turn it off hold on. i'm use my bad finger I can't.
If anybody needs, I can switch between the different pages for the scoring, and they really do. I like
that first overview, just to see how it all. And then we all hit the right totals. You did. Oh, yeah.
Good job. Oh, yes. I made sure to message people back, if anything, without a line.
Did you get a you're out of line? Tyler was the worst. Hello.
been over to the council office forever and I wasn't, I just walked by and going to the gym the other
day and it made me so happy to see that painting, that piece of art hung. Oh, it's so happy. Yeah, it's
where it's, that's very fun. That's right.
Do you want to come down here so you can see the screen? Oh, sure. We've got room. Where's Matt today?
He's on Zoom. I'm right here. Hey, Matt. Hey, Mitch. Are you on some fun tropical place like you were
last year? I'm in Miramar, Florida. OK, that's close. We're here. It's fine. Yeah, it's a beautiful
place. Yeah, it is actually really nice. I am wondering. Oh, yeah.
So are we ready to go? One, two, three, four. Cory is supposed to be showing up still. Oh. Well,
maybe we've, I'm going to ask how, if we could, since you were so good, could you start this? And the
reason is, and then maybe could we do the summons help since I can't,
You need to recuse yourself. Yeah, we can do that once Corey gets here. Yeah. Mitch, I saw you somewhere
this week, but now I can't remember where it was. Very good. Yes, that is where I'm popular with. That's
a great event. I did too. You were there too, right? The CDNI? Yes. Oh yeah, I had to leave early. And then?
left to go to the same place. And then it was funny because, you know, this happened all the time too
with me as I leave and then someone from the panel says, hey, I'd like to recognize. And then all of
the faces went to where you were sitting. Wait, they recognized me after I left? Oh, I'm sorry. Do you
remember what she was being recognized for? Just for being awesome, I demand.
Any new city council member there, probably. Uh, cause it was that panel that had Eddie and, um, and
the other two folks. So it was on the affordable housing. So it must have been something that you did
with either the medical debt or the other, or some of the housing. Maybe the housing updates or something.
I don't know. But that's nice.
Of course, I got to shake hands to Kela with her other partner in class. Yes, yes, he was there. I know,
I'm sorry, I had to miss out. I had a conflict, but I wanted to be there. I don't know how many times
I've said with various people, well, as soon as Trent gets into office, as soon as Trent gets into office,
as soon as Trent gets into office, as soon as Trent gets into office, as soon as Trent gets into office,
as soon as Trent gets into office, as soon as Trent gets into office, as soon as Trent gets into office,
as soon as Trent gets into office,
Yeah, so we're excited, too. Oh, is Michael doing just fine? I saw you, too. I was coming back. I was
leaving my class.
in between the Hyper and the art museum. Okay, yeah, yeah, yeah. And then out to 7th Street where college
is broken loose. Wow. It's the college weekend. Oh, the homecoming. But it's the ESPN college weekend
thing. If you watch football, I learned this. I wound up at the one in Michigan once. It's bedlam.
Big, giant tour buses, TV, it's a thing. There's also an incredibly huge international DJ playing at
the Speedway tonight. It's become a new thing. I mean, I don't know how the county feels about it, but
I think it was great. I don't know how the county feels either, but when they started making these plans
and they were looking for places, I
posted at some point and was like, if it's in the city, not outside, like, I still have nightmares from
past events like this. But anyway, I have to think it's not particularly welcomed by all the residents.
Last time they had one of these, they had people out, like, because people walk in the road. This old
lady almost cashed in her VIP ticket
um code because i'm so excited about that music even if it's for rat and sorority yeah i i think um
there's no like there's no infrastructure out there and so people are walking the street and it's dark
gosh and all the neighbors are like what is going
Oh my gosh. We don't want to know. I could hear it from my house. Oh yeah, I think Lily went to my house
too. Oh yeah. I hear the concerts too. I probably haven't in those. Well yeah. Get over there you guys.
Dance it out. I can dance on my bed. I know we can hear the speedway too, although I'll have to listen
to see if I can actually get the music. I haven't noticed. The last one in the summer we could hear.
Wow. Well, I wouldn't be missing her. I wouldn't mind missing her. You're missing her all the time.
Sorry for the sidebar. All right. So do I have to say any special words to start the meeting if we're
going to start with Summit Hill discussion? Do I say this hearing is opening? No, because it's not a
public hearing this time. It's just a public meeting.
This is just us. Well, this public meeting is taking place right now. All right. So we have discussed
are there just discussion in general broadly about anything or questions that anyone needed to ask broadly
about about any of what we went through. It was kind of what we like the process or anything that came
up. We needed the
clarify before we get into the specifics. Question maybe about the Centerstone allocation. It looks
like almost everybody allocated their original ask. Can you scroll over to show? I think it's the 13.
It's the third line down, 13,300, almost all across the board. But Matt sent an update yesterday with
their updated ASC, which was 15,925. And so
Hey, Matt, can you move the sheet over a little bit? We can't see the names. To the left, to the left.
So before we start discussion, I wanted to ask if your intention was to fully fund Centerstone, would
you like to bring your recommendation up to that $15,925? Oh, I guess that question.
But let me legally do that since in the application, they amended it. We didn't give others an opportunity
to update their figures. So I thought we had to go with what was in the application. Matt, what do you
say? So the only other time I got asked this time around for
being able to change that amount was from Life Designs. Now they did do that before the full application
was due, but it was after the pre-app was submitted. And I did reopen the section for them and allow
them to amend that amount. It's only allowable, but completely up to you guys as a whole. OK. You allowed
Centerstone to amend their application?
I allow life designs to amend their pre-application. Okay. Yeah, I'm just concerned that, I mean, other
applicants may have also gotten updated quotes and didn't know that they could amend their application.
Well, I guess my question is like it was more than an updated quote. They had to pivot to do a different
project. No, that's life designs.
