which is going to take weeks to send out to council for council's approval.
 But the main goal today is to go through our rubrics, discuss sort of what conclusions we've
 all come to collectively, and then we will move from there. I'd like to, we can make a
 just if there are first, are there any desired amendments to the to the agenda?
 Basically, we're going to go over, go over the rubrics, talk about our recommendations,
 sort of work through it, and then, and then adjourn there. I'm happy to. Anybody else want to
 do anything else today? Okay. I might say we maybe might be useful to have a moment of public
 comment, just at the, we, so unless there's any objections, would we all entertain that public
 comment after our, so in between us discussing it and us sort of, you know, making our
 recommendation,
 I think might be good to have a section of public comment. So can somebody motion for that to be,
 I mean, I know this is a committee meeting, but I think. I move to have a period of public comment
 at the end. So we have a first and a second, a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.
 Aye. All those opposed? Yay, that carries. So we'll add a section of public comment to the agenda.
 Great. In which case, let's just do a quick roll call. I'm Isak, council member at large, present.
 Eddie Ryu. Courtney Daly, here. Cameron Green. Norah Damnick, Michigan. David Harlow, council.
 Yay. Now's your chance to do it, Andy. Now's your chance to call yourself president.
 Great. So everyone is here. So Lisa, would you be willing to put up,
 or if I can't share my screen, but could you put up the shared rubric? Sure.
 While I'm doing that, could we proceed with the agenda topic for the disclosure?
 Yes. Yes. How would you like to handle that? I think it would be appropriate for each member,
 Eddie and Nordia to briefly state the nature of their relationship with each applicant and
 why they each do not have a financial interest in the application.
 My name is Eddie Ryu. I'm the executive director of the Saucer from the Action Program.
 We have applied for one of these grants, and I do not have financial interest in this grant.
 And I will accuse myself when they discuss my organization.
 My name is Nordia McNeish. I'm a board member for New Life. They applied for one of the grants.
 I do not have any financial interest in the grants, whether denied or approved.
 And I will accuse myself when voting is happening for that organization.
 Great. And for public awareness, they all signed appropriate documentation to that end.
 So let's go through this. And this year, we're trying out this rubric here.
 And what do you think? What's the best way of going about this, y'all?
 We could sort this by our averages and then maybe discuss through? And you're welcome.
 As long as you're doing it here publicly on this sheet, you can change if you want to change your
 scores or whatever, we can do that. But what's your suggestions for how we should handle going
 through this? Do you think we should look at the highest average ones, get those out of the way
 we want on those, and then get to the middle and see if there's any conflict? And if we're fully
 funded by them, then we don't really need to get to the lower scores. Does that seem reasonable?
 Unless somebody who could advocate for a lower score might be able to convince others, I don't
 know. But I agree. I think that's a good way to proceed. Okay. You know, it's interesting
 because if we sort them, and then maybe perhaps the... Well, here they are sorted. This is sorted
 by our average scores. And we had sort of said that 4.5 was very high score or 4.7, did we say?
 What was the... What's the cutoff for a very high score? Very high was five or more.
 So how did you all go about your suggested allocation amounts?
 For me, I fully funded all the ones I was confident that were very high,
 which is five or higher. And then I went through some of my high scores before 4.5 and tried to
 figure out which ones I wanted to fund out of those. But then I left... These are so many that
 were in the high category. I left money on the table. I only used around $440,000 instead of
 full $500,000 because I couldn't decide just by looking at the scores which ones I wanted to fund.
 And I wanted to be fair and hear what other people had to say about certain organizations. And then
 I would lean towards that direction. And that's the idea here.
 Okay. So I've just noticed we have a kind of a glaring issue here because it seems like some of
 us... It seems something has changed. What has changed on this sheet? There's a medical order.
 Okay. Sorry. I'm going to put them back in the order that we had them which is
 based on their score. So some of these scores are high because they're missing rubric entries from
 us. Is there... Is this a clerical error or did some of you leave things off of your...
 Wait. We know that but... They're higher or low because...
 Well, I mean, it will probably go in both directions, right? Because if you only have
 a few scores, it's going to weight those scores higher, right? Presumably.
 So I think my score is that deleted out of that column maybe whenever...
 Maybe I deleted it somehow or whenever. So my score is supposed to be five for motherhood recovery.
 Okay. And Dave, did you give...
 I did. I left some things. Let's see. Did I score everything? I did score everything.
 I think we should score everything. Yes. Well, with the exception of one,
 that was a double applicant, but then whatever. I left the amount blank for a number and I also
 left some money on the table because I wanted to hear from others in terms of whether to make
 shifts.
 Okay. So maybe... Okay. So it seems like order of operation here is that we should first...
 We need to fill in the missing scores, right? Because otherwise it's going to be a skewed
 rubric. No. We can just call them out. You mean what I left blank? Yes. Yes. Let's see. I left...
 Mother Hubbard's covered. Mother Hubbard's covered. Yeah. One. And the other, the last one was Habits
 After Humanity restored. Yep. I left blank. Now, I guess since then that was their priority. Wow.
 But I'd already filled it out. So I didn't change it. What would you like to...
 Well, if you maybe take a few minutes and just then square it right now based on... Okay. Am I the
 only
 one who failed? No, no, no, no, no. No, there's no worry. Nardia, you also didn't fill out
 Mother Hubbard's covered 22. Do we want to kind of maybe look at approaching it,
 you know, similar to... I'm going to start over again. Similarly to how we did it last year,
 which was we looked at the average amount recommended and went from highest to lowest that
 way. That was another way we could... If there was blanks, it's going to be... So like if I fully
 funded it and we partially funded it, it's just the two of us, then it's not going to give us the
 right. But yes, I think that's what we should do. Because my approach was I didn't... I don't know
 that I fully funded anything just because I was trying to give everybody or as many people as I
 could something. Okay. What about you, Cameron? How did you approach it? Yeah, I tried to fully
 fund all of the very highs. Last year, I funded by percentage, but this year I went through all
 with budgets to see what the partial funding would look like. It was prioritized from there,
 but I think that for everything that was very high or high on my list, I tried to fully fund
 those for the most part. So I took the same approach, which is I fully funded the very highs.
 I think I, you know, nominally knowing that we'd have to talk through it, did like 90% for the
 highs
 and then I think it was 70% for the bids. Just like to give a sort of marker and then I stopped.
 For the, I kind of took, I know you were saying like some of them, you had extra funds left over.
 Like for those, I kind of went to some of the smaller asks and then decided to kind of take
 the bigger remainder that were still explored high and then kind of spread them across all the
 smaller asks as I could. So that was my approach.
 Mordia, how did you approach deciding the amounts?
 Well, depending on the project, the criteria of meeting the population, all the listed criteria
 is actually on the rule book was a decider, but mostly for fully funded one is depending on the
 project, something that definitely would not work if it's not funded fully or partially for
 something
 that is more prominent that it can do without. Yeah, I mean, and that's a good point, the question
 of where we make that to Courtney's point, like where you make that cut off if you're partially
 funding. And then if people can't, but then if you... So then would you advantage somebody who said,
 let's say they were a high or a mid high or something like that, and they had said,
 this wouldn't happen unless it's fully funded. Do you give them the advantage then
 over a person who said that they... Well, it's not really based on what they said,
 it's based off the project and how they state what the project is, unless of so what them saying
 that, oh, it can't be funded without full funding. So what is the project that's being asked for?
 Is
 it something that is sustainable? Is it something that they will survive without at this point in
 time? Would it benefit the population that we're trying to target and so on? So that's kind of...
 But what I'm saying is that's our general rubric, but then the question is, there were a handful
 of applicants who were very clear about, hey, priority one, two, three, and if you can't fund
 us all, we can still do the project, and this is the order that we'd like the things funded at,
 which gives us, I think, a clear indication of if you're going to fund 75%, 50%,
 whatever. You know where that marker should be, but if there's an example, there were a handful
 here where they just asked for a lot of money and there wasn't any. It was just like, this is what
 we're asking for. There wasn't like, or this or that, but where do you balance that?
 I also use that for one particular anyway in terms of the other way. If they're asking for so much
 and it wouldn't make any sense partially funding, I did not. You did it funded even if it was
 highly
 ranked. Yeah. What are our thoughts on that? I think the one that I mentioned, it had some
 concerns from the beginning in terms of completing all the requirements.
 You know that there's a list at the bottom. We'll talk about 401(c), 5013, or whatever,
 whatever those fit marks. When there's some criteria like first year, this is the first
 time applying, or didn't submit summary, or... I'm curious what the rest of us think though.
 So I think we're saying that we like, first off, we've adopted a rubric.
 I think that if we've adopted a rubric and somebody scores high, they have to get
 proportional funding to a high score. However, we decide that that works. It doesn't make sense
 for us to say all of these high people, but these ones we're going to give a little bit too,
 and these ones we're going to fully fund, because then we don't have a rubric. We might as well
 just
 go off of fives. And so I do think that we need to take our rubric to scores, I mean to funding
 allocation in some consistent way. Now what that way is, I think is the hardest, is the hard
 question.
 So do we agree? Okay, so then have you worked out a score yet, Dave and Nordea for
 Mother Hover's Cupboard? I mean if you have suggestions for how we can rectify this, I
 feel like, I mean Mother Hover's Cupboard is a good example, because I gave them a seven,
 like so full points and everything, and a bonus point, and you know, Courtney gave them a four.
 So if my seven wasn't that powerful without these two scores, I feel like we really need to have
 numbers in every one, so I don't know if it makes sense to go through all the ones that have full
 information now, just to do it, and then go to it, and then that gives time to come up with the
 numbers for the missing ones. I think the problem is just that if we, scores, scores do get filled
 out later, then they can get bumped up, or bumped down, so yeah, and they also, I'm also thinking
 that, you know, people calling out scores right now, just being in the room could influence those
 scores, and maybe we should take a short break, so that way we can fill those scores out, or they
 can fill out the scores and populate it here. I feel a little uncomfortable, like, making people
 on the spot to ask for a score, and then, you know, if Dave says something different, that could
 change the audience score, just my two cents. That makes sense, everyone? Yeah. Is that okay?
 We're accepting it, Andy, because that evens everything out, right, without the scores, so yeah.
 Okay, so then, how much time we have? There's not that many here, but
 how much time would the two of you, like, for, we can take this 15 minutes? See, it's just, like,
 notice, like, five scores, and Dave, it's, like, three that can be recessed for 15 minutes, and
 then,
 is it, unless there's any?
 Uh, yeah, I'm just finished, actually, in just a moment. I don't know which time
 anyone else needs 15 minutes. Okay, so let's, yeah, let's take a quick 15 minute recess.
 All those in favor? Any opposed? All right, we'll take it, so it is now, what time is it?
 620, so we'll start back at 635.
 Thank you.
 So, um, her boss, and, uh, you know, I was watching, you know, how I got you as far as I had
 another side just a little presentation decision, you know, but, oh, we had some of this, you know,
 or so, I mean, the other one just so we had two professors going there.
 Separated professors kind of going in and they kind of poking holes and like, yeah, I'll be
 positive leadership.
 Yeah, I really think so and they want that for their first game is that we measure all those counts.
 Yeah.
 And then, um, maybe like, are these undergrads? Yeah.
 Yes. Yeah. And there was one that was like, you know, we recommend that this is one of them for a
 family, we recommend that they check out the A&M, we looked on their website and we found them much
 cheaper.
 That they're, they just, every year, I'm kind of glad. Except for full-time, they have a bigger
 player.
 Like, this year was just like, are you going to be so much, it's just like, no, you can't get pros
 to do that.
 Yeah, I am surprised every time.
 This is a priority, but I'm looking forward to hopefully catching some of it at least.
 I was going to be like, my cat, I couldn't find my cat, he was outside somewhere.
 So yeah, I eventually found him and scooped him up, but I think he got me on a journey.
 It's like, you're lucky you're cute. Exactly.
 I think weird how like bits and pieces of conversations kind of everything's kind of come together
 so sad about it.
 Yeah, I think.
 Yeah.
 So, um, my flight was delayed by an hour, which is fine, it got me plenty of time to get up there.
 And we flew frontier, it's like, you just don't you don't know like when they don't inform you
 until it's too late, we want to make sure we got up there.
 You know, almost every time I've learned a gender from frontier, and there have been a few horrible
 experiences where I've sworn to never do it again but then the tickets were so cheap.
 It's usually is part of, and I'm willing to pay just a little bit more but it's just like some
 reason frontier had all the contract flights, and my friend, like, he had to switches rounds and
 stuff to make this trip happen so we just have to suck it up
 and you know, we made it, we made it there made it back so okay come on.
 That's all that matters was your friend you were surprising your friend. Yeah, so we walked, we
 walked in.
 And so we were, we were celebrating my friend's 50th birthday, and he didn't know we were coming we
 were kind of doing stuff with his wife to make sure that you know you would see a surprise.
 So we finally went to Denver, drove to Boulder, got there and then we were texting like we're at
 the bar and we should see them in the window and then we walk in the front door.
