- Let's call this meeting to order.
- And today shouldn't be a particularly long meeting.
- The goal of today's meeting
- is to finalize our recommendation to council.
- We have some pending business,
- so we're gonna review the leftover.
- Let me get close to you.
- I thought it was gonna be a space for Nardia,
- which we'll review the pending questions
- that we sent out at the end of last meeting.
- Discuss the, I think there was five places
- that we had sort of if then logic for,
- and then we'll make our recommendation and go home.
- Does that seem like the good plan to everyone?
- Great. - Thumbs up.
- Fantastic.
- Sam or Lisa, are either of you able to put up
- where we were last time, the worksheet we were working on?
- Hi, nice to hear that.
- Seth, do you want me to go ahead and answer it?
- Yes, yeah, because let's,
- so let's talk about the answers
- to the question that we received.
- Sorry.
- Oh, and I'm supposed to take role.
- So, sorry, come back, sorry.
- Seems, okay.
- So, I'm joined by all of the committee members.
- One person is absent, but go ahead and you sign.
- City council, large.
- Courtney Daly, city council.
- Andy, you can a little bit (indistinct)
- Andy Robb, city council.
- Dave Robb, city council.
- Fantastic.
- And we're also joined by council staff
- and the most wonderful deputy clerk.
- Okay.
- So, did you all receive, you all saw the emails
- that we sent out to SCAP and to Wonder Left?
- So, the SCAP one was the first one,
- our big question mark last time.
- Thoughts on what they said?
- Yeah, that's fine.
- (indistinct)
- I don't feel like it provides much more information
- about partial funding to use.
- Okay, did they, maybe did you not say,
- okay, they maybe didn't forward the,
- I asked a follow-up to that question,
- which was directly like, can you be clear?
- Like, can you work with partial funding?
- Their answer was yes, absolutely.
- And so, the partial funding question there,
- they're like, anything will help pass
- towards us being able to do this.
- What were your thoughts around the immediate?
- But if you have not seen this, can you, Lisa,
- could you forward that response as well, or?
- (indistinct)
- Yeah, I was fairly convinced by the urgency of it.
- I mean, I'm no contractor,
- but the explanation of the moisture leading to mold,
- leading to major remediation need to be done later.
- Oh, and also for the general public,
- can you put these up?
- 'Cause we probably, those should have been,
- I don't know if they were in the pocket for folks, so.
- So yeah, so it's all right, go on.
- I was fairly convinced.
- It was, to me, conveyed surgency.
- Oh, what does that mean in terms of?
- It means I've prioritized it really high for a lot.
- I mean, and they said, but if it's gonna be partial,
- I mean, I'm gonna argue that I would support
- a large partial funding.
- I was, I mean, it made me still feel
- where I felt right in terms of partial funding.
- I don't think I had large partial funding.
- Trying to find my spreadsheet.
- Hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair,
- hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair, hair,
- I thought it was, I mean,
- in terms of our first question to them,
- their answer was essentially that the assessment
- that was done two years ago said that this was immediate,
- i.e. posed risk to the safety of people in the building
- and their ability to do long-term services,
- which is something that I don't think they made clear
- in their applications that did.
- I mean, that was the follow-up question that we asked though.
- And that was one of the reasons why many of us
- sort of had ranked them lowly,
- was that we were convinced, I think originally,
- of the urgency of the request to begin with.
- Yeah.
- Did they give you any other information
- about hardship funding?
- Simply because they are in such a tight time.
- I know they said they would have to complete it, but...
- Again, I'll find this in the photo, too.
- Give me a second.
- I'm pulling up the email.
- There.
- (overlapping dialogue)
- It's not my inbox. I didn't get it.
- (overlapping dialogue)
- I mean, I think it was just...
- (overlapping dialogue)
- Yeah, actually, I forwarded it to everybody.
- I think it was Esauk's follow-up, though.
- Yeah, that's all of it.
- Yeah, we got the original, yeah.
- Okay, I'll put that up on the screen, yes.
