A-R-A-N-A.
- I am so sorry about that. It's not a problem. I missed it before, so I just wanted to show you.
- All right. Thank you. For that, we will make sure that that is corrected and will not appear incorrect
- again. All right. OK. Any other comments on the?
- update from them. I was wondering about the Resident Economic Independent Scholarships. Are those, do
- they have a certain amount that you give out to people or is it just kind of whatever they're requesting?
- So the max on that is $1,250. Usually the way it was originally set up, it was like in, you could do
- like two installments of like
- $7.50 max, it's like a lifetime of $12.50, which is actually considerably low when you think about the
- times that we live in. It goes towards books, courses, and it is almost always paid directly to the
- institution in which someone is taking the course. But yeah, usually at this point people are just asking
- for the max because that's how much it costs.
- I want to familiarize myself with more of these so that I can advocate and let people know. Yeah, absolutely.
- I don't know. I think I sent you the onboarding packet, but I don't know if I included the grants. So
- I will send you the grant packet as well. I'm so sorry about that. That's all right. Thank you.
- All right. Any other questions or comments about that? All right. Let's see.
- New business. So we have an open position for officer on the board. Mary Morgan served as our secretary
- and her term ended in January. And so she didn't continue on the committee. So we have an open spot
- for secretary. And I would actually like to nominate Michael Hover to fill that position.
- I'd love to second that. All right. I think it will be great, Michael. So thank you for taking on that
- position. Of course. We do need to still vote. Yes. So we'll need to do a vote, including roll call
- with Felisa online. Felisa, do you want to start? Oh, I'm so sorry. This will be to approve Michael
- Hover as the secretary.
- Yes. Felicia Spinelli, yes. Kate? Kate Rosenberger, yes. Can someone motion it and then second it? Yeah.
- Oh, I did motion it.
- Can I not motion it? As chair, I don't know that you can. So just in case so we don't have to redo it
- next time. Oh, of course. Somebody motion and then we'll have to. I'll motion. Perfect. Thank you. Sorry
- about that. I just wanted to make sure we didn't have to do it next time. Yeah, I don't usually motion
- things, but inside moms, especially. That's interesting. I didn't realize I couldn't. Sometimes chair
- can't. You might have been able to in this instance, but just in case. Totally agree. Just covering
- bases. Covering bases is great. Yeah. OK. So now we're back.
- Kate, you? Kate Rosenberger, yes. Virginia Gethheri, yes. Jane Coopersmith, yes. Heather Robinson, yes.
- Katerina Ka, yes. Brad Whistler, yes. Michael Hover, yes. All right. Yay. All right. Thank you. Much
- appreciated. All right. So some general discussion. Dee, it looks like you've put together
- some potential grant changes for us here in a document? I would love to take credit for that, but it
- was actually taken our wonderful administrative assistant who has been helping me out with some of this
- stuff. And so since I'm very scattered right now, I'm going to take it away.
- What I wrote up is based on what you discussed last time when we were discussing the WonderLab grant.
- So there's a lot of conversation about what should be allowed as far as personnel costs versus labor
- costs. And so looking at your current language that's available online to grant applicants, I went off
- what's going on your website, what people see first. And it's kind of structured a little different.
- So you have an eligibility criteria and then application requirements. And in that eligibility criteria,
- you don't have anything about labor.
- So I just put together a few recommendations that are all doable. One option, of course, is that you
- can leave it the same and you can kind of consider it on the same basis as you did last time. However,
- there is something in your minor improvement grant language that could kind of help you out there for
- ineligible expenses. You put routine maintenance.
- And that's kind of how you consider the Wonder Lab application. You took the labor that would be routine
- maintenance, and you deemed it ineligible, which is perfectly valid. So you could add that language
- to this grant. We also have that we could add additional language to say it either is explicitly eligible
- or explicitly ineligible. And then I put a few things about how you could word that.
- The most important thing in that it's not necessarily whether you put it as ineligible or eligible.
