Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order the Scottsdale Housing Agency Governing Board meeting for Thursday, March 12. Could we start with a roll call, please? Chair Lurie? Here. Vice chair Cooley? Here. Commissioner Zheng. Here. Commissioner Shearer. Here. Commissioner Hill. Here. Commissioner Roe. Here. Chair Lohrey, you have a quorum. Great. This is a time reserved for public comment. Citizens may address members of the Scottsdale Housing Agency governing board during this time regarding non agendized items.
Only one one request to speak per meeting and public testimony is limited to three minutes per speaker. Do we have any comment cards? No. We do not, Chair Laurie. Alright. Moving forward, we should have the 01/22/2026 housing agency governing board minutes in our packets. Could I get a motion to approve? I move to approve at the housing agency governing board, excuse me, 01/22/2026, meeting minutes.
Seconded. And a roll call, please. Chair Lohrey. Yes. Vice Chair Cooley. Yes. Commissioner Jones. Yes. Commissioner Hill. Yes. Commissioner Shearer. Yes. Commissioner Roe. Yes. Alright. We have a public hearing on the public agency excuse me, public housing agency annual agency plan fiscal year 2627, and administrative plan revisions. Carlos Rahez Khan, please? It looks like another speaker are with you. Jerry Lurie, that is Kai Long.
Good evening, Chair Lohrey and members of the board. In this public hearing presentation, we're soliciting feedback and comments from the board and the public on the Scottsdale Public Housing Agency annual Scott little overview of the housing agency. So our mission at Scottsdale Housing Agency is to improve the lives of low income
and very low income families within the Scottsdale community. We focus on providing access to safe, quality, and affordable housing opportunities. We also focus on helping families become more self sufficient by connecting them with resources within the community. Okay. The Housing Choice Voucher, The Housing Choice Voucher, often called the HCV program, is Federally funded through HUD. The Scottsdale Housing Agency currently has 735 vouchers. These vouchers help low income families afford housing in the private market. Families generally pay 30 to 40% of their adjusted income of rent and then the
PHA subsidizes the remainder. And as their income increases are I mean the HAP payment gradually will decrease. Okay. So here is a breakdown of the current income limits, based off of household and this is something that's updated yearly. So initial eligibility for the program is determined using income limits established by HUD, which are based on the area median income. These are updated annually. As I mentioned, this ensures that housing assistance is directed towards households with the greatest
financial need, particularly extremely low income families. Eligibility and selection. So to qualify for the HCV program, households must meet HUD income limits based on the area median income. So to be eligible, families must earn at or below 50% AMI, and HUD requires that at least 75% of vouchers be given to families earning 30% or less AMI. And this is to ensure assistance reaches those in the most need. So regarding selecting applicants, the selection is based on preference points and then the date
and time of the application. And then payment standards. So here is a visual of our most recent and up to date payment standards. So payment standards are a combination of rent, utilities, and associated fees. And associated fees are any fees that they are required to to make within the rent. And then payment centers determine the maximum subsidy the housing agency can provide for a unit. Scottsdale Housing uses small area fair market rents. These reflect more accurately within the housing market and gives better access to housing opportunities
for the clients. Clients. All right. So I'll be going over the annual agency plan. The annual agency plan is a required HUD document that's mandatory to submit yearly. This is application is for funding. The annual agency plan is a guide for housing authorities and any interested party that wants to know about our policies, our programs and the strategies that we take to meet local housing needs. The annual agency plan supports the five year plan, 2025 through 2029.
So that was adopted last year. The next one will be going in front on 2029. Give me once. Next. One back. Okay. Okay. So for our goals and of the annual plan is to serve the need of low and very low income persons, to provide and expand safe affordable housing, implement revisions to the admin plan and to achieve a high performer rating under the section eight management assessment plan. It also one of our goals is also to continue landlord participation.