Yeah. Life Design switched the houses. Yeah. Centerstone, it was the same project. It was a different
estimate for the fencing. Correct. Because she had different numbers in her application, so we asked
about it. Life Design had to go back and switch up the houses. Right. They switched up the houses, but
we asked Centerstone for the follow-up because they had different numbers in their application.
And so we asked for clarity. And so this is clarifying. Sorry. It's really the fence. One thing that
I might just point out is that if that conversation happened on the public record during the meeting
where all of the applicants were present, then that would have indicated that they could have amended
But no, because the presenter from Centerstone wasn't sure. She was surprised when we pointed out the
discrepancy in the application. And so she said, I have to go back and check. So I don't think it was
clear that, oh, if you go back and check and it's the higher figure, we will accept the higher figure.
I don't feel like we said that. No. Or it could take the miniature production and say offense, isn't
that a high priority as appliances, so I just
You can also add in to the contingency language that that would be the first that you would raise with
additional funding if it's available. I mean, yeah, we can do that, but I guess my my question was.
Are we sticking with the 13 three or are we allowing the amendment to 1595 before we open discussion?
What number are we going with?
Is that something the body could consider? Yeah. I would say take it to a vote. All right. Well, it's
really sort of a two-fold vote because somewhere that's going to have to reduce something else. I mean,
it's a zero-sum game, and if they didn't have
the opportunity, if everybody didn't have the opportunity to land, then somebody's right. It just, I
also like we're splitting hairs over $3,000. Right. That's the thing too. One thing though that could
be done is if there were a motion to entertain officially updating the center stone request to 15925,
I'm guessing from this, then
it's still up for discussion as to how everyone allocates. It's just, are we considering that to be
their official request, or are we considering the official request to be 13.3? To me, because we're
still going to have to have, like, whether or not they get the full funding or not is up for ongoing
conversation. It's more of like, are we considering their request, this number or that number?
And there's a change required either way, potentially. Right. So does anyone have a motion they want
to make regarding our acknowledgement of the request amount that's coming from Center South? Yeah, I'll
move that. We consider their official request to be $13,300. Second.
All in favor of that motion? Aye. All opposed? No. Any objections? Right. Anything else we need to sort
out broadly? So it's now not the time to talk about
the fact that that line under Courtney's column will have to come down. I mean, it'll all get adjusted.
Yeah. It gets adjusted later. It's also $3,000. Yeah. Okay. So who do we want to start with? So we're
going to start with Summit Hill because Mitch is recusing himself from that session. So let's start
with Summit Hill.
It looks like you were the only one to fully fund them. Yes, I did fully fund them. Great question.
Actually, now that you mentioned this, this is the one I was going to take down on 250. I should put
249.5. 249.5 is what I really should put in there. Yes, I did fully fund them. The main reason I did
was because
My it's really my philosophy around CBG. You know, one of the things that I think CBG physical improvements
has the opportunity to do is to improve like a community wide asset. And we have that whole conversation about
the utilities and how some of Hill owns their own utilities, which is a little bit unusual when it comes
to sewers and storm water. And this was something that was just sort of the way it was because of the
way that those agreements were made back when BHA established this development and
So to me, this was an opportunity for CDBG to go to support something that, yes, was put in
by an organization outside of the city, but was also for the common good to prevent flooding,
sewage leaching, all sorts of other issues that might come up in a situation where there's a little
bit of a nuanced gray area about who should be or should not be operating the
utilities there. I appreciate that framing and I think I shared that mostly, but I just didn't feel
like it merited half of the entire budget that I wanted to allow there to be more funding for other
projects. And what really struck me about
Senate Hill's presentation was part of the risk of mold was a big factor. So I felt like at $1.65, I
still funded it really well. If you take Mitch's $69,000 out of it, the rest of us, our average
recommendation was $179,000.
My thinking, I actually did that one last. And my thinking was, I wanted to give them as much as possible.
250 is half. Yeah. So I, you know, that was sort of where my head was at, was it wasn't, they couldn't
give us a, like, per downspout rate. And so it was sort of like, I know that they will find the funding
somewhere else to,
bridge the gap, but certainly I felt like it impacts a lot of people. It's unfair that they have to
own all of it. It could have pretty big health ramifications. I didn't get the impression they would
be able to fund the gap. I had the impression they were just going to do as much as they got funding
for. So maybe they'll come back next year and ask for more, but I don't know that they have a lot of
opportunities to, I don't remember them mentioning other funding options. She did say that they would
scale the project comparative to what they received. Right. Yeah, that's what I recall. I'm sorry, being
the new person on this committee, maybe you've already considered doing things this way, but I would
love to hear about
The applications that got a zero recommendation first, because of course they're all dependent on the
other. If we agree as a group, my sister's closet doesn't get any funding, then I'd be happy to give
more funding to Summit Hill. Does that make sense that we can maybe talk about
I think the first applicant in the list, none of us wanted to give money to, so we probably don't need
to spend much time on them. But moving to cooperative living and my sister's closet had members of this
committee that felt like they should not get any funding. And so I would love to start with understanding
that reasoning. Yeah. And Kyle, I don't know if you want to speak about BCL first or?
I can. Well, we want Mitch to be back because he comes back for these discussions. So we can we can
move from Summit Hill and then he'll leave when we make the final. Sounds good. Decision. You guys can
go through the list as many times as you want. So there's no limit on readjusting.
I mean, Isabel, was your allocation for BHA basically what was left over? Yes, exactly. Was there some
magic number to get you to win a 19? That wasn't, it was just- No, because they didn't parse it out.
You would be willing to come up if there was other money left. Michael, are you in a similar situation?
Yes, that number was just to make it. It's just what was left.
Yeah, and I was kind of in the same place. Obviously, I had more to give. But yeah, you wanted to fully
fund them. Yeah, although I am like, I'm also practical about, like, I'm not like, if we don't fully
fund VHA, I'm starting out. I do have a procedural question, and Mitch is back.