- You can kind of get the same result either way. But you want to make sure that if we're going to do
- it one way or another that they're laying out that expense. And I can also create examples on how they
- can do that for budgeting because you know if they're contracting out a project they're going to have labor.
- It might not be broken down that way. And we're not going to exclude that. But if then it's like, hey,
- we're doing the project ourselves. We're paying people extra to do this, kind of in the Wonder Love
- situation. They were opening in hours that they wouldn't typically be open. And we deemed that would
- be a project expense. So you could clarify that. And then I also did add the in kind option. And I don't
- dislike the in kind option. I just think it's a little jargony for this level of grant.
- I think that it's one of those things that's not a terrible option, but it is one of those things that
- people don't think of in kind. So that makes for more calculation. And for lots of grants, it's the
- same result. But for larger grants, so if you're having people who are asking for the max request, they
- can really take bigger benefit from that than somebody who's only requesting $2,000. So there's that.
- Do you have any questions?
- It looks really great, and thanks for breaking that up like that. It makes it very digestible. I agree.
- I think option three is a little bit of muddy waters, and it's going to further the discussion of what
- is applicable. In-kind matching, that's a nonprofit world so much. Businesses may not really understand
- that as well.
- you deal with it all the time, you get in kind from businesses, but they're usually on the giving side
- of it, not necessarily receiving the side in that regard. So I would agree with that, maybe not.
- Option three, my one comment would be consistency across the grants where anything, any of these could,
- there could be cost
- related to labor from the business itself, that that be consistent, so whatever maybe we talk about
- or we make a decision today that that is consistent across the grants, so it's not, you know, also for
- the board having to remember, oh, on this one is that okay or is this, you know, I think just trying
- to make that a consistent language. Can I just throw a question out there? Yeah.
- I think it's really great to be able to add in kind and for match and eligible for reimbursement. And
- then we'll let the applicant determine how they want to categorize their labor costs if they want to
- do it. Is there a reason why we wouldn't be able to accommodate that flexibility? From an administrative
- perspective, so this was what my other
- When I was looking at your administrative process, so what people have to submit, there's no way for
- us to really police if they're doing the in-kind correctly. So my answer is no, but there also is that
- administrative side of in-kind, where typically you'd have them report hours and pay stubs, and we don't
- really have that follow-up. Now, if you're not as concerned about the follow-up, then that's fine, but
- that was kind of... So then do you not really view option three as an option?
- for option, so I put it on there because it was discussed. I think it is an option if it was really
- what you decided that you wanted. They just have to be more taken into consideration. And I kind of
- left this as very preliminary for options. If you wanted me to break it down further as a, we would
- like to explore this further, I can definitely do that. Because like I said, I just brought these up
- based on the options that were discussed at the previous meeting. Yeah, I guess the reason why I would
- I think, again, the amounts, the dollar amounts, are typically not that huge. So for the $5,000 grant,
- it's not going to really matter. But you just paid a $40,000 grant. And for that, it might
- be more significant. And so we use the one or less example. But First Christian Church could be an example,
- too, where they have in-kind labor, but they have less cash flow.
- So I think it could be really beneficial. And then on federal grants, I think typically there's just
- a not to exceed amount. And so you're not providing actual receipts and you're not, you know, you're
- quoting your hours. Yeah. Do you ask for a statement of activity, like an actual, like their actuals?
- So you can see if they're paying their staff.
- So like in grants I've worked with in the past that do in-kind, typically you're filling out an in-kind
- timesheet and you're clocking people's hours separately from their work hours and it's saying I worked
- this much on this project and then you're doing that to calculate the rate and that's kind of the reporting
- mechanism. So there's options for that. Just currently with our administrative follow-up it just doesn't,
- that doesn't currently exist. It's something that could be created but right now it's
- So you're suggesting that if the follow-up is not important, then this could be viable auction. Well,
- as a former grant administrator, no. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it would probably be. So my
- problem with InKind is just from the reporting standpoint. It's great. And I'm all for people getting
- their match out, especially with larger projects that can be very helpful with Clash Low. I agree with
- all those benefits. But when you're not following it up, now
- They can request whatever they want. We don't know what's happening. And so it's not that I'm super
- concerned, but there should be some administrative follow-up to follow up that in-kind requirement,
- because otherwise, what's to say the labor's not taking up? Even if you're saying, oh, it can only be
- 50% of your match cap, well, is then everybody going to start applying for 50% of their match? And part
- of the thing is I think part of your goal is to spur investment.