And this supports our five year annual plan, the broader goals of the Scottsdale Housing Agency, which is to support to provide avenues to become self sufficient for and to to have provide avenues for quality housing, expand utilization and become a high performance public housing authority. One of our newest activities that we tried to complete for 2026 was to do the project based voucher program. We didn't intend to award, but we were but HUD sent out a letter to
all public housing authorities to not go under contract due to budget restrictions. Next. Next. Okay. And now we'll go part of the plan with text about the progress report. These are the highlights of the year for the Scottsdale Housing Agency. We continue with the landlord engagement initiative. For our family self sufficiency program, we have 34 current graduates that bought a house.
We have another one that enrolled in college and one as well that entered into entrepreneurship program. Currently we have thirteen ninety three families in our twenty twenty two wait list. We this year I'm happy to report that for the Section eight management assessment program we scored 104 points out of a possible 100 points making us a high performer public housing authority. We also have a program called Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program known as TBRA.
This program is in partnership with the Scottsdale Senior Centers and this is for seniors that are 62 years and older that live in Scottsdale. And they are at 30 or below the area median and are 50% or more house, burdened by housing costs. Right now we have 15, participants in the TEBA program and 10 individuals in the wait list. This year we're also partnering with the Scottsdale School Unified District to launch another TBRA
program, and this is to assist 25 families that are identified as homeless under the McKinney Vento definition. These families will have supportive services for up to twenty four months. The program will be known as RISE, which stands for rental for, I'm sorry, for Rental Initiative Supporting Education. And now I'd like to talk about the other half of the program of the house, which is the CDBG. And CDBG, does emergency repair programs, roof repair and replacement, major housing rehabilitation, and housing
accessibility programs to Ability360. Three sixty. They also have Operation Fix It, which is a program that assists low income households that get code violations for the landscape. Operation Fix It assists them with getting that up to code. This year from June to present, they have assisted 13 families. CDBG through their programs have assisted 58 families. This year, there's been we have six staff members that have attended 76 trainings and we've held two landlord connection events.
We also have established a landlord advisory board, which meets biannually. Next. Decertifications are certifications that need to be submitted with our annual plan, and you guys will get the full rundown of these in the next hearing. Yes. Okay. Miss Scott? So what what is an administrative plan? So the administrative plan is the key document that outlines how the housing choice voucher program is implemented. So, HUD establishes the federal regulation in each housing authority, develops its own admin plan
to define policies, procedures that include eligibility, wait list management, inspections, rent calculations, and program compliance. And this ensures consistency in accordance with the Federal regulations. Okay. And here is a snapshot of the updates to our admin plan. So the first one just talks about the removal of a federal guidance link that was in the admin plan. So we removed the link but we are still maintaining the policy. And then the next one we consolidated some local preference preferences so we just combined
them into one category and then this is in the, this is our special programs and this will make the progress simpler or the process simpler and avoid disruption in housing when the programs transition. And then the next one is with our utility reimbursement checks. So this policy is something that we currently practice so it would just updated within the admin plan. And this is given the UAP checks or the utility reimbursement checks to the families instead of directly to the utility company.
And then this is, this makes it better for audit trails and it gives the families the flexibility to pay the necessary utilities. And then the last one, it provides language for cost saving measures, the Scottsdale Housing Agency would take to avoid notification to families that there is a lack of funding if that ever happens. Okay. So I'll go over the timeline for the public housing authority plan. So public comment for the Scottsdale plan started forty five days, which was February 20.
We had a resident advisory board on March 3 where we went over the plan and the updates to the administration plan as well. We have the plan as well. We have the public hearing today, the first public hearing. Our second public hearing will be April 9. And then April 12 will be the public, is when the public comment closes. And then we'll submit the plan to HUD by April 15. Thank you for your time. This is the staff at the Housing Authority. We do have one new employee there, and he wasn't there for the picture.