So in the spreadsheet, the number on Mitch's column by Summit Hill is in red. And how does it work?
Is that a leftover number from your other allocation? Mitch is just a placeholder so that my formulas
work. If I didn't put something in there, it didn't work. So that's why it's red.
Ignore it. No, it's a non-number. It's a non-number, which is why I reallocate. I recalculated our total
for Summit Hill and it's closer to 179,000 rather than the- 176, 156, 82 is the average. 16 of R5 together.
What was the average? 176, 156, 82. Then we've got a conflict there.
Wait, sorry. Wait a minute. One too many. 179, 206. 179, 206, 84. Yeah, sorry, 84. Okay. I think you're
right. I think we leave that number for now and then we come back. Unless Jane, did you feel strongly
about your 186? I'm right.
I feel flexible about it. I did feel like it merited significant funding, but I also appreciate kind
of Isabella, you didn't say this exactly, but like we would anticipate that they may come back for another
round of funding for the project. Okay. Well, maybe let's sort of leave the 179206 as a placeholder.
for that for now, knowing that we will likely come back to it? Is that? That sounds like a plan. And
then do we want to just officially knock out behavioral housing solutions? Yeah. So Mitch, you're back
in the meeting. And actually, you can run this until you have to leave again. All right. Well, I'll
yield to Corey. Awesome.
Anyone opposed to allocating zero dollars to BHS? Great. Next. Let's talk about... Sorry, I just want
to say for the record in case people are watching it that we're sensitive to the work that they're trying
to accomplish. And for me, it was mostly about the lack of site control for the project and the lack
of like the organization is still emerging.
and it feels like there's a lot of networking work to do. I put notes in my response to that effect
to help them maybe take the next steps. Okay, thanks. Very good. We all agree. Yeah. BCL. Kyla, why
did you do Xero? I did Xero in part because
When I looked at the overall asks, so here's how I'll just tell you my methodology. This will probably
shed some light. When I look at the asks, I scored them in the system. So all those scores are held.
The higher of the scores, I mean, most of my scores that had awards were at like 85 or so or up basically for the,
Organizations that were asking for a relatively small amount of money, I generally put that in first.
So the 13-3 and the 62 went in as funded. The others I then look at based on requests and past experience
and all that.
Bloomington Cooperative Living, I was super concerned about their lack of occupancy permit, but they're
using their property for occupancy. I think that that's a bad precedent to have a situation where there's
a violation of city code, but we're looking at them as a recipient of
these dollars. So that was a red flag for me in the presentation. I also, and maybe my memory might
be too fuzzy. I believe in their application they had cited like two other CDBG grants. Did they not
have more than just those two that they cited in the application?
They've had two other CDBG awards for different properties that have been handled by volunteers that
lived in the property. So does that mean they had two additional on top of what was in their application
or they've only had two total? They've only had two total. Okay. All right. Because I thought they were
with us last year. But maybe not.
I can look and see if they apply it. I don't remember at this point. Oops, I got rid of the spreadsheet.
But based on the calculation, it looked like it was going to potentially benefit 10 people. And when
taking some of those other factors, taking those smaller requests out of the
mix, it just seemed like not that many people benefited compared to the other proposals. Michael, you
recommended the second least smallest allocation. For BCL? Yeah.
I say 105. Those things that Kayla mentioned, particularly the low number of immediate beneficiaries.
But my concern is often a lack of diversity in their funding constellation. If they're relying on CVG
almost exclusively, it just gets to be problematic, I think.
in a number of ways. And I think they have the capacity to do it. I had other concerns, though, too.
Like, what are they going to do to the people that live in there now if they're going to call it renovation?
Where's the staff member? That would not be open to relocation expenses, right? Well, they would have
to buy a little federal block of CVG
required so then we so then we just spend a bunch more money around if if if that requires that well
that's what i'm asking is whether it requires it i know that in general cdbg requires relocation but
i didn't know if in this specific project it would good question matt so if if the level of renovation
requires them
whoever is staying at the property to be relocated for any period of time, they would have to follow
the Uniform Relocation Act and provide other lodging for the people that are currently living in the
home. Is that something we ask in the application? It is. So what did they say? I believe they indicated
that they could shift people around and make provisions for that.
I can look. They already have. Yeah, that can get expensive. I mean, there goes $105,000. What do you
mean? I mean, that could easily be where $100,000 goes. $100,000? Have you tried to rent a place in
Bloomington lately?
Well, they are going to be doing parts of the house. It sounded like to me, I thought they were doing
some major, depending on they were going to do that whole first level in the kitchen and balcony. I
would also add, I'm at least hoping there aren't 10 people in there right now. I was sort of under the
impression it might've been like a couple of people. Yeah. Um, but,
I might, if it's okay, I might speak to why I'm the next smallest here. I saw it was 120, which I felt
like was a significant contribution. But I shared Kyla's concern about the lack of occupancy permit.
I assume that as soon as that is flagged with staff, which it was, we had multiple staff members present,
that that would be followed up on.
Register they registered and it has been expected for at least a run. Okay, great. Um, so that gives
me some comfort to the point about 10 units. I wrestled with this a little bit and not because there
is more significant, you know, higher number of units with some of the other projects. But I think these
types of units, I value them really highly because they meet these
extremely low and LMI thresholds, but they don't have the same barriers and they don't have the same
apparatus as like a lie tech project, these are.
managed in a different way that drives down affordability. I think it is a really important missing
piece that is both helping prevent people from slipping into homelessness or helping them emerge out
of it. They have said, not in this meeting, so I don't know whether it can be considered, but it's just
knowledge I have of the organization, that they are supportive. It's not a halfway house, but they've
been able to support residents who are
recovering from substance use disorder who are moving into their places, I think it's just really beneficial
for these kind of flexible reasons and these kind of softer reasons. So that's why I felt even though
it's only 10 units, I feel like they're really pretty important and they're pretty cheap. Yeah. Was
it 10 units or too bad? I think it's the same thing. It's the same. Yeah. Well, and if they took the
upstairs, that would be a pair. So anyway, that's where I'm interested with it. So I didn't fund it
totally, but I felt like they'd get a lot done for that amount. There are other applicants who also
only serve like the Centerstone, that's eight, one better. Life Designs, that's nine people. So if that's
the criteria, I think
Wooding other projects as well. The number of the lower asking for less. Yeah, significantly less.