- This is the follow-up question I asked.
- It was a quick clarifying follow-up question.
- Would SCAP be able to use partial funding for Jack Hopkins?
- Any concerns around time frame in that instance?
- And Laura responded, "We absolutely would, yes."
- And our time frame to get the project done
- by Winthrop is firm.
- Thank you again for considering us.
- Point is, they have other funds.
- I mean, I think it's maybe the way to interpret that.
- And so the way that...
- I mean, I'm not gonna tell you how to interpret it.
- The way that I interpret it is that they need to do
- the upgrades and they will use their own funds
- if we don't fund them, basically,
- which will hinder their ability to do other things.
- I would propose we do 50% of their ask.
- Okay, so if we go back to our spreadsheet real quick.
- Please.
- Okay, and if you could scroll down to...
- Here it is.
- Okay, so we have, we currently have them blank.
- If we, where we were when we got to the question,
- we had allocated $411,000.
- So if we were to allocate the money that is left over
- to allocate to them, that would leave us roughly
- with what, I mean, we have $89,000 left to give out.
- So that's more than 50%.
- That's more than 50% too, I just sensed that.
- Yeah.
- I just sensed that there wasn't gonna be support
- for going all the way to...
- Well, yeah, I mean, I had allocated 55 in my budget.
- So if we were to allocate...
- Okay, let me give you one more bit of important information
- and the second question that we left to ask
- was what's left over in the Jack Hopkins Fund
- and whether the mayor's office would be willing
- to do an additional appropriation for some amount.
- There is...
- I've got that figure in hand, Evy.
- Yay, what is it?
- It's $30,347.
- Okay.
- Certainly.
- $30,000.
- I mean, I think for reasons such as this,
- I wouldn't advise us to think about using all of that
- if you, but it is something that's on the table, right?
- So last year, we did an additional $10,000.
- So it is possible for us to spend a bit of that.
- So looking at where we're at,
- we have, with the recommendations we made
- for the other groups, we're currently at,
- let's see here, equals sum of all of these, there we are.
- So 400, we've allocated 486.
- And does that include the 15%?
- That is not actually the percentage.
- That is not.
- So if we did, we've made this 50%.
- Let's say that we allocated, well, 60K.
- All right, let's just, yeah, 60.
- Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry.
- Okay, so that puts us at 546.
- Now, looking at all of these yellow ones,
- we allocated a bit more than, like these were all ones
- that we said, okay, we can come back
- and adjust if necessary.
- But this again would still be our largest contribution.
- And there's something that's strange to me
- about our largest contribution being one of our lowest ranked.
- So I think the core question here is whether
- the additional information that we receive from them
- changes the way that you would rank them.
- Because if it does not, then I personally,
- as much as to me, I would rank them highly.
- I, you know, if collectively as a body,
- it doesn't really move where they're ranked.
- It's very strange that one of our largest gifts
- is to one of our lowest rated.
- I mean, I think my ranking went down.
- Really? - Yeah.
- How so, how so, how so, like--
- I just feel like--
- Using the language of the rubric.
- (laughing)
- I think that with the questions we asked,
- I didn't appreciate the vagueness of the answers.
- To me, that didn't, like, I understand that
- the urgency that they talked more about that,
- I didn't appreciate not having more clarity
- on their partial funding needs,
- just because we have such a finite amount of funds
- to give out to organizations that all have big needs,
- and that is a huge ask of the pot of money
- that then doesn't serve other organizations.
- So to me, it would have made more sense
- to maybe get some sort of response talking
- about other funding sources they're leveraging,
- or even that line that you said yourself
- about how this would just cut funding from other areas
- so their impact would look different, even that, you know?
- Versus kind of just this limbo of really not knowing
- what they have and what they'll be able to accomplish
- and how much, like, we could give them
- that would be quote unquote enough
- and leave the funding for other organizations.
- So what did you say, other ones?
- Your follow-up, though, your follow-up that we didn't see.
- Didn't it address that?