Any questions? First I I I wanna say congratulations. Really, sincerely congratulations on achieving a score of a 104 out of a 100. That is really terrific. You should be Thank you. You should be very proud of that. So, with that I will look right, look left. Questions, comments? Mister chair, I would just like to thank the staff, Mary and the entire team that has continued year after year to make refinements to improve our services, fully in
compliance with HUD requirements along the way. And our housing choice vouchers are so incredibly important to our low income residents who are seeing rising rents and challenges in making their budgets come together. So, I'm just grateful for the work that you do, and there's nothing in this administrative plan in terms of the changes that that don't make sense to me. So thank you. Thank you.
Okay. Vice chair. Thank you chair. I appreciate that. Yes, congratulations, Carlo and Kaya on and your whole team, the PHA team, on this. This has been a great report. I also want to commend you on making all the landlords aware of the HCV program. I think it's increased, as I recall, year to year. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I I know that when I I pass a rental unit that's been sitting somewhere for weeks, maybe months, and I'm thinking, do they not know? And it makes me makes me wonder, are they just waiting on the seasonality of,
well, when it gets to be first quarter, we'll rent for three months and then we'll take the rest of the year off? I don't know. I don't understand that logic, but nonetheless. Also was pleased to see it looks like we have more FSS graduates, last year than the year before. Yes. So that's huge. I love it. And, do we let's see. I wonder what that means. Increase in, housing choice vouchers. Yeah. Have have the housing choice vouchers increased year over year as far as usage? Yes. Chair Lohrey and members of the board, for the usage, are you saying that we're getting more vouchers or more utilization on the vouchers?
Yes. Whichever you prefer to answer or both would be great. We have, currently 735 vouchers, and we have 542. Not an increase of vouchers utilization in the last no. To be Okay. Alright. So so no new vouchers, but, those that we have, we have utilized as much as we can. As much as we yes. Very good. Great. Thank you so very much. I appreciate it. Okay. Yes. Commissioner Rowe or Hill. I'm sorry.
Hi. Thank you very much for the presentation. I just have one question and it involves the fact that there are 1,393 families remaining on the 2022 waitlist. And I'm just curious, that's a lot a lot of families. How does that list work? Does it continue and keep going through? Do you add are you adding people to it? Is what what are those numbers looking like for 2026? Yeah. Chair Loring and members of the board, so for the 1393 wait list, we don't add any more to it. That opened in 2022 and it closed in 2022.
We will not open the wait list again until we exhaust the current wait list. Oh, okay. Yes. Thank you. I have just one more question. Thank you, mister chair. The the statement regarding HUD's restrictions or pullback on project based vouchers relative to the budget. Just how how does that affect our program if at all? Sure. Laurie, members of the board, are you speaking about the current housing choice voucher program? How does it affect that?
I am. I thought I heard reference that project based vouchers were, not able to be utilized because of HUD budget related constraints. And my question is, does that have an impact on us, our program, our use of those vouchers? Chair Lohrey, both members of the board, it does not, have any restrictions on the current housing choice voucher program? I'll give it over to Mary.
She's signaling at me. Chair Lohrey, members of the commission, Carlo is correct. It does not necessarily currently impact, but we do have cost setting setting measures in place where we're prevented from entering into something called an AHAP, in a in an attempt to not I always forget what the a is, to enter into a housing assistance payment agreement. Those agreements are fifteen years. We still do have the intent to award, but the project and it will not impact the project that is in Scottsdale right now, as they are continuing to find
gap financing, and it'll probably not come to fruition until 2027, which is in alignment with potential additional funding from HUD. So until federal funding increases or changes based on the landscape in DC, everything is at a standstill. So while it's not directly impacting at this point, there is a possibility in the future, but not right now. Thank you. Any other questions, comments? No. Thank you very much. Thanks. Thank you. Alright. Thank you.
This is a point in our agenda when we can solicit and take identification of future agenda items for the housing agency governing board. I don't know if this is so much an agenda item or just a question for Mary. I wanted to know the status of our HCV participant on this board. Chair Lohrey, members of the commissions, we are still actively still recruiting. Thank you. Any other items for the future agendas? If not, could I take a motion to adjourn? So move it. Seconded.