 Like what's going on, like, yeah, I had too much to drink like he was just like rubbing his eyes
 and, but he was, he was really touched and, you know, for me, he was a high school friend.
 And for, for my friend, they went to college together, we're in a fraternity together so we don't
 have too many of those sorts of friends where we try to go see folks so it was good.
 Tell us when we come back to business.
 Tell you when I when you come back. Yeah, yeah, so we unless you guys want to reconvene, you
 shouldn't talk business when we're not convened.
 I was, I was recommended for that.
 I'm not knowing all those rules but yeah.
 We have to wait till the stated time.
 Yeah, yeah, we have to wait to 635.
 Because that's what we said we're going to do. Okay, somebody was online and they went away.
 What should I ask if someone can get information.
 We can when we get back. We can talk through it.
 Okay.
 Okay.
 That's what he said.
 Okay.
 Okay.
 Okay.
 Okay.
 And then when do we reconvene.
 I think I leave the next day for our vacations. That's why I it's like the second week of July.
 Okay.
 Yeah.
 Yeah.
 We're going when we leave on the fifth or two weeks to go to Europe and Africa.
 We're we're only Paris, Barcelona, and then several places around Morocco.
 My niece is in the Peace Corps in Morocco. So she's going to be our, our tour guide and translator.
 Yeah, right.
 So we reconvene on the 16th.
 The 16th. Yeah, I'm in the full council.
 There's a committee counts.
 Process.
 Committee and council process in the 14th.
 Oh, okay.
 We do that.
 My committee and.
 Are you okay. I've had a lot of conflicts with the meetings lately.
 I'm not allowed.
 Very hard, especially with the way my work calendar.
 Fills up. I mean, my whole meeting, my whole days of meeting.
 So I can't really do.
 I mean,
 I don't know if that makes things worse or better.
 I mean,
 Some,
 there are some time slots that I can work in during the day,
 but I need like two weeks advanced notice at least.
 Right.
 But then I can't guarantee that I'll still be available either.
 If.
 You know,
 I can't guarantee that I'll still be available either.
 Yeah.
 for them.
 Okay, let's um let's be back in um convening or something. Um all right so uh Dave were you
 able to get your scores for us? Yes I did. It was mother of others cover score here. I believe I
 put
 3.5. Okay very good yeah we did that because it changes things dramatically and then the um
 yeah and then uh 37 restore how death for humanity. I did that as well. Uh score. Oh gosh
 sorry you don't do this on me. Yeah it's because you're not working on the live. Sorry about that.
 Okay um three. Okay thank you and then Nordia will you be able to do any of your numbers?
 The reason for not filling out anything for mother of others was I didn't even see the application.
 You know the document that I received it actually was blank blank except for the staff comment
 section which noted that the application summary no not filled out. Project budget BS. There wasn't
 even a name I just assumed it's that because it falls between um humane society and you hope I
 think it is. So the full application is there? Uh not online. Okay so. So is everybody else the
 same in terms of that blank? No. I know the summary was missing but the whole application
 was there the mic? Oh okay. And the same like begin or um the habitat you told us why you missed
 that because we were deciding between which which they needed to decide which one was going to be
 considered. So how do we want to handle? So it's just as a matter of explanation so if it's if the
 cell is left missing does it just take an average of the ones that were in there? It was yeah we'll
 just take the average of the ones that were made. So I mean if it's okay with you just could we
 just
 go on the average of the worst what we responded. So yeah I mean if that's okay with everyone I
 mean
 I'm just trying to let's see let's make sure this is added correctly um I mean so say say
 that had been a one or a three or a seven that's how it changes it actually.
 Right but I guess what I'm saying is see the missing cell there for beacon yeah enter a five
 and it doesn't matter right? Sure but like so for these ones I think where there's not a big spread
 I mean but okay but let's I mean I'm okay to proceed and just leave these blank as we've left
 and these blank as well and then I guess as we talk through them if there's any concerns I guess
 around sort of where they're ranked um which I think just I mean to your point maybe maybe it's
 just this mother helpers cover fund just because I sort of ranked it so high that maybe it's you
 know
 bringing it up a little higher so okay and for you know if people are watching this now or later I
 mean the thing I'm sorry for being a bit um you know it's just that we're trying to work through
 like what is it you know how do we deal with having a rubric right I mean we um is one one thing
 that
 we that I that one of the things the two things that I realized going through the rubric were one
 we we didn't actually talk about how then we would do allocation tied to rubric um and then two was
 that a lot of it was not contested information I mean so so a lot of it was just like okay it is
 what it is it wasn't you know it wasn't like left to interpretation um uh with the exception of
 like
 two or three of our categories and then we had the space to do bonus points so um so so that's
 you know the those those two present a sort of tension for me with with dealing with how we're
 going about um um the the rubric so um okay but anyway so so okay let's go back then to how we
 were doing it we have them have them in order here and um i'll put them back in order because
 with dave's scores those two change there we go okay so this is our current order
 and we said we said very high is a four point what or five five wait it's a sorry it's five
 or higher and really fast that's ginger boy that emerged for me is that i think adding the bonus
 points and we added one more category meant that those points were higher once added than right
 they were so that so i didn't notice that until i was in in it but it was because the categories
 looked different last year right when i used it right so yeah something something okay so
 yeah okay so so so if we i don't know how we got debut overfunded um community kitchen
 i did um and that's what you want to do that's that's or was that okay okay so i i can explain
 why but yes yes that's what i chose to do yeah excellent just just making sure that that was on
 purpose um so okay so so like how do we want to approach this i mean well maybe we should
 go around and see if the top 10 or something kind of align with
 or how agreeable it is to everyone um and that gives us an idea of you know at least dispensing
 of those do you think that's appropriate that makes sense but if we yeah let's let's let's
 okay i have a i have a thought could we discuss can we send eddie out of the room and discuss scab
 first because because that is actually a there's a there's a that swings in a lot of ways here even
 though they're not in our top 10 just because of the amount that was requested um does that would
 that be okay yeah yeah oh thanks go ahead i don't know if effectively if he needs to leave the room
 per se but um so so i don't know if that affected the way that you all ranked oh they're not in our
 top 10 anyways so they're in the middle um here and so okay maybe actually oh here we are 33 yeah
 but i didn't actually um suggest any amount for them because it was such a ginormous ass and
 and i and so you know i sort of just left that blank ranked everybody else and then dealt with
 them later they're sort of in the middle here but sure but i but like when i look at all of our all
 of the amount funded like if we if we just went off of our averages we're at 573 um which is you
 know so we're 70k over so we're close which is like that yeah like everybody took a haircut
 exactly someone out we could fund most basically fund almost almost almost all the requests and
 there's only it looks to me like there's only the one that um did any of us suggest
 is anybody did anybody get zeroed out there are no it doesn't look like what well doesn't look
 there's a single there's a single person who who got where does is it crested hill where does that
 fall because that was another ginormous ask yeah i mean their average is 20 29 000 oh is that right
 okay so somebody and it looks like somebody funded them yeah um i mean uh south central
 committee action program i actually recommended the full amount right so okay so that was the
 only thing i just posted i mean we can we might have to send eddie out again but i just wanted to
 see because that was one thing pending for me about you know and how that's weighing and what
 we actually you know averaged out to people regardless of server where they um where they
 ranked but and here they get six and seven okay yeah um okay okay so sorry um we're jumping all
 over the place so i'm so i'm sorry yeah let's let's bring eddie back and then eddie come back
 go back do we so do we have any disagreements on these 10 or anything that jumps out to you
 i see because i have to send you out in a second but yeah um
 could you scroll to the time come oh yeah i'm not i'm okay lisa's the one oh i'm sorry
 lisa's the one that has the power mass can you read off the top then i so top top 10 right now
 our community kitchen blomington st vincent de paul's beacon and they're not their joint one
 um community cjm pantry 279 and the other beacon application mother hubbard's cupboard
 uh new leaf new life healing hands outreach center and um who's your hills feedback
 and and in terms of averages here the those are our top 10 the average is
 sort of showing that we also slightly different approaches here and how to fund
 um range from you know none of these get 100 percent of the ask based on based on our average
 giving so so may i suggest for this first round that we take that take the approach of saying
 that everyone over a 4.5 you fully fund yeah can i ask a question though yeah um since i'm rather
 rather new with this so we we we had said that restore habitat for humanity and then the habitat
 was a double applicant right yes so they should choose one or the other yes doesn't that exist for
 beacon health net great question and no so so the difference is the reason why um why that existed
 for for um restore was because they're so organizations are allowed to submit two
 applications if their second application is a collaborative application um for restore they
 submitted two one is a collaborative one is normal but the entity with which they submitted
 their collaborative was was the same entity as themselves um so that's why um and and they you
 know we we then decided as a group that we would allow them you know that that we'll sort of you
 know hear it allow them we found out at the interviews that that that was the case um because
 that was our main question about about the about their application and i called and spoke with them
 in restoring habitat for humanity confirmed they are one in the same entity yeah so that's so that's
 why whereas beacon whereas beacon is a they're two two different applications as a result of my
 conversation with them they both indicated that they wanted uh resource application to proceed
 okay got it um so you're proposing 4.5 and above fully funded just as a placeholder for now
 to give it to so that we can make fully funded or funded in the amount or the average amount
 it's there i think fund i think fully fund which so i mean or i mean if we do that i mean i don't
 know some will decrease some because we've got averages above that only one is above
 you want to say higher than 4.5 is fully funded is it like 4.5 and five like very high higher two
 different levels um okay can we say and so five or five about 400 or 4.7 or i mean just something
 between 4.5 and five i just don't want 4.5 to be before since yeah because 4.5 is uh what did we
 say on our rubric was very high very high is five or more okay okay yes so so i so i think we
 should
 stick with that and say and say five okay five or higher right so if we so um so if if we but okay
 but then but that that would represent a very different way of assigning i mean that's that's
 i mean that's me saying assign the way i assign so i just want to i want to you know at least
 disagree with myself for a second because that's not the way that everybody else assigned
 so i mean the the alternatives that we say let's just take our averages right it's yep so i'm
 saying
 10 and so that's the one we mean fully fund i mean take the average of what we funded
 the average of five or higher for the rubric the average yeah so so so if it's a five or higher
 this amount is what goes here yes that's that would be i said this i'm sorry i'm not on the live
 document the average amount recommended or no the full amount full amount not average requested
 yes the amount the full this is yeah this is a question are we so so do we for these for those
 who have five and aboves do we do we for now as a placeholder we can say that they get the amount
 requested yes yes everybody agrees with that yeah okay i mean so so that goes down to this one ah
 no no oh did it okay sorry it's something on my screen okay there we go okay do you scroll over
 to the right ever so slightly at least yeah somewhere and i would just say because i don't
 think we need to need the average scores is enough so and it's it's already uh there's a frame um
 um freeze so if you just if you scroll at the bottom i think we'll be okay i don't think because
 this is making it too small so let's see okay you guys can see that's good um okay then what
 do we want to do with what's the next ranking is high yeah 4.5 to i think it's four and 4.5
 that's high yeah so or or two so so the the fours how do we want to do we what amounts do we give
 them how can we just scroll down for a second and see yeah how many points we have that's going
 from
 three brothers big sisters so that's entry 26 to um eight that's 19 okay can you tell me
 what crested bell refuge scored on the average rubric crested hill their average is a 3.58
 just cares okay what if i don't know i because so what i did on my rubric
 anything that scored below a medium i didn't fund at all so anything below a 3.5 got no funding
 i think what if we took a second well i'm just i'm just trying to think of like a fair across the
 board at least start our point what if everything that's a high or to 4.5 we put in is 75 and then
 everything that's a medium we put in is 50 i don't know that that's and then we see where we're at
 well then we can go through and actually see where the right breaking point is yeah i also
 want to suggest and i'll lean on the group of whatever they want to do but i think anything
 above 4.5 to 4.99 should kind of hits a threshold there that was close to five
 i think that between 4.51 and 4.99 in my opinion should be good so yeah so you're saying you're
 saying the yeah yeah is that the 4.5s also be so that would be okay so let me get it thoughts on
 that everyone so this would be um an additional uh oops an additional eight for full funding
 we can try it again the placeholders
 where are we at money lines that's going to be one second equals
 so that would be 265,415 a little bit over half
 yeah i mean yeah
 we want to look at the rest of the highs the four to the 4.5 and see where that puts us because
 i'm fine if the medium score and then we go to the mediums and see which ones
 so if we go fours so what's the thoughts on then how to deal with the the rest of these the um
 then we look at the highest scores well i'm sorry i'm
 thinking is crested hill no in the
 i was just worried about if we apply that across the board then we're
 other funds i mean but we have yeah i mean we we wouldn't be able to do 100 here um
 because of the well you know back to my reasoning for sending eddie out
 don't worry i can't see it so
 oh i see okay so so i i a lot of these though okay so this is it gets it's it's interesting because
 you know if you look down if you could scroll down to um i scroll up sorry um so that you can see
 starting at entry um uh column 16 it's in the columns which is entry 30
 yeah so so if you i mean we're fairly
 you know up high in terms of our average amount funded on on these and then down here it starts
 to get really variable relative to each other right so you have a 61 then an 81 then a 72 then
