The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07/23/2012 - Minutes , 'M � � � � C� 1��0� � . Human Services Advisory Committee Special Funding Meeting Minutes Renton City Hall Conference Room #621, 6th Floor July 23, 2012, 6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER Chair Linda Smith called the July 23, 2012,Special Meeting of the Human Services Advisory Committee to order at 6:08 p.m. She announced the single purpose of this meeting is to have a discussion followed by an immediate vote of the Committee on funding recommendations for the upcoming 2013-2014 biennial budget cycle. In Attendance Members: Linda Smith, Chair; Rob Spier,Vice-Chair;Adria Krail; Robin Jones;Alicia Glenwell Elizabeth Stevens joined us by telephone conference call City of Renton Staff: Karen Bergsvik; Dianne Utecht;JenniferJorgenson Absent Margie Albritton (excused);Charles Gray(excused); Elyn Blandbn (excused) I. Chair Smith thanked everyone for their hard work to date and thanked everyone for attending tonight's meeting on such short notice. Chair Smith explained there was not a quorum at the regular meeting on July 17,2012 which necessitated this special meeting. She suspended the regular order of items and announced the only items for discussion at this evening's meeting would be any action involving the actual funding deliberations and subsequent recommendations for the upcoming 2013-2014 Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) funding cycle. Because of impending deadlines,the Committee must reach a consensus agreement tonight that will be presented to the Council at their next meeting, and put on the calendar for a public hearing and formal adoption. The funding deliberation recommendations were previously sent to each member as a normal course of business for the July 17,2012 meeting. Chair Smith explained that staff had contacted both she and Vice-Chair Rob Spier and requested a meeting to discuss the outcomes of the funding deliberations. After much discussion and deliberation,some changes were suggested for the aforementioned recommendations. These are detailed on the sheet titled City of Renton Human Services Advisory Committee 2013-2014 Funding (filed under Proposed recommendations forluly 2012 meetingfinal.xls.) The purpose of tonight's meeting is two-fold: First: To vote on the proposed Funding Recommendations 2013-2014 and 2013/2014 CDBG Contingency Plan; � �► K �_ i City af Renton � Human Services Advisory Commi#tee Minutes I July 23,2012 Speciai Meeting i Page 2 of 3 Second: To vote on the suggested changes shawn on the single sheet entitled 2013-2q14 Funding Linda went on to explain the changed recommendatians and the reasoning behind the suggested changes. She explained are still three agencies that show a recommendation far zero funding. They are: � Kindering Center—Paor app(ication;ather agencies are avai(abte for th�se services I Bridge Ministries—Paor appiicatian;other agencies are avaiiabie for these services j Valley Cities Counseling&Consultation—Extremely poor past performance, reporting 'i and record keeping; poor application. Two agencies are being recommended for some fiunding,instead of being tatally e(imfiated. These I two had originally been eliminated because af their extremely poor application packages. Staff believes that, because they were previous(y funded and they had met their obligations,they should be"let down easiiy," instead of tatally dropped (financialiy)in one fe11 swoop. They are: Institute far Family Development—now recommended funding af$6,550 (in the 2011j2012 funding cycle,was funded for$13,095} Child Care Resaurces—now recammended for$5,000 (in the 2013.J2012 funding cycle,was funded for$9,749). Discussian fo!(owed and Cammittee members exp(ained their individuai perceptions and thought ��, pracesses for dealing with these suggested changes. Adria explained her frustration with the suggested changes and she felt the entire process was being compromised because of them. She pointed out that some of the Committee members had gone before Cauncil before starting this pracess and explained at that time that they would make available a professional grant writer to help agencies prepare their application packages at no , charge to them. She went on to say,these agencies did not take advantage of the apportunity and, therefore,they submitted extremely poor exarrtples far grant appNcation paekages. She believed it was their respansibility;their failure ta take the initiative to help themselves was not justification far the requested changes to the funding recommendations that the Committee had made in good �' faith efforts and after very carefu!deliberatians. I t n to state that'ust because an a enc ma have been funded in the past,that didn't She wen a � g Y Y necessarily need to carry aver far future funding cycles—especially in view of the extremely tight financial situatians. She felt that if an agency failed to turn in an exernplary grant package,or if they showed poar reporting habits in the past,that would be justification for eliminating them and funding an agency that rated higher on the score sheets. ! She was upset that Council wauld averride the Committee's recommendations and felt it was � negating the validity of the Human Services Committee. Alicia echoed Adria's comments and further clarified that the$5,000 minimum funding parameter had not been established during the rules setting meeting. She felt that to change to that requirement at this time was unfair to the purity of the process. N:\Human Services�-New struciure�Advisory Committee\Agenda-Handonts-Minutes�Minute512012 Minutes\.IuIY 23 2012 Special Funding Meeting Minutes.dacx - - - - - - — _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-1 , -� - - I City of Renton � � 1 '� Human Services Advisory Cammittee Minutes � 3uly 23,2012 Special Meeting Page 3 of 3 She also disagreed with CaunciPs apparent refusa!