Thank you all for being here. Welcome to the inaugural for 2026, Jack Hopkins Social Service Funding
Committee. I'm Courtney Daly, Council Member Courtney Daly. I am the chairperson for our committee.
I think to start things off, should we just go around and do roll? Have everybody on the committee announce
their name and we'll do that first.
First, I want to welcome our newest member. We have one new member this year, Catherine and Tia Moa.
Hi, welcome. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for having me. Everybody else's old hat at this. So we'll
introduce ourselves as we do roll call. So Courtney Daly. Hello. I'm Eddie, I'm an assessor in the Action Program.
And I work at them. It's something to go over there. So obviously, we do. Yeah, we can go right over
to say, you know, any incentive and information technology services partner. You're near us each other
application areas. I'm worried that I'm a researcher for campus. I'm sorry. Lisa Lainer, council attorney.
Thank you all very much. So
To give a little bit of background on the Jack Hopkins committee, or anybody who's not terribly familiar
with it, this agency committee was created by former council member Jack Hopkins in collaboration with
the council and community colleagues back in 1993. So this marks the committee's 34th year. And the
purpose of today's meeting is to begin planning the 2026 funding program.
So a little bit about 2026 funding. This year we have $500,000 in budgeted funds for our distribution.
That's the same amount that we had last year, which was doubled from the previous year. So it has gone
up as we've also noticed need has gone up. But this, this amount is subject to confirmation from the
office of the controller regarding the available funds, which will explain
in just a minute. As I said, this is the same budget that we've worked with in 2025. Unused funds from
previous years might be available at the end upon request for additional appropriations, but the final
amount for that won't be known until the 2025 final claims are received, because we're still closing
those out from last year. And then we need to receive confirmation from the Office of the Controller
regarding how much we have
So for example, I know last year, which actually I'll talk about in a minute, we did go over by about
10,000. Correct. Yeah. So to review the 2025 program and a little bit of a preview for 2026. To review
2025, the committee received 38 applications last year. Six of those were collaborative projects with
requests for funds
totaling $965,372.77. So we basically had twice as much in requests as we did per copy, which makes
this a hard job sometimes. So the committee allocated $510,377.27 in funds to 35 social agencies, including
all six collaborative projects. So there were
38 requests, we found 35. So some agencies have already completed their projects from 2025. Others are
wrapping up during this first quarter of 2026. So Lisa is going to provide some brief context on some
of the program challenges experienced in 2025. Some of the big takeaways from last year in my communications
with applicants at different meetings and phone calls, and then with committee members. And then my
own experience just in administering the program, it seemed like there were a lot of different documents
involved. There was an application. There was an application summary. There was a solicitation, a criteria
of eligibility, any number of different documents.
And I heard feedback that it seemed duplicative. Sometimes it was confusing to compare different statements
and the different documents. On top of that, it seemed like there were a high number of pages. We had
one packet that was about 1,000 pages in length. And by the time you compiled all of the different
applications and each application,
was multiple pages and all of the attachments that went with it. It was really bulky and I could understand
if it was really time consuming and difficult for committee members to sift through all of those pages.
On top of that, there were a high number of emails going back and forth between applicants and council's
office staff. I think we estimated that we sent out about a thousand
emails, we received hundreds of emails and then would go back and respond to those. So a large chunk
of those emails arose simply by distributing the application itself. So it seemed like there would be
an easier way to manage all of this. And the vehicle for doing that or kind of the impetus
for doing that and one reason why ITS is here is accessibility. In April of this year, local governments
must make all web material and digital content compliant with new heightened standards. All of those
standards is to make
websites and documents more accessible to people with disabilities. That triggers any number of different
effects, but I think we've tried to view it as an opportunity to make the program leaner, smarter, and
more efficient. As a result of that, over the last several months, we've completely reworked the application
so that it's online,
We've reduced the number of pages. Cameron sat down with us several months ago and gave us some feedback
on what she thought would make sense from the perspective of a committee member. And you'll see portions
of the application tonight as a result of that. We've reworked the documents. There are very few. There
are no attachments.
to the application for accessibility reasons, we had to go in that direction. And actually, it seems
to make more sense. I think it'll be easier for applicants to complete. I think it'll be easier for
you to read, but we'll see. We'll be anxious to hear feedback from you after you use these.
And then finally, we're working to reduce the number of emails and electronic exchanges
with applicants. So we will be kind of kicking off the program and making the application available
without reach through coordinating with the Office of the Mayor, using different volunteer organizations,
and really cutting down on the emails going out to applicants. So please let us know as you're going
through this.
what you think about it, and if you have any ideas on how to improve it going forward. Thank you. And
there'll be different points tonight with Kari. Kari's put a lot of time into these materials, as well
as has ITS. Greg and Jeremy have been indispensable for us. We really thank you guys for all of your
work over the last several months. This has been in process for quite some time. Wonderful.
Thank you so much. Okay, so a little bit about our 2026 program eligibility guidelines and application
instructions. So there is a bit of a change from last year. Capital improvements funding will be limited
for 2026 only to projects located directly in Wilmington city limits. So that change was made on January
7th of this year.
the common council adopted a resolution to update the Jack Hopkins program funding. So the resolution
states, the committee shall prioritize funding for programs and projects that serve city of Bloomington
residents and are delivered within the city limits. Programs or services delivered outside the city
limits may also be considered when the committee finds that they provide a direct measurable and substantial
benefit to city residents.
Capital improvements, however, may only be funded when the real property to be improved is located within
the city limits of Bloomington. So I remember, I think it was last year, we did fund the Electoral Boys
and Girls Club. We gave them some funding and we had a discussion about, did we feel that that served
the population of Bloomington, did we feel that it served our mission?
decided that at that time, but it did. So they'll be looking at things maybe a little bit differently
through slightly different terms this year. Those were given lower priority. You know, if they were
capital improvements, I don't think the LSW was the most focused capital improvement. Do you remember
what we funded for that one? Was it the doors project or was that really cool?
I think that was the Lincoln, yeah. Well, anyway, so that's a change for this year. So we have a new
application process this year, as was alluded to, using CiviForm. So I know Kari has been working there
with all of that. And the ITS department are going to provide us an overview of the application submission
and review process.
and they're here to answer our questions. So, shall I turn the floor over to you? All right, so the
platform we're using is called Civiform, C-I-V-I-F-O-R-M. They started out a project with Google in
the city of Seattle, where the city was like, we have all these application programs for assistance,
and it's a mess trying to coordinate it, so they went, they, so Google has an arm called google.org,
and they do philanthropy projects where Google employees can take six month fellowships, leave their
current jobs, still get paid, but work on these kinds of projects that aren't for common good. And so
it's a great opportunity for us. We're the second city to adopt civil reform. So we got to meet with
Google. They gave us 15 highly skilled engineers, project managers, communications people. It was just
astounding.
and they built our first set of forms in one day, actually on-site here meeting with us to build them
dynamically as we talk to them. And so we started with three programs and now we've expanded out to
about 20 or so programs. The 5.1 is really great that Google's for open source, so we get to share it
with other cities and we coordinate with all these other entities, the state of Arkansas, Seattle, city
of Charlotte,
Miami-Dade County, and we all share experiences and practice skills and keep continuing with the pilot.
It's also very easy to see the federal application center, and so that's a large benefit. It's also
very secure and meets all of the federal accessibility requirements on the interface, and it costs us
nothing to use, except for our staff time that we devote to maintaining the data. And so that's the
basis of it.