 a 46 percent i see yeah so i mean there's um so so i mean yeah you might want to
 have that you know sort of deal those out a little bit more
 maybe we we create a new course we're pulling from the high category or 4.25 or 4.5 or
 i just don't it's i mean it's you know where we set high is is maybe arbitrary in this sense
 because we set that we set the number we set the number without knowing how people would score
 so so should high very high etc not be relative to the way they actually scored because let so
 so you know hypothetically had everybody scored a two on our rubric would would we have not funded
 them all except you think we would have to have i think we would have done the rubric yeah that
 or then we would have gone back to what we did last year and go through each one trying to figure
 out because remember that would put you a bigger problem when they're just not the applications
 aren't meeting the criteria of but but that's it but but but so but uh was five i mean we you know
 we we we set five it was an arbitrary place for it to be high or very high right right right now
 like right now right now eddie's arguing that a four is it should be treated as a five so what
 if we think about it versus those thresholds what if we think about it in terms of our averages
 like
 you were saying earlier our top 10 you know right so we look at our top and maybe we don't
 necessarily
 have to create thresholds in that way and beyond a certain point maybe we we take more seriously
 our
 average amount recommended yeah um because those are all you know those all of our input created
 that number right i mean because because the way i was thinking about is if we thought if we
 thought
 like in a standard distribution right that there's that there's some portion of that very high
 equals
 you know that you know whatever 14 percent or you know that bottom of the bell curve and that is
 statistics but you know that that amount and then there's some amount that's just sort of our mid
 and then our lows or something like that um and but it's not relative to how they actually
 scored rather than the arbitrary numbers that we set as high very high
 do you see what i'm saying i mean as last year i used the percentages but i didn't actually love
 that whenever we went to conversation about it because i do think the partial funding
 piece deserves to be considered as well so i almost think that beyond a certain point like
 we figure out who we want to fully fund and then beyond that point even though it takes longer i
 think we just go we go through and then figure out what appropriate yeah because i just feel like
 it's more effective that way yeah because i mean just looking here let me just take you for example
 pals we averaged less than under twelve thousand dollars for them right by this
 approach we're giving them full funding right when none of us none of us wants to give them funding
 yeah yeah we only gave them 61 percent and then this has us just automatically giving another
 percent
 yeah the others are closer yeah those are others are all you know 85 and above i agree with that so
 so so well what what we're saying is you know stopping at uh healing hands was number 10
 it's healing cancer is it now 10 who's your most sweet bag of sight
 is it that high we had um because we started okay yeah looking at looking at top 10 instead of
 okay so okay so top 10 there
 but then same thing there are similar situation here i mean maybe there maybe there's a some point
 which is to get fully funded you should have even though you have the score that you want
 um you know average funded percentage higher than 90
 i don't know or does it i mean are you okay with maybe just close enough but
 maybe because an interesting case that super high scoring but on average we didn't give them
 but i guess well david i had a question for you really fast so i think you said that you put in
 there that you thought community kitchen like you overfunded community kitchen but you ranked
 them at a 4.5 which is like relatively low on the list of all of your scores so i'm just wondering
 all my scores are lower than yours or most people's so 4.5 is like a higher it's high for me
 okay yeah i think so you know in so my perspective is a terrific is a great way sort of as a
 thumbnail
 so kind of under you know kind of feel out where you know the priorities are but when it comes to
 actual funding and i'm looking at the application i'm looking for you know really important needs
 you know food shelter you know kids you know kids needs especially if they're traumatized
 or something like that i mean that that was my personal you know you know so so the rubric might
 differ from but this is a question about the rubric though because it's like but we that's
 what we started was the story of rubric yeah but i was gonna say like of the things that we were
 ranking so um we didn't score partial funding project location is there's no like there's no
 gray area there right we're giving more points to people that are Bloomington specific versus
 Montero County generally Montero County generally was half a point and not in Montero County more
 Bloomington's no points well right but they wouldn't have been eligible if they yeah yeah yeah so
 so but
 but that but that's a that's a black or white thing it's not a like there's no like was this really
 Bloomington or was this really Montero County no it is there is gray absolutely there is well
 because
 sorry yeah i mean if we're you know if if if uh people would you know without shelter are you
 know are looking for food shelter they're going to do it in Bloomington because it's central
 yeah whereas if i'm funding something you know it's federal for boys and girls club or whatever it
 was
 yeah well you know that's that you know Monroe County should be looking out for that
 do you know what i'm saying i do i do but you know we've got that population is in Bloomington even
 though they may disperse into the county at times or but for this but that's my point i don't think
 that that if we went one by one over this that we've been tested that we can test that on any
 of these applications all right kind of like combining what you're starting with the union
 first right yeah i was just going to ask the general question if um there's a scoring on the
 rule to take away the significance of the product but what do you mean like in terms of what he was
 mentioning um seeing the impact for it um will it uh will benefits yeah you know those
 considerations
 that we mark at the beginning for focused for john alkins you know project that support the
 community
 the people certain people who are in need and so on so i'm wondering if this foreign is kind of
 deviating away from that aspect of it. But where, what things are not captured in the rubric
 that are supposed to be captured in the priorities of Jack Hopkins, because that's why we did put
 bonus points. My point here is that I'm interested in like what are the points that are,
 that are, that would have a different analysis of both to inform our rubric as we continue working
 through it. And I think to get at this question, which is like, you know, like how reliable is our
 scores to begin with, right? So I kind of, I think adjacent to what we're all saying a little bit,
 but kind of what Dave was saying about it being kind of a thumbnail, I think that the difference
 is that we all scored the rubric and then made a funding recommendation based on our personal
 scores on the rubric. So I really think that what we could be taking the most seriously
 is our average that we, that we talked through. And then we can kind of relate that to like the
 partial funding piece where it's appropriate, because I think that like he was saying,
 I thought about a lot about emergency services whenever I was scoring and like those things
 tended to get more funding versus, you know, citing. And so it was kind of, you know, I feel like
 our rubric average maybe means something different to all of us, but we all made recommendations
 based on how we interpreted our own rubric. Yeah. You know, so maybe it's just the funding
 number we just us. Yeah. So we should be looking at the ranking of the average funding. Yeah. No,
 but then, but then you, so, okay, so ranking average amount, percentage. Yeah. Good. Let's
 sort it that way and see what that looks like. So that's what we used to do, right? Historically,
 that's what the Hopkins committee did. We all made estimate, we all gave an estimated amount
 that we would fund. And then those all got averaged. And then if there was big disparities
 or people wanted to really advocate for something, they might persuade other people to change.
 That's the way we always did it. Not that the rubric approach hasn't got its merits. I'm just
 saying, yeah, that is what we've done. Yeah, it was helpful in a lot of ways to help guide me
 to going, oh, okay, I do see certain things that maybe I hadn't picked up on. But then there were
 times where I was like, I've got to give it another point because technically, but I don't want to
 give
 it another point because then it bumps it up to high or very high. And I don't deem it that in my
 personal, but like you said, that's going up high. Which is exactly why, I mean, to the historical
 point, this is exactly why we're pushing to adopt a rubric because if all of us stay here for the
 next
 20 years or something, we continue to be on this and it just becomes this like, how does Andy feel
 about stuff? Bored. That's what we don't want to do. We want to be very clear about this is what
 we're funding. And this is the reason why we're funding it. I mean, and I'll give an example openly
 here. Like, I mean, frankly, I didn't want to fund Crested Hill, but the rubric, they filled it out,
 they asked the questions. It's like, you know what I'm saying? And it's like, so it's not about
 like,
 do I think that people should have horses? Like that's not really the question, right? Like it's,
 and so the question is like, this is what we said we're looking for. And then you came and answered
 our questions, right? Like, you know, and so I think that there's some equity in that type of
 approach. But then we're, so back to our core question is about, we're still trying to figure
 out how do we from that decide. So notice the way you've ranked it right now, that the average,
 you know, score, everything there is about 4.25 except for one, which has changed over living. So
 it's not so askew, right? I mean, at or at odds, I think that this is, and I'm looking at the
 ranking
 and it's very much like what I saw were priorities. I don't know people concur with that in terms
 of
 really emergency services, food, shelter, the needs, you know, we really need to find them.
 And this is where I actually think you can zip through the list pretty quickly and saying like,
 let's go through the amounts. Do we really fund this? Do we have a partial funding? Like can we
 round? I think last year we rounded to the closest partial funding, which I thought was really.
 Okay. Okay. So, okay. So, so then, um, back. So, so I'll put them back with our average scores. Yes.
 They're right. Cameron or keep the average funding amount. I think average funding. Okay. So,
 okay. So then, so courage to change. So we're living keep, just do what we average said here.
 It's not very much to start from the beginning of the list again,
 just to talk through each of them. Okay. Okay. So back. Okay. So, so community kitchen, highest
 score, um, highest amounts given fully fund. I think so. Yeah. Um, Bloomington, St. Paul's
 also high score. I mean, very high score. Um, you know, we average amount was high, fully fund.
 Now, and I'll keep going until there's a contention. Okay. Um, pantry 279 high score, um,
 high amount funded, fully fund. Mother Hubbard's covered getting now at, uh, at a not very high
 score, but a high score. Um, but a high amount, high amounts across the board for all of us,
 fully fund. Um, that is the answer for all of these that are already on the board. Basically
 high scores, um, fully fund. So then courage to change sober living is the next one in terms
 of percentage that we all recommended. Um, I think we should call it, but they're pretty low score.
 But we don't recommend it. I don't know. We all did because we did say at the beginning
 that we all dealt with, with recommendations differently in the sense that some of you
 after you had done your high scores, basically found low, low things to fund, which then gets
 us in a, it does get us in a weird situation that it's like, what we're saying is if you apply for
 little, we'll give you extra points. So, so we have that extra rubric, which is, which again,
 like maybe that's what we want to do, but, but, you know, and we, we saw that in the presentation,
 remember a lot of people asked, why didn't you ask for more? And they were like, ah, well,
 you guys tend to think they're a little, right. And, and we, when, and, and that puts a tentative
 that we were like, we want people to go for big stuff. We want you to try cool things. We want,
 we want, we want, and then we're going to say, ah, the data applied for too much.
 Okay. I mean, I know that I recommended fully on them on mine. So maybe it's like, we have to talk
 about
 below scores, especially to get across the board. It looks like we're at three, 3.5. It's like
 three,
 three, Courtney, 3.5. You had a five cam, um, then Nordia's 3.5, Eddie's a 4.5 and the Dave's a
 three.
 It was high frame, but again, I mean, for the, I, I realized your point about, you know,
 the nickel and diamond kind of thing or whatever, you know, people applying for a little amount,
 et cetera. But I mean, I can be convinced to give them the amount they are the average amount.
 Okay. So let's go with the average amount for now. Yeah. Three, seven, oops, I'm doing this
 wrong, doing this wrong, doing this wrong, doing this wrong. Wait, I should be more technical.
 Do you want to highlight the ones that we put as partial funding just so we can revisit them if
 we need to? Yes. Well, I would like to just add, I'm not so sure. I see quite as much
 tension with between the smaller grants and the larger in terms of what we seem to be willing to
 fund. I feel like a really innovative, just great idea, great proposal by an agency that is proven
 track record. And I feel like at least I would not hesitate to give them a hundred thousand dollars.
 Exactly. That's exactly right. All I'm saying is here, you have a middle score for Curves to
 Live, but we're saying we'll give them the full funding or near full funding. That's what I'm
 saying is the tension. And the reason why that showed up this way is because some of us,
 after applying our high scores, distributed money to low scores. So that's essentially contra.
 There's a disconnect between the average rubric score and the average amount funded.
 Because in the back of your mind, you're thinking, well,
 what difference does it make to give two more thousand dollars to it?
 Yeah, I did it. I gave them, I'm the poster child for this. I scored them a 3.5,
 they're ranked a medium on my score sheet. But I gave them full funding because I was like,
 it's 3000 bucks. We can find that. I had a lot of fives the way that I scored with the rubric.
 And then courage change was at a 4.5 for me. And I mean, the biggest, like I was trying to find
 emergency services that seemed to be something that pushed a lot of stuff over five. Drug tests
 aren't necessarily, it's not an emergency, right? They're in stable living, it's a maintenance
 thing.
 So I think that for some of the years, the funding makes sense, but at some point you get to that
 bottom and I ended up leaving money on the table because I wanted you all to decide what was left.
 But I think something for courage change, I mean, if you look at why you scored it the way that you
 did, it was probably it was an emergency service for you and that scored it lower. But at some
 point
 near the bottom, we all had money left over, right? It's like we're assuming that all of the top
 priorities got funded and we had leftover funding to distribute to then what became the next
 highest priorities. And this is why I think what I'm trying to say here at this juncture is just
 that
 us now looking at average amount funded is misleading because there is in a handful of
 cases there's going to be a disconnect between average amount funded and the average score.
 So you want to just go back to looking at the average?