And a roll call vote. Chair Lohrey? Yes. Vice chair Cooley? Yes. Commissioner Chung? Yes. Commissioner Hill? Yes. Commissioner Shearer? Yes. Commissioner Roe? Yes. We are adjourned for eight minutes. Noon. I'd like to call to order the Human Services Advisory Commission for March 12. Could we start with a roll call, please? Chair Lurie. Here. Vice chair Cooley. Here. Commissioner Jones. Yes. Commissioner Scherer. Here. Commissioner Hill. Here. Commissioner Roe. Here.
Chair Lurie, you have a quorum. Great. This is a time reserved for public comment. Citizens may address members of the commission regarding nonagendized items. Public testimony is limited to three minutes per speaker. Do we have any comment cards? Chair Lohrey, we do not. Alright. With that, we have our 02/26/2026 regular meeting minutes in our packets. Could I get a motion to approve those minutes? So moved. Seconded. And a roll call. Chair Lurie. Yes. Vice chair Cooley. Yes.
Commissioner Chung. Yes. Commissioner Hill. Yes. Commissioner Shearer. Yes. Commissioner Roe. Yes. K. The first item on our agenda is a bylaw amendment. You should have a copy of our bylaws in your packet, and it would call attention to page four, section 4.4, third paragraph, and I'll just go ahead and read it. For any item requiring a recommendation to the city council, a tie vote of the member shall constitute a recommendation to deny.
In the event of a tie vote, any member that voted in the negative may, during the same meeting, move to continue the matter to a future meeting of the commission. And then there is a highlighted, section six point o amendments, and I won't read all of that, but you have it there in front of you. And with that, any discussion items about this bylaw amendment? Hearing none, could I get a motion to approve the amendment to the bylaws?
So moved. Second. And a roll call vote. Chair Lurie? Yes. Vice chair Cooley? Yes. Commissioner Chung? Yes. Commissioner Hill? Yes. Commissioner Shear? Yes. Commissioner Roe? Yes. Okay. This is a point that we will be, making final recommendations to city council for funding. I I I do wanna express my thanks as we proceed into this for Chad and his team and the city for all of the organization work they do in preparing materials, and the work of my fellow commissioners in, reading those proposals and asking
good questions. And with that, could we proceed with the community development block grant funding? Chair Lohrey, members of the commission, these are the preliminary results that we reviewed last week. I just wanted to put those up there first. And these are the revised results after, deliberation and, some reconsideration. Okay. So let me jeez. Sorry. Working on a there we go.
So as you can see, there are some minor changes towards the the bottom of the list. I did take off the two that scored below 70. So this is the order based on revised scores starting with Family Promise, then TCAA, Scottsdale Recovery, CAS, and then a new leaf. As a reminder, with this funding category, you guys can fund as you wish.
There's no 100% funding until funding allows. But, again, with Scottsdale Recovery, we we are limited in the sense that we can only we would have to at least take 50,000. Correct? That correct. That that's what they had put on their application. Yes. I would like to say in the past, we had a situation like this, I believe, last year, and there was an agency that was recommended funding that was below their minimum threshold, and we contacted them.
And they said they would they would accept the funding below their their minimum threshold. So that situation is available to for CDBG this year. So I just put up this this age just an example just to get the, conversation going for you guys. I I would like to propose that we and I'm certainly open to for discussion here that we propose to discuss our recovery that we fund at a lesser amount and see if they're willing to accept that.