This is the first time we've done an application with size. This is, I think, the largest one that we've
done in terms of information gathered. And we're really excited to see how it works out. Jeremy, do
you have anything you want to add? Yeah. So the platform really began for, like, taking in
benefit information, like getting people with watering benefits to pool water their parks. And then
we expanded it with the ESD department to take in more grants.
and different kind of business law, not wellness, just race. And the platform school, we have it linked
up in Access Indiana. If you don't know what Access Indiana is, it is what you use if you're registering
your vote or doing any other kind of state service, except it would be in the, some reason they haven't
evaluated it. But we, so folks don't need to have them log in just for civil bondage when you use Access
Indiana for them.
So while CIVA form would be new for the Jack Hopkins application process, the great thing is we as a
city have a lot of experience using it and all of these other cities plus all of these smart Google
people have been working on this for a while too. So we feel like it's a safe
transition for us to make. And so I want to do maybe just a little bit of show and tell. The way that
we started this was Jeremy and I sat down and looked at the existing application form and started to
translate it into what would it look like for an online form instead. And once Jeremy had put all of
that together,
He put it into a test environment so that we can see what would this experience be like for an applicant?
How are they going to go through the process of reading the instructions and navigating through the
process? Then at the end of that, when you hit submit, I could put on a different hat and pretend that
I was a committee member and see what I was going to be reviewing at that point.
I'm going to, hopefully, share my screen. We'll just do this, but I'm going to try to do it different.
My Zoom is not playing around with me. Yes, there we go. Maybe that'll work. Or maybe not.
There we go. So this is the test environment. The link is provided in the agenda. If anybody wants to
go in and navigate around, I'm not going to fill out an application in front of you because that would
not be much fun for anybody to take a look at. But when people go in to apply, it will look very similar.
It will start out with
you know, start your application through some background information. You can create an account. People
don't have to. And if they already have an Access Indiana account, they don't need to do that. I would
imagine that some of these organizations may have an Access Indiana account already, which should make
it easy. If they create an account, they can save work along the way, come back to it.
which you can't do if you don't create an account. So we think that people probably do that. But what
was previously provided as instructions on the form will now just be in this form and people will start
their application and work their way through the process. So
I'm gonna switch now and show you, actually I'm gonna say just a couple of things about the application
itself. So the application questions are really largely the same as last year. We didn't see the need
to change those completely. It seemed to work to get the right information out. So an example of some
things that we did change,
Rather than asking for documents for people to submit, for example, the other IRS determination letter
for 501c3 status, we are instead, this year, going to ask them two pieces of information. One, what
is their tax ID number? Two,
What is the date of their determination letter from the IRS? Those are both pieces of information that
then we can use to verify that they're in good standing, that they have an active status with the IRS.
And we think that that will be a more streamlined way of doing it and avoid having to receive information
that is inherently not accessible because some of these organizations have been around for a while.
and they have old typed letters from the IRS. So we're hoping that that makes it a little bit easier
for all of us. Similarly, for financial statements, rather than asking them to submit however many number
of years of financial statements, we are instead going to have them do a project budget that is going
to give us
the key financial information that we really need for the organizations to know how they're planning
on making this project work overall. So just quickly what the output will look like for committee members.
If the committee were to accept
attachments like old exemption letters, et cetera, we would have to remediate those and make them accessible
in order to like make them part of the website or needing materials, et cetera. So it kind of removes
that aspect of the work to this.
My dogs decided to use the test environment to apply for a grant. And then it came to me to take a look
at. The nice thing about Subiform is once the application comes in, it can actually be downloaded in
a variety of ways. The easiest way to look at it at a glance is to just turn it into a PDF. And so you
can see here just an example of it gives the
You know, the questions or the information that is to be filled in the, and then it will provide the
applicants responses all the way through and, you know,
If somebody were to instead say, boy, I'd love to have this, you know, downloaded into a spreadsheet
or something else like that, we can do that as well. But we think this is probably the easiest way to
show, you know, for most people to be able to view it.
The one thing that we were also able to do is rather than having, you know, separate attachments with
financial information, we built into this a Google Sheet, which is that's their form of an Excel
spreadsheet, and it will allow them to download it and get all of their financial information. So this
will be where they tell us what their program budget is going to be, how much they think that this project
is going to cost, and then also what are their sources of funding, including what they would be using
besides Jack Hopkins funds.
It will also allow them to prioritize their projects. That was something that was a separate form last
year. And this year will just be pulled in to the application process. And then lastly, providing
any estimates that they got for any of the particular items that they're requesting funding for.
In the past, we had asked for quotes, once again, not wanting to necessarily cause people to submit
materials that won't be accessible. This is a way for them to provide that information and then it at
last comes back in that way. All right, that's a high level overview. And I think this is a great time for
questions, comments, reactions. Yes, that's number seven. Maybe a question to ideas. What type of outputs
can we export from the form? Should be CSV and JSON. Any other questions? I have one. So we talked about
putting this all on a PDF form, and that was how we would get
the results last year, all of the applications that we would look through in one really large PDF, which
is great because it's all in one spot, but would it be all one big PDF or one individual PDFs for each
application? Are you thinking? Yet to be determined, and I think that that's something that if there
was committee preference, we would love to hear that because I think it's possible to do it in either way.
One thing I completely forgot to say earlier is the application output for this, it's going to have
all the same information as committee members received last year. But I figured out that the maximum
length of application this year would be nine pages. And that's compared to, I think it was an average
of 25 pages per applicant last year.
It's cutting it by, I think, about 60% and a lot of it is just compressed in a better way. I don't know
that that necessarily means that there will be less reading. I just think it will be more efficient
reading. Is there any way we could do a shared folder with folders of each applicant so that way we
can easily jump from one folder to another rather than one big document? Yes.
Or is there, like, what's the interface like on the, like the review side? So do we have to export it
to review it? Or can we view it within Civilform? Yes. We can do it within Civilform? That's even better.
You're not going to download it at all. We can go, and is it all sort of, is it all rolled together?
Can you do like a control F on the whole purpose or? Yeah. That's cool. Oh, sweet. Yeah. My only request
was going to be if we did one large PDF, which I don't mind if we would just get it bookmarked for each.
I would say.
Again, I'm not, I'm just here to be advisor. Try to avoid PDF export. We can talk about this later.
It could be because what you see in the back end is going to be the same as we export them all as CSV.
It might be for the public better to provide me a CSV instead of a thousand page gigantic version of
PDF. That's awesome. That's a possibility. How can you provide
Feedback or review on the document as you're, you have to like leave comments, if there's a separate
document or even leave comments or questions. I think that would have to be done on an individual. Is
there a way we can send a form to create like a project that we can talk about potential like in either
the current application.
Maybe also could be per application per person. So each of us would have our own experience there. No.
So if you change the score for one application, all the other reviewers would see that change. But could
we have multiple scores? Like could you have, it would just be one score? Yeah, correct. So we could
use that for reporting generally, but we could have used that ourselves for marking on the document.
Yeah, right. Every vendor probably has like a spreadsheet with all
then have columns for each reviewer to store. Great. That's what the arts commission was done. So when
their committee members have gone in, they have a rubric, a Google Sheet, that's provided by ESXSET.
And that doesn't break any accessibility or open-vote months? You may. I already have an accessible
rubric, yes. Thank you. Sounds good.
Any other questions about the SIDF applications? All right. Should we take a vote on this part right
now? Ready for that part? Yes. At some point, you'll need to vote on the application. We haven't talked
about the program eligibility guidelines yet, right? Right. But you could vote on the application. OK.