- It basically said, we have to do this project,
- and so we'll just cut our...
- I mean, they didn't say that, that's my assumption.
- Wow.
- I don't see the follow-up.
- Yeah, I mean, all I read, I mean, all I asked is,
- can you do this?
- And their answer is, absolutely.
- And we'll be able to do it within the timeframe,
- because our two concerns were,
- are you gonna be able to do this whole project
- within the six-month timeframe
- that you actually have to spend the money?
- Thing one.
- So in other words, our concern was,
- we gave a whole lot of money to them,
- and then they can't spend it,
- and they end up sending it back or something like that.
- That's hindered other people.
- Concern two for us was an understanding of how immediate it was.
- I think they gave a very clear answer of the immediacy
- and gave additional evidence to what they said in the framing.
- They just said, "It is immediate,"
- but they never substantiated that.
- But then they've made it clear to us.
- They said, "And I don't know how to interpret it.
- "I mean, I'm telling you how I'm interpreting it,
- "but I don't know how to interpret the fact
- "that they said they can do it with partial funding."
- If it was immediate two years ago,
- why didn't they apply for funding for this flash year?
- I think that's fair.
- And I can even get off my pedestal
- of not wanting to fund them at all,
- which is kind of where I landed before,
- just because other things felt more urgent to me.
- But I think that, to your point,
- about that highest amount of funding for low-ranked--
- Yep.
- Things that would bother you even as well.
- Yep, okay.
- Well, if it makes you a feeling better,
- had I done the rubric, they would bump up a little bit
- 'cause I would rank them very high.
- And I think that's a fair point, that's a fair point.
- So would their amount have been higher
- 'cause I ranked them high?
- Mid, I don't think they were my top,
- they were my very high percentage,
- but they were in a good percentage.
- Let me just see the level check
- that I'm not making memories up.
- Yeah, I have them in the high, not very high category,
- but I didn't give them any money.
- So that throws off the amount as well here.
- So I had them out of three.
- They were ranked medium my first time around.
- After their answers, it does change one thing for me
- on the other here, because I have put
- the lasting composition as minimal.
- And so now I would say yes indirectly.
- So that does give them another point in my book.
- So that does bring them up to a four, which is high.
- So they wouldn't, so, I mean, with all that,
- they wouldn't be ranked as low relatively, you know?
- So, I mean, balance out the concern that I have,
- I share with you.
- But okay, so, I mean, so we only have one proposal so far
- on the board, which is 50%.
- That's if the only way you make 50% work is you don't fund,
- you don't fund these organizations.
- You can't see that, sorry.
- Can you scroll over to the right and then scroll down?
- So the scape is the top of, yep, there you go, the screen.
- And ideally we can see all the other arcs too,
- just a little, thank you so much, okay?
- So the only way you make that work is we don't fund,
- if we wanted to fund them at 60,000, we'd have to remove.
- So, I'm sorry, I misspeak because if we fund them,
- so this amount, line 32 through 41
- at our current recommended levels represents $75,000
- and we're $40,000 over.
- So another option is that you give these people 20.
- (indistinct)
- Sorry.
- No, that's okay.
- I just, I wasn't watching when you typed.
- So we gave them 30, it would be 25% of their asset.
- If we give them, so if we give them 30, yeah.
- But then we'd be asking for about half of the money
- that's left over in the account.
- Should we talk about WonderLab before we're?
- Yeah, not yet.
- So we're seeing if that changes anything too.
- So we're okay with asking for half of what's in the reserve,
- but.
- Okay, so our response from WonderLab.
- As a reminder, our questions were,
- how many children Bloomington residents have been served
- by the free group visit and admissions program?
- And two, what is the uptake rate of the free group visits
- and admission program by social services agencies?
- How does WonderLab determine
- if the children served are Bloomington residents?
- And their response was attached.
- I don't know if you're able to put that up
- 'cause it was quite a response.
- Yeah, I can.
- Thank you.
- Oh, we need to call any back in for this.