Perhaps 40,000. Enable us then to a portion of greater amount to cash? With that, thoughts, comments? I I like where you're headed, mister chair. I I from my vantage point, I would like to try and fund each of the five agencies that are that are on the board. I think they all represent a service niche that is, very impressive in terms of
a menu of service to our unsheltered community. They have different models that they work with, but they sort of reach out, to slightly different client groups. The scoring there between, the agencies three, four, and five are really, really close. I mean, it's really hard to distinguish between seventy seven point five and seventy six. The top two agencies, I think, we should strive to provide as much of their
full funding request as possible. I don't know how the math works out, but just to kind of piggyback on your conversation or your starter, I I would like to see a way we can stretch our very limited dollars to serve as many needs as possible. I'd love to hear from my colleagues. Ma'am? Yes. By the same token, if we are going to approach Scottsdale Recovery to see if they would accept under their previously stated minimum, could we do the same thing with
a new leaf? Because, you know, we we could still award them something if they're willing to go below what their stated minimum would be. I would definitely support that. And, Chad, if I may, I think that first number you meant to make, $53.08 12 under under b. Sorry. Yes. Yes. I mean, if that's 40,000, we've pretty much chewed up the balance of the dollars there in line three. So I think you're probably headed in the right direction, Chad.
Good. That's really, really, really pretty good. If you wanna shorten the the name, I think that would probably work. That way we could still see the men. Oh, great. Thank you. In in terms of percentage, it did did you do this by amounts or by percentage for for column b? Chair Lohrey, this is just by amounts. This these aren't percentages. First two are a 100%. The the other three are not. I could calculate it if you want.
Mister chair, I'm I'll just say I'm comfortable with column b the way Chad has laid it out, in terms of raw dollars. That makes sense to me. But again, I'm one member of the group. Are there discussion? I have a question. Sorry, Mary, go ahead. Well Yes or John? The top total score, I I agree with option b. I mean, if the number one proposal ought to be fully funded. And I I agree there there seems to be a difference between the first two
and the group of three that scored lower. So I I agree with b in terms of fully the other three. Yes. Thank you, chair. Just for my recollection, Chad, so if you were to offer one of these agencies monies that was less than their minimum threshold and they didn't accept it, that money
goes back to the fund for staff distribution or how does that work? Chair Lohrey, vice chair Cooley. Yes. That's that's how it would work. Yes. Cool. Mister chair, let me just ask a point of question on that. Is there time within this, you know, within the calendar that you're dealing with that, hypothetically, if one of the agencies didn't accept the minimum that we're offering, would we be able to, this year, apply those dollars to one of the other agencies?
If not, we may wanna consider that in the context of our motion and decision this evening. Here, Laurie, members of the commission. Mary can jump in when I misspeak. But, we do have I think if we establish that right now with the commission, say, if, a new lease didn't want that $12,000, then we would, say where it would go so so that, we wouldn't have to meet again or or vote on it. Because we do have to get this into our annual action plan, which will be
going out for public comment. And the the two choices would be to set it aside and roll it over for future Or or if they chose not to accept it, then we evenly disperse it between Scottsdale Recovery and CAS or or something along those lines. Got it. Well, I'll I'll just comment on that, mister chair. I I would prefer to spend the dollars that we are allotted to these causes. As I spoke earlier, I think all five of these entities, entities, do a great
job in addressing the unsheltered communities, the various communities that we face and, some are based right here in our community, others are nearby, but they all do important work. So I'd be in favor of rolling any unallocated dollars from the agencies on an equal equal basis to the other agencies who were not fully funded. So any dollars that were declined because they didn't meet the threshold that the grant
application requested? That's what I'm hearing. Yeah. So, with that, can we get a motion to approve that? I'll I'll take a stab at a motion that I I would make a motion that we, make column b our funding recommendation to the city council unless one of the agencies who are not fully funded for their request reject the dollars that we're
offering. And then in that case, those dollars would be divided to the remaining agencies that are not funded at a 100%. That was well stated, thank you. Yes. With that, I second I'll second that. And a roll call. Chair Lohrey. Yes. Vice Chair Cooley. Yes. Commissioner Jones. Yes. Commissioner Hill. Yes. Commissioner Scherer. Yes. Commissioner Roe. Yes. Alright. Next category, community development block grant housing applications funding of which there is one item.
