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.
 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.