I mean, I felt like funding the 1st phase of their project. For a couple of reasons, I felt like funding
all 3 phases might be a little bit more than they handle administrative. I also felt like.
Keeping them engaged with the city is probably the best route to find things like compliance in the
future, even if they aren't compliant right now, which sounds like it's literally already happening,
whether we give them any money or not, which is great. I also agree that this is the missing middle
that we often look towards.
in the Bloomington Housing Solutions that we don't always get applications like this. And so I do feel
like it is a good opportunity, even though I don't, I just, I don't think the capacity of funding all
three phases is really what they're capable of. I do feel like giving them the allotment for their first
phase would help them to continue the mission, but then also keep them engaged. So that's kind of where
I just did that.
that first phase ask. I did the same. Well, and for me, why I chose $200,000 was, I know, but I do agree
with Cory. I didn't agree that at the end of me, there's lots of needs. And one was the upstairs suite,
which I have no doubt will benefit a couple. But, and then, you know, having,
You know, on the flip side as to why they're asking for 200 is you gotta look at it in this way too
is, I mean, homes are very expensive in women's homes. So they probably found this home really cheap
because it needed a lot of work. You know, had they bought a house for $400,000, it might be only coming
here for $50,000. So to me, that's kind of a way, you know,
And I think that, yeah, you know, to search at people that are in a vulnerable spot, this fits a niche
in the middle. But I'm okay, too, with just doing first phase. And the law is not kicking them out,
you know, in the cold for a time where they have to then go apply for that second phase. I wasn't quite
sure maybe Matt could add clarity on that.
in the pre-chain occupancy if they just do that first phase? That I'm not sure. I think that would be
a question directly for them, what they think the first phase will get them. So I'm not sure exactly
how they answer that for them.
because I don't know the current condition of the home versus what the first phase of rehab we get them
to. Well, Christina, you said that they passed inspection. Well, no, it is. It's been registered and
they went out on their first inspection. Oh, OK. They will have you re-inspected and everything. If
I look at this here, I wrote in my comments, Bundle 1 first destabilized the building, and then number
2 was convert the home to the SRO units.
That's my own. I'm still old, so I use several of those. Three is add other units. It does sound like
they could be converted, maybe not have the full 10 for safety and security. It was a group on also
in its previous slide. I don't know if you guys know that. I'm not sure who operated it. I believe you
if that's what you know.
So it was almost like a, like a NOAA project, kind of a natural or natural for any verbal housing. And
that I know still needs money to keep it. Yeah, I'm looking for that question, Matt, because I thought,
like you said, there was a question about. The application doesn't follow up, which I think I'm
think I will change that. But I believe he, I feel like he said it in his presentation that they had
other spots for people. But I mean, they have been made aware that if they do have to, if the rehabilitation
would take such a level that they would have to move people out that they have to find places for them
to live. They do know that.
Well, they did. So they have put aside $30,000 of their own funds. So if they can only do phase one,
that would be $20,000 extra dollars that they have that could help pay for temporary housing if they
don't have availability in their other buildings. Is there any other questions?
I would just say when I first started doing my calculations, I started with that first phase for them.
So that's not, I don't think out of reach in my imagination, but I wanted to fund BHA fully. Does someone
want to make a motion? Make a motion to fund BCL at $130,916.80.
But are they in their second for them? You know, I would feel more comfortable if we discuss all of
them first. Is that not how it's been done? Because we might have to recalibrate. Yeah, we can hold
the 130, 916. Matt, could you hold that cell so we remember that is the second? I don't think I have
this. No, I wanted to say that before there was a second.
I purposely did that. It's sneaky. I'm sneaky. Yes, that's fine. I'm sorry. If you guys can look at
the chat, I posted the response from the person that filled out the application or her question about
that specific question of the occupancy. Oh, sweet.
Okay, that's good. Yeah. Okay. So they do have a plan for that, but it might not come out of their expenses.
Okay. Okay. Well, let's discuss this center stone and my experience being a city administrator is the
biggest dollar most
are the quickest to pass but the smallest one since to be the ones that that's not the most of the time.
I'm fine coming down to the 13.3. Since I'm the one that went broke her, I guess I am too.
So there you go. 13.3 plus older. All right.
Should we go to Life Designs or should we go down to My Sister's Closet? It looked like My Sister's
Closet was another zebra. There's a couple of scrapings there. Do we want to talk about Life Designs
because it looks less complicated, Mary? It does look. We're more in the ballpark. But I think it's
dancing with My Sister's Closet, spending pounds.
That one is kind of dependent on the other for me. So I only funded one of the houses, the North Dunn
Street Porsche Rehab for life designs. On the other hand, I gave more to my sister's closet than anybody
else. Mitch, were you thinking just one of the houses as well? Michael, you did a 50. Yeah, it might
have been a rounding.
situation by then. Not error, but just what you got to, yeah. I'm completely, they had, if memory serves,
they had theirs broken out in Fairbanks. Yeah, and they would receive quite a few of these awards, so
we know they're capable of administering and executing the work.
Yeah. I mean, I had money left over from not funding my sister's class. Yeah. I went the full amount
just because I was really, I don't know, the floor and water, maybe concern and just make anything that
is mold can have such critical secondary health issues. It can, it can be really problematic for people
who are in, in it for an extended period of time. So that just creating a.