 I think it makes more sense because and I realize also in my case how I'm skewing the numbers here
 is that I didn't know what to do with SCAP. I didn't know what to do with restore and the
 two habits at once so I left them blank in terms of average amount. I gave the score but I didn't
 give them funding because I didn't know what to do and so that's going to skew what you know the
 number here though the score is going to be consistent. Yeah I kind of resolved to scoring
 as opposed to assigning funds because that process is efficient but at the same time when looking
 at
 the project itself like what they're trying to do and the necessity of it compared to others like
 where do you put the value in that. I'm a critical thinker sometimes I get too caught up in the
 critical part and assessing too much things as the criteria in China it's so based off the scoring
 alone in itself I feel like it doesn't represent what the need. But I think you're right I think
 looking at it in order of average score in conjunction with our amount are dependent makes sense.
 Yes so what if we do this okay so if you take you know our window so let's say you know you
 take everything that's you know 4.5 as an example right or the between 4.5s and then fives as an
 example and you look at the average amount yeah given across those as a placeholder we average
 84.7 percent across those so you could then give 84.7 percent to all those that fit in that
 category.
 Okay I'm going to push back please like I'm just I'm just like thinking out loud.
 So I think that I think that something that came up I think maybe Andy you brought this up in the
 beginning with like some part of having a rubric can sometimes feel rigid and fitting everyone into
 a box and that the value of having a committee is being able to use a rubric on top of having a
 conversation and I don't think we can fit people into let's all let's give them all 82 percent I
 think that we align the conversation to then come to a consensus about even though it takes longer
 and it would be easier just to be like yes but but you know what I'm thinking I totally agree with
 you I still I 100 agree that the next step is for us to go through and peg them but I'm but I'd
 like
 us to set a you know if you will a floor at least conceptually for for ranges is what was I was
 thinking so we say you know if we imagine that everybody under our top 10 is going to get some
 type of partial funding or you know that everybody that we can fund is going to get partial funding
 that there's no more fully funded people outside of our top 10 then we sort of take they will aim
 for like 90 here as an example and then and then that way we go and we're like we round to the
 closest thing to 90 that fits within the way that they prioritize their budget I mean I don't like
 that approach but I would do it I don't like it either actually I mean okay so I'm being difficult
 and I'm sorry so so okay what are we going to do with Avalon then how do we project you want
 to look at their at their grant I think we should fully fund them because I think that
 the project has lots of layers I think really beneficial to the community
 there's no objection that's what I'll do I'm trying to I'm gonna put the project description this
 it's the garden oh it's the gardens yeah yeah yeah I ranked food especially you know food security
 I think we talked about this and giving people the opportunity to actually grow food
 is a skill that I think is really uh you know has a long-term benefit and we need to expand on
 it is here's a question I have and this is taking us back and you guys are all going to grime at me
 I'm so sorry this was one where I had to disconnect because the so going through the rubric you
 know we
 we answered residents served
 and you know we got that off of their application but it's it was tricky for me in a lot of these
 to go well does this project actually serve that many people really are over 500 people going to
 benefit from these gardens maybe they would I I'm not envisioning how large it is necessarily but
 are we really going to be feeding more than 500 people so I had that question with with several
 of these numbers where I found it a little bit hard to believe that you know there were
 so many people that they stated would benefit from this I thought they said 20 to 50 where
 was the range that they landed at for that one on their application where it says you know how many
 people are served benefit by this 600 I was almost saying I don't know the number but
 yeah it was something like that that's what that's one of the areas that I got tripped up with the
 rubric where I would have that disconnect and I would go oh I have to give them that point
 but you know so they scored highly on my rubric but I lost now where it was but I only
 they scored very high yeah but I only recommended 10,000
 so that's just another wrench I'm throwing in there and I'm sorry to
 throw a bomb and run I'm wondering next year it would make sense before we call them in for
 questions for us to go through them with the rubric because then I feel like some of those
 questions would like pop out then yeah you know yeah that's a good because I feel like
 it would have been a good one like if we had been able to catch it early to be like can you explain
 us how that's going to actually serve that many people right so so Courtney I had the same dilemma
 but when I looked at I mean I thought well maybe 50 will be or more than 50 yes that's me and that
 was you know the full point under resident stern so it didn't matter so much to me that they had
 put
 something inaccurate yeah and I'm not saying it was an intentional inactive no not how many do we
 generally serve as opposed to the project yeah yeah so then that's a problem for me too that they
 they get you know those points uh well so we haven't recommended full funding for them though
 across the board 50 to over 500 I'll get the same amount yes sorry we haven't recommended full
 funding to them the question is what within their application what did they say was or prioritize
 um okay I have it up here so the so they have priority priority one three thousand eight hundred
 priority two two thousand eight hundred and fifty pretty three one thousand five hundred and twenty
 five five thousand nine hundred so um a natural a natural place that's close to should have a
 calculator what's um what's 17 what's seventeen thousand one hundred minus three thousand twenty
 five fourteen thousand that would be that would be funding priorities one through four for them
 so can we should we stay with that for now which is right on target we said for our average amount
 was fourteen eight oh five does send the journey okay yeah so what was what was that amount
 fourteen
 thousand seventy five uh okay I'll go back and do this in a second um this is all worth Santa's
 money
 I thought the closed captioning translated what you just said as
 which is all worth Santa's money okay and I think that's pretty accurate
 okay Catholic charities
 right I rate this pretty high because of
 mental physical and social trauma or impacts trauma yeah um that to me is
 this no you're thinking about the Kendrick um Hendricks Hendricks um county one
 guess is Catholic Charities one too Catholic Charities was also providing therapy services
 for children oh is that right yeah oh yeah I'm confused I'm the Saint Vincent um the Saint Vincent
 one I gave them 75% funding I thought they were um very high I'm skewing this one I'm wondering why
 why did I why did they I got they gave me a 3.5 but I'm not remembering why um
 you're really I hate children and I don't care but
 let me see what I did here um
 so
 did I count did I count the I mean I'm going to count it wrong that's something we should do
 also next year is have automatic points and things after you fill it out because
 okay well I'm not I would not be opposed to funding them as you all suggested
 yeah I mean access to mental health care especially for youth is extremely
 difficult in this town yeah and so I feel like the more we can give them the better
 yeah they basically said that there's no partial but partial funding just means they have less
 people yeah yeah I mean even honestly even getting into Catholic charities
 can be difficult for some people because they don't have enough funding
 yeah and I know this because we tried at one point so yeah okay so it's what's your what is
 the what are you saying what are you going to go with the 17,000 I don't think with that is
 did you all fully fund this one where were you at I fully funded I didn't I didn't do any I guess I
 worked money on the table I didn't partially find anyone so I gave him 75% so no I I didn't pull my
 weight on this I know but this I did go through and give it allocated funds from what I thought
 were
 my priorities and I fully funded this one I just my logic was simply look this is investing in
 reducing the need for all the other services in the future by nipping these situations in the blood
 to the extent that we need very good economic argument I don't have a problem with putting down
 both of these right now okay would you have I left it blank but I rated it high and I would
 like to understand it fully okay um okay well then that that is what it will be um
 and I'll go ahead in a second and see if I miscounted or something because it looks like
 it's strange that that's the score based on what they did across the board so um okay um
 Monroe County Humane Society is the next one
 it would be it would be helpful somebody else could also pull up the
 end the fund the full application if you have yeah I have it yeah but thank you
 yeah so I actually funded this fully given though I rent ranked it medium
 as I was thinking about spay and neuter services again as an investment you know
 what's that it's a full five thousand so what is the full funding is this okay yeah this is um
 13 000 13 000 so a natural cut off would be 10 I also fully funded um I gave them 75 percent but
 again I really I don't think I gave anybody for most people I didn't give full funding
 yeah we're not going to be able to give everybody full funding so like this was just me trying to
 spread the money I mean so I if we if we so what we suggested altogether lost my place sorry um if
 if we give what what we've all suggested it's 11 125 but um but that's not a natural
 cut point and actual cut point would be 10 naturally well in the sense that they rank
 their priorities on there and they and they say priority one this one though for that
 three thousand dollars that's hanging it's for spay and neuter surgeries and so I feel like that
 I feel like that could be partially fun yeah that's fine okay yeah I agree
 I'll highlight them because we are going to get into difficult conversations later right so um
 you know that we could cut a thousand dollars there if we if we needed to okay um that pals
 it's a collaborative center stone
 so and maybe I'm you know when I was thinking of like you know emergency services real priorities
 this break pretty low is crested hill does is does somebody want to offer something that would
 change my viewpoint on it I mean this is something that really I had it very low also yeah so it's
 mental health right and and they're you know they're pairing this you know it's therapy
 I write this one pretty high versus crested hill um but uh yes you know how do you think what they're
 doing is effective therapy for for their target demographic rate so I don't wonder if there's any
 measure of well it's by the way in the in the ask was it you know out of this world
 well that's true the area crested hill shouldn't be irrelevant consolidation and is it my
 I mean I'm new here but last year they asked for funding did they get any
 no they asked him they asked for a vehicle um also don't think it's relevant yeah I don't know if
 there's a relevant consideration like we can't penalize people for you know well I'm only asking
 about your experience and right right hearing from them and maybe they had to convince you that it
 was right right right partial funding was just a reduction in service because it was program
 funding for two week little one-hour sessions for six months and so I
 right they were a medium rate for me and I just offered 50 of the funding because then that was
 but three months of the that same thing
 I wouldn't post that how many months again go back to it is 24 24 weeks and they
 how much time do they have to spend the money again is 24 weeks the full periods of that
 so did they by chance did they by chance do yeah no that's right because they've spent back in
 february is that right we had a lot of people who proposed six months six months yeah projects are
 for everything okay so so the proposal is 50 here anybody against that which is pretty much what
 what
 we said so nine thousand six hundred fifty percent yeah indeed that work for now yes
 okay hendrix county um you know yeah you rank them the lowest one of your lowest scores
 because otherwise they would have been very high across sort of across us all
 any thoughts so that's really came in with the scoring versus what's the actuality of what the
 impact would be um and i see if i've felt disconnected in some way when i'm reading
 but there's some questions on there that maybe um because i'm new fairly new i'm not um the
 question i'm asking about um location project location one or family versus
 loomington oh they told they told us at the interviews that they're loomington
 i'm just wondering if we if there's room for
 but either way you said you think there'd be high high rank but um we were very close here what
 they
 asked for to what we're averaging so yeah i kind of feel like we should just fully fund them
 because
 i really liked how she talked about funding too and she was like we have our main priorities
 like service priorities covered but this is a need that we identified well actually i think
 that was one of the ones that i it's the specific thing from what they were asked and funding for
 was that the one that was asking for furniture for yeah i picked area to fund
 when i was considering that one and it was more so too
 would anybody be opposed to us fully funding as has been suggested interview rooms
 you didn't fund interview rooms i funded into oh i got okay got it as opposed to waiting room and
 other i see that was my explanation yeah that makes sense okay because there was prices based on
 places that they wanted funding and i thought that the interview rooms were
 more necessary in terms of upgrades and comfort for children's being interviewed and i kind of
 saw the other ones like the waiting room and so on as the less priority they'll be spending more
 time to be interviewed right on them yeah i need to be more that makes sense but they said that
 their number one priority was waiting room one then number two is interview room one two one
 and then interview room two i felt like the argument that she made where she was like you
 know when you go eat at a restaurant the food's good but it's kind of a bad environment so it
 changes your experience like i thought you know kids are already in scary situations and the
 waiting room being kind of scary would be getting them kids experienced trauma yeah so i was that
 this was one i could fully fund once especially after hearing more about the work that they did
 yeah and the relative need um i think it's a huge difference so i think i would advocate fully
 funding do we oppose to that no no no i had a 3500 and i just gave a number outside yeah
 we go up to the full funding is not the same i'm just you're okay relative to other organizations
 that we do have to fund we have to prioritize sure needs within the organization and we can
 come back to them too because i mean if i think the natural place and natural i'm using that word
 to to loosely i'm sorry um the possible place to cut would be at priority four and not funding the
 laptop or the monitoring cable which they said were there there will be supported priorities
 that would add on 500 to 500 roughly and 70 dollars so if we if we return to it
 but let's come back to it i'll highlight them we'll come back to it okay my sister's closet
 and amethyst house is next i ranked them high with full funding because there's really
 the technology piece feels really important and then um
 yeah that's sad you see last year we didn't fund my sister's closet
 i rank them high also when i gave them about 75 percent i have very high
 so you guys basically fund enough for that great guy in terms of fully person thresholds
 listen that again um you rated your um high adverse for your ones that are high
 free stones funding uh our show i only i only did full funding like i said earlier i said i left
 some money on the table and i funded all projects that i felt ranked very high on my rubric and it
 made sense um just trying to be impartial and i was going to listen in and hear what how other
 people thought about other organizations that might have been at the high level for me um but
 didn't get over that hump so i i did not do any partial funding i mostly did it almost partially
 funding so i i'm not opposed to funding near the whole thing let's look at the sabbatical where
 i mean the bulk of their ask is fifteen thousand five hundred for the salary assistance for the
 client service coordinator that's a thousand hours of 1550 an hour so anything we reduce there
 would
 just reduce hours of service okay so i recommend fully funding but i feel like
 i'm not i mean i'm not opposed there's no other proposals we can
 put in full funding i agree
 okay amethyst house is next
 i've funded the tree removal
 yeah i give them what does that what does that put it where tree removal actually oh i actually
 recommended around 10 000 but that was just because i put some leftover funds that direction
