WEBVTT

METADATA
Video-Count: 1
Video-1: youtube.com/watch?v=RpsFkuqR9V0

NOTE
MEETING SECTIONS:

Part 1 (Video ID: RpsFkuqR9V0):
- 00:08:36: Meeting Called to Order; Roll Call and Introductions
- 00:09:14: Public Comment: No Cards Submitted, Proceed to Approval
- 00:09:47: Approval of April 23rd Meeting Minutes; Roll Call Vote
- 00:10:22: Recognition of Human Services Staff's SRP Award
- 00:10:54: Discussion and Proposed Amendment of Bylaws - Conflicts
- 00:15:24: Roof and Emergency Repair Program Increase Presentation
- 00:25:30: Question: Program Fund Budget Impact Discussion
- 00:26:18: Question: Confirm Homeowner Eligibility for Repairs
- 00:27:26: Question: Will These Funds Impact Any City Programs?
- 00:27:59: Questions: Warranties, Housing Rehab, and Emergency Limits
- 00:34:56: More Questions: Waiver Coverage and Commission Vote
- 00:36:47: Motion and Roll Call Vote Approving Program Increase
- 00:37:27: Annual Funding Allocation Process Review Commences
- 00:41:35: Discussion Begins: Staff Commendations and Neighborly Software
- 00:43:02: Concerns: Money Distribution and Funding All Top Groups
- 00:45:23: Changes Appreciated: Point System Spread and Score Definitions
- 00:46:46: Improvements and Goal Setting Discussion for Next Year
- 00:52:20: Recommendations, Meeting Agencies, Connecting Scorecard Dots
- 00:54:14: Meaningful Collaboration, Flexibilty, Staff Suggestions
- 00:56:54: Suggestions: Collaboration with Staff, CDGBG Style, Data
- 01:06:18: AI in Applications, Collaboration with Staff, Future
- 01:13:22: Identification of Future Agenda Items, Director's Report
- 01:17:02: Motion to Adjourn, Roll Call Vote, Meeting Adjourned


Part: 1

1
00:08:36.240 --> 00:08:58.800
test microphone. >> Good. You good? Okay. >> Good evening. I'd like to call to order the Human Services Advisory Commission on Thursday, May 14, 2026. Could we get a roll call, please? Chair

2
00:08:58.800 --> 00:09:14.399
Lurie >> here, >> Vice Chair Culie >> here, >> Commissioner Jung >> here, >> Commissioner Shear >> here, >> Commissioner Hill >> here, >> Commissioner Row, >> and Commissioner Shexator >> here. >> Chair Lur, you have a quorum.

3
00:09:14.399 --> 00:09:31.680
>> Thank you. This is a time for public comment. Citizens may address members of the Human Services Advisory Commission during this time regarding non-aggendaized items. Uh, citizens may re submit one request to speak public

4
00:09:31.680 --> 00:09:47.600
comment card per meeting. Public testimony is limited to three minutes per speaker. Do we have any comment cards? >> Chair Lori, we do not. >> All right. Moving forward. Uh, in our packets, we've got the April

5
00:09:47.600 --> 00:10:04.480
23rd, 2026 regular meeting minutes. Could I get uh a motion to approve those minutes? So moved. >> Second. >> And a roll call. >> Chair Lori, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Kulie, >> yes.

6
00:10:04.480 --> 00:10:22.880
>> Commissioner Jung, >> yes. >> Commissioner Hill, >> yes. >> Commissioner Shexnator, >> yes. Uh before we proceed into the regular meeting agenda item number one, uh as a

7
00:10:22.880 --> 00:10:39.839
point of privilege, I'd like to extend a congratulations to the human services staff who received the Salt River Project Impact Story of the Year award. Um it it was a recognition for the dedication shown by staff to support

8
00:10:39.839 --> 00:10:54.959
Scottsdale seniors through critical utility assistance programs lie and he so uh truly commendable and thank you for your dedication um and and support of seniors in our

9
00:10:54.959 --> 00:11:12.959
community. Our first regular item on the agenda is human services advisory commission bylaws amendment. Uh in our packets we have a copy of those uh bylaws

10
00:11:12.959 --> 00:11:29.040
and on page five uh which is 7.0 know conflict of interest. Um, actually I apologize, page six is where it continues. There was a a a paragraph or

11
00:11:29.040 --> 00:11:46.079
a sentence added stating, "Members shall also comply with all applicable federal conflict of interest requirements related to programs reviewed by the commission, including disclosure, recusal when a personal, financial, or

12
00:11:46.079 --> 00:12:01.120
organizational relationship could create an actual, potential, or perceived conflict. Um, this allegedly resulted from a conflict of interest that occurred some point in the

13
00:12:01.120 --> 00:12:20.160
past uh that is in a process of being remedied. Um, but uh, city legal is recommending this additional statement be added to the bylaws. Um, any discussion? If not, we will um have

14
00:12:20.160 --> 00:12:36.720
an agenda item at our next meeting. in order to uh approve of this change. >> Yes, >> I thank you so much, Chair Lori. I I do have a question. Um so I guess there are variables that not referring to federal

15
00:12:36.720 --> 00:12:52.639
conflict of interest requirements uh within the bylaws itself and seems like doesn't it come up in our annual education or am I fooling myself? Seems like I've heard this before. Uh, Chair Lori, uh, Vice Chair Kulie, members of the commission, it is part of

16
00:12:52.639 --> 00:13:09.760
the ethics, um, review. However, the language in the ethics review specifically only references the state. >> Um, and it's important that this commission recognizes that there is also the federal regulation under um, our federal regulation specifically 24 CFR

17
00:13:09.760 --> 00:13:26.880
part 570.611. Yes, I know this one by heart now. um to make sure that we are always in compliance with this >> but it it can become part of the ethics like can >> yeah I would think it'd be well yeah >> we could definitely um at the beginning

18
00:13:26.880 --> 00:13:44.560
of each of our annual funding cycles um as part of the orientation when we introduce the packets and the information to you in January to coordinate an ethics review regarding the CDBG conflict of interest clause. >> Excellent. That'd be great. Thank you.

19
00:13:44.560 --> 00:14:03.279
No further comment, your honor. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I fully support whatever we can do to um operate under a more ethical um framework and um I think if I'm reading between the lines

20
00:14:03.279 --> 00:14:20.720
on on the proposed amendment that it would require any of us who happen to sit on a board um or maybe even be involved in some capacity with an agency

21
00:14:20.720 --> 00:14:36.079
that is seeking funding through the commission that would fall um as a violation that would need to be um identified and the individual should recuse themselves from any and all conversation related to that item. And

22
00:14:36.079 --> 00:14:51.360
so that's slightly different than the state rules that we've been operating under or the city rules that we all receive training on. So, I think we need to be mindful of that as we move forward that this is a stricter ethical

23
00:14:51.360 --> 00:15:07.600
framework. I fully support it. Um, but we're going to have to be on guard um as we move toward the funding process to make sure we don't step our toe on this. That's all, Mr. Chair. Thank you for those comments.