- You want businesses to receive money, but you also want them to spend money and invest in themselves
- as well. So then that's kind of like, you get into what's the goal of the thing. And as an administrator,
- that makes me nervous, just not having the administrator follow. How is it different, though, between
- option two? I mean, what follow-up are we doing to verify the labor costs that they're reporting? We're not.
- And so, like, there's not a whole lot of difference. The one thing there is, though, that they are signing
- on to their, you know, providing a budget. They're saying, this is what our labor is going to cost us,
- and they're signing off on that budget. And, you know, they're approved for that capped amount. Sometimes
- in-kind, too, is a little more flexible. So, like, in-kind, a lot of times, if you're doing, like, a
- state or federal grant, which I realize that's not our scope, you're going to have to report your in-kind,
- and then you only receive in in-kind what you actually put out.
- So that's typically the difference. But either way, it's on the honor system. We're taking their word
- for it. Whether it's we had this many volunteer hours or we paid this much in wages, we just take that
- at face value. And that's something else you'd have to break down as if you're counting volunteer hours
- as in kind. So they're not paying for those hours. So are you considering those hours at whatever they
- would typically pay? So there's just things to think about. We'd have to provide some guidance. Yes.
- And like I said, if in kind is an option you really want to explore, I'm happy to break that down a
- lot further. I think that we can strike a balance. I think that we can really provide more accountability
- and compliance work on the staff side. I don't know that we need to break it down into a ton more detail.
- I think this is already pretty detailed. So I would like to propose that we see another 2.0 version of this.
- that allows in-kind matching and eligible labor costs, and that we use the same mechanism to verify
- either or. And that would just be where I would come from. And I would think the board would want to
- provide maximum flexibility for its partners. And there's value. There's labor value. There's economic
- value in volunteers, just like there's economic value in paid employees.
- That's kind of where, and I just want to say thank you for putting this together. It really helps structure
- the discussion. But that's just where I would be. So we're talking about volunteer time as well. I mean,
- it's a viable option as far as in-time costs because, yeah, I mean, say, I mean, this isn't probably
- the best example, but say like Habitat for Humanity, everybody that does the labor there, they're
- Pretty much all volunteers. So if we were to do that, I mean, that would be an expense. That
- would technically be an expense that we would be wanting to cover or match or whatnot. So. Right. So
- how does the nonprofit, I mean, they're recording the in-kind from the volunteer time. Then they're
- getting grant revenue that really isn't paying for. They wouldn't get.
- cash for it. They would get credit, credit, credit towards the match. Yeah. Okay. All right. Like leverage.
- So is that double dipping is the big question. Yeah, that's kind of what I'm wondering is that like,
- is that a double because they're already getting the in kind from the volunteer time. And if we're,
- yeah, maybe I'm making it too complicated in my head, but it feels like it almost feels like double
- dipping on
- something like that. And again, these aren't, you know, multi-thousand dollar grants here we're talking
- about, or communities. You're saying, though, that the volunteers, like, okay, Habitat for Humanity,
- for example, those volunteers are working on a house, not necessarily working on a project that improves
- the building of the Habitat for Humanity's building. Right. Right. So, I mean, if there's volunteers
- that are doing the labor of
- this specific building improvement group, then that might make sense. But you can't match all the volunteers
- who are coming to do Habitat projects that are not necessarily related to this project. So it would
- just be volunteer time related to the project, which they would already, the nonprofit would already
- be recording that time as in time. So I guess we just would be allowing
- or business or organization to offset that for additional revenue for the grant, right? Is that what
- I'm asking? I would think we could come up with some kind of a form that's very simple. They're where
- you just report the labor costs on the project. Who was the person? How many hours did they work? Were
- they paid? If they weren't paid, what's the equivalent wage that they would have been paid?