Well, do I have a motion to approve this new application be a citizen? I'll make a motion. Second.
Thank you. All right. So I guess we'll do, well, we have to do a roll call vote. Yep. Oh, I do. Oh,
the power. Thank you. Isa. Yes.
Should I have someone by my side? Yes. Yes, if I vote. Andy? Yes. Eddie? Yes. Cameron? Yes. Catherine?
Yes. Dave? Yes. And I vote yes. It is passed unanimously. Thank you. So did we want to do the rubric
or the eligibility guidelines?
I think the eligibility guidelines. Did I skip over that? Or was there something that you guys had to share?
Program eligibility requirements were in the packet materials for the meeting and those are sort of
similar to the application. There aren't a lot of changes to them with the exception of the new restriction
on funding, the location for funding per capital project, improvement projects that Courtney just talked about.
Those are largely the same, but to address that issue that Lisa talked about, there's a lot of documents
and sometimes it's hard to decide. One document says it one way, another document says it a slightly
different way and how are we supposed to understand what it is. We instead consolidated everything into
one document
Um, that what we would propose to do is post that as a web page, um, you know, from, uh, the Jack Hawkins
committee landing page, posted as a webpage that then would have the link to some form for people to,
um, start to work on their applications. Um, so, um, you know, we can.
certainly walk through those guidelines now if everyone would like to do that. If there are particular
items that people would like to talk about, we can focus in on those as well. Or if it looks good to
everybody, that's the case too. But that's really an overview of what we did with the eligibility guidelines
this year. Did anybody have any questions about any of that or any concerns?
Would anybody not have a discussion on those or? Yeah. Any funding, less than $1,000. I think there
were just a couple last year. Yeah. I think we should raise the minimum because last year was a feedback
we gave to a bunch of folks that why didn't you apply for more? And I think that we inherently
set expectations lower. So I do think in terms of our sort of what the tool means, if we set it higher,
maybe we encourage people to
ask for things that are actually going to get the needs, like the transformative needs. And then I guess
we did have a handful of, like, the Special Olympics, I think, it won't be ever asked for. Yeah, and
I was in his army, and she was, like, started running from so... Right, yeah, good point. But she didn't
need that crazy money, she was just a kid. Yeah. Yeah, I don't know that we want to set, raise the minimum.
Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks.
But I think maybe we can just try to be explicit, like, make it clear that, you know, in the past, when
people have asked for larger sums than were prepared to grant them, that doesn't mean they'll lose out
totally. That's why we asked them to break it down because we have in the past then looked at what they
prioritize and said, well, we can fund this part of their project, but not this one. So I think maybe
if we're just maybe clear on messaging,
that that's how we can do it. That might encourage people to shoot for the moon and stuff. And we're
not looking at putting a ceiling, right? We're just kind of leaving that open. We did talk last year,
Kam, remind me if we could, I think this was your idea, like the idea of having like a targeted
um, uh, expected, uh, awards and type of type of language, you know, like when you apply for stuff from
anywhere else, it says, you know, the pot is this, we expect to give this sort of give some sense to
people of, of where you're hoping that they apply. And then you, then that balances the limit, the lower
limit language, right? You're like, yeah, like we could give somebody a thousand dollars, but like,
we expect to give, you know,
20 awards at 500,000 because people could sense it roughly where we're thinking. We're transparency
in our typical average award amount or number. I think that was true. I think last year the issue was
with the spectrum of awards or the requests we got in terms of low to high, which is really hard to
manage in our conversations. So I think if we're able to
transparent would be like, we want you to shoot for the moon. In all reality, our average award is typically
$32,000. And that might be a way to balance it. Yeah. And there was one request that was almost 50%
of what our budget was. And so that was really hard to wrap our brains around. Because, yeah, we wanted
them to shoot big. It's hard to then say in the other breath, but not that big.
Not too bad. Yeah, yeah. We did also talk about splitting the fund, right? So that you have a sort of
moonshot part of it. So then we were like, we want to give two big awards and then a bunch of average
awards or something like that. I mean, I think to your point, like how we ended up then evaluating,
I'm sorry, how we ended up evaluating, it's almost like
it does benefit you to apply for like $3,000 because if somebody applies for a hundred thousand, you're
out of pounds, $3,000. We'll deal with that one first, right? And so even though we might've ranked
some higher, we ended up fully funding some lowly, low ranked ones just because they didn't ask for
that much. And then, and it didn't fully fund some of our higher ranked ones. Like, so, I mean, that
does create a little bit of like attention to our rubric and our, you know,
Yeah, I mean, that's, that's tricky because we really use the rubric as more of a bad line, right? It's
to help us get things started and then we shift things from there. But partially that was because,
I mean, that, that happened in part because we had two people not able to fill it out and those were
very, you know, things outside of their hands, right? I mean, things happened, right? But, and so that
forced us to not take the rubric because of the way it threw everything off, right? Because it was like,
we got all these zeros.
You know, and so then people are doing, I would have given that a, right. So, so, so I just, I don't
know if I mean, I don't know if we have to adopt a rubric again or not, but. Well, in part
of the conversation, I wanted to have to, this is, this is, we're getting off track. No, no, no, no,
no. Cause I'm going down that path too. But I wanted to talk about making sure that we're all on the
same page when we get to the rubric conversation or what exactly we mean with certain.
because we all had different interpretations last year. We ramped this scene really poorly. We're all
just in a row. Okay. So as far as the eligibility guidelines goes, and I think, are we all saying we're
all doing pretty, why don't we, do I have a motion? So the motion that you got in your mind. What about
the eligibility guidelines as outlined in the map? I'm sorry.
to adopt the eligibility guidelines as outlined. I heard half of that, to adopt the eligibility guidelines
as outlined in our packet. Okay, thank you. Yeah, sorry. No, no problem. Okay, so we have a motion,
do I have a second? Second. Thank you. All right, let's take a vote. We're gonna start online. Dave?
Yes. Esau? Yes. Catherine? Yes.
Eddie? Andy? Yes. And I vote yes. Love has passed unanimously. Thank you. All right. So I believe now
actually is the portion. This is the part of the show where we talk about the rubric. So the scoring
rubric. So I think we all agreed because the first year we were all on this together. We did not have
our rubric. And that was really kind of like we were all flying by the seat of our pants. Just we had our own
We did really well, like all kind of coming together and figuring out what we wanted to do. We all were
ultimately on the same page, but when we adopted the rubric last year, that got us mentioned on the
same page. And I feel like it was, we all agreed by the end we had a bit better guidance. So if I remember
correctly, we all agreed that we wanted to continue doing a rubric for this year. Did anybody feel otherwise
or have problems with the rubric?
I haven't pulled up the rubric. I forgot. Would this be, for our next meeting, would we discuss more
in depth about the rubric? Okay, so we don't need to. This is just a general overview. Okay. Super.
Okay. So then I guess we're all on the same page. We want to do a rubric again and we can discuss what
exactly that looks like. But I think this gave us a really good foundation over the last years. You
did the rubric.
That was awesome. I have a question about the re-break. Is that section the same as the re-breakbook
separate? So there's a separate file for the re-break that we should send you. It incorporates the priorities
and the unlinkable requirements in the re-breakbook, but it's in the form of a spreadsheet. One of the
things that we did talk to ITS about was
making sure that we could both as it concerns use of the rubric in real time in the meeting, but then
also posting after the meeting for the public to see having that in a format that would be accessible.