24
00:15:07.600 --> 00:15:24.959
Uh, any other comments? Um, if not, we will uh add this to the agenda to vote on this amendment to the bylaws on May 28th. Uh, moving forward on the agenda, we

25
00:15:24.959 --> 00:15:42.480
have Mario Alvarez here. Uh, and by the way, we are swapping agenda items two and three. Um but uh Mario is going to share with us the increase in maximum assistance for the roof repair replacement

26
00:15:42.480 --> 00:16:00.320
and uh emergency repair programs. Mario Chair Luri, members of the commission, thank you for allowing me to be here this evening. Uh my name is Mario Alvarez. I am a housing rehabilitation specialist with the city of Scottsdale's housing and community assistance office.

27
00:16:00.320 --> 00:16:19.839
And this evening, I here tonight to respectfully request consideration for an increase in program limits for the emergency repair and the roof repair and replacement programs. Now, the purpose of the programs is to administer community development block

28
00:16:19.839 --> 00:16:36.560
grant funds to provide safe and sanitary housing and living conditions to families who meet low and moderate income guidelines. listed are three programs. However, we will be focusing and speaking on the roof repair and replacement program and

29
00:16:36.560 --> 00:16:54.000
emergency repair program as these are the programs that are currently affected. Now, beginning with the roof repair and replacement program, the purpose of this program is to address dangerous, deteriorated, and leaking roof systems.

30
00:16:54.000 --> 00:17:12.160
If left unresolved, a compromised roof can negatively impact other critical components of the home, including structural support systems and foundations. This program is offered as a grant. Therefore, the resident is under no obligation to repay any portion that's

31
00:17:12.160 --> 00:17:31.000
granted. The roof repair and replacement program may be utilized on a one-time basis and eligible repairs are limited to roof systems that are severely damaged, unsafe, or actively leaking.

32
00:17:31.840 --> 00:17:50.679
Now, before you is an example of a roof in disrepair. We partner with licensed contractors to repair these conditions. The result is a sound roof that is warrantied and designed to last.

33
00:17:52.240 --> 00:18:10.080
The emergency repair program focuses on fixing serious safety issues that makes homes unsafe to live in. This includes repairs to crucial systems such as electrical, plumbing, heating, and cooling. Modifications for seniors

34
00:18:10.080 --> 00:18:27.400
and individuals with disabilities can also be provided through this program. This includes installing handrails, grab bars, wheelchair ramps, and other improvements to make homes safer and more accessible.

35
00:18:27.679 --> 00:18:49.039
This program is also a grant. So once again, there is no repayment obligation. Each eligible applicant may receive assistance through the emergency program each fiscal year. Here we have some repairs that have been done through the emergency repair

36
00:18:49.039 --> 00:19:08.200
program. This is an aged HVAC unit. Using program funds through the emergency repair program, we were able to replace it with a new one that was warrantied and installed to code using insured and licensed contractors.

37
00:19:08.640 --> 00:19:25.760
This electrical panel was replaced and brought up to code using repair emergency repair program funds as well. This photo shows a water heater that was replaced using emergency repair program funds.

38
00:19:25.760 --> 00:19:45.600
And this is an example of a faucet and drainage system that is in need of repair through the through the program. This is an example of some of the uh accessibility modifications that we can do. seen here are grabbars

39
00:19:45.600 --> 00:20:04.799
and an ADA height water closet or what we normally known as a toilet uh that were installed for a resident in need. These are the current cost limits for both programs. The roof repair and replacement limit currently sits at

40
00:20:04.799 --> 00:20:21.840
$20,000 while the emergency repair program is capped at $10,000. While these limits have been sufficient in the past, market volatility has negative negatively affected costs for our contractors and we use mass procurement

41
00:20:21.840 --> 00:20:38.640
methods to set contract pricing for our most common repairs. However, in a volatile market, this places an unreasonable burden on our contractors and affects their ability to commit to set pricing. Contractors receive letters

42
00:20:38.640 --> 00:20:55.440
from their suppliers stating that costs are increasing and this is beyond their control. Over the last two years, this has led to contractors requesting price increases at mid-year intervals and at contract renewals.

43
00:20:55.440 --> 00:21:11.760
The contract contractors are set up to allow for 3% increases of price at renewal with supporting documentation. Now, unfortunately, market conditions demand more.

44
00:21:11.760 --> 00:21:28.720
Approving program limit increases will help our contractors and the residents we serve by covering higher project costs and providing a cushion for unexpected expenses. It's for these reasons I am respectfully requesting increases of $5,000 to each

45
00:21:28.720 --> 00:21:47.520
of the grant programs. Now, some of the contributing factors for this request for program increase include inflation. In January of 2026, the Tax Credit Advisor, that is a publication that provides coverage of the affordable

46
00:21:47.520 --> 00:22:02.480
housing industry, published an article entitled US construction cost outlook by Kenneth Wy. The article states tariffs, labor shortages, higher interest rates, and supply chain issues as catalysts for

47
00:22:02.480 --> 00:22:18.159
the upward market fluctuation. Geopolitical conditions also drive up production costs and limit availability as global conflicts affect supply chains, transportations and material prices.

48
00:22:18.159 --> 00:22:35.559
These contri these conditions are contributing to project delays as waiver requests to exceed program limits have become more frequent. For example, the contracted prices for many of the commonly used HVAC sizes,

49
00:22:35.679 --> 00:22:53.760
they already surpassed the $10,000 program limit at the beginning. This means we have to compose waiverss for co for maximum uh exceeding the maximums uh at the incept of the project. Now, similarly sized cities and agencies

50
00:22:53.760 --> 00:23:08.159
with comparable emergency programs already have higher program limits. Here, this shows that the city of Mesa is sitting at $20,000 per fiscal year for emergency repair. The city of Glendale with their emergency repair

51
00:23:08.159 --> 00:23:24.880
program uh has a $12,000 limit. And Maricopa County uses a rolling average statistical formula to determine their cost per project using a fiscy year timeline. I wasn't able to obtain the total costs

52
00:23:24.880 --> 00:23:43.919
or or the total amount of projects uh but the total cost expenditures were available online. This table shows the number of unduplicated cases that we completed in fiscal year 2425. The amount of waiverss to exceed program

53
00:23:43.919 --> 00:24:03.520
limits during this period were five for the emergency repair program and two for the roof repair and replacement program. Here is the total case count for this fiscal year as of May 4th, 2026. Not only is the program participation

54
00:24:03.520 --> 00:24:20.320
increasing, but so are the number of waiverss to exceed program limits. It's not uncommon to go out to an applicant's home that is requesting HVAC assistance and find other issues that are pending such as a broken water heater or major

55
00:24:20.320 --> 00:24:36.480
plumbing issues. These things can't go by the wayside and unfortunately they can't wait until next fiscal year to address. The current program limits severely hinder the amount of assistance that we can provide residents in need. And to

56
00:24:36.480 --> 00:24:54.480
more effectively meet constituent needs, approval of the program increases is of paramount importance. Now, not to put too fine of a point on it, but I would be remiss if in this moment I failed to emphasize the importance of approving this measure.