- We can just gut check that they're not using outrageous numbers. I would just tie it to that max federal.
- It's reasonable. But, Felisa, are you going to have something to say? Well, can you expand on that?
- I don't know what max federal is. I can't. Oh. Oh, sorry. Did you have a comment? Did you have something
- to say? Yes. What the?
- We are not giving out multi-million dollar grants. Why are we making this so complicated to grant business
- money to improve our community? Why? This is not
- Well, if you add in in kind to the process, it will make it easier for businesses to be able to receive
- grant funding because they are not having to have cash on hand as the match. So it's not currently in
- the grant. Yeah. So with the current grant guidelines that we have and eligibility guidelines,
- there is nothing that explicitly puts in that factor, which I think would probably make the grant more
- attractive to organizations if they know that that is a way to leverage against, because a 50% match
- to some businesses is a lot of money if you're asking for 10 grand. So if you can put in some type of
- either in-kind
- or put in eligible labor costs and things that are accessible and attainable, then that makes the whole
- grant open to so many more people. And so the purpose of this discussion is to decide, A, do we want
- to explicitly say that? B, if we are explicitly saying that, how are we saying it? And C, how do we
- ensure that if someone is saying that they're going to do that, that they've actually done that?
- Yeah. And I will piggyback on that. So most of the time with most grants, these two things will accomplish
- the exact same goal. Like the money spent by the business will be the same. My thing on the administrative
- standpoint is when you're asking for a budget up front and you're signing off on it, that is a application
- commitment. In kind is more an administration commitment. And that's why I'm saying it's a little different
- on how we administer that when it's in a budget versus in like during
- Does that make a little more sense? Not that it's a huge concern. That was just kind of where I was
- coming at from that administrative standpoint, which, yeah. Katie, how about that? I don't know where
- I am on volunteer hours, so I think that I totally understand the in-kind and I think that does seem
- okay to me.
- volunteer hours I feel maybe differently about, but I don't know why, and maybe it's fine. So I don't
- think I feel strongly right now about how we do it. I see the point on the, to Heather's point, the
- feeling that it's double-dipping because you're getting labor for free already, and then you're leveraging
- that free labor against a match. Janie, the option you were proposing, it was that they'd have to choose
- one or the other, correct?
- Well, just like they have to make all choices when they're submitting their budget. They're going to
- reflect, do I have, am I paying salaried people, or is it easier for me to contribute in kind? For me,
- sure. I think they're always going to be. But meaning they couldn't do any kind and request the labor.
- No. But I'm saying that they're going to make their own decisions and do whatever's easiest for their
- bookkeeping. One of the burdens, probably Felisa would back this, but for small businesses especially,
- is doing that administrative work and calculating all the stuff.
- So yeah, whatever, give them the option of whatever's easy for them. We need to absorb that complexity
- on the staff side. I think we can do that. I like Brad's idea of a Google form. And I don't want to
- dominate because I'm curious about the resistance to counting volunteer match hours. I don't really
- have a dog in the fight other than just keep it simple for the applicants. I think where my primary
- concern would be is not so much that I think
- We need to make it easy to go get volunteers to do these projects if we're talking about business grants.
- But if I'm a business owner and I don't pay myself a salary, then I don't have a hard labor cost for
- the time that I'm putting in. So I think we need to have some mechanism where we can say, this wasn't
- a hard cost because I didn't take a paycheck last week. But I still contributed in kind the value of
- my time to the project.
- I just feel like if we have a max limit, we're going to assume that if it's available, the businesses
- are going to take the max. I don't think that's a huge issue if we've got, because again, policing,
- the bean counting, who has time for that, right? And there can be mistakes. There can be things that
- you forget. There can be things that you slip. And I feel like we just don't have,
- Now, if we were talking millions and billions of dollars, absolutely. But even to me, up to $40,000
- or $50,000, if the max is maybe, let's say a percentage, I would be more comfortable saying the max
- would be a percentage, but I'm not sure what the federal guidance would be, the percentage on each grant.