And while I can't remember all of the details, I know that there were different things that
that Jeremy and Greg said that we could do that would make accessibility work with that. So I took that
as good news and something that they would have to help us with. Fantastic. All right. So any last questions
about incorporating the rubric or concerns? I have one question. I wanted to ask you. Is the goal for
getting these grants, is it for people to be weaned off or for people to apply as much as they want?
that they're serving. With that particular item that they're applying for. So there's a question on
there about, I forget exactly how it's phrased, but it does ask, moving forward in future years, especially
sometimes they're applying for a position, they're creating a new position that they don't have funded.
So the question becomes then, are you going to rely on
this grant funding year after year to keep funding this, which is not what we want. We want to help
get them started, but we don't want somebody relying 100% on funding from us to keep somebody's job
growing, for example. I have one thought about, can we have breaks between the homework of everyone
making comments on the rubric that we bring to the next meeting? That's a good idea. Yeah, so maybe
it'll make the year
So we're, we're ready. We're not thinking of things. Yeah. Cause I wanted to go back and look through
the rubric to, to jog my memory. You're like, Oh, what was the part that I questioned? The scoring was
constricted. The scoring was hard because like the way that we were scoring things made it difficult
to make decisions on some of the parts of the rubric.
I think a lot of that was actually just the point system that we used because it didn't actually give
you any variability, right? It was like, get it or don't get it. So then we all started trying to do
like 0.5 things, right? Where I think a lot of the issues would just be solved by us turning it to a
10-pointer scale, because then you can, everything, you just say, yeah, yes, I like this, but I don't
like it as much as the other thing or something like that.
Yeah, and some of the scoring blocks were just very straightforward, where it was like, well,
they automatically get these points. It automatically raises them. Exactly. Even if we personally disagree
with that score. Right. So there was that conversation of, well, the river gave them this, but I disagree.
Right. So. Hey, Courtney, can I ask a question? Yes. Yes. I guess I got to shut out. Just in terms of
clarification for eligibility,
I mean, clearly we're interested in proposals that are, um, filling a need for in the community and
also, um, you know, obviously have a high potential for success and also, um, it might take a couple
of years to take off. So it doesn't necessarily disqualify them if they come back. In other words,
you know, if they're trying something new and it's,
you know, there's a chance of a very, you know, high output. Um, maybe they need to help in successive
years, but maybe not as much. I mean, is that, I mean, that's my consideration, at least, that I'd like
to give people a bit of slack in terms of they may reapply in successive years. It's just that we don't
want, what you were saying, I believe, I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but you, you were,
sort of pointing to that we don't want a dependency of a program necessarily year after year, because
we've got a lot of applicants. We want to make sure that they reach out elsewhere. Yeah, I think they
want to see their expectation of dependency. We want to set that expectation that they are going to
ultimately be able to fund this some other way.
But yeah, I think that can be a case-by-case basis for each of us as we're grading, too, to evaluate.
Maybe they're coming back to fund the same thing, but look at the strides they've made. And they're
asking for less, because this is how they're also getting funding to supply this. So I don't think it's,
for some people, it might be an automatic no. For others, it might be, well, no, no, no, let's have
a conversation about this. I think that's fair. OK, we're on the same page. Thank you. Yep.
Yes. I think, I think to that point it's, uh, like I was, uh, I are, I are, uh, Indiana. They're a really
great example. They've come, they've shown that we give them funding and then they're able to incorporate
whatever it is that we funded into their stream. And then they come and ask for something else like
to Dave's point. Yeah, absolutely. I think that's what we want to see. All right.
Should we think about on the rubric, approving using the rubric? Well, I don't know. I can't remember
what Isak was suggesting more about, just an overall temp on skin. I feel like I remember that year
with the rubric. Maybe I'm misremembering it, but having trouble. Because some rubric categories or
some rubric scoring points were just
the category or that aspect was much more significant or important in my view than another score that
each gained points. Yeah, equally weighted. Yeah, I felt like that was a problem for me. Yeah, that's
a great point. Well, I think that's what we ran into last year when we were building it, is like we
didn't have a lot of free work time. We kind of collaborated and put the rubric together, so it was
kind of like room spaghetti at the wall. And I feel like now that we have this cycle in there, I felt
it would be easier to really refine it to make
the things we care about, like the values of each of us here, very much here. And it was color coded,
because as you entered your answers for certain things, it automatically colored coded, so you get a
pretty good overview just by going by colors, reading red or yellow.
Is the vote to adopt the rubric or to use a rubric? To use a rubric. Okay, then so moved. Second.
Thank you. All right. Andy? Yes. Eddie? Yes. Cameron? Yes. Catherine? Yes. Esau? Absolutely. Dave? Yes.
And I vote yes. Past unanimously again. Look at us go. All right. I think that's everything for that.
Now we're gonna talk about the process and the schedule. Okay, so do you want me to talk about the grant
marketing and promotion? Sure. Sure. Okay. Or we can, I mean we can buy. Well, you guys probably know
a little more than I do. Yeah, do you want me to jump in on this?
Lisa mentioned that last year we sent out a whole bunch of emails to a list that I think had been compiled
over a period of time and I call it a Frankenstein list. You're probably all familiar with those that,
you know, half of them bounce back because that person is no longer in the organization.
And what we really found also was in the surveys that we're getting back from applicants, that email
wasn't the primary way that they were actually hearing about the program anyway. So rather than doing
that big old email, what we talked about this year is
doing some of the other things that we've always done, which is issue a press release, put it on the
page, do, you know, a little bit of outreach but we're going to enhance that. First of all, the mayor's
office has agreed to
Send out from their distribution list for press releases our press release and then also posted on the
website for the city, they would do some social media for us, which is fantastic because they're much
better at that than.
than we are and that we would also do some coordinated outreach with the Bloomington Volunteer Network
that is, that lives with NCFRD and some of the other local organizations that are really linked in with
the not-for-profit communities. So, you know, we'll especially once we know here shortly what the application
window is going to be, we would kick all of that into here.
And if anybody has suggestions for additional things, bring them up now, or feel free to send us an
email. The reality, most of these organizations have this on their radar already. And in fact, I'm getting
some telephone messages, hey, when is Jack Hoffman's going to start? When will be the technical assistance
meeting, that type of thing. So people are looking for this too. Yeah. We mostly, we want, we want,
Newer organizations sure. Yeah. And that's, and that's why we're incorporating some of these volunteer
organizations to help spread the word about this too, so that there could be new applicants as well.
I'd be excited. Okay. So, speaking of when the applications are going to be available. So,
the recommendation for opening that application window is next Tuesday, so a week from today,
February 17th, and then closing it on March 10th. So giving a full solid three weeks for the agencies
to get their applications in. And at some point during that time, staff is going to host the technical
assistance meeting for applicants. So anybody who needs some help can come and get that.
Any questions about any of that? How do you guys feel about that window? Three weeks, those dates, that
sounds good. That was going to be one of the things I want to make sure that we have a conversation
about ahead of time because that happened the past two years and we always kind of struggle with it
afterwards. Even though it says no late applications, we then had a discussion about it.
after it happens. So I think we should set right now. And also in the messaging that we send out, whatever
we're going to do. I know in the messaging in the past years, it has said we will not accept
late applications. And I think I went over that in the technical assistance meeting last year as well.
This new application process can be set.
If you do not want to accept applications after a date, we can set it up so that you can't
submit applications. I remember one year somebody submitted maybe like eight minutes. That was last
year. Was it last year? Yeah. And then I think the year before, I don't remember, was it maybe just
like a few hours? Wasn't someone able to prove some kind of technical difficulty at one time for their
late submission? I don't know. Last year was my only year working with Jack Hopkins.