57
00:24:54.480 --> 00:25:10.880
Once again, I am requesting program limit increases for the emergency repair program and roof repair and replacement programs in the amount of $5,000 for each program. This will account for project incre uh project cost increases, market fluctuations, and unforeseen

58
00:25:10.880 --> 00:25:30.960
circumstances. Thank you for your time and attention this evening. And if the commission has any questions, I would be happy to take them at this time other than citing CFRs by heart. Mario, thank you. That was an excellent presentation.

59
00:25:30.960 --> 00:25:45.200
Uh before I look to my right and left for questions, uh how will this increase uh impact uh budget and ability to do a

60
00:25:45.200 --> 00:26:02.320
as many u repairs, replacements, roofs, and so forth. Chair Luri, members of the commission, uh, I have spoken with my supervisor and we have gone over the numbers. We can adequately serve our residents and if this measure is approved, we have the

61
00:26:02.320 --> 00:26:18.400
program funds to accommodate the increase. >> Excellent. Okay, with that, uh, Commissioner Sher, >> thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Mario, I just want to clarify, echo the fact this was great presentation. really really solid.

62
00:26:18.400 --> 00:26:34.559
The justifications are are obvious. Um I I just want for anyone who might be watching in this evening. Um to reinforce that the this is for owner occupied homes, the owners of which meet

63
00:26:34.559 --> 00:26:53.120
the federal income eligibility requirements. So this isn't for just anybody. These aren't for rental homes. These are for owner occupied homes. And I will just say um I love this program. I I have been a fan of it for as long as

64
00:26:53.120 --> 00:27:08.320
the city's been doing it, which is a few decades now. And because of this program, we have improved the housing stock in neighborhoods probably, I'm going to just say well over a thousand

65
00:27:08.320 --> 00:27:26.320
homes over the course of our CD CDBG funding for this type of program. So, it makes a significant difference for homeowners, for the people that reside in the homes, and for our neighborhoods. And thank you um and to the additional staff involved in this program.

66
00:27:26.320 --> 00:27:41.760
>> Good point. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Commissioner Jung. >> Hi, just a question. Uh again, I I just wanted to echo this. Um additional funds that will be deployed with this increase is not taking away from any other

67
00:27:41.760 --> 00:27:59.760
programs that are managed by the city. >> Chair Lur, members of the commission, Commissioner Yung, forgive me. Uh no, it will not impact the our level of service. It will not impact uh the way we go about our business. >> Perfect. Thank you.

68
00:27:59.760 --> 00:28:16.960
and uh Vice Chair Kohley. >> Thank you so much, Mario. Thank you for your presentation. Just a couple of quick questions. Uh are the warranties that are involved in roofs or whatever uh HVAC, whatever, are those transferable, do you know? I guess what

69
00:28:16.960 --> 00:28:31.919
>> Oh, that uh >> ah stumper. Good. You get back to me. >> Members of the commission uh >> as far as that that one that one's catching me off guard. Can I defer to >> Yes, Chair Lori, members of the commission. Uh, it kind of depends on

70
00:28:31.919 --> 00:28:48.240
the product. Uh, sometimes roofs will, but uh, HBAC's and appliances those those do not transfer. >> Not so much. Okay, >> good to know. >> And and if I may, uh, a lot of the uh,

71
00:28:48.240 --> 00:29:03.600
residents that we service tend to stay in their homes. So, we don't see a lot of folks with the intention to flip. It's The program is there to help folks age in place and make crucial repairs. And when we're dealing with the low to

72
00:29:03.600 --> 00:29:19.760
moderate income uh portion of the constituency, they're not looking to move. They're most of them are looking to >> probably can't afford to, you know. Um thank you. Um so

73
00:29:19.760 --> 00:29:37.120
I do have some other questions I'm trying to articulate in my head. you didn't touch on major housing rehab and I don't want to take us too far astray but uh is the will there be discussion perhaps some future point about those limits as well chair Luri Vice Chair

74
00:29:37.120 --> 00:29:53.840
Kulie members of the commission I I'm not aware that is not one of the programs that I run um that is my stablemate uh Armando Olivarees but because that is a more of a a loan program with forgiveness um I'm not

75
00:29:53.840 --> 00:30:09.120
exactly Exactly. >> I can jump in. Chair Lori, Vice Chair Kley, members of the commission. Uh recently in the last three years that that's been pushed up to maximum of 80,000 and with a waiver could go to 85

76
00:30:09.120 --> 00:30:24.000
and um we went through a cycle where we went from 35,000 to 50 to 65 to 85 in about a 4year period. So, we're pretty comfortable where we're at with the uh 80,000 right now.

77
00:30:24.000 --> 00:30:40.640
>> Very good. Um the emergency repair program going up 5,000 from 10 to 15 per fiscal year is in my opinion not enough. Um I know you probably don't want to hear that. So, the similar programming

78
00:30:40.640 --> 00:30:55.440
that you mentioned for Mesa, was that emergency repair, roof repair, both? Uh, Chair Luri, Vice Chair members of the commission, from their literature that's available online, it's an all-encompassing program meant to

79
00:30:55.440 --> 00:31:11.600
address any emergency programs. >> Gotcha. The the reason I bring it up is Westerville, Ohio. You know, Westerville, it's only 16% of the population that we have here in Scottsdale. They have a a program which

80
00:31:11.600 --> 00:31:27.440
offers significant repairs to I'm quoting now existing single family homes with a cap of $25,000 per project for homeowners at or below 100 AMI grants may be applied to roofing sighting kind and so on and so on electrical

81
00:31:27.440 --> 00:31:44.000
do we have the funds to u pump up the emergency repair to 20 instead of 15 chair >> lure vice chair move. >> I I'd like to defer to >> Chair Lori, uh, Vice Chair Kulie,

82
00:31:44.000 --> 00:32:01.039
members of the commission. Um, but that being said, um, the program reference, they they don't have the major rehab program. They also don't have the roof repair program. Um, we we would have the funds to go to 20,000 if needed. that point we maybe so with the emergency

83
00:32:01.039 --> 00:32:16.880
repair program it's if we got the approval it would be $15,000 per fiscal year on approved repairs. So after July 1st if you had two projects at your home that went up to 15,000 that

84
00:32:16.880 --> 00:32:34.640
an additional 15,000 would be available. So this is a per fiscal year thing for the emergency repair program. It rolls over. uh roof repair is a one time only 20,000 but going up hopefully to 25,000 and the major rehab is you can do that