- So let's say if we could just, max would be
- 12% of the grant that you could do whatever this in-kind thing is, then we assume that the businesses
- and the organizations are going to probably take the max because they would like the cash or whatever.
- And we can't worry about that. I mean, if there's a situation where there needs to be some auditing,
- hopefully we won't have to be reactive and do some things. But I think if we can set a percentage of
- the grant for the in-kind amount, we have to trust that maybe in a year,
- we do some internal auditing and see how it worked out, and then we can scrap it if it doesn't work.
- But I just think there's so many things that a business can forget. And like to Brad's point, I mean,
- you don't always, as an owner, you don't always pay yourself for consistent. There can be all sorts
- of things, but it doesn't mean you didn't do the work, or it doesn't mean your spouse or your partner
- or your whoever, you know? So I don't know, I think we just need to set a percentage in. Keep in mind,
- we're talking about credit towards the match, right? Right. Not paying people real dollars. Right, right, right.
- we could decide we don't require a match at all, right? So that's completely within our purview to decide
- how we give credit for the match. I can definitely write up a few options for you guys and kind of talk
- about percentages, things like that. Is there a percentage that you have in mind? Anywhere grants I've
- worked with, they move anywhere from 15% to 50% of the grand match, typically. And that's just depending
- on the agency and for total match.
- For the total match, you can use up to like 50% of your match could be in kind. That's not uncommon.
- But then I've also seen as low as 15. So you're asking for a percentage. I'm asking for the board's
- opinion on a percentage. Just rough estimates and not asking you to vote on anything. I'm just meaning
- for this proposal, I'm going to put together for you. What would you like to see? I think it would have
- to be based on what's the max grant we give typically. 10,000 on this one. 10,000? OK.
- The max, if we did what? 20% would be $2,000. So I think we need to think about it that way. That's,
- I don't know, this makes it easier for me and my brain, but I don't know. Yeah, suggestion. So say it's
- an $8,000 ask with a $2,000. Well, I'm saying percentage, so it's going to be variable based on the
- grant, right? So if it's $8,000, then it would be $1,600. $8,000 is the work and $2,000 is the...
- What are we calling this? Additional expenses? It matches 50%, right? Right. So that would be a $20,000
- project. Yeah. We would be matched. OK. So that would be providing $4,000 worth of labor. We'll match
- it. OK. Is there any other considerations you'd like me to include in this next round of things? I have
- one unrelated.
- And it's just the very first sentence of the language here. I think we talked a few times at previous
- meetings and maybe I missed where we changed our mind on this, but I thought we decided we wanted to
- make it clear in that first line that it's not only businesses and nonprofit organizations in the zone,
- but also those who primarily serve
- You are correct. That language does need to be updated. I'm so sorry about that. Yes, that is correct.
- Any other questions?
- comments on this, so it sounds like you'll do a 2.0 version for us and come back and then we'll have
- something maybe at that point where we can vote on and then implement into the application process.