That wasn't the case last year, but I wasn't involved in a prior year, so it may happen. Why don't we
say something like Monday, like the actual deadline is Monday at 8 a.m., but obviously we're not going
to be available to check things between Friday and Monday, so we recommend that you get it done by Friday,
like as an example, right? So if there are technical issues, people can fly again, et cetera. Right,
so we're looking at,
the deadline of on a Tuesday. So do you think we should do it from a Monday to a Monday? Are you saying?
I was just thinking, I was just thinking that intellectually for, I mean, psychologically give people
Tuesday, they might start it on Friday. So if you tell them that it's Monday, then they do it over the
weekend. And I'm just thinking like, you don't get, yeah, I don't know. It just seems like a more natural
time than a Friday or a Monday. Yeah. Well, that's true.
or that just natural rhythm of the deadlines. But how do we feel about late application? Do we want
to consider them? Do we want to have a race period? Does anybody have any? I don't see any purpose in
like, like our purpose here is to get money into the hands of organizations. Number one, that should
be like our main goal. I get the like, it's like fair and stuff. I get all that, right? But like,
If those are in contrast, then which one do you choose? I just don't see the reason for us being bureaucrats
about at the end of the day, the goal here is not to make it difficult for people to get funding. It's
actually quite the opposite. We want to give people money, and they need to give us the opportunity
to do so. I just feel like it makes more sense.
But I mean, I also take the argument that it's like, if we leave it up to us and then we have one who
is 20 hours late and we accept and another who's 20 hours and 10 minutes, we go, ah, that was just a
little too long. You know, I would. If we do that, then it might give some people an unfair, maybe an
unfair advantage if they had no time to do that. Yeah, it's true. We have a three week window and it's not like,
he don't get enough application. Yeah, that's true. So, I mean, I sympathize, but at the same time,
other folks have deadlines. Yeah, that's true. And we have, you know, our time to review stuff, too.
Things keep getting added, things like that. That's our time, too. What's the turnover between when
you get the application and when you all, or us, start reviewing them? So, can you just push it, I mean,
like, make it the compromise, or just push it up a little very last?
of minute before we actually read it or we already did that. Easier would be easier, right? Could you
give an example of what you mean? I'm not sure. Yeah, like sometimes there'll be deadlines, okay, or
if we ask for something on a Monday, but we're not actually moving that into the next Wednesday or something
like that. I don't know what it looks like for you all internally, but it's like, can we just push it versus
getting like a bigger window of time between when they submit it and when we actually need it and just
like push it up to the last minute. So basically you're saying that we started doing applications today.
Yeah. Yeah. I mean, like essentially there could be some flexibility there because then it's
less bureaucratic and more like we're doing it. We're doing the work right now. So we need, you know,
so we can't accept anymore. So that's, I don't know.
And there may be more opportunity to do that now with this type of application and the responses in
the prior years. We think of them that the application closes out on this date. I mean, that means something
to people, like, you know, when you go into your taxes and then you have to get them done by the night.
Well, and if the application actually is inaccessible after
as a very specific date and time, and we can make that clear ahead of time that this link will not be
active after. Sarah, wait, like if someone's working on an application and we close it out and there's
an open application, that person has time to finish that application. I don't know. We can ask ideas
about that.
Just my two cents, I want to say I agree with Eddie. I think that three weeks is adequate. I think a
lot of these agencies or these groups are anticipating applying anyway, so they have an idea of how
to package it and what to do. I think it gives an unfair advantage to those that drop it in late. Well,
I think the fact that we're not asking for
you know, two or three years of financial records helps. I think that's probably, oftentimes they'll
hold up. So that will make it easier for them to get in on time. Let's look at the advantage of submitting
an application late. And then if someone submits an application on time and there's errors, is there
time for them to correct or amend? And you know, you can bring an equal sign to do that in the past.
Or is it just if it's wrong, it's incomplete, and then it's out? I mean, the forms need to be settled
in. Yeah. That's going to be a big problem. We have to ask them to submit documents they didn't submit.
That's something that I'm pretty much. I'm giving an extra hour to submit an application. I'm pretty
much. There's not a thing. Look, they were there scribbling. Yeah. Like, so I'm really going to get
it at 1 AM. Which happens. Yeah. All right.
Am I understanding then that we're all in agreement that we do now? Does anybody hear me? What I'm hearing
is a majority saying we do not want to accept late applications. Is there any disagreement? I know you
feel, but do you have any strong feelings or any disagreement across the board that you want to fight
for? No, no, no, no. It's fine. So we're going to be strict about the deadline is the deadline.
It just hit a natural deadline because like, you know, Tuesday at 12 or something, it's like a really
random deadline. Yeah. Would it work then instead of doing that Tuesday to Tuesday to make it Monday
the 16th to Monday the 9th? Is that going to be a burden on? I don't think so. I think it would be Tuesday
to Tuesday because if it's Monday, if you're someone who's filling out something from an application,
on during the weekend, then there's an issue on Monday. Good point. Good point. Good point. Good point.
Good point. Good point. Good point. Good point. Good point. Good point. Good point. Good point.
Good point. Good point.
The Tuesday to Tuesday. Yeah. Could you wrote on that topic of no late applications? And then we'll
use that as a basis for working with ITS to set that up. Awesome. Yeah. So who's going to, so then we
want to make a motion on the no late application rules. Oh, we'll make a motion. Thank you. Can I get
a second? Thank you. All right. I'll do roll call starting with Cameron.
Catherine. Yes. Isaac. No, just to be fun. I mean, so can't have everything be, you know. Our little
contrarian. Dave. Yes. I'll vote yes. Andy. Yes. Eddie. Yes. And I vote yes. If this happens and you're
all like all softies, I'm going to be like, remember I fucked up.
We will not allow late applications, so we will set the application to close at the specified time.
Yeah. If there's something on the city side, things go down. Do you want to amend your motion? I don't.
Some plus one, at less. Should we take that into consideration if something goes down?
Yes. I would like to amend the motion and offer if there's technical issues on the city of Wilmington
side, then we will. Yeah. So we don't accept late things unless it's our fault. Yes. Yes. We'll offer
a grace period for ourselves. We're thinking demonstrate.
something on their side. I suspect we'd be able to tell that from from SIPA form that ITS to help us
identify that and then we want to add an addendum to that motion or it's already been voted on. Right. I mean,
It has to be a new motion, right? It has to be a new motion. Yeah. That's what I meant. Okay. Do we
want to make a new motion to allow late applications only when it's a city error? Is that the motion
I'm looking for? Or it can be for them, that it's not an issue on their own. Do you still move? I do.
I move. If someone could restate that, please.
The reason to allow the applications if there is a city and then if there's a city error or the applicant
can prove there was a technical error on their end. Or if somebody can prove that their cat would get
off their lap. That's happened to me.
Their dog was talking to their people to put up their grant. Okay, so we have the motion. Can I get
a second? I'll second. Thank you. Uh, Dave? Yes. Andy? Yes. Eddie? Yes. Catherine? Yes. Sorry, I skipped
you, Cameron. He saw you. And I vote yes. We have another unanimous vote. Thank you.
And one other question, in the previous book, there was a name. That's correct. I mean, I'm almost,
I was almost offended when she was like, let me know how did that say? Did I say it was unanimous? Yeah,
it didn't feel seen. I totally apologize. I will not do that to you again. Oh, thanks. Okay, super.