- Well, then we're gonna send it back out.
- Okay, Eddie.
- I can get it.
- Okay.
- Sorry, I know that's on.
- I don't know, it is significantly operating.
- Something.
- There's two PDFs here in the end.
- Yeah.
- But we might need you to cover your ears.
- La la la. - Okay.
- Sure.
- So, I mean, Nourdi, you were the strongest critic
- of the WonderLab proposal.
- What did you feel about the response?
- And did it help appease your thoughts in any way?
- And does that affect funding?
- 'Cause I think most of us had pretty strong views
- of WonderLab.
- I had them high, but you basically had them at it
- that, you know, there's no funding.
- I had them high. - Yeah.
- Sir, I didn't catch you.
- So. - Yes, I didn't put my hands up.
- No, no, with, yeah.
- I was, I was, I was, this is how the conversation went.
- That's how the conversation went.
- It was.
- I was going through their, whatever they wrote.
- I think there's two different pieces I was seeing
- because one of them was explaining about some had-back
- which didn't really have anything to do with,
- and then being added negative,
- which doesn't really have anything to do with
- what the fund request is for and what is negative for.
- They're kind of saying that they spend more money
- on other things and that put them at a deficit in some way.
- But to the specific question,
- I'm not sure if I saw the answer for those.
- Courtney, when did you change spots?
- I did not, they didn't sway me.
- No, I mean, specifically, and maybe I missed this,
- but looking at the, you know, your specific question was,
- how do we know these are blooming to the specific
- beneficiaries?
- And, you know, they explained how they verify
- their Indiana residents, but I didn't,
- I didn't specifically see how they made sure
- the money was going directly to blooming to residents.
- That was in the next document.
- In this one?
- The second one.
- Yeah, that one.
- Is it?
- Yeah, and it was--
- The C2C fund acts of course.
- Yeah.
- And so maybe I missed where they answered that question
- more directly later.
- That was--
- Well, they did it fully points that 2024 mentioned
- certain organization that got complimentary.
- I'm guessing that's the same as what they're seeking
- the fund for.
- Yeah, and then those aren't all.
- Yeah.
- That doesn't really represent to the meeting.
- (mouse clicking)
- In fact, in the schools, there's only one
- Bloomington School listed there.
- One made, probably not the Title I schools
- that visit no charge.
- I get it too, you know, how do you set aside,
- you have this pot of money for the no charge program,
- and you set aside and say,
- well, only this amount that is for this program
- can be used specifically here.
- And then, I mean, that's hard to delineate.
- So, just pointed that out.
- Mm-hmm.
- So,
- I think Eddie has to leave again.
- We should have called you back.
- Unless you have thoughts of a platform.
- So, WinterLab was one of the organizations
- that landed kind of on the cusp of funding.
- So, I left them off.
- If the entire group feels,
- hey, they shouldn't be funded, I'm okay with that.
- But--
- You've had them ranked high, though.
- I won't.
- So, 4.5 and fives were the ones that I funded,
- and anyone that felt we loved that.
- So, yeah, they were on the cusp of saying,
- hey, that's automatic funding for me.
- Right.
- I do know that they do want to serve low-income people.
- I had a meeting with them just the other day,
- and we talked about funding that I had for Head Start,
- and the main reason our families
- can't make their specific transportation issues.
- But I'll go when the group wants to go,
- but do I need to leave again?
- Yes.
- Okay, okay, well, I'll be out.
- I don't know, I mean, in many ways,
- I don't know what the value is of leaving, but.
- How much was the AST?
- It's 11,000 or something like that.
- So it was like 14.
- Almost 15,000.
- Okay.
- 1490.
- Yeah, so we have them pegged right now.
- We have them pegged at seven and a half, seven, five, zero,
- nine.
- I just like, it's still, there's still this issue
- that, you know, and I mean, I know we talked this out,
- but just to bring it for one last time,
- which is to say, the message then that we'll end up sending
- to like, we didn't fund Noodle for Families,
- didn't fund Crested Hill Refuge,
- and then we funded some things that scored lower than them.