85
00:32:34.640 --> 00:32:50.240
program as many times as you want if you qualify as long as you repay your loan back. >> So my my thinking here is that the emergency repair and that it's hotter every year. Uh more HVAC systems will fail every year. Should we not have more

86
00:32:50.240 --> 00:33:08.000
in the kitty for it? Then that's that's my question. So, I'm not I'm not going to force another five down your throat. Can Can I hear 25? >> I mean, we're not opposed to to going to 20 if if that's something you guys want to vote on. >> Is Westerville, Ohio, I think that was

87
00:33:08.000 --> 00:33:24.240
>> tiny. Yes. >> Yeah. Now, is that an outlier? Do we have a sense? >> Westerville, Ohio is a suburb of Columbus about 16 miles north of city center with a population of 49,000 people. Uh but but do we have a sense where we

88
00:33:24.240 --> 00:33:41.200
are with this in in terms of nationally? I mean, is is Westerville an outlier? >> Well, I don't know if they tell the truth or not, but I do know that I >> I believe we have one of the more robust repair, housing repair programs in the

89
00:33:41.200 --> 00:33:57.679
country with the three programs that we operate, especially with separating the roof from major and emergency. A lot of programs don't do that. So, um, with the the major rehab, we we walk into a house and maybe it's for an emergency repair

90
00:33:57.679 --> 00:34:13.520
and we see other things. Hey, your roof's leaking. They're getting money. It's all CDBG, but out of two different pots available. So, technically in a one-year period, they could have 35 plus 85 $120,000 of repairs if I did my math

91
00:34:13.520 --> 00:34:30.000
right. And if I may interject uh and follow my supervisor uh chair Luri, Vice Chair Kulie, members of the commission, um >> our federal guidelines are currently set at 80%. um in Ohio the annual median income that

92
00:34:30.000 --> 00:34:46.879
is and if uh this Westchester Ohio >> Westerville 100% forget Westerville um it it's quite possible that they're receiving funds that are not community development block grant funds or grants

93
00:34:46.879 --> 00:35:03.040
from the federal government. Therefore, they're not encumbered by those guidelines. So there could there's several variables involved. >> Very good. I just don't want them to beat us. >> Thank you. >> Um I I'd like to see whether uh

94
00:35:03.040 --> 00:35:24.240
Commissioner Shaxator has any comments or questions before we ask for a motion. >> Hearing none. Uh Mr. Chair, um just a quick point of information. There were seven waiverss granted um in

95
00:35:24.240 --> 00:35:40.960
the statistics you shared with us I think 24 25 would the amount that you're recommending for these increases would that have generally covered the majority of those waiverss that we issued

96
00:35:40.960 --> 00:35:57.760
in in effect suggesting that what you're asking is adequate commissioner or chair luri members of the commission Yes. Uh after doing a little bit of number crunching with my supervisor Chad

97
00:35:57.760 --> 00:36:15.280
Booker, um yes, that would be able to at the present point, barring any fluctuations in the market, that would be sufficient to cover say a high-cost air conditioning unit as well as a water heater if one was in the

98
00:36:15.280 --> 00:36:30.160
market or needed that to safely live in their home. or it wouldn't cover the entire gamut perhaps, but we would be able to more effectively help residents in need with that increase.

99
00:36:30.160 --> 00:36:47.359
>> Also, Chair Lori, Vice Chair Kohley, members of the commission, the the waiver will still be available in certain situations as needed. >> Thank you. >> Okay, any other comments? If not, could

100
00:36:47.359 --> 00:37:07.520
we get a motion? I'd be happy to make a motion to approve the staff recommendations of increases in the amount of $5,000 for both of these programs. >> I second the motion. >> A roll call. >> Chair Lorie, >> yes.

101
00:37:07.520 --> 00:37:27.920
>> Vice Chair Kohley, >> yes. >> Commissioner Shear, >> yes. >> Commissioner Jung, >> yes. >> Commissioner Hill, >> yes. >> Commissioner Shexn, >> yes. All right. Uh, moving forward our agenda item two and thank you Mario. Thank you

102
00:37:27.920 --> 00:37:45.200
for being here and and for the presentation. Uh, item two move to item three is our annual fund funding allocation process review. I think this has become an annual tradition to in retrospect to

103
00:37:45.200 --> 00:38:03.040
look back at how the funding process went. Um, uh, Commissioner Shexator, I know this is a process you were exempted from this year and will, uh, look forward to in the coming years. Um, and

104
00:38:03.040 --> 00:38:19.040
Commissioner Hill, this was your first first rodeo, could I say? Your first time through. Um, in the five years I've been on the commission, uh, before I open it up for comments, I just want to say in the five years I've

105
00:38:19.040 --> 00:38:34.079
been on the commission, I've seen this process improve in terms of light years. I mean, it is profoundly different and better than it has been in past years. For one thing,

106
00:38:34.079 --> 00:38:50.240
um, where are my notes? We we now have five funding priorities. Emergency housing, crisis case management, homeless support, vulnerable populations, particularly

107
00:38:50.240 --> 00:39:05.839
seniors and disabled, and positive development of youth. And I think that has been uh immensely helpful in helping us guide and select which proposals, which agencies to fund. Uh

108
00:39:05.839 --> 00:39:20.240
I I don't recall where where it originated, but the last couple years engaging the mayor's youth council members has been really meaningful. uh and I think any opportunity to involve

109
00:39:20.240 --> 00:39:37.440
youth in in our processes and educate them and have them contribute uh uh has been meaningful. Um I'm just going to highlight some of the things that we had identified last year out of this

110
00:39:37.440 --> 00:39:54.079
meeting. Um and that was to ensure that the funding process was both quantitative and qualitative. that we do some consolidation of the scoring methods so that we don't

111
00:39:54.079 --> 00:40:12.520
have to score at such a granular level that we require IRS90 reports um that we ask agencies to provide a minimumsiz grant that they'd be willing to accept

112
00:40:12.960 --> 00:40:28.400
um ensuring that our evaluation process was object as objective as possible. Encouraging organizations to collaborate and submit joint applications.

113
00:40:28.400 --> 00:40:44.320
Um encouraging interest in applying for endowment funds which I don't as I recall I don't believe we did any allocation to the endowment this year. um

114
00:40:44.320 --> 00:41:00.960
and enabling staff to allocate funds when no proposals are received for a funding source and including agency client satisfaction survey results as part of the application process which um which I can

115
00:41:00.960 --> 00:41:18.480
attest is is now a requirement. Um the the one item we had identified last year that I I believe uh city legal had provided input that we could not do was having an informal study session to

116
00:41:18.480 --> 00:41:35.599
share our thoughts uh uh before the ratings were done. Um so I I from my perspective the process has improved significantly but I I would like to entertain positive andor

117
00:41:35.599 --> 00:41:52.560
negative comments from each of you uh regarding how we could improve this in coming years and let's start with commissioner Jung that's >> sure thank you I um again um agree with you Roger the process has imp improved

118
00:41:52.560 --> 00:42:08.000
improve significantly. I wanted just to call out the neighborly software um is wonderful to use and then um requesting the IRS form 990 from the applicants. I think those were two significant

119
00:42:08.000 --> 00:42:31.440
enhancements recently and I just want to thank um all the hard thank you for all the hard work. Okay. So, it was a little overwhelming uh but it was manageable. I don't know what it was in the past.