- Nobody mentioned option one. We did kind of skip over option one. Option one and option two effectively
- do the same thing. They're just, it's just kind of
- using it as ineligible or listing it as eligible. It just kind of depends on the verb. If you wanted,
- I just wanted to include both options because I didn't want someone to be like, whoa, can it not be
- ineligible or vice versa. It's effectively the same thing. Yeah. I always think defining what's eligible
- seems to be a little bit better because then it's really clear as to what you
- Because there's always some gray area in what you can't. But if you can't, this is the. So if there's,
- since we're clearly saying there are going to be eligible labor costs, I think that that is, as a board
- we're saying. And based on the approval for Wonder Lab, we've agreed there are times when that definitely
- makes sense. So to me, that is then stated. So maybe language around the eligible along with the,
- clarification on them in kind and match would be would be good for a second version if everyone is good
- with that. Thank you for putting this together. This is this is really helpful. This is kind of you
- know helps us move the discussion along and make a decision on this. Yeah I mean and in the end this
- makes this easier for when we are
- Presenting grants to all of you, we can very clearly say, this is what's going on. And that's not to
- say that we shouldn't have discussion about the applications, but then it keeps us from getting kind
- of like pigeonholed into just like one area of cost or whatnot. And I'm hoping that this kind of like
- expedites some of the things that we do within the board meetings when we're reviewing grants. So. The
- only thing I would add is I wonder
- later we need to be any more specific on primarily serving zoned residents because we did have that
- insurance company out by Culver's that we were like that nexus did not feel close enough. So I don't
- know. So we did. So and Brad just brought this up as far as like the verbiage as far as like who we're
- serving and that is
- So for some organizations, when we're talking about nonprofits for the most part, it's actually easier
- for them to be able to say, oh, well, this is the activity that we do because they're keeping numbers
- for reporting reasons and all of that. We do have the scoring rubric, which
- I think that I hope that everybody's taking a look at it. It's not required that everybody has to fill
- it out, but it is a good guideline to get you through when you're looking at the grants before we come
- to a meeting. I think that, for instance, First Christian Church, they do a lot of work for the zone,
- and they're not technically in it. Right. I think the witness needs to say something like, located in
- the zone, or who's
- Primary service is provided in the zone. We have the three criteria that were out. That's where we landed.
- So we need to include those three specific criteria. I'm trying to look through my files. I'm not finding
- it right away. I think that comes right out of the bylaws. Yes.
- kind of lays that out. And so that's part of like our decision making and the rubric too. So I think
- those three, those three things will be updated need to be. So there is proximity, but it has these
- three other factors that go into it. And it is about serving residents of the zone. And it has like
- an economic and there's like two, there's three different, and I'm sorry, my
- brain is not remembering but I think if you can pull that language D and that's definitely back in our
- minutes when we were discussing that and how we approved it that then allows us to consider grants for
- businesses and nonprofits out of the zone if they're meeting that other criteria that is our part of
- our bylaw language. Yes and I also think you know with with the times that we live in and the we have
- a lot of organizations that are you know
- not necessarily struggling, but they're definitely in survival mode. Everybody is in a bit of a survival
- mindset. And I think the greater our reach can be, the better off we all are as an organization and
- what we can do and the people we can service. So I am really grateful that the thought process is thinking of
- thinking of organizations that are just outside that do have such an impact that are so very important.
- Because if we were to go by this invisible line consistently, I think that there are a lot of people
- that need help that we wouldn't be helping. So I appreciate that decision by the board. And I will make
- sure that all that language is updated. I think I may have updated half the grants and maybe got distracted.
- Very good. Thank you, Dee. Thank you both for the work on this and we'll have a 2.0 version next time
- to discuss. All right. I didn't see anything. Did we get everything on our... That is everything. Yeah,
- I pulled the
- grant application that was originally in there because we're still waiting on estimates for that historic
- facade grant. So hopefully we will, this is the second meeting I've tried to put it in. I've been missing
- that piece. So hopefully next meeting we can look at a historic facade grant. And yeah, hopefully we'll
- just have a ton more grants next meeting. All right, very well. In that case, if there's any,
- for the go to the cause. I just have a quick question about the arts and culture grants. Does this group
- approve those grants or does that go to the BAC? That goes to the BAC. So yeah, all of those grants
- go through their committees and their approval process. They have specific reverse to complete all that.
- We do the final
- approval though we do get an overview yeah it's like an omnibus at the end yeah of each cycle yeah so
- we are final approval so there is each organization or individuals listed kind of like a little excerpt
- of what the grant and then the amount and so as the over fiduciary oversight this board does approve
- the final disbursement uh felicia did you have something to say yes i did um
- So for the 2.0 discussion or idea of the grants, so I know a lot of chairs have been refilled since
- the time of when I began on the board. We had changed
- before a lot of you came on the board that we did not do the match grant. We had stopped a lot of the
- match grants. Somewhere, somehow, the match grant came back. And that's fine, you know. We had speared
- away from that because we wanted to start the culture of being away from what banks
- and other lenders were because we were grants. We were set aside from everything else because we were
- giving out grants to small businesses that couldn't get loans. We were the hope for companies that couldn't
- sit in front of a lender that couldn't speak the language of a bank lender or a loan
- advisor or anything of that such. And we spoke their language to speak to our community and give the
- grants for what they needed in their business. So we didn't we didn't need them to match anything to
- get access to what they needed in small portions. So we stepped away from telling them you need this amount.