So now we need to talk about our schedules moving forward. Now that we have all that settled, do we,
I'm so sorry, do we need to take,
Make a motion about the dates for the application window, or is that just something we can set? We did
that already. We did not. We talked about and debated it, but we decided to keep it that Tuesday. Tuesday
to Tuesday, right? Yeah, the 17th through the 10th. I think let's go with that. That doesn't have to
be in a more timely manner. I mean, you can. Oh, that's why I was asking, did we need to?
I don't know that you have to, but we don't have to. We love voting. All right. So for the application
review, we're going to then, after they're due on March 10, there's a lot of magic that happens behind
the scenes. A lot of really hard work before we then touch them. So then the committee meets to review
and discuss all of those applications, to talk about our questions that we have.
And then that's where we figure out which agencies we want to invite into question. So in most years
past, we had a night where every agency who applied came in for a small presentation. I think they had
like five minutes and then we could ask them questions. And it was a very long night. So last year we
changed it up and we only brought in
Agencies that we had questions specific questions for that. We wanted a little more information about
their applications Still turned out to be a majority of yeah But there was some there was a healthy
handful that we didn't it was a much shorter time. There's a lot that we brought in Or do we still want
to do it that way this year just the agencies that
I like that. They leave us questioning. We saved like three hours doing that. And more importantly,
the agency saved that time. So it's like, we shouldn't bring them through for a horse and buggy thing
if their time is so limited. I've received positive feedback from applicants about that. True. We make
a policy that if they give them the option, in other words, we're satisfied with what we've received from you.
is one possibility. Another possibility is, we are reserving some time. If you want to come in and talk
for five minutes, we're happy, but we don't need that. I think it's only fair to open it up to the other
agencies to give equal time. Here's a comment that I heard from somebody because I asked that question
and a couple of the applicants said,
If you offer that, then everybody will accept it out of fear that they'll be punished for not correct.
Exactly. That's a good point. Did we have any good faith that it did not influence our decision? Yes.
I actually think that we had, that we ended up ranking the people who we didn't, basically the people
we didn't ask.
Sorry. I'm going to say no. I'm going to say that I actually have the opposite effect, though, than
I would have theorized, right? That the people we didn't ask, we sort of already ranked high is sort
of the way I think we ended up choosing who we were voting for. I don't think we invited anybody that
we were like, oh my gosh, yeah, this is the home run. It's clarifications on projects and some other
things. Yeah. So it's more like technical stuff when Joe and Frank pitched up.
Which is like, is there a way we can do whatever email or have them explain something in a recording
if we have a question. I honestly don't like
Yeah. The optics even of them approaching our decision-making table and it feels like they're making
a case and it feels like that's how they're approaching it and the questions that were like it creates
this power dynamic that makes me feel more uncomfortable even though we did it last year. Yeah. Am I
remembering correctly, did we last year just send a couple of email questions to a couple of the agencies?
Yes. It was more than that. Yeah. Sam and I took notes during the meeting and then afterwards,
contacted multiple agencies with a list of questions. And in some cases, there were only two questions.
In other cases, there were more in-depth questions. And so it varied. And some of our questions because
the nature of the packet last year was so long. And so some of the questions I also noticed was we had
some snarky responses of, if you would have seen this in my answer on page X, Y, or Z,
which we didn't because there were so many pages. So maybe this system would, you know, maybe the system
that we have now would make things clearer, but I also think we could easily not ask them to come in
when they want to speak to us. So essentially to email questions out and request email responses. That's
how I feel about it. Can I add something? Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. Go ahead. Just to say,
You know, I brought this up last year and that is, and I'm perfectly fine with what the proposal is,
which as I understand it, that we only invite in if we have questions. But there was a time when we
would invite everybody to do a presentation. And the utility of that was that it would be broadcast
to the community and people would learn about what these social service agencies were doing.
And even if we couldn't fund them or fund them fully, you know, the word got out and people would contribute.
So it was sort of their chance to sort of, you know, be on cats and make a case for what they're doing
and why they needed funding. I realized things have changed. I realized there are far more applicants
now. It would just be ungainly probably to open. This is when we had maybe 20 applicants in the past
or something.
But it did have that utility. And I just wanted to say that for the record, that it was, I thought it
was a good system while it lasted. So that's all. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. And I understand a lot of
this is about, we're trying to get to the heart of equity for all of these groups. So that's tragic.
Yes. Something we might think about, I probably have not enough time to do now, but with the new way
that we're using our forums, that you actually could have them
basically give a little video type of thing of themselves that you could then post on a, like we should
think a little bit more about how we, not again, not for this year, but just something for us all to
think about is like, how do we make a loop of like stuff coming in and that actually results in data
going out, right? Like where we're like, here are all the applicants this year and here are the projects.
And, you know, like, you know, instead of it just being this very dry, like,
They do it. We review it. We put it out that there is just a sort of like community of Jack Hopkins,
you know, that, that we're promoting things that are happening in the city. Um, but I don't, again,
like, you know, the time that we did the full interviews here, I don't know if it was all the terrible
thing was most of the people came and sat through all of them. And I would, and I just felt so bad for,
you know, for the folks who came at eight and they didn't get to talk until 1130 or whatever. It was
just like, it was, it was really painful.
Yeah, I'll chime in on what Dave said, because I was around for all through all that, not even before.
So what we found, as I recall, was that that benefit that Dave was talking about mainly was something
that was articulated by the city, by us as an opportunity. And when
the agencies actually had a chance to respond or weigh in on that. They're like, no, it's not,
that's not, we're not looking for that. That's not our, we don't really see it as an opportunity to
market ourselves, right? And we are sitting through this and getting ungodly wrong. We have these two.
To get rejected by funding, you know, make a little bit. That's what I recall. So Dave is right that
we did want to provide that, right? But as I recall,
When they got a chance to get feedback, you don't need to do that for us. I have a slightly different
view on why we do interviews for the people that we have questions for, which is not wanting to disadvantage
somebody because they're a bad bread writer.
Right, because some of the organizations are well skilled. And I mean, a lot of people who brought in
were first time people, their application was like, yeah, you think you said that, that's not what you
said on page 17, right? Like the question, you know, I agree there are some times, some of the interviews,
like where we did the interview on that they had applied twice and were like, which of these do you
want funded? Because you can't do both. I mean, that could have been an email, but I think with some
of them, it was just, you know, it was like, whatever you described here,
we really didn't, I didn't get until you explained it. And I'm like, oh, okay, I see, I see what you're
doing. That's, yeah. And then I was thinking of there was one applicant last year that very specifically,
I remember being like, I don't get who you are and what you're looking for. And I had to hear her. The
Hendricks County person or whatever. Yes, yes. They had a funny name and we were all like, why,
why is this? Any point of the application made it clear that this was like things happening in Bloomington and, and,
you know, we're like, you say you're in Hendricks County and you're like, oh, that's just how our name
is. It never came out until we talked or, oh, okay, no more questions. Yeah. So I'm torn. I'm torn because
I certainly, you know, feel very strongly that getting just a handful of our applicants in front of
us to make the case might feel fairly unweighted or unfairly weighted. Um,
Most of it can be done via email, but I also hear you that some of it just can't be sussed out unless
it's verbal. Now, before we even get to that point, we do weed out some of the applications that's out,
where we say, we know right away we're not going to fund wheeze at all. That's what we figure out in
that meeting, too, where we're debating, who are we going to ask further questions of? Did we,
Last year, was there anybody that we invited? Does anybody remember? Anybody that we invited to present
that we didn't fund at all? Yes, of course. As I was asking the question, that's what I thought. OK.