And full funding is $60,000. Any discussion? Or hearing none, could we get a motion to approve? Yes. I move to approve the Ability three sixty funding of, $60,000, which is, the entire allotment that we have for CDBG housing funds. Seconded. Enter roll call. Chair Lohrey? Yes. Vice Chair Cooley? Yes. Commissioner Jones? Yes. Commissioner Hill? Yes. Commissioner Shear?
Yes. Commissioner Roe? Yes. Okay. Next up, Scottsdale CARES. Chair Lohrey, members of the commission. So, Scottsdale CARES, this is the exact duplicate of what the preliminary results were. This is also a funding category, whereas that the it's 100% funded based on scores as funding allows. So based off of this, this this would be the final scoring and recommendations based off the NOFA. And in this category, 100% funding is Chair Loydy, yes, sir.
That is correct. Mister chair, that is a requirement we placed upon ourselves, so I'm just going to remind you of that. Thank you thank you for that reminder. With that, any discussion? Just as a point of clarification, the last, grant request for encircle families because we don't have a 100% of their requested funding, then we give whatever residual is left over from the pot of money we do have to that grantee and that's okay that we don't have to meet the 100% in that particular instance because it's the
last on the list. Is that is my understanding correct? Yeah. Chair Lohrey, commissioner Roe, yes. That is correct. And this will be another situation where we'll be contacting them because, their minimum accepted is $10,000. So potentially, if they decline any funding because it's not to their minimum, we would have that those funds, well, remaining to be distributed elsewhere. We'll go next on the list. Okay. Thank you. Mister chair, I I would just, if if I may, just also indicate I mean,
this is indicative of the difficult challenge that we faced with a $180,000 to distribute. And if you look at the board, you can see, every one of those agencies does great work, and we're unable to go, you know, below encircle families. And so we have some very, very, credible and amazing entities that we're unable to fund. However, the city council, authorized the Scottsdale Cares pot of money to go from a
dollar to $2 on a monthly bill for everybody in the community who participates through our utility bill program. And so it is hopeful that would not start until July 1 and maybe build up a little bit of money before we see this next year. But I think it was good long range planning because in the future, we may see, you know, 200, 250,000, $300,000 that we can pour back into the community. So, I'm grateful for this commission and staff that did that work and for the city council that supported that change.
Thank you for stating that. It it it's a valid comment that in future years we should have additional funds with which to, apportion out to these agencies. And I I think again it's worth noting in this particular meeting that, I think in all categories but one, the request for funding was significantly higher than all the
total requests and the dollar amounts were much larger than what we have to invest in our community. If there's no other comments could we get a motion, including how to handle the funds of encircled families decides not to accept. I'll do that if you want. Okay. I move that we propose the distributions as shown in column a on the spread sheet, with the caveat that encircle families will need to be contacted to accept the
amount of $8,500 Okay. And a second? Seconded. And a roll call. Mister chair, I may just clarify that with, I don't know if it's an alternative motion or if the motion maker would accept that if encircle families chooses not to accept less than a 100% funding that that those dollars would roll down to the next agency which would be the Boys and Girls Club of Greater Scottsdale.
Or the next agency that would accept that amount. The next agency and Melissa would accept that amount. Mhmm. Chair Lohrey, members of the council, there is a motion and a second on the table you have to vote and can choose to deny and then restate the motion. Okay. So, at this we've we've already got the motion and second a roll call then? Chair Lohrey? No. Vice Chair Cooley. No. Commissioner Chung. No. Commissioner Hill. No. Commissioner Scherer. No. Commissioner Rowe. No. Okay. And a new motion, please?