- to get this amount. And I understand none of you were here for that, but it breaks my heart to see it
- come back. And also, as a business owner and seeing the times change and even get harder for business
- owners and watch us time after time, watch business after business after business close.
- and watch people say the resources aren't there. And watch us sit around this table once a month and
- decide where resources go, who gets what, and decide how we get it or how we're giving it to them. And
- talk to business owners that just can't get their hands around the smallest
- thing to keep their life on and tell them that you can come to this group of people that understands.
- I sit at that table. I know what it is. We're giving this where we're helping with these resources and
- to be telling them this knowing that they may not have access to it.
- Because they don't have the resources to match what I'm telling them they can have access to. You know
- what I mean? I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm sitting telling them and being a liar. I'm being
- a liar to the fact that on one side, I'm a business owner who struggles with them. On the other side,
- I sit at this table with you guys, and y'all don't understand the struggles of a business owner
- and this economy that goes through these everyday struggles, that grinds in and out, that has street
- closures, that may stop your clientele, that may stop your business for two or three days of a week,
- when it peaks season, that you don't make revenue, that if you don't work,
- you don't eat, and you don't pay yourself for months, but you still gotta keep these lights on. And
- then you say, this grant money has to be matched to get it. So what I'm telling you is,
- That's not an option for some business owners. That's not the case in some situations. Open your eyes
- to see the economy right now. When some of you go to work, y'all know y'all gonna get a check because
- you showed up. We don't clock in.
- And I'm not saying this for pity. I'm not saying this for any of y'all to feel bad. I just want you
- to understand and implement that into what we're doing here once a month. Like really know that we can't
- keep doing this. We can't keep putting these type of restrictions on people
- who don't clock in to get a check every week or twice a week. That don't happen. When they're fixing
- things in their business, even if they're renting, they don't get that money back. That's all. So think
- about that the next time we're saying,
- We want to match it. Let's think about that when we put this 2.0 into place. Do all the grants have
- matches? No. I thought this was one of the only ones. The minor repair grant does not, and that's for
- up to $1,000. The safety and security has a 50. The building improvement has a 50, and the accessibility has 25.
- We steered away from that for that reason. Thank you. Yeah, thanks for sharing. Thank you, Melissa.
- That is before my time on the committee. Mine as well. And so I didn't realize that that was a practice.
- That was a, the former board when I started, that was pretty much the requirement that they gave me
- that like, well, we have to, the businesses have to have some skin in the game and that's how I constructed
- it. So, yeah.
- But the board is free to change any of the things that are within the grant guidelines. Just because
- it's that way doesn't mean it has to be that way. There's nothing that legally says that we have to
- do that. All we have to do is have a vote and change it. With the option we discussed, I would put a
- no match section in this section 2.0. Because as a grant administrator, formally,
- I think that in-kind without administration is essentially no match. To me, it's essentially the same
- thing. You're just adding administrative burden on both sides. And that's a very just honest response.
- Because if you're not, you know, we don't really have right now the grounds to kind of foresee these
- things and to police them. And we don't want to be the police. You know, that's not our role. So I would
- love to include that in the 2.0, if that is what you're looking for.
- All right, let's do that. No match requirement, yeah. I will include the combined option and then the
- no match option. That way we can kind of discuss that. And I will include kind of what the administrative
- burden would look like on both sides of that. And we can kind of discuss what that'll be. That's fair.
- Thank you. Thank you, Melissa. Appreciate your comments. Thank you, Melissa. Absolutely. You're welcome.
- Thank you guys for listening. You're welcome. Always. Absolutely. All right. Y'all, we're at 102, so.
- All right. Meeting adjourned. All right. Thanks, everybody. Thanks, everyone. Thank you.