- It's just, it's hard for me to like, I'm just.
- Well, it's just a reflection of debate and discussion.
- I mean, I've changed my view by ranks.
- This cap and wonderland quite high,
- but during the debate, I'm maybe fine to decrease it.
- So yeah, because actually the other needs seem to have risen.
- I mean, Crested Hill Refuge to me,
- it seems really like untested.
- And it's, I mean, if we had the money,
- it'd be an interesting experiment,
- but it's a big ask.
- And, you know, there are all these other needs.
- Yeah, yeah.
- You know, I'm just wondering if we left it as we did,
- and we had, what are we 16,000 or over?
- So what is that about?
- If everybody took a haircut of 2%,
- we would essentially be about 500, right?
- If we left it as it is,
- but then we went through, I would have just said, okay.
- And then we took some off of the ones
- that were highlighted?
- Yeah, because, I mean,
- we went through a very careful debate,
- and I think the numbers that we paid
- were pretty consistent, I think, with the group.
- I mean, this is what I feel with the group consensus.
- So rather than kind of go back,
- try to re-litigate every one of them,
- that's one approach, since reduce it by increment.
- Yep.
- How comfortable are people with spending
- more than the allotted amount?
- Keeping in mind that this coming year,
- there's gonna probably be cuts to,
- no further cuts to funding.
- So, you know, would we rather hold that for,
- for the year ahead, or?
- No, wait, wait.
- All right, so we have 500,000.
- There's an additional 30,000.
- The administration says that they'd be okay introducing,
- so we could leave it as is, and ask for 16,000 more.
- But so question one, I mean, Courtney's already indicated
- that she's happy, that she would be comfortable
- spending a bit over,
- and asking for that additional appropriation.
- So that's question one.
- Are you comfortable with us spending that additional,
- asking for an additional appropriation?
- I am.
- Okay.
- Thank you.
- Yeah, and I guess we have a little bit more of a margin
- to look at.
- What was the one that was not funded,
- that we were new home for families?
- I mean, so we have 30,000,
- and I don't bet that that's just the question,
- is that do you want to, yeah.
- So then the next is the follow-up question is,
- how far would you like to go into that amount?
- And according to your suggestion,
- it's like somewhere around half.
- So this sort of where we're at right now, the 516.
- And that's something that we hope doesn't get funded?
- It could.
- Doesn't have to, but that's what it means currently.
- (silence)
- So the 30,000 is contingent on all the machinations
- from the controller's office and whether we're gonna.
- Yeah, so I wouldn't personally recommend us going at 30.
- I think that last year, Stephen Lucas had said
- that people tended to go 10, so 15 would be a large ask.
- I think we went eight or something.
- I didn't remember what it was last year.
- I think it was around 9,000 last year.
- I mean, I'd be okay with going all the yellow highlighted ones
- and taking 2% off or a small amount off of each one
- and trying to bring that down.
- I don't see a problem with that.
- Are we comfortable with 30,000 for SCAP?
- Yeah.
- Anybody not comfortable with 30,000 for SCAP?
- Well, I'm a little more, but I'm happy to give this,
- given the sentiment of the group overall that I sense.
- But you're not happy to cut people above or below,
- I would assume.
- No, I wasn't going to advocate for anything
- for one or the other, and if we just need to dip
- into 15, 16 to do what we have now, plus 30 for SCAP,
- then that's fine with me.
- Okay, anybody have strong feelings
- against SCAP getting 30K?
- So we can peg them at 30K, and then we can bring Eddie back
- and finalize the rest.
- Okay, okay, going once, five, twice.
- All right, let's get Eddie back there,
- and not send it out again.
- (laughs)
- Okay, so do we want to just, what we've decided,
- we've pegged an amount now, and now we're about 16,000 over.
- I think, where are we trying to get to N over?
- What's our thinking here?
- I don't necessarily, I guess I would just ask
- about the 2% idea, just because I think a lot
- of the numbers we picked were in line with partial funding.