Really usable outdoor space too. Yeah. It felt to me like a priority that oftentimes is overlooked.
Well, I'm comfortable with moving now. I am too. I might. I'm fine. I'm Isabelle. I think I would like
to also talk about my sister deposit where we stick to a number of life designs. But Kyla, did you weigh
in on life design? I just.
I'm looking at the impact and the amount requested. I just automatically give them the full now. Okay.
Well, maybe we'll put a placeholder in there and move to my sister's closet. Okay. Corey. Okay.
I like my sister's closet. I think they have a big impact. They serve a niche in the community that
no one else serves. They have proved that they can use these allocations well. My biggest concern was
the scope of work. I felt like the purpose of the money is to get to a point where
the spaces, the physical spaces are usable by the community. And by the scope of work, it felt like
they needed twice as much as they were asking us, which they did not have secured yet, to even get close
to opening the doors. And so to me, it just felt like we could give them partial funding for like a
couple of beams, but I just,
I was really struggling with, and I like, I know they have a very big backing and a lot of big donors.
I was just really, really struggling with partial funding. I was really struggling with full funding
because I just, it was inconceivable to me to even prep the space and get the structure out. And then
it just be like,
a framed in square and like no walls on each back. Like I just was really struggling with that. And
I going back to my philosophy about like this money directly impacting people. I just felt like this
was so little of their full need.
that it was hard for me that I would encourage them to come back next year when they have the other
funding secured and they're ready and like, it's just closer. And they are just starting, they're just
starting work on last year's funding like now. So like, I don't know, I just was sort of like, maybe
they could come back with the same ass next year. That's really similar to my perspective. And I'll
just add that I, because I'm new to the group, I asked,
Matt, a couple clarifying questions about timing because I know that they wouldn't get this award until
a year from now. And then our thinking was, or not our, I don't know, what I deduced from that was that
like, well, they wouldn't likely be able to, what do they say, turn dirt until the spring. So spring
of 28, but then the project is supposed to be up and running by the
end of the year, so serving people. So for me, I think it's a hugely important project. I have just
tons of respect for Sandy and the organization. I know they will get it done. I think that this needs
to come back as a request for last dollars in, not first dollars in, and then they'll be on a better
timeline. So that was the gist of it. And then in terms of other risks, I just felt like the,
Fundraising timeline is a risk, like they'll get it done, but how long will it take? And with
the environmental needing to be done, that is a giant unknown that could push that, could further compress
that construction timeline. And I have to say, I was the least certain about this one of all of the
applicants. And Corey, you were very eloquent about the research.
And all the things everybody else said, I would be comfortable lowering my original one. I wanted to
fund it because I think it's good for them and us, them and the city to be a participant in it. It's
important. It's been growing, blah, blah, blah. They're all over the place now. But I share those concerns.
They, you know, they, I don't know, everybody else has to go out and borrow money to build a new building.
I don't know, I think it's time for them to consider more options and just hit us in the usual way.
Yeah, last dollars. Yeah, I like the last dollars. Hey man, in their application, did they have any
dollar amounts for, you know, cause this is an addition. So is there any pre-development?
work that they need to do. I mean, I'd be fine with, you know, they say, well, we need to hire an architect
and engineer. Yeah. Or we can get a grading done or something. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It was
some groundwork. I feel like it was pretty small, though. But don't they still have heat? Yeah. I'm
sure they have that. I don't think that they parsed that out specifically. But, I mean, with anything,
there's going to be development dollars.
this organization is not a construction company, so they would be farming any and all of that out. They're
working with people on the current renovation that is, you know, running the project for them. So I
would assume that we continue on in that manner. I feel like I would feel more comfortable funding a
environmental report, you know, like an architecture design and like some grading or, you know,
They do have $60,000 for architectural services. They're not asking us for that, but that's in their
budget. But I would feel comfortable with that. I would totally feel. Matt, could they re-scope to scope
way down to just that for this year? Yeah. Just so you guys know, we almost always tweak the scope of
things once we get to agreement time.
we're talking about these projects now and then they don't get funded and agreements written for another
year, eight months to a year. So things get adjusted and changed. We always do our best to keep the
spirit of the original project in mind and make it happen, but things almost always do get adjusted
and changed. So that would be very normal to adjust the scope down to something like that.
Question about that though. Why I mean are they do they not have it in the request for this funding
because they have already? They already have funding that's specifically covering that. That's a good
question. I can look through the application to see what they have. If it denotes that. I wouldn't be
surprised if they don't already have preliminary drawings that were done with the drawings for the renovation.
Can I just ask a clarifying question on timeline again? So if the project were to be partially funded
or an earlier phase of some part of the work, would it still be required to be community serving by
the same deadline?
I think that feels really good as a middle ground, but I'm just concerned about compliance. Yeah, I
think if it was a project that we had not given any prior funding to or wasn't already an up and running
operation, that would come into play. But we funded them before for the same property and they will
be up and running
and serving a national objective on that property to satisfy the previous grant award. So I think that's
less of a worry in this instance, instead of like, say, if we were doing the first one that got no funding
where they don't have an award, the project's not already agreeing to serve the national objective.
I think that would be a different way to look at it.
You are also able to fund development costs. And as long as the project is viewed as likely to be completed
and to serve the national objective, you are able to fund that. And even if it eventually would not
go through, as long as up until that point, it was viable that it could and would serve the national
objective.
able to be funded if all that made sense. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we funded them and say 60,000,
that's a much smaller portion of the overall allocation. The percentage of funding that has already
gone out, it wouldn't affect that as much either. You mean like their previous? Yeah.
Because by the spring, don't we have to have a certain percentage of the total allocation already out
the door? Yeah, our timeliness measure is not to have more than one and a half times our allocation.