 yeah i only recommend 60 yeah no proposal someone else i read it fully funding it because
 you know they've been around for a while they've done a lot of stuff for people going through
 substance use i you know and kind of the same argument when we talked about um cc's place on
 having a place where it can get healthy and i just felt like hey you know we we have to
 we have to invest in these places so that way people can feel safe and get healthy but
 i'm fine with partial funding especially if you know and lose money around because these are all
 well so so they so they have um the women's restoration men's restoration tree removal
 and they have funded everything by the tree that was the part that was hard because when he talked
 to us he said the tree removal was the more urgent yes but then it's like third on the priorities
 yeah yeah exactly um tree almost fell on my house it fell in my yard missed our roof and our solar
 panels by just inches so i i can tell you that well so i mean how about funding it i feel like
 that your mom for the tree was something that can be fundraised or something you know i'd say we go
 with with funding priority one and two that i mean if they then want to say that the tree was more
 important than they wrote it wrong so to them but i don't i don't think we should be fully funding
 them at this at this or at this stage yeah and they can i mean they they because we're providing
 the amount of money for the first two doesn't mean they can't say tree is actually the priority of
 the money toward the trees we don't need to say what i mean though we use this as sort of helping
 us to pay it yes but they're not obligated they're out to do so that's 18 450 18 4 we do
 yeah that's the exact amount i had 18 it's not seven 17 18 should be 17 59 18
 what did you do between 20 000 minus 2975 or did you do 11 000 plus 6000
 i'm just like how is that 18 that's the same number i got
 but i think it was just a tree that bad in my head 11 11 020 plus 16 is 17 50
 11 720 plus 67 30 no it's not 67 30 it's 60 30 oh i'm looking at their budget it's a 67
 yeah my sister okay so their priorities how about the regular priorities and what the regular
 budget is different but an amount so i just took 20 025 and minus 3575 for the tree rule
 yeah i'll see on there okay on their priorities they have that is 2975 uh so it's supposed to be
 3975 yeah i went from the budget yeah we didn't sorry i didn't i did not i did not know this when
 you're reviewing it and instead of we this is something we should have asked when we're talking
 to them but um okay so so we're going off of actual budget figures not what they've ranked
 in the priorities well regardless we still say funding restorations and not free removal and
 whatever that wait no i still see i see the same number on i'm i'm i don't know what number you
 get i'm going to the full application yeah look at page it's the summer okay you're looking at
 summary the summary is wrong yeah yeah so it is okay okay yes okay i was i was so like i'm like
 what is wrong with me yeah did i read this wrong yeah the summary is wrong it is so the the number
 is 17 oh 17 oh five oh okay next one restore habitat for humanity we did not fund very high
 but this is this is in part because i i put zero funding on there only because it was by the time
 they pulled by the time sam pulled all these together we hadn't had the answer yet so i just
 like that point um but i didn't rank them so they're high highly ranked um
 i gave 30 000 this was one of the highest that i ranked and afforded yeah if i were to let me go
 and do it if i would have done it the way i did it so uh yeah yeah yeah yeah excuse me
 me
 which one's the same sorry uh there's shared one yes yeah um
 it's not really shared right i would have given them 90 percent
 so so yeah i mean i recommend a full but i'm not supposed to
 and just be clear the trucks not a picture of anything anymore that's correct
 this is the appointment so we have a proposal of 30 000
 30 000 one month but twice sure and yeah anyone opposed to picking them at 30
 no okay we are
 central okay we're gonna have to fix that in a second all right um okay the central
 i gave them i only gave two groups bonus points this was one of them um which one they are
 sent through i think those are one of them that i specific i gave a specific amount for specific
 things as well because i feel like that was more of an impact the books and printer
 there's the books you can copy and make copies to distribute and reuse and i feel like the books
 and the copy it was more of a necessity for them but they're trying to move forward rather than
 other things that in this thing so you funded 3750 yes i think that's uh that makes sense and
 not fund the printer yeah no i mean the printer was included the books and printer oh but they
 said priority one was books priority two was educational materials and the printer was priority
 three well my my amount was well this was in south tropics was two thousand three thousand
 okay yeah so you did so yeah that's what i did too i did three thousand
 i i don't i don't i i would i don't know if i like not funding one of their priorities while saying
 that we like their higher priority while saying that we rank them too highly i just think that
 they're kind of like where we're seeing the priority differently from right there because
 you know like um what can you say importance importance and you know for books yes printer
 yes that's something that's good you can reproduce the books with the printer are we i mean so we
 should choose their priority over yes we see as the priority yes i think so because because the
 whole idea is that these is that the service providers understand the people that they're
 serving better than we do i mean if we're not going to take them at their word it's we're like
 wow we think we think that you know the way you should do this is okay but handing out what's the
 difference in a funding a population that is currently super vulnerable culturally and education
 like education and as a culture being attacked by the administration that at the very least if
 we're not going to use an inflammatory word like attack or maybe defund it and so i feel like it
 makes more sense for us to give as much funding as we can even it's a fairly small ask to um
 support the work that they're doing in a population that could be a forgotten population based on
 current administrative priorities and also that was innovative way that they wanted to do it
 you know and it's a low-cost volunteer um and i i don't i don't see why we wouldn't put the whole
 thing in i can be convinced of you're convinced for full funding i'm okay with it i just don't
 think they have much time fundraised if the same people are administering and organizing i i mean
 the lead volunteer is a teacher himself yeah exactly like yeah i mean is there something that
 would i mean so so cam and eddie both ranked and they've ranked very this very highly
 they relative to themselves um well i i i ranked it high at four which isn't so high relative but
 3500 is what i thought would you know suffice but then the total request is 4000 right so everybody
 reading the same numbers yes on the sheet it says 3500 so yeah i think the minute that the real
 request was 4000 yeah and i don't want to nickel and dime something that is so that it's a pilot
 project it's operational but it's pilot could have real impact it's a vulnerable population
 and i actually i actually think i think i on column k going i'm going back over this i could
 i i said in my initial review that this was uh indirect um effect i actually think it's a direct
 one which would change my score to 4.5 or 3.5 so i would not be opposed to fully funding
 the question though as as relates to the rubric um should we as we're we should probably be
 changing
 i mean as we're openly discussing it like i i mean should we be viewing this the draft this draft
 because it will be publicly available so should we probably need to be going in and making set
 adjustments and comments right i feel like the rubric really has identified the order that we're
 having a conversation yeah yeah i think it's certain to purpose and i think we need to
 make it all match now um i think the discussion is convincing me to prioritize things that i do
 necessarily but then so people go give us feedback and we go here's the rubric now i'm confused on
 this one for example just looking at my answers right so they got a point project location
 bloomington right that's great emergency services it's not got a red right residents served 20 to
 50 okay that's yellow cameron argued that it is emergency service i assume based on what you're
 saying earlier i just think because it's not a population that's captured right every places
 that i fall by as an emergency service just because the context of the time right yeah yeah
 yeah that's where the last information i gave them agree and i said yes directly number of full-time
 staff that you can't really that's not open for debate you know and then community partnerships
 no so like but yes because they're working they're working with casa yeah there's a library
 yeah see then i think i think i had i think i needed clarification yeah about
 what community projects partnerships meant because i really just have yes yeah there were a lot
 that
 i put on yes yes but so i think that wouldn't yeah so yeah yeah so i think i messed up on
 my rubrics with the community partnerships question not only so okay so so that settles
 the question of whether we're going to go back and change our rubrics at this point but we should
 so it's the answer now whether we're thinking back through it just to you know double check our
 sense
 but so we're happy to fully fund yeah sure i mean that's not arguing that which is actually four
 thousand yes and that's similar for yes for grants okay what's the tally on the total for
 you actually that i need to agree although you saw when you look at the amount requested it says 35
 yeah but all the actual application is four thousand so i don't know where this number came
 from okay um i just see maybe just maybe just clerical error i think that must be
 and then i know is this populating from somewhere now yeah this has just risen down so i will
 make sure i change that appropriately uh where are we total money okay
 we're at 324,000 okay tandem is next
 so uh within their their average uh four point can you see it out there
 i see it yeah i mean it's making it down that
 um if we're going to
 fund one priority the top one was 3750 and their second was 2145 uh no i did all
 no it's so full funding
 i think we're super close to recommending full funding based on our average okay so stay at full
 funding yeah any opposition other than and i'll soon i'll highlight them and say that
 we can ask andy in case we come back to okay uh plan parenthood
 yeah i randomize all time you can't full fund everyone guys
 yeah well i mean i mean yeah it's true but then but now we're in the situation where we didn't
 fully fund people who got higher scores i gave them 5000 again just because i did fully fund most
 requests i think but like you said i feel like we're holistically looking at things like through
 the conversation to kind of yes yes yes so it doesn't have to be yes all always full fund i
 guess yes yes the looking at priorities
 oh my gosh it's hard to find the word plan should have looked for another word um
 here we go looking at priorities uh they priority one is 5000 priority two is 1000
 and then priority three is 750 and then priority four and five are 500 and 250
 it's just again it's hard because it's like women's health and sexual reproductive health are being
 there yeah he funded across the board so it feels like context
 i'm gonna get full funding for him yeah my problem is i can't have our new context on almost all of
 them and i'm not saying yeah i want to give that's that was why i did fully fund most because i was
 like we need to give as many if you feel help as we can so that's where i'm okay so you want to
 pay them a full fund and then come back to them if you get to yeah yeah this was this was a
 particularly compelling match right okay indiana recovery alliance
 i would say that they've made a very strong argument time and time again on the return of
 investor of the money that we've given them and so one friend i had here i don't think there was
 any
 if i'm not mistaken don't think that they broke this down in a way that
 no because i think it was for the grant it was all just for the grant writer
 i gave them 75 ish percent
 although i strongly support
 what they do i think i think i confused courage to change it
 so they want a grant writer the grant manager i mean the the argument in terms of return of
 investment of taxpayer funds is that if they get a grant writer that the likelihood they're able to
 get more funding is is higher in less impact on the network here and and they have they have
 told us throughout they they you know it's show last year the person they asked for funding for
 the person they were able to fully fund that person by the end of the year the year before that
 they
 did the same and so they they have a track record of doing that which you know it's not really
 captured in our rubric i get bonus points for that but anyone anyone opposed to taking them
 at full funding that we can come back that's good to me okay any against
 um exos refugee
 75 funding that gave this was my other bonus point one similar to it being a population crisis
 and emergency services
 if we did 75 percent as sorry i lied yeah yeah because i gave him 1010 if we do 75 percent of
 right about where you were on our average and our average is 79 let's do that yes i think we're
 gonna have to have more discretion about not fully funding yeah i i recommend it so um half of that
 i'd like to hear a little more about your thoughts on that yeah because i'm thinking
 that it's going to be supporting them in some ways but at the same time they can't be like relying
 on
 this funding there must be pulling um seeking sources from other places probably as many people
 as they can um but the but the issue i mean the issue with with them right now one they're they
 need 150 000 um and there's zero federal funds and there we're talking about funds for you know
 talk about emergency is people in the community that may face all types of other issues if if not
 supported yeah when i saw it as something where you're supporting them in a way um but not at the
 detriment of somebody else that might be needing funding also yeah so it was either give them some
 but not give them all and i came to the half yeah but what but how do like the taking it at half
 i don't i'm not i mean i
 okay so how about okay let's um it's how about we currently because we'll we'll go back through all
 the people that we highlight so so let's currently we'll leave it at the 75 because it seems like
 there's more of us wanting 35 that we can come back and and see what the right amount is because
 they to your point they didn't say you know they don't have a particular breaking point here or
 they're just asking for as much money as possible at 150 000 um okay casa
 i think we're 5 000 that's sort of that did you find did you write that i mean that's right at we
 our collective is is 77 percent which is 4,000 and 100 and change so um let's let's see there
 uh 5,400 would fund their would fund their fully fund their first priority
 this was a very high one for me yeah 5,400 i know we can't fully fund everybody so
 i'm fine with giving them something but um you know nationally i think casa was
 defunded um but mineral county seems to be okay from what i've read so but that was before
 i scored the rubric but i still scored a few high but afterwards yeah i mean we're looking at at
 risk
 services for used again and it's volunteer on a volunteer basis like causes like
 so this is the more i felt really crappy doing the rubric because i didn't
 uh you know the question you know sorry project location of liberal county so
 they lost a little bit because of the number counted on the but it's our kids you know so yeah
 all right so how about we pay them it's 5,400 keeping with the the way that we've we've been
 approaching you so far and we'll come back a little higher than our average but um that we
 requested for them but um okay uh cooperative living
 hey isaac what is the total for exodus it looks like it's 112 000 that's almost missing there
 thank you oh yeah it's because it says bad doing
 there we go
 squat good living was one of the ones that i gave bonus points for for dps out outside the box when
 it comes to housing for um for bloomington um i recommended fully funding just so that way
 i'll see there but it's hard though they're there so their their overall
 their overall request was 15 367 but then they broke down their priorities as the full
 project cost a 41 233 the the top priority was the tempstar system which is
 the upstairs system sorry this is all for for those the upstairs system is 14 593
 so i would recommend we fund 14 593 or 13 320 so we fund one of the full systems
 i'm good with it which one the lower number or the higher number you said fully fund so
 yeah so i'm on the high end but i'm okay with the lower end uh that's the one
 okay i'll move the higher and then we'll come back okay uh stone belt
 uh collaborative business yes collaborative uh i marked them high and i gave them 5 000
 and
 yeah
 yeah i agree 5 000 well so that would be taking that would be funding everything
 but um participation incentives potentially so that's that would fund their top six um their top
 six um priorities okay do we need to uh do we need to take a break yes okay let's take a quick
 break
 then um for those five minutes okay okay we need breaks
 okay
 [ Pause ]
 Sorry, should have brought food, you're right.