The problem that I have is that we don't stick with the question that we identified. And we end up on
this other level of interrogation that I feel we're really uncomfortable about.
scrutinizing them in ways we don't scrutinize the ones we don't call in. And I noticed that specifically
with the Latino education project from last year, there were lots of questions about the value of that
project that came up, but I was like, they're requesting $3,000. We had this one technical question
and it felt like it evolved into like a much bigger thing. And so that's my issue was like,
if we do it, that would be great if we could identify our questions, stick with it and not keep poking at
things as they come up, it doesn't feel right. I'm leaning toward, just my personal opinion, and I'd
love to hear anybody else's input on this, I'm leaning toward doing the email questions web, but having
a really thorough discussion about how we're framing the questions, what questions we're asking them,
who we're asking them. So I like the email, but I think you, Safiya, had mentioned something about maybe
some, instead of people coming in person,
do a three minute video describing the project and then offer to everyone to submit a video. And then
we can watch them if we need to. Like the project's very straightforward. It's like, I want to buy books
for kids. That's easy to explain, but there's something that is too complex and you just can't get it
by reading it. But allowing people the opportunity and best to not necessarily go to town and get something
else and get a video.
Another thought is that don't we allow public comment during our deliberation part of the conversation?
At the application review part? Yeah, isn't there a public comment part? I don't remember there being
a public comment period. I'm already confusing it, but I feel like we have one. I don't know. For which
meeting is this?
I'm just wondering if, I'm wondering if there's a, if you can lean into, I mean, I'm just thinking like,
is there some way where while we're deliberating at the end, you have, we raised all these questions
and then they've chosen to watch they at public comment or like, Oh, I can answer that question. Like
is that like, is that a mechanism that we could use?
I mean, it gets back to you. It doesn't address your concern. Do they get that question beforehand?
Yeah, that's what we did last year. We said this is what we want to know. Could it be that females are
just reserved for verification and process questions and the in-person is reserved for high-risk or
really, really large grants that need further examination?
And maybe your first time applicants, which we did last year our conversation first time applicants
them having visibility with with community visibility as well. The first thing that we said, the technical
for me, they did the opportunity to do that. So this is a grant meeting that they get to the technical
assistance. Yeah, we're not part of that. Okay.
I think you're onto something maybe. I like that idea of the clarification emails, because there's always
clarification that we want, but we don't need to necessarily invite them in. And then we'll set, and
maybe we don't even need to do this tonight, right? Figure out our parameters for who we would want
to invite in. Like they have to meet specific standards, really big grant requests of X amount or more.
or first time applicants that we just don't know who they are. And maybe just even just the only those
two. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
Because I think our biggest questions with that too, or what can you do with less, you know? Yeah, but
they wrote up their big question for chat last year was, hey, if we didn't get any letters from you,
whatever. Yeah, because I know there's, one of the questions on the survey, on the application is, can
partial funding, can you still do something with partial funding? Which is important.
Yeah. Well, yeah, I mean, it's already even on my application. So if they said yes, then I think it's
safe to go ahead. And I don't think anybody's ever said no. You know, I love that motion to do that.
To do what? You know, a set of thresholds that we can discuss when we talk about rubric for for interviews
and yeah, and then do all the other paper.
And first time out. And first time African shirt. I will add that to my motion. Well worded, well worded
motions. Do I have a second? Isak. Oh, yes. I was like, what, what, what, what, yes.
Yes. And I vote yes. That one is unanimous. It passes. Thank you. All right. So that wasn't even planning
on getting that deep into the weeks there with that. But I'm glad we did. So with the applications being due,
March 10th, then we need to have our next meeting to start the review process about a month later. So
Lisa and Kari have recommended the week of April 6th through the 10th as meeting. So I think from this
point on, we're just kind of looking at our calendars and trying to get the rest scheduled so that we
can move forward. I'm gonna pull up my calendar too.
Are there any days of the week? Okay. So we're going to try to keep these evenings. Are there any nights
typically throughout the week that are a no-go? So I know, for example, ESOC is a hard no on Mondays
because you teach. Tuesdays are actually a hard no for me. I'm just sitting in. Okay. So Mondays and
Wednesdays are no good. I mean Mondays and Tuesdays.
This was a decaf, that's the problem. So a lot of these, Lisa and Kari were very smart to look at, weeks
we don't have city capsules. So Wednesdays should be good for those weeks. Is there anybody that is
a hard no on Wednesdays?
Or about what? I have a preference not to, but that's, I mean, don't worry about my preferences. Well,
next Thursdays and Fridays, do you talk about anybody have a hard conflict with Thursdays or Fridays?
Thursdays don't work for me, so I might as well do the class. Okay. So I'm going to be tough. Got it.
Unless you want me to.
We really need a city councilor or city health child care. Yeah. We should write that into law. Done.
All right. So that leaves Wednesdays are rather not. And Fridays are OK. Friday needs are difficult
for them to focus on this. OK. Wednesday it is. Sorry. It looks like a chilly Wednesday. Does it have
to be evenings? I mean, OK. I mean, happy mornings.
I could really only do mornings with early Tuesdays or Thursdays. I can do Thursday mornings. Well,
it depends on the day. You said the week of? The week of April 6th through the 10th. I'm going to say
April 8th. I am honored if I should throw it out now. I'll be in New York. OK. So I won't be on the
red screen.
I'll be driving back. No, I'll be back on the night. So Thursday. So are you available that Tuesday
morning? Who did an early one Tuesday morning? I would be available. I can make myself available. Okay.
So I'm looking at Tuesday, the seventh early morning, maybe. Well, a nine is just one. I can't really.
But Tuesdays and Thursdays, I work from home. So I sleep out. I've learned to go to public museums.
You can't. You can't do more than this. OK. Oh, I will say that's really difficult for me. OK. No, I'm
glad you're speaking up. Thank you. I mean, they're hard for me too. So when you say Friday, or multiple
days, are you saying one Friday evening, or are you saying multiple
Just for this week. Right now we're just looking at this week. What? This week? What are we talking
about? No, no, no, no. The week of April 6th. Oh, sorry. I was just asking in general, like, before
we go through each day of the week when people are like, so maybe for this, like, a one-off, we could,
the Quick Stop could probably be better. How many meetings do we have to do? I always forget. I actually
can't do that Friday night, because I have to be in New Jersey the next day. So I just realized I probably
should not book myself for that Friday night. So at least like Wednesdays are not preferred, but that
one Wednesday is okay. Yeah, I mean, like I said, don't worry about my preferences. I was just stating
them. I like to have every Wednesday kept free too, because there's no prayer and precious. It's nice
to see my family. I think Wednesday equals eight. It's one night for that.
I should join a little bit. You can join remotely as well. Yeah, but I'll be back for him.
So he'll be back. If it's in the morning, I can't do it. So I'll be getting my divorce done. Right,
no. So if we did like a 6 p.m. on Wednesday, April 8th, does that not work for anybody? Oh, no, Catherine
says it doesn't. Oh, no, no, no, it works for me. Are you sure? Yes. Okay. Okay.
You can do that. Dave, is that good for you? April 8 at 6 p.m. Yes. Sophia? Sophia? I'm sorry, is Wednesday
okay? Yes, Wednesday the 8th. Is that okay for you guys?
