.' 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. -