120
00:42:31.440 --> 00:42:46.640
So, I only can experience all the changes that you have made. And um I I think the thing that confused me the most was

121
00:42:46.640 --> 00:43:02.800
trying to figure out how I was going to score everybody. I you know, taking that range and trying to figure out where my scores where I felt they belonged versus where everybody else was scoring and what that looked like. And I still don't

122
00:43:02.800 --> 00:43:18.640
know if I ever figured that out. Um, you know, I had my own personal way of doing it that I felt was fair across the board. Um, but my way of doing it may not have exactly matched what some of you may have been doing. So I don't know how that actually affected the total

123
00:43:18.640 --> 00:43:36.319
scores because I may have scored high versus someone else started started their scoring lower. Um the other thing that I definitely at the end wanted to do was try to divide the money um a

124
00:43:36.319 --> 00:43:53.280
little bit more. And you know from my understanding that that was something that has had been changed. um instead of giving somebody a big huge pot of money, I I would have liked to been able to discuss how we could have helped more groups. Uh but uh that might be

125
00:43:53.280 --> 00:44:13.520
something we can discuss again. And um I don't know if there um well, let me just end it right there. Those are my two my two biggest things and I'd like to hear what other people are thinking. to your

126
00:44:13.520 --> 00:44:30.160
to your second comment. I think I think that is something we have deliberated on over many many years. You know, whether to distribute more dollars through more vendors or less dollars over more

127
00:44:30.160 --> 00:44:48.720
vendors or consolidated and say, you know, we're going to completely fund the top vendors. Um and and I think it was last year that out of this process we concluded only to to fund the top vote

128
00:44:48.720 --> 00:45:04.800
getters if you will. Um and and some of it and and I hope I I'm speaking correctly, Chad, that some of this I think is also attributable to the administrative work of managing the

129
00:45:04.800 --> 00:45:22.480
grants um and the additional effort that would be required. For example, if we're giving small pots of money over many agencies, having to manage those grants uh becomes a really significant burden on the city.

130
00:45:23.040 --> 00:45:39.200
Um, can be sure she u Thank you, Mr. Chair. I I generally agree with my uh my colleagues on the commission. I I I want to commend the staff. Again, I think um it gets better every year. Uh some of the things that I particularly

131
00:45:39.200 --> 00:45:56.160
appreciated about the changes this year in addition to what the chair referenced, the scoring um criteria um the point system spread out a little bit better. You gave us definitions for what was excellent and what was strong and I

132
00:45:56.160 --> 00:46:09.680
think that really helped us pinpoint our thinking as we went through the process. Um, I also appreciated the fact that the commission had a um an ability to assign

133
00:46:09.680 --> 00:46:28.000
a like a 0 to10 U score uh from our particular vantage point which I thought um was extremely appreciated. Um, also having the informal work session before

134
00:46:28.000 --> 00:46:46.720
the final numbers were crunched um was I think um illuminating and helpful to me as a commission member to hear my fellow um commissioners comments as we kind of work through um the allocations. A few

135
00:46:46.720 --> 00:47:03.280
of my thoughts um as it relates to looking toward next year is I think staff has set a minimum grant award of like $5,000 which is really

136
00:47:03.280 --> 00:47:20.079
small. I won't ask you to change that number now, but my my hope would be that we could increase that um at, you know, before we begin the process next year. So that again to

137
00:47:20.079 --> 00:47:36.000
to the chair's point, we're not giving out $5,000 awards. Um there may be a category that like endowment that doesn't work for that, but I'd like to push that number up higher than five. and ask staff to kind of consider that

138
00:47:36.000 --> 00:47:51.920
as to where that may land. Um I also based on budget um and it may not be this year but it may be next year that we also look at raising the maximum grant award that

139
00:47:51.920 --> 00:48:09.839
we're able to provide these agencies. I'm thinking specifically for Scottsdale Cares. Um $20,000 is helpful, but it's really not a lot of money. And if we see um increases in our

140
00:48:09.839 --> 00:48:26.240
donations for Scottsdale Cares, um I could see some value in raising that from 20 to some other number. Again, I'm just sharing this so that staff can consider that as you develop your framework for the grants for next year.

141
00:48:26.240 --> 00:48:40.960
Uh same with the general fund pool. I know this was an anomaly this year where we had less than $35,000 to to um to share relative to general fund dollars. And that may have just been a weird

142
00:48:40.960 --> 00:48:59.520
year. Um, I'm a strong advocate for um allowing us a little more discretion with general fund dollars, but I realize there are other considerations, including the city's overall budget as you guys wrestle with how to exercise um the use of our general fund pool.

143
00:48:59.520 --> 00:49:16.800
I think we learned um some things about the the the the positive intent we had about seeking collaborative grants. I think we received some collaborative

144
00:49:16.800 --> 00:49:34.400
grant proposals that struck me as a commissioner as being not what we were looking for, which I thought was sort of two different unique agencies uh coming together to to create synergy

145
00:49:34.400 --> 00:49:49.520
and doing something that either one of them could not do by themselves. I don't think we got that exactly. So, I don't know if it's in the definition of how we how we lay out the ground rules for

146
00:49:49.520 --> 00:50:06.720
collaboration, but I I don't want to I I'd prefer not to see a replicate of kind of what we saw this year where we have sort of two sister agencies that come together and um seek a collaborative grant. Again, this is just

147
00:50:06.720 --> 00:50:23.920
me speaking. Um, and then I I will chime on to uh Commissioner Hill's um thoughts and concerns about I I see no reason why we should

148
00:50:23.920 --> 00:50:40.880
artificially tie the hands of the commission um by saying we are obligated to award a full amount. Um because we're not talking about awarding $500,000 or a million dollars to do some grandiose

149
00:50:40.880 --> 00:50:58.720
total program, staff, supplies, everything. I mean, if you look at what we're able to do, we end up really providing a portion of somebody's salary in many cases. So, it's not like we're

150
00:50:58.720 --> 00:51:17.119
damaging the AY's ability to deliver a program if we ratchet down those dollars a little bit. And I'm not talking about going overboard where, you know, we've issued say 15 Scottsdale CARES grants in

151
00:51:17.119 --> 00:51:32.720
the past and now we're going to issue 25. I'm just talking about when we're at that borderline and we're cutting very small amounts of points um to draw the line. I agree with Commissioner Hill that it

152
00:51:32.720 --> 00:51:47.680
would be helpful for this commission and beneficial to the community to be able to go, look, we can also include a couple of additional agencies if we provide a little less

153
00:51:47.680 --> 00:52:06.160
than the maximum requested. Um, so I would like us to vote on that in the future at the appropriate time before you have to send out your uh request for funding information because I I just feel like it's silly for us to want to

154
00:52:06.160 --> 00:52:20.720
provide some additional help and we created a rule for ourselves that said we can't do that. So that's um u that's my pitch on that on that issue and I appreciate it. Again, thank you staff.