#o go along with the Cammittee's recommendations to not fund an agency that had previously received money. She requested that, in the future,Council provide the Committee with very clear expectations for the funding deliberations (i.e.must a previously funded agency receive funding in subseguent cyc4es? Is there a preferred minimum allacation amount for agencies?etc.)so there isn't another repeat af this topic af discussion. There being no more discussion,Chair Srrtith called for a motion on the issue. Alicia moved to adopt the 2013-2014 CDBG funding cycles,ta include the changes, as recommended. Robin seconded the motion. Four ayes and two nays; matian carried. Next, Robin moved to approve the 2013-3014 funding Cantingency Plan as presented;Alicia secanded the motion. Five ayes;one abstention; motion carried. Elizabeth noted for the record that she would like to receive formal guidance by Council before the next funding deliberations so there would nat be a repeat of these discussions in the future. I1. ADJOURNMENT Chair Smith thanked the members for sharing their time and efforts this evening and she nated their business for the night had been finished. By unanimous declaration,the meeting was adjourned at 6:56 . . ign ure I H:\Numan Servires\-New structure\P.dvisoryCommitiee\Agenda•Nandouts-Minutes\Minutes\2012 Minutes\Ju(y 23 2012 Specia�Punding Meeting Minutes,docx , i � : � � � �� Renton Human Services Advisory Committee CITY OF RENTON 2013-2014 Funding Deliberations (Notes) June 19, 2012 JAN 0 8 2013 Advis_ory Committee Members present: RECEIVED Linda Smith,Chair CI7YCLERK'SOFFICE Elyn Blandon Shannon Matson Adria Krail Elizabeth Stevens � Alicia Glenwell Robin Jones Rob Spier I Absent: I Margie Albritton Charles Gray Observations and comments re: process: • Easy process for members because they knew how feedback is assessed. It helped to know what members were looking for, and what the desired result would encompass. , • Community impact is challenging to quantify. It's too discretionary on how points are assessed. � • Some questions are answered by taking information from one or more of the other questions that have written responses. Is the rating based strictly on the one answer, or is it appropriate to read more into it by using other responses in addition to the direct response? If just on the direct response, an agency could be rated much lower than the totality of all the responses might suggest. • Additional questions for the application:Which populations are served, and who is not served? Are fees charged to the client for services? If fees are charged, how are they assessed? Sliding scale? Other? • A cheat sheet for answers would be helpful—Examples of what a good response is. I • Good to have zero on rating scale for an absent or incomplete answer. � • Impact of word-smithing on some grants by experience grant writers—Difficult not to bias a rater because of a grant-writer's skills,or lack thereof,when it is obvious that an agency has ' merits that have been overlooked or possibly omitted by an inexperienced grant writer. No room for discretionary analysis. • Has to withstand public scrutiny. • Expand evidence of success. • More supporting data in responses. • Helpful to have an addition question of how will your agency be impacted if you do not get all of the funding you are requesting? Useful to know about program impacts if funding not available at the requested amount. Would programs be partially cut, or would less people be served,or hours of service reduced,or is it the end of the program? • Some agencies submitted poorly rated applications but there is a need in the community for their services. There should be a mechanism in place to help mentor these agencies. • City improves outreach to agencies that got poor scores—in helping them prepare a better grant application. • Some Committee members were assigned applications in areas where they have a great deal of professional knowledge of the topic. It was felt by staff that this was not a conflict and would be �} �r Human Services Advisory Commi ee 2013-2014 Funding Deliberations(Notes) June 19,2012 Page 2 of 2 beneficial in the reading and rating of applications. One committee member pointed out that while this was true; it also was very challenging—as she knew far more about the agencies than was just in the application. She felt it was somewhat counter-productive to be assigned to a result because of her knowledge—and then she could not use that knowledge in the rating process as the rating was only based on the responses in the application. The subcommittees reported on their funding recommendations. Observations: • Basic Needs covers many categories of service. It is very broad. It was challenging to try to make sure that all areas were covered in terms of services—clothing,food, medical care, mental health, counseling, elder care. • One agency was recommended for more funding than requested. It was clarified that it had been agreed to fund the highest ranked agency the same dollar amount they were funded for 2012,at a minimum—so the group followed this. • A potential conflict of interest in one group was discussed. It was deemed that it was not a conflict of interest. • One result area had excess funds. The funds were moved into another result area. Need clarity as to if it goes to the whole committee to reallocate, or if the subcommittee gets to decide where it goes. • The committee reviewing homelessness would like to prevent homelessness, rather than using "band-aids" to help individuals already at that stage. They also believe the cost/benefit ratio would be better used to help keep families in a home environment instead of shelters. • The norm in the past has been to fund new agencies at the$5,000 level. The whole committee did not agree to this norm in this funding process,and several members were not aware of this norm. Norms or guidelines need to be spelled out at the beginning of the process, as much as possible. • Five agencies that had gotten funding in the past were not recommended for funding in this cycle. There was discussion as to why their scores were low. • It was agreed by the group that new agencies would be allocated$5,000. • It was agreed by the group that agencies would not be funded for more than their requested amounts. Alicia moved to accept the recommended 2013-2014 funding recommendations as presented at the conclusion of the meeting. The motion was seconded by Shannon; all ayes; motion carried. Alicia moved to adjourn; it was unanimously seconded. Chair Linda thanked everyone for their participation and concluded the meeting at 1:50 p.m. i / I " i ignatu e