- Except for these ones that we've highlighted.
- So we've highlighted quite a few,
- all the way up to number 16.
- Yeah, yeah, yeah, I'm just saying we picked numbers
- that were based on their asks, right?
- Like specific numbers that were, that rounded out
- to be in line with-- - For the most part,
- but some we didn't, some we said,
- some we funded a bit more than some, you know.
- So all of the highlighted ones we highlighted
- with the idea that should we need to cut,
- that these were places that we could go back to look to cut.
- So the question is, are you comfortable dipping
- into that $30,000 reserve that the administration has set us,
- or that is set aside still that we could dip into?
- We were discussing that first.
- I mean, you can, I mean, if it's more in line
- with other projects of that size, I'm fine with that.
- So right now, the funding for SCAPES add $30,000 off?
- Yeah, but we solidified,
- but we have an extra 30 to play with.
- Okay. - Yeah.
- So right now, with everything that we have set
- on this sheet, we're 16,000 over.
- 16,000 over.
- So we would be dipping into that 30,000,
- but not SCAPES 30,000.
- Oh, okay. - Right, right.
- Yeah, yeah. - Right.
- I can't discuss that in here.
- It's okay. - I think it's better.
- Yeah.
- No, this isn't, yeah, this is just in general.
- Okay.
- We kind of took a pulse check.
- How do we feel about dipping into the 30,000?
- And are we, how far are we comfortable going
- if we're comfortable?
- Last year, we did 9,000 into our extra reserve.
- And this year, we had more money in our overall pot.
- Yeah. - 500, what was it last year?
- 350. - 350.
- 350.
- So--
- We also had quite a much bigger application
- that Google had to ask.
- I feel, I would ask us to get to around 10, I don't think.
- I don't think 15 feels a bit much.
- Plus we, there's a risk here, right?
- I mean, the administration said we're willing
- to put forward another thing,
- but they didn't say for this much.
- So we could end up in a situation where they,
- where we asked for 15 and they go,
- oh, we don't wanna do 15.
- And then we're back to the drawing board,
- we don't wanna do that.
- I think I feel comfortable asking for 10.
- So do we wanna go to the ones that are highlighted
- in yellow that have the lower scores
- and then start looking how that impacts those programs,
- like special ethics and disparities, comparatively.
- So if we take anything from them,
- you know, it just, it doesn't make too much sense.
- I think half would be a good number
- to ask for the 15, forgiveness and the permission.
- So.
- Yeah, but.
- 'Cause I mean, the money is there in the sense that
- we don't even know what the,
- what are they gonna be able to produce,
- these organizations, so funds might come back
- independent on time on the project and whatnot.
- And the fact that there is this need
- that is already established for this,
- is I put an aside the need to save the funds
- so that maybe we might need it more later,
- even though there's acknowledged need like, you know.
- I agree with you on that.
- I think we should prioritize financial stability
- for those organizations, right?
- Yeah, because I'm thinking the,
- the funds went up for whatever reason,
- but that was awesome.
- We can keep our fingers crossed for that to happen again.
- If there can send a system to be trying
- in its increase in year.
- And there's a lot of accuracy on the state council
- to increase it more.
- So I don't think we should prioritize
- holding back too much for the sake of not funding.
- It's just me.
- If I could elaborate on what ESOC was saying
- to access all or portion of that $30,000
- as an additional appropriation,
- we may have to be initiated by being approved
- by the administration to go before council.
- I don't want to speak for ESOC,
- but I think the express,
- the worst case scenario potentially is that
- instead of appropriating the amount that the committee
- was relying upon, it's less than amount.
- Exactly.
- Council does, by Indianist statute,
- council doesn't have the authority to increase
- an appropriation amount, that's in the situation.
- I think there gives no room for the pushback on the 10,
- if the 15 could give a pushback to 10.
- Yeah, but there's no, we have to decide today
- what we're going to recommend.
