Laserfiche Public Portal
.' y . . . . . . . . . . . . <br /> ij � . ' . . . . . ' . . . � ' . . .. <br /> `.)'.' , . . - _ � . . . . . . . <br /> t� <br /> , , . �� , . . . . <br /> D Q'�1�0�. � - <br /> . c <br /> � � . ITY OF REN1'Oi� <br /> _ <br /> � Human'Services Advisory Committee . <br /> �' 7�`4 <br /> . SE � <br /> . Meeting Niinutes <br /> P <br /> Renton City Hall REc��vEo <br /> Council Conference Room,'7th Floor CITYCLERK'SOFFICE <br /> April 15, 2014, 3:00 p.m. ; <br /> CALL TO ORDER: Chair Shannon Matson called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m. A quorum was present. <br /> � AITENDANCE: In Attendance: Shannon Matson;Chair; Linda Sm'ith,:Vice-Chair,• Leslie Anderson; Elyn Blandon; <br /> Len Aron; Ryan Mclrvin; Chad Buechler; Dorothy Capers. Excused: Brook Dodd;Amy Koehl <br /> City of Renton Staff: Karen Bergsvik; Dianne Utecht;_Katie McClincy;.JenniferJorgenson. - . <br /> 1. APPROVAL OF PREVIOUS MINUTES � t <br /> . Shannon asked for a motion to approve the March 18, 2014;minutes as presented: Ryan moved for . <br /> � approval; Elyn seconded. IVlotion carr.ied. <br /> 2..' VISITORS . <br /> Shannon greeted Mayor Law and Community'Services Administrator 1'erry Higashiyama and Committee <br /> members introduced themselves. The Mayot thanked the members for their generosity and efforts:on <br /> behalf of the citizens of Renton. .. `. <br /> � 3. FUNDING PROCESS DECISIONS� ' <br /> _ <br /> A. 1. Dianne reViewed the financial/budget score sheet.that is worth 15 poinfs. Members had no changes� . <br /> to the sheet;and agreed that staff should complete thatsection of'the sheet.; . <br /> _ , <br /> A. 2. The purpose of the communityimpact section of the rating tool was discussed..Discussion took place <br /> about what specific criteria.are used to evaluatethe agencies: Several members.felt it needs to be.- <br /> more structured=some would like fo.see if a program "€its"with tlie needs of Renton`s residents: <br /> Community access was brought up,and it was discussed whether accessibility would be in this <br /> . 'section or under accessibility and diversify. Members agreed:thaf the concept of how the <br /> _. _ <br /> organization and program fit in Renton was a criterion to use in the rating in this section. Dorothy, <br /> , Elyn,Shannon and Chad volunteer.ed to come up with proposed wording changes to the rating.tool. <br /> ; B.. After the last fundin.g process,.members recommended adding the rating of zero to the 1, 3,.5 scale; <br /> members agreed to add the zero. � <br /> C. Soft funding targets:.Dianne gave a brief re=cap of the h'istory behind the targets for the last two <br /> funding cycles. There was discussion as to the merit of having the targets or, doing away.witli them. <br /> " Members decided to keep the soft funding targets, knowing that the're is flexibilify to move the funds` <br /> between the different.Result areas. The proposed soft targets were accepted as a starting point for <br /> funding discussion. ' <br /> % , <br /> D; Dianne and Karen went.over the Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Statement form: Members' <br /> completed the form and they were given to Dianne. The prima.ry purpose was to identify potential _ <br /> conflicts o#interest when assigning members to-the,two rating teams.There was d,iscussion.as to <br /> what was considered confidential in the.funding process. The ratings are provided to the agencies <br /> upon request, but not which member gave tfiem which score. - <br />