And we still have to spend down quite a bit. We're working on it and getting very close. And actually,
my sister's closet will be a big part of that there.
getting ready to begin the renovation, and they will spend money rather quickly. They've been sitting
waiting for the go-ahead. Yeah. But if we fund them a smaller amount, it'll be a smaller debt in that
as well. Well, in there, the attachment of, let's see, under project details, project timeline,
The attachment does talk about site prep and funding for site prep estimated at $115,000 to be funded
by the Big Gala in February. So I mean, there is site prep that needs to be done. Maybe that's what,
maybe we pivot and look at 115. I mean, somewhere between that
I mean, 60,000 architecture, 115 site prep somewhere in there. I find it sort of confusing. Like, why
didn't they put that site prep in their funding list? Maybe they thought they were going to do it before.
Like if they were going to prep the site, they were going to do that before they get this funding released.
Cause that's, that's the hard part. I mean, I, I, I empathize with the struggle of the timeline because
it's you're looking way ahead. I mean, yes, maybe just a year, but you're looking like pretty far ahead.
And if you're actively working on a site, the likelihood that they want to do the site prep while they're
doing other things, maybe with their first
funding from, or the last funding that came in last year. I could see them thinking through this in
a timely way where it's like, if we could get everything ready, then when this funding kicked in, they
could actually move forward with the next phases. So would we be hampering them inadvertently by giving them
like early phase funding that they don't get access to until late 2027. I think it sounds like, Matt,
they get to talk about the scope changes. I mean, like if they get, let's say, pulling a number completely
out of thin air, they get $100,000, then they're going to
They're going to talk about the scope when those adjustments are made. So we're not locking them into
what that scope is. We're just saying based on what we understand this project to be, we think that
this funding would be used in a good way towards the effort. Yeah. So the scope can change. We all like
them. They can decide. I mean, I'm coming around to the idea that their impact
is as much tied to their ask last year as it is to this ask, that they will technically be serving people
on this site. Thank you. I mean, from what Matt was saying about meeting the timeline of 18 months wouldn't
be such a big deal because on the same site, they already would have done the serving.
Christina's laptop died and she's on the verge of dying, so she's coming back. Or was it manna? Do we
need to pause? No. Christina, I'm sorry. Do we need to pause the meeting then, man? Or do we need to
make a report again? Yeah, sorry, I didn't realize. We have the power. Oh, now we have the power. The power.
I don't think it lets me start the recording. You should have a request now. Oh, nope, it did. Okay.
Okay, continue. We're good. So, is it all considered one site? This is my question. Because they're
building a new structure. Yeah, that's definitely not how it is. Is it flat out as two sites or as one
site? Thinking about it originally.
It will be all on one site. The new construction is an add-on to the building on the same location.
Okay. So it is one site. I know. I was thinking of this as truly an improvement. It's not a from scratch
activity. This request is an improvement upon the existing. But it is a separate building.
It's an addition that will be breaking ground, but it will be connected to the current building. Well,
I still like the $60,000 idea. I'm digging it. Because it is in their list as architectural. And that
list is going to be altered from how much they get from United Way or their fundraiser, all that stuff.
And I look at it too in terms of being old.
They're good at funding, but it also helps to show funders that, you know. And they got something. Yeah.
Yeah, that's what I mean. That's what I meant when I said it's good for us to be involved. Because it
exponentially helps them with other grant applications when they can show local support. And that's
one of the things. This is really good for them. I'd be OK with funding $60,000 as a placeholder.
Jane, how do you pick a color for my placeholders? Thumbs up. This conversation helped me feel confident
about it. Okay. We're on new hope for families. We should probably put something in as a placeholder
for VCR, right? We put 1391680. We should probably put that in. What was that number? One. Okay, go ahead.
Sorry, 139.16 and 80 cents. Okay. 139.016. No, 130. 130.916.80. Basically, it's Cory's entry. Yeah.
But I'm a rebel for now. Me too. Sorry, I missed that one.
Okay. You're never going to believe it. New Hope for Families. Where are we at? Our average recommendation
is $91,000. So $80,000 gives them the playground equipment and not
the cabinets. Right. I like cabinets. In fact, I was thinking cabinets would be more important than
playground equipment. I think there's more opportunities to get that funded in a different way. I have
Have they reached out to Walmart or somebody to sponsor our cats? They used to be a group from GE that
would do that stuff. But I agree with you. The outdoor classrooms, I was riding by there the other day,
I'm like, they look great. It'd be great to hang out there. But you can, even if they did, they shabby.
I volunteered, they're not that great. Well, good, bad, or indifferent, you can only use them part of the year.
Yeah. Programs, the cutoff is 25 degrees. So they go out. Like a philosophical thing. I mean, they,
they get out there. They are party children, not even winter. Yeah. Yeah.
One of the questions we have about shifting to funding the outdoor playground, wasn't it last year when
they came to us or two years ago, they spoke about, you know, there were different levels of early childcare
in Indiana and in order to, if you have like,
an outdoor, you know, it's not just play equipment, but it's all approved, you know, something that
enables you to niche to this level. And then that would be a little higher. Very few level one. So maybe
this is the reason, and I'm just talking to myself, to justify the fun, the playground equipment, rather
than the cabinets, because I agree. Well, you could maybe go to the Home Depot's foundation.
I mean, if we give them 80,000, they will decide what they want to spend it on. And she did say, depending
on what they got, they would adjust. They could just kill them. As needed, whether it was half and half
or whatever. Yeah, I thought that they had prioritized the player to have to commit them in
their application. So they might just. It's a level three currently. Yeah, they're probably striving
for a level four.
which they'll get probably if they do the outdoor thing and this other stuff. And I'm fine with it.
They were one where it was one of those situations I would have fully funded it except that obviously
I had to put all my full funds in the one basket. I'd like to give it my best effort to pitch you guys
on funding that bedroom cabinetry though.
I don't know that it's going to be very inspirational, but okay, so there are 12 bedrooms and the case
that they're making the problem statement is about how difficult it is to live in a home where you don't
have storage to keep your things off the floor and I can attest to this are.