 [ Laughter ]
 [ Inaudible ]
 There are like 13, 13 left.
 [ Inaudible ]
 What's the total so far?
 $390,000.
 We have about $100,000 left.
 Based on how we've allocated it.
 Did we eliminate?
 Let's talk about it in a second when everybody's here.
 [ Laughter ]
 You know where I'm going.
 I don't.
 [ Laughter ]
 All right, Courtney.
 Come back, Courtney, come back.
 We're going to spend the rest of Santa's money.
 [ Laughter ]
 Okay.
 So we have just about 13 more to go.
 And then we'll have a time of public comment.
 Then we can go back to looking at each of these again.
 The ones that you've highlighted.
 We are on Big Brother's Big Sisters.
 Oh, did I leave the room and everybody was like, let's take a break?
 Yes.
 Thank you.
 I was making it all about me.
 Okay, so Big Brother's Big Sisters.
 So I only funded the personal cost for this.
 Yes, I gave $17,000.
 It was my distribution.
 No, that sounds reasonable.
 That's $17,000.
 That's about the average.
 Yeah, just a little above what we averaged here.
 Okay.
 Eddie, you can leave now again.
 Or just go sit in the corner and something.
 Don't say anything.
 Okay. So, so scap.
 So I gave a full funding, but I could be, you know,
 I was only like, I had lefty blank and just it was so much, it was, it was throwing.
 I gave a hundred thousand.
 Did you?
 Well, they're well established.
 They have a history of really good work.
 And they say this is essential and I had the question.
 I gave them $55,000.
 Oh, actually, I did give them money.
 I gave them $92,701.
 Well, because I told you how I did mine.
 I said all of my very highs got fully funded.
 My highs got 90%.
 My next level guy, you know, 70% or whatever.
 Yeah.
 And they don't, they didn't give us any, you know.
 And I wish we'd actually invited them for an interview at this point, because they didn't say what
 partial funding.
 Nor do you.
 How did you get that number?
 Multiple numbers in like, okay.
 Because I had the 57.
 So you were funding something particularly with that amount?
 No, no, I just, I was doing percentages because I thought so.
 And in terms of my first round of it, I was just taking it to, you know, just just roughly seeing,
 you know, where, where things went out if I, because I mean against me.
 There there's a there's a little bit of a challenge here because the so this here is the first
 example where what was asked for isn't captured in our rubric like we didn't actually look at like
 return on investment or like impact of, you know, dollars spent or something like that.
 Like, we tried to capture that with like people sort of. Right. And but that relation isn't isn't
 exactly there in the sense of, you know, some of these groups are asking for $6,000 and certain 500
 people.
 And, and here they're asking for $120,000. And how many people did they say they serve to serve 4,239
 people. So, you know, roughly speaking.
 What's the critical critical angle out of the institution.
 What's the like they would have them get in funding from other sources, very high. Exactly, which
 is why I came to them and have lots of cuts, right.
 Right. And that's that's the thing.
 Spent grants that they have to write and then they weren't asking for money to fulfill their cuts
 they're asking for money for which, and now, on the other hand, there's this flip argument where I'm
 like, that is what we said are the priorities of the grant,
 which is like one time capital expenditures.
 Right, Cameron, where are you on this.
 Um, I didn't, I didn't allow any funding.
 But it's just because it was so big that I really just like, I'm nothing 55192 120.
 We're all over the place.
 Well, well we're not we're not all over the place there's this just that the zero zero is going to
 skew the average amount Jerry highly.
 I guess what was your rubric right though.
 Where'd you where'd you bring them for it's like, I ran to them before me.
 So penalizing them for asking for a lot of money. Well, no, it was more like thinking about like,
 very well established organization that probably has not probably that doesn't very well
 established fundraising weighing.
 I know they're going to be federal cuts but also if we're looking at physical improvements there
 are usually other grant opportunities at the state level exists for that.
 We are one of those which is a good argument for it but like, it was mostly just like, because
 there was no partial funding option, and the budget in terms of items that are needed was not
 broken down into anything specific.
 I like that either. And so, but I'm also not saying that's what I believe in that like I need to
 get nothing I'm just telling you that I
 would we be averse to, you know, our average is about 68.
 Could that work for most people. Well we're actually, yeah, we had a sports or wise. The only thing
 I'm worried about with this one is that's a lot of money for a large project that has to be
 completed within what six months.
 And if they don't have the rest of the funding. Yeah.
 I feel like they can get the rest of the funding. Yeah, like, not.
 But what if they don't and so so installation and six within six months.
 And we didn't we didn't interview them.
 Yeah. Well, but we're giving them majority and funding and well established. You can make a plea.
 Okay, on the flip side.
 To that argument, if you if you, for example, fully fund, and, and then, and they don't, they're
 not able to spend money that does reverse to to the general fund and we have the past years, then
 said, okay, you know, we'd like that to be added.
 Which this year did we did we ask if what what the leftover was from last year and they said, you
 know,
 I have to check on that.
 We didn't ask we didn't ask.
 I was like, you might two student committees, both had scout on the table.
 Irrelevant irrelevant if we write them high, the funding should go hand in hand with high with a
 high ranking. And I mean they're but they're not okay so let's see who rank them well.
 Well so interesting I mean but Dave you rank them, you and Courtney okay so Courtney you rank them
 as a three. Why, why, what they would they not score limit in, they were not emergency services.
 I know. Well, okay, maybe I was a little unfair I put minimal lasting contribution.
 Because, yeah, it's a lasting contribution to the building, but they serve. I mean the amount of
 people that they have.
 That's true. It's like, but maybe okay so maybe that's the maybe that's the rub, which is the
 theory of change here, like, are we do we actually believe that, you know, a deteriorating building
 hinders their ability to serve these people.
 And I mean maybe that's the core question on the table here because if the answer. I mean, in your
 case if the answer is yes, then it's, it's a lasting direct, you know, contribution.
 And then then that would that would lead you to raise your score, which would, which would put a
 higher on a list and we would have considered earlier we would have thought of near fully funding.
 I disagree, or I disagree, and
 together or is the or is the or effect that you might disagree, are you saying, I do.
 So it's a question whether or not the phone fully or not.
 I might be swayed in the opposite direction though as well as to say, I mean maybe maybe you're
 right, which is, which is that actually this isn't, this isn't direct and lasting.
 And in which case we all rank them too high on the rubric. My argument is this is not, and they
 provide emergency services. Yes, this is not an emergency.
 And I feel that we have a lot of emergencies up there. So that was why I, for the most part, didn't
 fully funding anyone. Yeah, I actually read them know for the service, the emergency services as
 well, but they still got high.
 I'm pretty sure if I remember correctly what I did was there were two.
 That I left blank. When I was allocating money.
 And then I went back and I played around with numbers to try to fund those two that I left blank.
 And to find them as generously as I could. I mean, I don't disagree with with you know I mean and
 with Cameron I mean in the sense that, in the sense that okay, and I think that's such a strong
 point which is separate.
 There's what the agency does right and and the amount of people they serve. And then there's a
 question of what the project they're asking to do is.
 And, and now, the tension for me here is that what they're asking to do is what we say we
 prioritize in addition to emergency services and what we've never discussed is whether, and we
 tried to do this with the rubric is whether you know is emergency service more important
 than capital investment, where it's like and and pilots and you know the type of things that we say
 that that are that are crucial to this fund.
 And, and, but, but I agree with you that one, it's like if they do this this year or five years in
 many ways.
 Well, and for a project like this too, because I think that there is a tension with capital
 improvements that this is over a fifth of the funding we have available to give out, and I think
 that it would be nice to see more sources of income that
 that we're being leveraged into this project versus just saying we want Jack Hopkins to fund all of
 this because I at the end of the day I actually really don't think it's our job to do that with
 this like pool of funding.
 I mean, I'm getting really convinced by this conversation. I have a modest proposal.
 I don't really Chris Preston Hill refuge that I read it low.
 We funded partially some back one therapy. If we were to eliminate Preston Hill and scout, then you
 can probably go to everybody.
 However, I will say I one thing I'd like to caution us about is I don't think I can we can penalize,
 we should I don't think we should penalize them for asking for a lot right I think we need to view
 it through the lens of what it is.
 But that's what I'm saying like, like, I don't think that should tip us to say to say I mean, I
 think the core of the conversation is what is what is what we're all saying is like, does this
 investment, but you were convincing me of is the fact that maybe they could live with
 it exciting for now, right, they don't need another emergency services, a lot of the things here
 are services really important. Yes, which right now, which, yeah. And so that's ways me if it's, it's
 really a matter of like, if we're going to fund it 55 or 60 and they don't get the rest
 of the funding and then we get into this.
 I mean, what's the point may as well, I think.
 I also feel like if it was $128,000 is the final gap in this bigger campaign they've been doing for
 their renovations, it would be more compelling.
 Yeah, it doesn't say it's a renovation, it says the building is an immediate need repair, or I'm
 assuming risk of much longer term impacted damage to the actual structure. And, and I'm not saying
 there wasn't a need for this program to morph.
 It was the fund was originally like the first year I think it just went to one agency, it actually
 prohibited, giving it for any operational expenses, or anything. It was a purely capital investment
 one time, one time investment.
 But that is still that is still in our, that is still clearly in our priorities that then and we
 talked earlier about how we wanted to, we talked about a couple of things that we that we left on
 the table right.
 One of them was that we wanted to do whether we wanted to incentivize like put a portion of the
 extra funds for high right for the high value things we talked about that right and we just couldn't
 quite figure out what that would look like.
 Yeah, right.
 Go ahead, go ahead.
 Okay, but just going back when we had a conversation about and this house much smaller ask and the
 building was specifically serving citizens, the building that we're talking about for Scott is an
 agency building specifically for administrative services it's not even housing.
 So housing funding and we bring them a so high, but I mean to that to that point and then we so so
 the question to that that I asked earlier, can they do their services remotely.
 I think, to, to an extent the answer is no, because a lot of the people who they serve need to
 physically come into their building to get served some of them don't have access to internet, some
 of them don't have it and so on and so forth so so so they do.
 It's not just a office space that could be a we work right like they could they couldn't be
 operating out of the mill just you know like with with floating desk like they need space.
 No, but then to your point Andy, what I didn't see in the application and I think this goes to what
 Cameron was saying earlier, I didn't see in the application a strong like our building about to
 fall down or like this is an immediate need.
 That was this what we use the money for. Right, so so that that to me is the tension and I think
 that if, if that was described to your, I would, I would be totally swayed by what you said, if
 that was the situation and I mean and keep in mind I mean, I did write them highly
 I want to give them near full funding. So did, but but thinking through this, it's like, you know,
 it isn't an emergency need and I think that what we're coming up with is that yes we want capital
 investment but emergency means Trump that.
 The one line they have that I think that they're on either side of the argument is, is it is by
 reducing the need to apply agents and funds to building maintenance for agency resources can be
 applied directly to client services.
 I think that this can support either side of our argument but I do think it's worth noting that
 that is like, but then they didn't they didn't outline what those are.
 And so, so it's not, is it. I mean, okay, so we know. We know about the agency, but it's part of
 the proportionate and in comparing that to the other things that we're looking at here at the
 bottom of our list.
 I just also personally feel like it's not it's concerning me with timing as well whenever the
 expenses are not unless I miss them or just not throw them down.
 Yeah, more specifics.
 This specific quote either. I think if we wade into this very, it's not an actual emergency
 services investment works. This is so slow because like amethyst house.
 And the painting and the interior restoration and furniture I mean lots of things that we are these
 other applications aren't emergency services they're just investments in the space.
 Fair and that's why I marked amethyst house low, as hard as that was for me, because I really
 support what they do. But I did mark, you know, like the, the furniture in the waiting room and the
 interrogation rooms not exam.