155
00:52:20.720 --> 00:52:38.319
Um, really, really well done. >> Great comment. Thank you. Uh, Vice Chair Qui, what makes you think I have anything to say? Well, I do. I'm glad you asked. Thank you, Chair Luri. Uh, as Neil said, Chad gets better every year. Thank you, ma'am. We appreciate it. I

156
00:52:38.319 --> 00:52:53.839
know it's a lot of hard work, but it is sincerely appreciated. Um, a lot of great things said already that I don't have to say now. Keep scratching them off my list. A couple of thoughts, though. um meeting and greeting the agencies. We we've done a lot of that in the past. I know that might help some of

157
00:52:53.839 --> 00:53:09.119
the the newcomers to to the commission. Um and I don't know how to do that fairly because I know we don't have time or enough meetings to get them all in, but maybe there's a way we could do there used to be a dog and pony at one point. I hate to use those words, but um

158
00:53:09.119 --> 00:53:25.359
because I own dogs and like ponies, but the perhaps there's a way we could add a meeting or do something to uh to get more folks in just, you know, you got 10 minutes. Tell us what tell us all about and and and get the get the face behind the agency so that we can get a better

159
00:53:25.359 --> 00:53:41.520
feeling for them. Um the other only other note I had was um a better way to connect the dots between the scorecard and the applications. Um I use a grid. I you I've shared it with you my spreadsheet. It's like okay so

160
00:53:41.520 --> 00:53:57.839
this is this will connect back to this part of the application. This is B3 and that's going to go in this slot and I realize some of at some point uh we get past that and we we have to do pure brain power as far as dissecting the applications. But if there was a way that we could um somehow manage where

161
00:53:57.839 --> 00:54:14.880
those answers lie within each of the the applications, that would be I think a little bit of a timesaver more than anything else. Very good. Thank you. >> Uh Commissioner Shaxator, I know this is all new to you, but any comments or

162
00:54:14.880 --> 00:54:35.680
questions you may have? >> I'm sorry, there's a little bit of an echo. Thank you. Um I I'm in a agreement um with that uh oh,

163
00:54:35.680 --> 00:54:52.960
how do I say this? A a couple things that were mentioned. One is is the collaborative grants and ensuring that those are really meaningful. Um, and I I recall uh couple years ago a

164
00:54:52.960 --> 00:55:09.200
visit to TCAA and the president of that organization saying to us, "I'd be happy to participate in a collaborative grant, but it's got to be a really substantial, meaningful amount of money. You know,

165
00:55:09.200 --> 00:55:24.720
don't don't ask me to split $20,000 between two agencies." you know what he was talking about was if you've got a grant that's 300,000 500,000 a million

166
00:55:24.720 --> 00:55:40.400
uh that is an amount that we can really fully engage in a collaborative grant um I also concur on on the comment that um having some flexibility

167
00:55:40.400 --> 00:55:55.599
I I think last year we introduced the full funding particularly in Scottdale still cares, but perhaps with some flexibility um that enables us to to to offer some

168
00:55:55.599 --> 00:56:13.760
flexibility when it comes to making the the final recommendations. Um and keep me honest, is that something as a commission we would need to vote on? >> Sure, Lori. Members of the commission,

169
00:56:13.760 --> 00:56:29.200
the plan of the human of uh the housing office will be to bring this back forward for the first meeting in back in August um for a vote. So there is no vote. It's just a discussion this evening. I do know that we have prepared um some of our suggestions for next year

170
00:56:29.200 --> 00:56:43.920
changes when you are finished so that we're happy to share those at well so you can think on those over the summer as well. >> Yeah, you're ready to share those now. Chair Lori, only if you guys are finished with your discussion, I would

171
00:56:43.920 --> 00:57:01.200
like to make sure that you guys have um have enough time to share with us what your feedback is. >> Mary, would one of those um suggestions be that the staff scoring ends up more in alignment with my scoring? So, if you could make that

172
00:57:01.200 --> 00:57:16.400
happen, that would be great because sometimes I'm reading that going, "What? Where did staff come from?" And then you're looking at mine and going what did she think? So just a common ingest of course. >> Yes. Uh Chair Lordy, members of the

173
00:57:16.400 --> 00:57:31.119
commission. So in terms of the staff, one thing I did want to ask about is this year we added a a 5% bonus points for uh collaboration with staff

174
00:57:31.119 --> 00:57:46.960
andor human services centers or other agencies. and and that five points makes a big difference on a on a lot of those. So, um just seeking a little input on that if you guys want to think about

175
00:57:46.960 --> 00:58:04.720
that for a while. Um really appreciate and like the idea of raising the minimum and the maximum for um I think it will help spread the money around and maybe even potentially not have as many

176
00:58:04.720 --> 00:58:20.319
contracts too. the um the big thing that we've been kicking around is for CDBG and to uh further the collaboration. And I do agree there's got to be some more um language in there to what represents

177
00:58:20.319 --> 00:58:35.359
a collaboration with uh nonprofits and how they are associated. But we would like to either make it a RFP style proposal for the entire entitlement that goes to public

178
00:58:35.359 --> 00:58:52.880
service with a very detailed written description of our same priority which would be homeless services and shelters. but in there require collaboration with certain city departments who are are working uh to ensure that we're getting

179
00:58:52.880 --> 00:59:09.280
the right um people that we've been working with into these centers because right now we don't really have a lot of control over that. So um it would be a proposal uh to where we it's very detailed a lot more detailed than what we have and pretty much written to

180
00:59:09.280 --> 00:59:26.960
exactly what we feel we need and we want and require a certain amount of collaboration three to four agencies with those caveats in there on how they're related and to where we give that entire chunk of money to to that one contract.