We can't. We can't come on April 8th. I'm sorry. We didn't realize. We have a big event. We work together
for Context. But on April 9th, it'll be very hard for us to do April 8th, I would imagine,
at least for me. Catherine has a bigger ability to be like, I'm not doing that. Why don't we look at the lead?
before then. But then we had a council meeting on Wednesday. I know. I'm saying maybe, oh, and then
that Tuesday state of the city. So we'd be looking at like April 2nd. Is this our review meeting? This
is the application review. Yes. This is our long meeting. It's a big meeting. Yeah. I can't, I mean,
okay. So, so I can,
Because I can make a Monday work, like a once-one-Monday work. Monday the 6th is? It's Easter.
Is that a... Oh, that's Easter? April 6th is Easter, yeah. It's not a city holiday, but it is. Yeah,
yeah, yeah. I would be okay with the 6th, unless it's totally everything's to Japan. So just, again,
We're free on the 6th. Council staff would be there on the 6th. Same for correct staff. Do you want
to do 6th? I can do the 6th. Is there anybody who cannot do the 6th? What time? 6th again? 6 p.m.? Does
that work for everybody? Yeah. Okay. This will be the long one, right? Auburn cookies. Okay, so April 6th.
This is harder than I thought. Sorry, I'm sorry to throw wrenches. Don't ever apologize. I'm always
the one with the hard schedule to fit in when people get mad at me all the time and I hate it. So I'm
not mad at anybody for their schedule. All right. Do we want to set a date for the... Well, yes, because
we did say we might have some agency presentations. So council staff has recommended the week of April
27th through May 1st.
But that one, because again, there's no city council that week. That week, why does my calendar look
so empty? Because my kids' music books look better. Okay. Is there any, so looking at the calendars,
the week of April 27th through May 1st, are there any hard, hard no's?
Tuesday's partner. Okay. And we are still talking. Please. We are. Yes. I'm wide open that week. I could
do almost any time. Nobody wants to meet with me that week. That's nice. Best thing that ever happened.
Well, does the Wednesday work for everybody?
Is there anybody the Wednesday does not work for? It works. Yeah. Wednesday, April 29th at six. Yes.
Got a black belt. OK. I may have to be remote. I'm sorry? I may have to be remote. I'm not sure.
I could join, but I may be out of town. Oh, OK. For that whole week? Yeah. OK.
on the Wednesday. Okay. So then there's more, the pre-allocation meetings. So that's where we come in
with our rubrics having been done and the recommendations that we individually are making. And then
that's where we put all of our numbers together and do a really great big algebraic equation. It's great fun.
So that's not long after. So that is, we're looking at the week of May 11th. Am I remembering that?
Did I remember that correctly? Yeah, the week of May 11th. So that gives us a little more time than
we had last year. I think we only have one week in between the presentations and our rubrics being due
last year. This gives us two weeks, which is much better because I didn't have enough breathing room
last time, I know.
And I think the extra time will be helpless. So. We have a council meeting on the 13th? We do have a
council meeting on the 13th. Deliberation. It's a little pretty huge. Oh, let's just turn the deliberation
into. That's what I was going to say. Let's do that. Can we really? Why not? Is that legal? It disabuses
me. That is not legal? Well, I don't know that it wouldn't be legal. We could cancel the deliberation
session and set up Jack Hopkins. Set up general, all types of.
other committees. Council President, do we have permission to cancel the deliberation session? That's
not the thing we would do in this meeting. I'm asking for your commitment. No. Monday, is anybody? Yeah,
that's after a semester, right? Yeah, sure. I could do that Monday. Monday's good.
Isn't that an important day? Yes, it's my father-in-law's birthday. Well, that's the Monday after graduation.
I'm going to be a little tired. So Monday, May 11th at 6 PM. Does that work for everybody? Right. I
don't want to be there like 5.30. We can do 5.30.
Monday, May 11th at 6 p.m. Good. This is pre-allocation. That's pre-allocation. So that's another long
one. And then we have the actual allocation here and that one is usually pretty quick. So we're looking
at the week of May 26th.
I've always wondered though, what is the difference between those two meetings? Because nothing changes.
It's just that we have to get the documents ready and then come in and vote for them. Is that the reason
why we have two different meetings? That's the allocation meeting. Last year, there was still a lot
of discussion in the allocation meeting. Yeah, I remember that. So there was really a need for it. OK.
OK. So things can change between them. Right. The first year, we just came and they were like,
you like this? Yeah.
Oh my gosh. Okay. So there was no council meeting that week, but that Monday is Memorial Day. Um,
I see. That's why it says the 26 on the, yes. Okay. So, uh, you guys want to do that one on the Friday
so that we can go on vacation. Sorry. Theoretically North's graduation is Saturday. Okay. So you got
to do a party.
Well, I mean, I have a kid graduating. Hopefully, my parents are going to be in town. So Friday night
is bad, but I can do probably Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. It's probably fine. Tuesday.
Anybody else? What's the date? The 26th. I think we'll be in town. OK. Are you in town? Any of the other two?
Thanks. So right now we're looking at the 27th or 28th. March, spring, break? March or May. Well, hey
everybody. But thank you for picking the breaks. That is available, but that has a better statement.
Thank you.
Um, does, is there anybody that has a really strong preference for Wednesday or Thursday? I'd rather
it be Thursday. Okay. Thursday it is. If everybody's okay with that. So Thursday, May 28th. Oh,
May 28th? Yeah. Oh, okay. At 6 PM. You guys don't mind if my parents come and I'll show you. Um, okay.
So that is good.
And we're almost done, guys. We're so close. And then we have our debriefing meeting. That's the following
week, week of June 1st. We do have council on the third, that Wednesday. So that leaves Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday, or Friday of that week. All of those are equal to me. I'm sorry, you said the first week of
June? Yes.
I may have accidentally said- When was our last council meeting? Was it the 10th? Is that the one that
works today? Yes. So we have two in a row that week so that then we don't- then we have- and does that
give us enough time to get the report? So could we also do the report on the- was that right?
Or the 10th? So the recommendation is for June 10th to be the 4th. The recommendation and then we also-
and then you'll give the report that day? On the 10th, yes. So just thinking like is there-
more time, it's more time useful. Should we do this earlier in the week than later for that?
I don't know. I'm asking you all. I don't understand. For the debriefing meeting, I don't know that
that matters that much. Yeah, I think the week of June 1st. I mean, earlier could be better, but. Cool.
On your preferences. Okay. I pretend to come together at these times.
Oh. All right. How does anybody feel about Tuesday, June 2nd for the debrief? Great. Yeah. So for everybody
at 6 PM. 1, 2, 3. Yes. OK. All right.
Okay, so those are all the ones that we need to schedule. I think that's everything. So just to reiterate,
we're looking at meetings on, these are all at 6 p.m., Monday, April 6th, Wednesday, April 29th, Monday,
May 5th, Thursday, May 28th, and Tuesday, June 7th.
and I get a motion to approve this. Wait, I had one is May 11th. Yes, Monday, May 11th. Okay. Reallocation
meeting. Okay. Yeah. And then I think that we need to... No? Did we make... What is this now? I think
it's fine with that. Well, there's all three to those days. Okay. Well, that was easy. And then we will
present our final numbers
City Council on June 10th. Hopefully get there before recess. All right. That was everything on my agenda.
Does anybody have any new business? Well, yes.
Just a plug for conflict of interest for the norms. Okay. What is a conflict of interest? It's a financial
interest in a contract, such as a grant award in this case, or driving a financial benefit of some form
from an award of a grant. So if you think that you may have some type of conflict of interest, contact
me and we can talk about it.
Disclosures would need to be made during one of our meetings here, and then a financial disclosure statement
would need to be completed and filed with the state. I can help, or our office can help complete those.
Thank you. Thank you. All right. And if there's no other testing matters, meeting adjourned. Hooray!