 Hi, because I was much closer to the emergency. So you're right. It is a tough line to where does
 it become an emergency. So I feel like that's a really good thing to delve into deeper to for next
 year because I think that yes.
 We, we said we prioritize capital improvements, but I think that it can be a capital improvement
 that is also an emergency service and it need but how can they tell that story better because I
 think that's what's making it hard is like okay.
 So with beacon, and the medical services, you know, we didn't even have questions about that. And
 that's like the technical capital and business space you know adding on to the space, but it's just
 like science.
 It's.
 Yeah, it's it will it's hard to because we just have associations with oh I'm citing my house right
 and that's not fair that we're bringing in some associations from like, you know,
 I mean I'm not, I'm not going to die on this hill.
 Well, this is I mean, I mean, yeah, no one should ever downhills but the, but it's like the
 way to me it seems like our decision on this is kind of president said, a little bit like that and
 then you are making a super court decision is a big ask on a capital prudent.
 It's a big hill.
 Well it's it's also I mean this this is a, at this point, you know, going back to, you know, all of
 the other going going basically we find this at any level close to what we're suggesting that's it,
 we're done.
 Yeah.
 But on the other hand, this is everything below this is low scoring. I mean so
 what if
 doesn't work. All right. What was your suggestion. Well I was going to say, like I had said when I
 was doing my personal rubric anything that scored below a media.
 Just funded, so I can say what if we go through and see what that knocks out and then fund all the
 others and see what we come back to with.
 Well, then we have left but then so so so even if you look at. So if you look at our average. What's
 left over. Okay, just on our average suggested amounts.
 We're talking about $208,000. We are currently at 411.
 So we have about 90,000 left.
 So again we could fund all the other agencies on the pretty close to the average.
 Otherwise, you're right. I mean, if we if we were to give 60,000 to a scout and say, well,
 hopefully you can find the other half.
 To complete the project within six months. I mean, there's nothing if we we could we can still we
 you know this whatever we decide today is not final we have the, we actually have the meeting where
 we make this final right so.
 You know, we could schedule a, because we're realizing that like I have a lot of questions now that
 I that I didn't get answered right like about what would they do a $67,000.
 So we could invite them to do something we could maybe we should do that.
 I'd like to see because he's in these, you know, point well taken good capital investment agency
 that serves a lot of people, but isn't an immediate Neil, like to know is an emergency.
 You know, just out of curiosity, what's the precedent for that and calling people back in after the
 presentation as it hasn't been done but we I mean the way that we use interviews this year is that
 we only brought people we had questions for.
 I mean, and so, you know, I mean it's it's our own.
 It's our own failure right but we didn't notice these questions until talking through it.
 So I don't know if we should disadvantage someone for that.
 I mean, but but then we, I mean, I'm still on the fence on I think both of these arguments way.
 You know I find merit in both of them.
 Is there anyone else we want to invite other remaining agencies.
 So far we haven't had there's no more of the ones above there was nothing you know contested so far
 for us right.
 When it comes back I'd like to ask about the. I don't think Preston Hill. Okay. Okay. Because, you
 know, I mean, if I were Santa, and I had a million dollars in this budget, I would.
 I think it would be wonderful. But, you know, we have whatever $970,000 okay let's let's let's do
 this then I mean but, you know, keep in mind that this is the last one is ranked as a four.
 And, you know, as we look through how we ranked it.
 You know,
 it feels like I think I'm, I, I could be persuaded to lower my score, based on based on the
 discussion I think that Courtney could be persuaded to raise her score so so it's so it might
 change sort of where this ends up fitting relatively to others.
 I still feel like we have all the information we need, because if I knew that they could move
 forward to partial funding and the a lot of time I could probably change my opinion on it.
 Yeah, that's exactly where I'm at.
 Go that way.
 Okay.
 So, okay so then so then, may I suggest that what we do is.
 Well, in a second we'll call it back in. We can, we can talk through the others to see if we if we
 still have any further questions for any of the others.
 And then, and then perhaps send it back out and we discuss and then if that's what we really want
 to do is is have another interview can look at see when we're available and ask them for that now,
 there's some challenge with this.
 One is that
 we have to do a lot of coordination, but I think that's the, that's a minor point.
 The big point to me, twofold. One is in the application we told them when the interviews were going
 to be. So this is us holding an interview outside of the time that that we said they would be so
 they may not be available.
 We can just offer a written, you know, ask questions in a written form. Okay, just, you know, we
 don't necessarily have them on.
 That's pretty smart. Yeah, because our question is pretty straightforward.
 I mean, yeah. Okay. Okay. Okay. So, so are we okay with that we call Eddie back, talk about the
 others and then we can ask them to leave and we can sync our calendars for everyone.
 No, we don't need to sync our calendars. We said, so we'll format the question. So let's format the
 question now then.
 So, what is the, what is the question that we'd like to. Well, there are two questions I think one
 is, in terms of an immediate need.
 Could you elaborate on the immediate need.
 Could you break down that maybe if there are three questions could you break down the hundred 23,000
 or whatever they're asking.
 I just found that is in the proposal there was a full, but it's, it's in sort of contractor fashion
 and sort of says, all these things.
 Okay, scrap that.
 And we're back to Cameron's question, you know, quick, you know, funding a partial funding. Yeah,
 so so I think it telling us how immediate, what is the probability that this would
 be utilized to leverage more of the total cost is it is it is it somewhat of a.
 No, I mean, okay.
 Yeah.
 So, so expressing, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, you know, well, I mean, I just want to
 know if they can still move forward with personal funding.
 Within the six within the six months time period within that time period. Well, and to them, like,
 what happened can they with full funding can they were full funding to the project and signals.
 Yeah.
 It's like the building integrity is at risk in after six months or something I mean, you know, in a
 significant way.
 Again, yeah.
 With full funding or partial funding would they be able to move forward with the project within the
 time period of the grant.
 But I think that also kind of speaks to like getting their priorities spelled out for partial
 funding to.
 I think that's a very important question moving forward to make sure that's established within the
 criteria itself.
 It will partial or full funding to facilitate completed up whatever they want.
 They're asking for to be done within the time frame.
 I don't think that's question was that wasn't a question that was pretty good, but that seems to be
 a very significant.
 Every, every.
 Everybody comes back where it was not really comes down.
 And then that just makes it really bad because there's things that wasn't funded in that time.
 Well, also, by the way, this will give us a chance to ask the question of if there's any remaining
 funds from last year to because if this happened last year because then that that also help us and
 evaluate it because I think we feel quite comfortable with.
 With lines, where are we at, you know, sort of lunch 28 and above I think we're fairly comfortable
 there with some some that we can revisit just to see you know, within $1,000 or something like that
 but you know.
 But I think that would help us you know if there's an additional $17,000 or something like that I
 think last year we had an additional.
 Was it like 10 right we went 10 over. Yeah.
 Okay. Okay, so we're are we happy with those questions there are you happy to send those Lisa. Yes.
 Yeah, thank you. Okay, let's call it back then.
 Let's come around.
 Okay.
 Lantern support services.
 They provided two options and there was a huge difference between the two but I recommended the
 reduced
 option they provided.
 What was that number 16 560.
 I recommended 50%. That's what I did. Yeah.
 It's 30% but I'm fine with smaller number.
 He said 9200.
 And then just noting that all these folks now are all under force.
 And then a rubric say is that low or medium.
 If there are three minutes there should be medium.
 Medium low is 2.5 so anything under 2.5 is a little low.
 Just noticing actually that we actually didn't have a week missed a whole number of which is three,
 threes and three point five so mediums but three point five and above, we didn't say what it is.
 Under force, anyways.
 Okay, sorry, sorry, let's not lose steam we got this guys.
 So,
 what was the suggestion sorry I'm finding half I think is half was what some people so members.
 And then, and he thought, full, but what did they say they can do with that.
 With half because it looks to me like they said.
 So, it looks like they're choosing between funding a pay family coordinator with a master's in
 social worker and equivalent degree already or paying one that has an MSW in progress, and this
 smaller number 16 by 60 is the one in progress, 20,400 is for the one that degree already.
 The way the synopsis reads. It seems like they could do as much of those things, support group
 therapy meals mentoring as as the funding was available.
 Right. Yeah, but so that that's why my, my, I think I think that we want to pay it to.
 If we're going to fund them.
 I mean, giving, giving them $9,000 would sound like it, I mean not helpful in the six month period
 necessarily.
 So my argument would be 15 six. If we can't fully fund
 use the amount for the person.
 Lower amounts of the person. Yeah.
 Or don't fund at all. I mean, I'm also, I wouldn't.
 I think they took the box for innovative project. Yeah, and because really there is another
 community that's not served up them.
 Intention of care is something that people use to the state tries to use to save money.
 So yeah, so.
 So 15 360. Yes.
 The spaceship.
 I did not fund them. They ranked medium low.
 Yeah.
 I have partially funded for the classroom furniture and the developmental and educational resources.
 So that was 30,624.
 I think I've given them 4.5.
 Hi.
 So the, the class, the classroom top priority is 14624.
 And their next one is 11376.
 So, if you.
 So, so whatever thoughts.
 I get somewhere someone.
 A bunch of the six.
 If we funded top two priorities that would put us.
 25, yeah, it's 26 exactly for top two. Yes. And then our average is 26,724.
 And then our average change we already discussed. We'll come back to if we need to, which we will
 need to.
 Every minute 10,000 because their partial funding is just a reduction in service and they don't
 really hit the markers in terms of emergency services.
 I recommend it's 60% funding as a list for it for me so they might not receive funding from me.
 The rules.
 35.
 I'm persuaded by not emergency.
 So like for $10,000 I know it wasn't their top personal expenses was it was their top priority but
 program materials and supplies and then their scholarships which I thought was like, you know,
 really a huge that was at 10,000.
 And they, they can, who wouldn't say we're funding the scholarships yeah okay 10,000 but I mean
 their overall project costs $1.5 million.
 So, you know, I mean, I feel like they just sent us to the organization.
 Yeah.
 And I'm sort of just just to restate my position from here down I'm happy to not find any of them.
 I'm not happy to I'm not happy that anybody would not be funded it's not what I mean but well it's
 contingent of them.
 I mean I would like to talk about Crested Hill again.
 Is this something that people feel after going through this is
 first funding, we've funded to make when you're on a service I do not.
 And, or counseling.
 Funding partially.
 I didn't want to.
 I didn't want to fund it.
 Well, let's let's let's let's finish with girls like them. What are we, what are we saying. Well,
 what are we up to right now we are talking about.
 We're just like we are 55, 455 girls like we're talking about men and we're supposed to be fun
 because we have about five and three.
 So the question.
 I knew either way, I'm virtually funding them or one of the problems.
 The moment I mean this is a placeholder for us to.
 The argument of what was the materials also scholarships is 10.
 But that in for a placeholder right now.
 Okay.
 No families.
 Yeah, it was huge.
 Karen did you score 5.5 or 3.5.
 5.5.
 I mean, this felt like a climate equity moment.
 For me personally.
 Sorry, no, I'm not trying to pick up.
 No, I would have agreed with you, but they already have two other counties.
 So this did not feel pressing to me right now since they already got two others.
 As a former preschool teacher, I absolutely understood their argument. I'm like, yeah, 100%.
 But because they already have two, I felt we need that money elsewhere right now.
 That was my...
 That makes sense. I missed that they have two already.
 So, zero?
 Yeah.
 Then
 zero everything below?
 What are the last three?
 So we have Wonder Lab, Crested Hills, Special Olympics, and Boys and Girls Club.
 Special Olympics one, I wanted to fund.
 Me too, me too.
 It's a population that's not reflected in the other nations.
 Wait, are we talking about Special Olympics or Boys and Girls Club?
 I was talking about Special Olympics.
 Yeah, me too.
 Wait, sorry. Let's do, okay, Wonder Lab.
 I think that was a note for me.
 No.
 Okay.
 That was a note for me.
 I think, I think it's a similar situation where, you know, breaking it down to any amount that it
 seemed.
 And also one of the lowest ranked, yeah.
 Wait.
 No, but I kind of wanted to go back to Wonder Lab.
 Yep.
 Even though I feel like everyone kind of do.
 Well, not everyone actually.
 I mean, it's this so Courtney had them low 2.5 and already had them low.
 The rest of us all had them at force or above.
 And we want to go back to the Boys and Girls Club.
 That's right.
 So we just haven't gotten there yet.
 We'll get, yeah.
 We didn't skip them.
 So yeah, Courtney, why.
 That was what.
 Wonder lab.
 I love wonder lab. My, my kids grew up there.
 They just ranked low on my rubric.
 I think I just think of them with wonder lab.
 It's more of a situation where the privilege mortgage,
 the advantage,
 because even if there's organization that get these say free tickets to
 take kids, how much of them actually do.
 No, no. Okay.
 So, so I'm a big sister and I can't tell you how much time my little one,
 I've spent at wonder lab because it is free and I don't have the extra
 income to take her.
 To a lot of places that cost money. And so I feel like that service has been
 a game changer for me and for her.
 And so like, I know it's personal bias, but like, that's one of the reasons.
 I feel like I've seen that.