181
00:59:26.960 --> 00:59:44.640
Um would would that go through an RFP through staff or would it go through the commission? Um was those are things we can hash out. But that that's pretty much the the big thing we're we're talking about right now just to uh make sure that we're we're

182
00:59:44.640 --> 00:59:58.640
hitting the marks that we want. And we see a lot and with staff discussion, it's always about where are these referrals coming from and and why what why aren't our staff our human service center referrals making it into these

183
00:59:58.640 --> 01:00:19.599
programs. So um that that's a big thing. Um the in terms of the historical data in uh demonstrated capacity form. Um, if you guys want to send me thoughts on what you thought about that, we did add

184
01:00:19.599 --> 01:00:35.839
like proposed served compared to how many were actually served and if that was helpful in the same line of uh money awarded and actual money spent and trying to compare like what's really actually happening because we do see a lot of good

185
01:00:35.839 --> 01:00:51.520
proposals that end up on the lower side of that. So, we wanted to be able to demonstrate what's what's happening after the awards were made. And then also this year we included um from staff human service centers uh program needs

186
01:00:51.520 --> 01:01:06.640
and shortfalls and if if that was a helpful tool when uh scoring your proposals to see if if they're actually meeting those. And we did learn uh we got to ask a little more specific from staff what what we're looking for so it

187
01:01:06.640 --> 01:01:23.119
kind of in lines with what the priorities are for those funding groups, but um I thought those those were helpful. I'm not sure if they were or not, but uh I know the 990s were a big hit, so they won't be going anywhere.

188
01:01:23.119 --> 01:01:44.720
And there was uh you know, we also removed anything below a 70 score would would basically not even go into consideration for scoring. Yes. >> Yeah, Chad Huzzad, all that. That sounds

189
01:01:44.720 --> 01:02:00.160
great. And yeah, I did like the comps uh both this the uh amount of people that they were able to serve or proposed to serve and then served as as well as dollars spent. I think it was great. So, let's let's stay on stay on track with that. That's great.

190
01:02:00.160 --> 01:02:18.079
Chad, something you said could I I I'm just wondering if you could elaborate on it. And that was that as I heard it that the staff recommendations for the agencies that we fund was really significantly different from

191
01:02:18.079 --> 01:02:34.720
what our recommendations were for funding. >> Chair Lori, members of commission, um we don't make recommendations. No, but but your your staff >> Oh, the the the bonus point or the staff

192
01:02:34.720 --> 01:02:52.240
5% bonus for collaboration and with >> Yeah, maybe I misunderstood a point that you were you were making that >> I I maybe uh the >> this what what what I'm talking about is the what is recommended, what is awarded and then

193
01:02:52.240 --> 01:03:10.000
what actually happens after it is awarded that we're trying to demonstrate what you guys don't see after the the agencies are awarded on how they're actually performing on the contracts. >> Um, yes, Commissioner John,

194
01:03:10.000 --> 01:03:26.880
>> we did have the staff score prior to our evaluation. >> Yeah. And that that staff scoring is mainly just administrative stuff. are there timely. Um there is one section that says did they submit their proposal

195
01:03:26.880 --> 01:03:45.599
per the NOA. So a lot of times we get proposals that are in the wrong categories or just things like that. >> I I do like where you're headed on this bonus five points. Um, when I read it in

196
01:03:45.599 --> 01:04:02.559
detail, I I sort of got the impression that if an agency had some limited contact with, for example, the police department that they got five points. And I'm thinking that should be a more substantive

197
01:04:02.559 --> 01:04:19.920
collaboration. I don't know how you define that and score it, but other than just an occasional contact, it needs to be real. And I'm looking more at human services related sort of contacts and

198
01:04:19.920 --> 01:04:36.160
collaboration. I think it's it might be a little tricky to do um an RFP and um obligate postawward uh types of collaboration. I don't know

199
01:04:36.160 --> 01:04:54.640
how you do that, but I certainly understand. I hear where you're at and I I generally support that. Um, I the one thing I don't I don't want to necessarily do is we we do have the agencies jump through a whole lot of

200
01:04:54.640 --> 01:05:10.880
hoops and information. I'm not saying they're invalid, but it's just it's a process for them. And so as we build a new process maybe for CDBG that involves an RFP, I would hesitate to make it um more

201
01:05:10.880 --> 01:05:28.079
ownorous on agencies. If we can pinpoint exactly what we're looking for, I heard you talk about more detail and that may be fine. Um and and in the end it may be even better and less work than going through the traditional grant RFP. So,

202
01:05:28.079 --> 01:05:45.440
um I'm I'm I'm generally with you for sure with those minor potential concerns. >> And uh Commissioner Shear, um if procured through city procurement, uh we could also do this through CDBG.

203
01:05:45.440 --> 01:06:00.880
Those if performing well on that type of contract, it can be extended up to five years. So, um, with a one-time solicitation, we can we can do that for a five-year period and at any point

204
01:06:00.880 --> 01:06:18.559
during that period, we could re re put out the bid again. So, >> any other comments? >> Oh, yes, >> one last comment, and this has nothing to do with staff. It's you could see the AI in some of the

205
01:06:18.559 --> 01:06:34.000
applications and it was aggravating. It's like I'm going to apply for this grant and oh here's the same language on this grant. I'm like it's not just the mission statements that are the same. It's the exact same from one grant to the next and that just aggravated me. I don't that's just a personal grievance. Nothing we can do about it. I just

206
01:06:34.000 --> 01:06:50.160
thought I'd share. Thank you. I I I think it's a p not only a personal but it's a legitimate concern and I think it even from my perspective predates AI where you could sense that a lot of these agencies are creating a

207
01:06:50.160 --> 01:07:07.599
boilerplate and then resubmitting and and uh a number of the questions that were submitted back to the agencies were directly from me where the agencies did not address how they would work with

208
01:07:07.599 --> 01:07:24.799
human services staff. And I and so I repeatedly found myself asking the question, if awarded, are you going to work collaboratively with city staff and in how? I I felt like that was a very important question

209
01:07:24.799 --> 01:07:42.640
to be addressed by these boilerplate um uh proposals. Uh, Commissioner Lori, members of the G, if I may, one one last question for Yuga. The um, so this year we didn't get any questions for the

210
01:07:42.640 --> 01:07:59.520
commissioners and I I was soliciting. Is is it worth it to even propose that opportunity or is that something you feel potentially we just remove from the process?

211
01:07:59.520 --> 01:08:14.960
>> Questions to the agencies. So, uh, we had a, uh, January 10th, everybody received the proposal packets and we had a deadline maybe January 31st. There's a limited time to submit questions that

212
01:08:14.960 --> 01:08:32.960
you would have for any particular agencies that we could give to them and get a response back. >> I I s I directly submitted some questions. >> Maybe you were the only one actually. That's what it was. I I do recall.