Bathroom towel racks are all gone right now. We're redoing some stuff. And so our towels are all on
the floor and they're draped all over our bedroom and things get dirty. And I can just see this as one
of those frictions. The people who are in the shelter have already experienced a lot of friction in
their life. And this is supposed to be a respite for them as they prepare themselves to be
independent and moving out on their own. And so with all the challenges that they're trying to navigating,
people might be at school and also applying for jobs or dealing with lots of complications. And then
to have this just kind of insulting nuisance friction as part of their regular day. And it seems like
I would really like to prioritize addressing that. And then the cabinets themselves, they're saying they're
durable institutional cabinetry. So even though it's only 12 bedrooms right now, we can imagine that
that'll be impacting a lot of people over time as they turn over since they're intended to be a little
bit more temporary housing units. So that's my best case for the full 120. I mean, I agree. In my previous
role at Banneker, I put about $250,000 for the cabinets in that building. And let me tell you,
The difference was wild. But that one's very expensive, especially ones that are going to last decades.
There's lots and lots of use and lots and lots of use. My argument would be that two projects for $120,000
is maybe a little ambitious. Maybe a little what? Ambitious.
And if they really are going to do both projects right, they probably need closer to $120,000 for both
projects. So they wait for each? Yeah. So it's not like full kitchen cabinets. It is we intend to install
open base cabinets and two open wall-mounted cabinets. So it's just two downs and ups. And so that's 30,000.
300 a bedroom, I guess, if it's 40,000 or the cabinets divided by 12 is 3,333. And I'm looking at you
because I've never installed that. Well, one way to look at it is that if we fully fund New Hope, we
only have 115,681 left for Summit Hill. Yeah, and this is when I...
flooding and sewage to me is like more pressing than, and I love, I actually, I don't care. Like from
my perspective with New Hope, I think both of their projects are like equally important to me. It's
like whether they do cabinets or they do a playground equipment. I think both of those are really important
projects, but in my pursuit to try to tend to the summit hill thing, I had to reduce.
Yeah, those other areas. So, okay. Thanks for listening everyone to my television show. And then if
it goes back to 80 or new hope, then that leaves by my math, 155, 680, 120 for Summit Hill, which I
guess Mitch does. You didn't apply anything.
Yeah. This is just gossip now. Which I think is okay. They can come back in a future year. And the cabinets
and stuff, that's made a good point that there's other opportunities. Really cool, I guess. Sorry, I
meant 155.
pay would, in my view, would be enough for Summit Hill. Yeah, I'd be done with that too. Yeah. And we
did see in those motions, like down below, that if there's funding that is exceeding this amount, we
can put priority on, you know. I want to say the last three years, our motion has been, add any extra
money to VHA. It does feel like this. Has there been extra money?
I think there's been a windfall or anything. Given that I have to recuse myself from voting, is it possible
to do a motion without BHA, some until, and then that gets down so I can. Yeah. We can make a motion
about all of the other projects.
And then we can make a separate motion about BHA. And then we would make the additional motions on the
additional or less than funding, which would also probably be irrecusable. All right. So with that,
is there any further discussion before
We entertain emotion. See how it gets you, you have to know. Okay, so I'm sure you know further
in discussion, I will entertain emotion. Oh, well, we don't. Okay. I think we need to put, what do we
have for new hope? 80,000. For new hope.
which brings HH 155, 6, 8, 1, 20. What was that? I'm sorry. Yeah, the 26. 155, 681, 20. Hey,
look at that, the right number. I can make a motion to approve
Um, the figures as shown on the screen for lines four, five, six, seven, and eight. There's a motion
by the bell. Second. Second. Second by Corey discussion. There is no discussion. All those in favor
say aye. Aye. All those against say nay.
Motion passes. There is another motion then, I'll entertain another motion for Summit Hill. Oh yeah,
go ahead. I move we approve an allocation of $155,681 and 20 cents for BHA slash Summit Hill Community
Development. Second floor. As well, seconded by Michael. Any further discussion?
We're going to offer discussion, take an entertainer aye for this vote. Aye. All those against say nay.
Motion carries. All in motion is needed to exceed. I move that if CDBG funding for physical improvements exceeds,
$505,890.45. The additional funding will be used to fully to fund BHA. Technically, I think it's 502706.
I was going to say this is from last year. Yeah. Sorry.
I'm now remembering that we should designate an addition if for some reason there is enough money to
fully fund BHA, we should designate somewhere else for that money to go. I recommend that money go to New Hope.
And then we can do my sister's closet or ACL, which neither were fully funded. I like that order. So
you said Summit Hill, New Hope, and then what? Summit Hill, New Hope. My sister's closet.
And BCL. Yeah. In that order. There's the motion on the floor, right? I can't cancel that because I
got the number wrong. Yeah, we have to start over. Okay. If
CDBG for physical improvements exceeds $502,706. The additional funding will be used to fully fund Summit
Hill slash BHA and then New Hope for Families and then My Sister's Closet and then Bloomington Cooperative
Living in that order.
I second that. And that point of clarification, you mean fully fund them, right? Yep. Correct. So if
we can make up the difference between blah, blah, blah and quarter of a million, only then do we get
money. Correct. OK. Yep. OK. I agree. I agree. I second that. Yes, I second that. Yeah. So all those
in favor, say aye. Aye. All those against, say nay. I should note I abstain from both previous two motions.
So there will be one in case the 502706 gets reduced, what should be taken. Well, is it or is it just
the reverse? Well, the problem is, is that the, if it's, the problem is, is it's like, it could potentially
be everything.
So when you reduce, you could reduce the entire amount that's being granted to an organization. So if
there's one on here that we think should be up for the potentially full reduction, that would be the
first one. But if we want to minimize the reduction, then we have to spell it out like the way it was
in this previous example. It started with the first,
12,000 and then went to potentially could have been full production. I mean, I would propose we fold
it when it be a CL and then that way then any remaining monies record those cascading with some intelligence.