- And we won't be, if the administration says,
- actually we're not comfortable with that,
- then we'll have to meet again to determine,
- now that doesn't need to be the barrier.
- If you all feel comfortable with 15,
- we could stop right now, say 15 is our recommendation.
- That's a risk.
- Yeah, it's a risk, but also I think we do want to keep,
- there's a reason why there's funds, extra funds in there,
- for such times as this.
- We're at a stage, by the time we got to the one
- that we spent the most time talking about,
- like in terms of our rubric,
- we funded all of our high priorities at the best amount.
- We've almost funded everyone.
- Like, so it feels a little bit like we, I don't know.
- I don't think that we're really looking at a situation
- where we're prioritizing the financial viability
- of organization at this stage.
- Like some of the things that are left on our list,
- for example, Pathways asked for $42,000 for furniture.
- We're giving them $20,000 for that.
- As this, you know, we're not at the level
- of like these organizations are going to suffer deeply
- for not getting so many from us.
- I just don't really see the administration
- bubbling over 15 versus 10.
- I mean, again, I'm not gonna, I won't push back.
- Like if that's the collective,
- like if we're happy where we are right here,
- then we have two proposals on the table, right?
- One proposal, leave it as about three proposals.
- One proposal, leave as is and this be our recommendation.
- Proposal two is that we go and just,
- you just cut X percent from all the ones that are yellow.
- That's one, that's one option.
- To get to 10 or to get to 500?
- To get to 10, right?
- The option three is that we look over
- the ones that we highlighted because we looked over them.
- We just take a few minutes.
- We go over them and just see, because like I'm,
- so calling out pathways for example,
- what did we recommend for pathways?
- Plansets.
- Okay, so their priority one was 14, six, two, four.
- And priority two was 11, three, seven, six.
- That's how we got to 26.
- So, you know, we could, for example,
- just solve this whole problem by saying,
- we'll just fund priority one as one example.
- I'm actually here with that, too.
- Take the $1000 off, give them 20,000 even,
- then we're down to five, 10.
- Yeah, that's just one example, right?
- And we had, you know, of these ones that are under here,
- I mean, or we could say that we don't wanna fund WonderLev,
- and then some had proposed that.
- So I'm just throwing it up there of things that we don't.
- I just think 20,000 of pathways
- is still gonna be a lot of money,
- but aren't you gonna get where they need to get?
- Still approximately 50%, yeah.
- So that would be my proposal.
- I still put it closer to the 10 that we want.
- And it gets us to that place
- where I personally feel comfortable, right?
- So we go, and that puts us at five, 10, five million.
- And so we'd be asking for an additional appropriation
- of $10,377 and somehow 27 cents.
- Somehow 27 cents, let's see what is going on there.
- There's 48 cents from Beacon,
- and there's 60 cents from Healing Hands,
- and there's 90 cents from New Leave.
- Okay, okay, well.
- There's 89 cents from Susie's Place.
- Right, so colloquially, are we happy, five, 10, 377?
- I am. - I am, yes.
- Okay, could somebody motion then for us to,
- I will entertain a motion of some sort.
- If I could interrupt,
- I think we should do three different votes
- because of the conflicts.
- One vote for SCAP's allocation,
- one vote for New Leave,
- and then third vote for everything else.
- Excellent, agreed.
- Okay.
- All right, thank you.
- And should they leave the room for those votes?
- Yes.
- Okay, will you both leave the room?
- One at a time because that was the sample.
- So I will entertain a motion.
- I'll move that we fund SCAP, where's the money?
- 30,000.
- Yeah, maybe this would be appropriate
- given the clerk's need for a document from New Leave.
- So we could use this rubric ultimately after this meeting.
- So you could entertain a motion
- to approve funding recommendation for SCAP
- as set forth on the main Jack Hawkins
- recommendation rubric.
- In this case, it is 30,000 nobs.
- Yes, what did she say?
- Your SCAP.
- (laughs)
- A motion to approve funding recommendation for SCAP.