213
01:08:32.960 --> 01:08:48.319
>> Yeah. Yeah. What? It was just Commissioner or Chair Lori. I'm sorry. I miss misspoke, but Yeah. >> Yeah. I That's great job, Mr. Chair. Thank you. >> I had no idea it was the only one. Thanks for representing. >> But we had I mean the information that

214
01:08:48.319 --> 01:09:03.839
came back to us was great and helpful and I pledge to be more involved next year. >> I I mean I could go without, but it's it's up to you. >> Yeah. Don't take that process away, please. >> All right. If we're done with comments,

215
01:09:03.839 --> 01:09:20.719
thank you uh very much for entertaining. >> One more quick question. >> Yes. >> And I'm sure it needs to be on there, but I'm just curious. The question about what minimum amount would you accept? What do we expect on as an answer on

216
01:09:20.719 --> 01:09:39.679
that and why? Chair Luri, members of the commission, the point of that, um, how do I explain this? It's up in my head and it's not coming to my mouth right at this very second. Um, we want to make sure that the awards that we're giving them are meaningful. So, if you

217
01:09:39.679 --> 01:09:55.920
you we say we're going to give you 2,000, but you really needed 10,000, they're more likely to turn away money. Um, and then we can fund the previous ones the following year. We don't want to give someone something that that's not useful or meaningful to carry out

218
01:09:55.920 --> 01:10:13.280
the intent of their program. I mean when I was a grant writer and someone would ask that question any funding is acceptable as we will be sustainable beyond the period of the grant. I mean that was a the question um and it's important I think for you guys to see what the minimum amount is. So you can

219
01:10:13.280 --> 01:10:28.880
see just truly it kind of also lends to the sustainability beyond the grant like are they solely dependent on this grant to make this program happen. So I think it lends insight into that but the minimum is is definitely needed so that you guys can make sound

220
01:10:28.880 --> 01:10:46.080
decisions on whether or not we want to fund it a lesser amount and what impact it would have. Sorry, I I just wondered who who would say that they wouldn't take money as as a nonprofit. I was just curious. That's why I asked the question. Um, and I

221
01:10:46.080 --> 01:11:03.040
appreciate that answer. That that makes a lot of sense. >> Well, that impacts their ability to um achieve their outcomes. If they if their budget was 10 and they said they'd take two, um, they won't be able to reach the outcomes that we're expecting from a

222
01:11:03.040 --> 01:11:25.440
$10,000 grant. They can't possibly fulfill what we're asking them to do. >> Chair Lori, uh, Commissioner Johnilling. >> So, if they were to, sorry, excuse me. If they were to re >> get funded less than what they had

223
01:11:25.440 --> 01:11:40.239
proposed in their proposal, then we'd give them the opportunity to go back and revise their budget and propose serve. And then the question comes back to us, is this a priority

224
01:11:40.239 --> 01:11:57.040
for um for the city, you know, why would we fund something 2,000 when it really needs the outcomes of a $10,000 grant? I I I think also an agency may recognize

225
01:11:57.040 --> 01:12:13.600
the minimum that they would accept knowing the administrative work to to manage that grant on their side. uh as that that as I'm learning there's a tremendous amount of paperwork

226
01:12:13.600 --> 01:12:30.080
involved both on the u receiving side and on the uh grant on the grantee and the grtor. Um so in ensuring that that that there's a substantial amount there to warrant the amount of administrative

227
01:12:30.080 --> 01:12:47.600
work. >> Okay. Thank you. That helps me very much. I appreciate it. And to your point, Chad, I think uh if I'm understanding correctly, uh if an agency were to take less money, it would not necessarily change

228
01:12:47.600 --> 01:13:04.800
um the proposal so much as as far as what the proposal was other than we have fewer dollars, therefore we could serve fewer people. Vice Chair Kulie, yes, that is correct. So they they don't change any of the verbiage or the program description or

229
01:13:04.800 --> 01:13:22.719
anything like that. They change the the budget and the the scope of how many people they intend to serve. >> Thank you. >> All right. Shall we move forward? Our last agenda item is identification of

230
01:13:22.719 --> 01:13:39.600
future agenda items. And I will mention that we will be on hiatus for the months of June and July. Uh, so we do have one final meeting. That's two weeks from tonight, May 28th. And I forget what all we put on the agenda. I know there's a

231
01:13:39.600 --> 01:13:57.120
director's report and we'll be voting on the bylaws amendment. Is that it? Okay. Uh, so hopefully a brief meeting, which is fine by me because I have an early morning flight to catch the next morning. Um, in August, I know that we

232
01:13:57.120 --> 01:14:13.600
are looking targeting a uh an update on homeless uh relief in the city. Uh, presumably including having Jackie Parks here to talk about Community House. Um,

233
01:14:13.600 --> 01:14:31.360
something I recently learned is that um, and and I think to address a point Vice Chair Kulie made about hair hearing from the agencies. Um, there's an agreement with Scottsdale Community Partners and they're required

234
01:14:31.360 --> 01:14:46.719
to come once a year and present to the commission which we have neglected to do. Um and we are about to embark on an agreement with partners for Pyute and I think it would be prudent on us to have

235
01:14:46.719 --> 01:15:04.159
presentations by both of those agencies in the coming year. Uh the other thing I I am proposing for a future agenda maybe August or Septemberish. Um, I had a a conversation with Justin

236
01:15:04.159 --> 01:15:22.080
Layman the other day who was chair of the Veterans Commission and he shared me with me that Scottdale has roughly 12,000 veterans uh probably half of whom were from the Vietnam War um and rely

237
01:15:22.080 --> 01:15:40.320
significantly on uh services that we provide for vulnerable people and seniors. Um, and I think it would be worthwhile to hear for our commission to hear from Justin uh, as both education and so that we can all advocate for the

238
01:15:40.320 --> 01:15:57.679
right kind of services for veterans. Um, and having said that, anything else? >> Question. Do we have a date for the first August convening? I know the calendar comes out much later, but just

239
01:15:57.679 --> 01:16:12.560
so I can get that >> should be should be the uh second Thursday in August, which would be August 13th. >> Okay. >> And then August 27th.

240
01:16:12.560 --> 01:16:29.679
>> Thank you. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just um this is like on repeat here, but Mary does a great job of tracking what's going on in Congress regarding federal funds and how that may affect our um our

241
01:16:29.679 --> 01:16:46.560
overall opportunity to help our vulnerable citizens. And so even while we are not meeting during the summer, Mary, if you pick up any insights that you would like to share, just shoot those to us in a memo. That would be great. and and in the fall if we're back

242
01:16:46.560 --> 01:17:02.880
um any additional updates would be helpful. Thank you so much for being so um diligent and on keeping track of those dollars. Thank you. >> Agreed. >> Yes. >> Uh with that hearing no other comments,

243
01:17:02.880 --> 01:17:18.159
um could I get a motion to adjurnn? >> So moved. >> Second that. >> And a roll call vote. >> Chair Lori. >> Yes. >> Vice Chair Kulie. >> Yes. Commissioner Shear, >> yes. >> Commissioner Jung, >> yes. >> Commissioner Hill, >> yes.

244
01:17:18.159 --> 01:17:26.360
>> Commissioner Shnater, >> yes. >> We are adjourned.