Well, so, okay, so if say we only have
500,000 even, and there's 2,700 that needs to come from somewhere, it would come from BCL. They wouldn't
lose their 130. They would just lose the whatever, 2,000, 10,000, whatever. So we wouldn't take away
the whole 130 and then give it to someone else. May I ask a question? And this is maybe more of a math
question, but does this happen? And if it does,
Is it like two or $3,000 or is it $100,000? There's no good answer for that. Yes, it does happen. We
never get the exact same amount. Usually, it stays within the realm of what you get the year before.
I think last year's allocation was only $3,000 less than the previous year for physical improvements.
It's usually very close. I don't see an increase coming. If we do, it'd be very minimal. But I also
don't see a large decrease. So I mean, again, we could lose maybe a few thousand dollars. And that can
be due to reduced federal funding or more
participating jurisdictions or other ones that maybe they've performed well, so they granted more money
versus other people. There's a lot of things to the metric, but usually it's not a large difference.
Go ahead, Ask. Well, thanks for that. I would propose doing it completely different way.
elected to fund these amounts because we think these are valid projects. We have allocated this money
pretty deliberately. So what I would do is if it's a $2,700 reduction, like using that math, that would
be a 0.537 percentage reduction. So I would reduce everyone accordingly. And it isn't that complicated.
Yeah, and we could definitely do that. My other thinking, and I'll take a second to advocate for,
BCL. I think there are certain projects where you could reduce and not experience a major shift. My
sister's closet comes to mind, mostly because we sort of somewhat arbitrarily have assigned the amount
based on our best estimate of what they could do, whereas BCL
that calculation is based on like truly achieving that first. Okay. Yes. And so it'd be good to keep
that intact. And if my sister's closet was a figure that was more like, we're hoping they might be able
to do this and this with it, but it's not really tied to a phase. I, in my opinion, I'd rather
reduce from there just simply because of the fact that I think they can still do good work with it.
And I would worry that reduction, which hopefully would be minimal, but I would worry that reduction
based on a phase calculation could upend something.
This is so fascinating. We have the project impact-based reduction, we have the project risk-based reduction,
and then we have the- And then we have the FAIR. Yes. The FAIR. The FAIR. The FAIR. That is FAIR. Percentage.
Yeah. And it is hard because you would think you could just reverse the two. I mean, it seems like it
would be easy enough to just go based on our ranking. And we have three numbers that are somewhat arbitrary.
We have my sister's closet, we have BHA, and we have New Hoover families that are sort of rough,
you know, if we're doing that math. I don't know, Michael, did you do this percentage allocation? What
percentage they got of their request? Do that, would do.
Again, we might just be talking about a couple thousand dollars. Yes, we maybe don't need to belabor
it, but I think the project risk is pretty important. I agree. Last year was only $5,000 difference.
So yeah, the year before and then two years before that was just three. So I'm gonna, can I take a stab
at one based on a project risk method? So if CDBG, if CD, okay, I move.
I'm going to make a motion that if CDBG funding for physical improvements is less than $502,706, funding
shall be reduced as follows. Oh, we said actual amounts. Well, at that time we did, and there's probably
a really specific reason why we did that. That doesn't have to be followed. It can be done however you
want. You do what you do.
The balance of the reduction in the overall budget shall be, what would I say? Taken from the allocation
for my sister's closet first. And if it's greater than the $60,000 allocated for my sister's closet,
it would then, what do we do next? Sorry, I messed up my line. DHA or new home for families.
I mean, yeah. I would go to BHA. You'd go to what? BHA. Yeah. I agree. And I think that in the same
way that we put them first to receive, to have that potentially
be a reduction too, I think. So you think we would wipe my sister? I don't think so.
And then, no, I don't think it will either. But then it would go my sister's closet. Do we want to set
a limit at my sister's closet? That's when I paused. I was like, if it exceeds $20,000. That's why you
see that $12,000 there, because we probably decided we didn't want to go less than, probably because
of a project viability issue. We were like, if we go under that $12,000, it'll be too much. I got this. I move.
that if CBBG funding for physical improvements is less than $502,706, funding shall be reduced as follows.
The first $20,000 will be taken from my sister's closet and anything exceeding that amount will be taken
from Summit Hill Community Development. Second. Okay. Any discussion? All in favor say aye.
Aye. All those against nay, and I abstain. All right. Is there any other business before us I would
yield to Matt? That will wrap it up. If you give me a second to put your wording on the spreadsheet,
you guys can read through everything. Once again, make sure that I have what you
want on there. And if you guys have nothing further to discuss, then you guys can dismiss. But let me
get everything down on paper so that you guys can see it and make sure it's what you want. And then
we don't have to get any other approvals afterwards. So one moment, please. Talk amongst yourselves.
Yeah, so we used to not be clauses, but then we didn't have to get email and never have to email back
and confirm. And then when the allocation came through, then we would have to email it again.
I don't know. It was a mess. It was kind of a nice thing. And we'll just get it all done with.
Especially while it's fresh in your mind. It feels like a lot, but it's a lot better than an email thread
thing that happens six months later, and you're like, I don't remember why we decided. Who's this Matt
guy? Matt, I just chatted that to you if you want to copy it. It's done. If you're talking to me, I'm
not listening. Sorry. I just chatted you that language if you want to.
Okay, let me look at that. That'll be a lot easier. Now you see what I work with every day.
This is honest. Just Isabelle to say that BCL has until November for re-inscription. They're in process.
I was trying to remember if I was in the room or not. We did it. We're very cold and ruthless.
Okay, guys, if you can please read through that and make sure that that is top to bottom what you guys want.
You have funding shall be reduced as follows in there twice. Well, I really want to make sure you guys
get that part. Other than that, it looks good. Yeah, that looks right. And the other one, but with that,
I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second? Second. All right, motion to adjourn.