- As set forth on the main Jack Hawkins
- recommendation rubric in the amount of $30,000.
- Second?
- Second.
- Okay, we have a motion and a second.
- All those in favor say aye.
- Aye.
- Okay, any opposed?
- Any abstaining?
- That motion passes unanimously.
- (laughs)
- Unanimously, okay, now we'll do new life.
- You could leave, you could call Eddie back.
- Okay, do you guys want any waiting room on the main?
- In the Zoom?
- In the Zoom.
- I don't see anyone.
- Okay, I got a text that someone was in the waiting room.
- Oh, okay, I'll let somebody in on a little bit ago.
- Okay, thank you for the investigation.
- I'll entertain a motion at this point.
- So this would be a motion to approve funding recommendation
- for new life as set forth on the main
- Jack Hopkins recommendation rubric.
- I'll make that motion again.
- So moved.
- Yes, thank you, I'll second.
- Okay, we have a motion and a second.
- All those in favor say aye.
- Aye.
- Any opposed?
- Any abstaining, the motion passes unanimously.
- We could ask.
- Was there a dollar amount in that motion?
- The rubric shows that the dollar amount is $6,328.
- 90 cents.
- In 90 cents, correct.
- In the motion that was made, sorry.
- No.
- Okay, thank you.
- Okay, I'll get somebody.
- (mouse clicking)
- All right, now that we're all together
- and we have the remaining recommendations,
- I'll entertain a motion.
- We'll have a total amount, so.
- We're fine.
- Oh yeah, I mean.
- I can get a total amount without those two.
- It's okay if we didn't use amounts in the last one.
- This as on the rubric currently will suffice.
- I move to allocate funding for the,
- as reflected in the main Jack Hopkins recommendation rubric
- in the amount of $510,377.27.
- All right.
- Well, that includes SCAP and that includes everything.
- You can't see it on my screen,
- but the amount without those two is $474,048 and 37 cents.
- It's kind of hard.
- We don't, I mean, we can just say that.
- Just say that, it'll make it easier.
- Funding recommendations for as set forth
- on the main Jack Hopkins recommendation rubric,
- absent SCAP and do live.
- So moved.
- Okay, we have a motion with a second.
- All those in favor say aye.
- Aye.
- Any opposed?
- All right, so we have made the recommendations.
- What else is needed from us before we adjourn?
- Just a couple of reminders, I guess, that are on here.
- The anticipated city council action
- on these recommendations is next Wednesday, the 21st.
- So funding agreements will be drafted before then.
- And then the funding agreements will be due
- from the organizations on June 11th,
- no later than Wednesday, June 11th.
- And then there's a hand technical assistance meeting
- for those grantees on June 16th.
- Yeah, and please remember the debriefing meeting next week.
- Next Tuesday.
- We'll have a report of the committee prepared
- for the committee to potentially approve and sign.
- The signatures are required under the
- Bloomington Municipal Code.
- And then that would be presented to council
- on May 21st.
- And I'll draft that for us.
- One, you know, to it easier if you have two days,
- I can draft it.
- (laughing)
- Actually, you have to draft it.
- I have to draft it.
- You've already done so?
- The presentation.
- You did a presentation last year, I've prepared one.
- Is that something you'll do again this year?
- Sure, yeah.
- Okay.
- If you can send a draft report, then we can add,
- you know, so because we need to get that ready for Wednesday
- and we're meeting on Tuesday.
- Right.
- Yeah, so I thought we were,
- I thought this went, was on the last meeting of the year
- rather than this time of Wednesday.
- Hi, Jeremy, can I leave a comment on that since it's-
- Yeah, so sorry, I didn't have to leave early then.
- I didn't have any thoughts to make it to you.
- All right, you're fine.
- So we'll now, no, we should have done that before.
- Sorry, let's open up for public comment
- if there's any public comment.
- Everybody online like to make a public comment?
- Anybody in the room like to make a public comment?
- Okay, seeing none, I will now call this meeting.
- Thank you all.