 Would it be that grant specifically?
 That would have contributed to you being able to go.
 Yeah. Yeah.
 So, so it's specifically.
 Funding.
 Admission passes for social service organizations and then social service
 organizations in title and school group visits, which I also think that
 education.
 Like public education also being under type right now is like high priority.
 And so like this resources is like a huge, I think it's a huge deal.
 I think it's a huge deal.
 And some retrospects, but I feel like the, the people who would need.
 That kind of advantage. Don't.
 Get the opportunity to even take advantage of that.
 You know, like being in a big, how many kids actually.
 Get in to being chosen.
 You know, there's a lot of waiting lists and whatever.
 And it does have a lot to do with people's economical status.
 And where they are, if they're in shelters, if kids are in shelters, are
 they, are the kids in shelters being able to.
 Get opportunities to go to the wonder lab.
 I didn't find wonder lab, but I will say that headstart is one of the
 organizations that probably benefit from.
 I mean, they list, they list camp town compass early learning center,
 girls in harmony school, headstart middle way.
 New hope for families and youth services bureau.
 We didn't list them much.
 So Cameron, did you fund it fully or did you.
 Fund it fully, but.
 That.
 You know.
 It was based on my.
 Note here that I mean.
 It would have been higher on your list.
 Coordinating with the question about partnerships.
 Because you have them at 2.5.
 It should have been a 3.5.
 Maybe we would have discussed them earlier.
 Yeah.
 That's.
 Quite possible.
 Yeah.
 And.
 You know, and so.
 I mean.
 Look, just looking across the.
 You know, just, just in terms of majority.
 The majority of us want to fund them.
 Yeah. And I'm not.
 I'm not opposed to it.
 And they don't put limitations like.
 The ones you get free admission, you can go anytime.
 As many times as we want.
 Like.
 You know, the thing, the thing that.
 For me.
 Here is that.
 It's one of what two places that you can take.
 You know, kids in the non bad weather times.
 And then, and then for them to then use this money to target.
 You know, at risk, low, low serve, low income, et cetera.
 And then, and then for them to then use this money to target.
 And then, and then for them to then use this money to target.
 And then, and then for them to then use this money to target.
 And then, and then for them to then use this money to target.
 And then, and then for them to then use this money to target.
 And then, and then for them to then use this money to target.
 I'm fine with giving a partial to them.
 To serve this specific population that they're saying that this money
 would serve.
 No problem.
 But then the question already brings up, I think it's, you know,
 uptake.
 Of that.
 How many people did they say they'd serve?
 How many kids did they take there?
 How much, you know,
 the big I can see in a, in a lot of ways,
 because if the people who tend to be big, so people are, you know,
 And educated or like, you know, students who wants to, um,
 Support that kind. So they're,
 they're already privileged in some way as to the direct focus of
 certain kids that they're going to add soup.
 But I was living in the other ways and there was no such thing.
 And if it was existing, it was in a drawer somewhere.
 It wasn't something where the kids was taken from there to,
 I'll say, let's do a trip to, okay, parents.
 We have these tickets for you to take your kids to, you know,
 that wasn't, so it's not like it's, it's on paper,
 but is it something that you can say? Yes.
 It's something that they can say, yes, we can see based off of the amount of,
 of tickets we receive.
 These are how many families took advantage of those opportunities.
 I mean,
 the compromise too is that their title one group is it's like their
 primary one is like half of the funding and that is specifically taking
 school children to wonder lab as well. So it's like, you know,
 it's less ambiguous than like a middle way house situation.
 Yeah,
 but I still want to know the statistics of how many kids really get to take
 advantage of this.
 They're saying 4,400.
 I know you're saying that,
 but I know that if you ask them for statistics,
 they have them because of partnerships I've done with them before.
 And I've been able to get those numbers, but I, but that has,
 I don't know if they.
 Yeah.
 Because that's a great thing if it's being utilized in the right way,
 it's going to be open to those.
 I have a.
 A concern that I'm just thinking about about this sending questions.
 It means that we're going to have to meet again to deliberate.
 Before making.
 Well, I guess we could have Lisa, what do you, what do you think we can,
 we can amend our agenda for the allocation.
 That we have next to include.
 Last point on today's agenda.
 As our first point of action.
 An agenda hasn't been created for the next.
 So there's, there's nothing that keeps us from continuing to deliberate.
 No.
 Okay.
 So in which case.
 Would to continue this discussion.
 Let's ask, let's ask for statistics on people served with a particular.
 Yeah.
 So a particular emphasis on, on the,
 how that's been shared amongst the many partners.
 And what do you mean by how that's.
 The number of.
 Children associated with middle way house.
 Or.
 Yeah, I think it was the uptake.
 Right? Like how often.
 I think they keep records of how often people from different,
 like I have to show.
 A card every time I'm going.
 And so.
 Yeah.
 Okay. So, so I'll take them for now.
 For our deliberations, continued deliberation. You said, what was it?
 Was that the, is that what they'd said was the alternate for them?
 One of their.
 Yeah.
 I did not fund them.
 I did give them partial funding because I didn't want to punish them for.
 And to me, it actually wasn't the.
 Here. I will actually, it wasn't about the amount. It was.
 And as we saw with the other larger quest, it was.
 It was the design of the thing. So, I mean, there, there were.
 I liked the idea of.
 Against this capital improvement, buying the thing.
 Then long term service and so on.
 It was unclear to me how that.
 Isn't in the individual benefit of the individual.
 Person who runs it.
 My argument.
 In on your side. Yeah.
 Is that it's.
 You already have an organization that does this.
 Yes.
 So are we.
 You know, are we.
 Trying to reinvent the wheel here for a lot of money when we don't
 need to.
 Was my argument.
 Their argument was that there was demand.
 Well, and then, yeah.
 And then I have to argue again.
 To my counter argument that, well, we have, you know,
 We have a community kitchen and we have, you know, we need all of them.
 It also felt like they were asking us to build their organization from
 the ground up though.
 It was like, what was five board members and payers staff.
 With this huge amount of money.
 So I was like, it was less established.
 Yeah.
 But we said that we would benefit that we would.
 You know,
 Give people that that advantage if you're less established and you
 couldn't go to other places and.
 But I feel like this was an organization that it was all or nothing.
 It's partial would not be.
 Yeah. Yeah.
 Because then we would go back to the point of,
 would they be able to create with what they get?
 Something.
 Yeah.
 Yeah.
 The idea.
 I mean, I would have awarded them less than 25%.
 But I'm not.
 Yeah.
 Well,
 And their top priority is going towards the mortgage.
 That was, that's what that's where I was.
 Yeah.
 That's not.
 I don't know.
 I don't know.
 I don't know what the range that they're going to live on.
 They've been going to use for this purpose.
 So, so like.
 I'm thinking you're saying that that may, but I also.
 That's interesting.
 Either way, I still like.
 The top priority is just that we can't really, especially with such a little rain.
 Yeah.
 I would suggest.
 Me too.
 I agree with that.
 Special Olympics.
 How did they rank.
 So low.
 So low.
 Emergency service for sure.
 Yeah.
 And the last time you should.
 Cause it's, you know, it's rain. So.
 So a lot of reasons why they would.
 Where do you rank them? 2.5.
 But I didn't give them $1,500.
 And they were medium low.
 So.
 So.
 I, I think.
 Population that hasn't, isn't reflected in other requests.
 So I.
 I mean.
 3.5 doesn't look very high, but it is for me.
 Yeah.
 They ask us small and I think that's a, I don't know.
 I gave her zero.
 You're getting zero.
 I will say of, you know, of what they're asking for.
 I ranked them.
 I ranked them.
 My.
 A bit higher, but the.
 What they're asking for is jerseys.
 Yeah.
 Last thing that they said they can use over time as opposed to one thing.
 I don't know.
 I feel like last year they asked for like equipment that they could reuse.
 Yeah.
 I think one of the priorities on there was there's two different things.
 And I think.
 The jerseys.
 Yeah.
 Something.
 They said something about one of them, like it could be.
 Yeah.
 So it wasn't like a one time thing for a one year,
 like so they can use it the next year for the next.
 Event.
 I think one of them was identified as that.
 I don't know which one was, which is, I think that one.
 Attached to.
 $1,500.
 I've already said my position was, you know,
 a little bit above the zero everybody out. So, so just, I mean that.
 We will go with the, with the will of the body.
 So.
 Their rubric scores that well, I'm, I'm okay with it.
 Do not.
 Give me money.
 If we're at the point where, where there's no money left over.
 Yeah. Okay.
 I'm convinced.
 I'm not convinced.
 Okay.
 So I think the things that they want, I mean,
 they say that their uniforms that they currently have are really
 outdated. I think we're looking at.
 They talk about mental and physical stimulation.
 And I feel like we're looking at.
 Another.
 Like Dave said, a population that's not represented here,
 but also something that might not feel like a big deal to us in terms
 of a bigger deal to participants and special Olympics.
 And I think that.
 I don't think they're replacing their jerseys super frequently.
 They also said that their clients or athletes have increased 30% just
 within the last year.
 And so they need more uniforms for them as well.
 And then on top of it being like a relatively small ask.
 Like that's my argument.
 Did you have an open to how much are just the jerseys?
 The 60 jersey jerseys are 1560.
 My number.
 Perfect.
 I mean, do we want to talk about doing just the jerseys?
 That's less than what I recommended for them.
 1560.
 Okay.
 And the last one, boys and girls club.
 I gave them 50%.
 I did too.
 Well,
 So hungry.
 We're almost done.
 In terms of their, in terms of their breakdown.
 Okay. So.
 I mean, they have 11 different priorities here.
 They're all in six months.
 Okay.
 So if you've bunched, if you've found their top priority,
 that's $7,570.
 Where is that introductory to the amount of money we have?
 Okay.
 And then pending the questions that we want to ask before we have
 spent for our.
 And some draft form allocated for 74, 377.
 So we can give them 200.
 Okay.
 Because I said, sir.
 You had, you had a justification.
 It's came from somewhere in there.
 Yeah.
 So I don't see, I don't see anything on their brother for 1200.
 There's a 1,000.
 One thing, but together.
 It's a number.
 This is a lot of data to go through.
 I know, I know.
 Number.
 Our, our, our, our, what we've recommended as 10.
 So why don't, why don't we say what our average?
 It would, I mean, either we say zero or.
 We'll be so happy.
 I don't know.
 I don't know.
 About 23.
 Without boys and girls club.
 Without the answers to the questions that we asked,
 which might change what we want to do with our eyes.
 Yeah.
 I think it's too ambiguous for me.
 I mean, maybe we hold this and just come back to it when,
 after we have an answer to the.
 Yeah.
 To the question that we want to send out.
 Yeah.
 Sure.
 That's what, that's what we'll do right now.
 Okay. So.
 Let's let's open up for public comment.
 And then thousand.
 Oh, you said 1200.
 I did say.
 Yeah.
 Yes. Well, this will help.
 Okay.
 We can discuss again. Okay. But now.
 Let's open up for public comment.
 If there's anybody at our line or in the room that would like to
 give public comment at this time, we are happy to take it.
 Okay.
 So what we're, what we're, well,
 so what we're going to do is send the question to the two agencies.
 And then when we reconvene.
 We'll first meet without Eddie and then.
 And then.
 Hopefully you'd be able to finish our, our recommendations then.
 Yeah.
 When is our meeting?
 Oh, it's a Friday night.
 My son has a.
 We got it. We got off.
 Friday the 16th.
 Yeah.
 That might be okay.
 I think it's, it might be a six, actually.
 A 16.
 That's usually really fast.
 Is it.
 Yeah.
 Well, now we have to discuss the big question.
 Cause I have, I have Jack Hopkins.
 Slide it for four to six.
 Doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.
 Yeah.
 Okay. So, yeah. And I mean, worst case scenario that you've discussed
 and then leave as we formalize the things. Yeah.
 Well, the only thing is my only thought though.
 For that meeting, but just before we all leave, sorry for that meeting.
 No, I think usually you have like a.
 And so we won't be able to do that at that meeting at this point, because,
 because we have not finalized.
 So should we.
 And we like adjourn and then read.
 You know, can we like end it and then restart.
 Yeah, so, so, so we could we do it one of two ways. In my mind, one is that we could have, we could
 have drafts of everything else because everything else is barely fixed at this point.
 And just with it, we have a decision point about everything below that line.
 We can go to that at that meeting to allow the set night to for finalize the thing outside of
 committee, then, like, based on the recommendation.
 Yeah, we've granted that power before. Yeah, and then we can format their thing to put out the
 council agenda.
 So in terms of the date for the responses. What would you buy I would say Thursday.
 All right. Yeah, 1515. That works. That works. Or let's know because then they might send it to
 Thursday and then let's just just say, you know, the 14th so that we have Thursday, you can send it
 to us on Thursday.
 Actually with with Tuesday the 13th. Yes, I mean that gives us a week. Exactly. Yeah. Thank you all.
 Thank you. BS adjourned.
 [BLANK_AUDIO]
 [BLANK_AUDIO]
 [BLANK_AUDIO]