Did our I'll defer to, to our first motion maker. Oh, you wanna make the motion then we can discuss before voting? Sure. Or before seconding? I do want to honor our scoring process our scores. So let's hear the motion. Because, I mean, I I mean, if we go if it's an infinity, you know, list all the way down, if one agency I, well, let me just comment on
on that, Mary. Good point. I I think it's highly unlikely that encircle families would reject a $1,500 reduction in their grant proposal. And so I think this is sort of hypothetical in case that happens, but I think we're gonna be fine with column a. But if not, I'd like those or commissioner or commissioner Joan, commissioner Shear, members of
the commission, just a, a quick point based on, some of the changes this year. We did set a minimum threshold of 70 points that we would not consider for funding. So there is an agency that's not on the list anymore that was below that 70. So they The predetermined 70 threshold back back in August that was voted on. So then the motion would would need to state that we don't exceed or go past that 70 threshold. Chair Lorig, no.
We we wouldn't have to state that that that's already established inside the process now. I I it was just more of a point that if we went all the way way to the bottom of the list we predetermined that 70 is kind of what the the cutoff point is for for funding. Thank you. Mister chair, may I ask if commissioner Rowe would like to take another shot at this at this motion? Sure. Okay. Thank you. I'll give it a go. I move that we accept the proposed dollar amounts shown in column a on the displayed spreadsheet with the caveat that encircle families be contacted to see if they will
accept a less than their minimum previously stated minimum amount. And should they decline any funding if it doesn't meet their previously stated minimum, that the remaining dollars available to us would then be offered to successive grant applications on the list, perhaps with the same asking them to accept something below their stated minimum
until we finally exhaust these precious dollars. Very good. Second. And a roll call vote. Chair Lohrey. Yes. Vice Chair Cooley. Yes. Commissioner Zheng. Yes. Commissioner Hill. Bravo, yes. Commissioner Shear. Yes. Commissioner Rowe. Yes. Okay. And at this point, being a board member for Partners for PIUT, I am going to officially recuse myself from the general funds. And vice chair Clougie here in charge. Thank you, sir. We'll wait until you're sequestered.
Roger. Roger, can you hear us? He's gone. Okay. Good. Let's move on to item number five, fiscal year twenty twenty six, twenty seven general funds applications funding. Chad, take it away. Alright. So this is the, general funds. There have been some changes from the original document that we looked at last week. So, same situation applies for, general funds as did Scottsdale. Additionally, both funds both the funded agencies are above their their minimum accepted.
So And if I may, Chad, that line was drawn at ninety two two, just based on allocation or Vice chair Cooley, that line was drawn based on how we're the 100% funding is funding allows. Those are the two only agencies that we can would fund with $34,500 that is
available. Gotcha. Thank you. Anybody wanna make a motion that we can then discuss? I move that we accept the, proposed funding shown in column a on the displayed spreadsheet. Can I get a second? Second. Any discussion? Do we need to amend the motion to indicate general funds or is that clear? Vice Chair Cooley, members of the commission, it's clear you're voting on, making the motion based on agenda item number five. Okay. Thank you. Did we get a second? Yes.
I'm glad to hear that. Shall we go to a roll call vote? No discussion then. Very good? Oh, good. Good. Yep. No. Okay. May we have a roll call vote, please? Thank you. Vice chair Cooley? Yes. Commissioner Chung? Yes. Commissioner Hill? Yes. Commissioner Shearer? Yes. Commissioner Roe? Yes. I'll just leave him. You know what? Let's we'll just conclude and and somebody go get him in about a half hour. Ladies and gentlemen, Chair Lurie. Welcome back, mister chair. Chair. Thank you. How was Elvis? I'm sorry. How how was Elvis? Oh, your mic's on.
That's fine. Alright. Last category is, Salt River Pima Maricopa Indian Community. And with that, it's a 130,000 for, home delivered and congregate meals. And any discussion or can I get a motion to approve? I'd be happy to make a motion to approve, the full amount, requested by Tempe Community Action Agency for home delivered meals and congregate meals. This program's been ongoing for many, many years and is critical to our senior citizens.
So I'm happy to put that motion forward. Second. And a roll call. Chair Lohrey? Yes. Vice chair Cooley? Yes. Commissioner Chung? Yes. Commissioner Hill? Yes. Commissioner Shearer? Yes. Commissioner Roe? Yes. This is an opportunity to raise items for future agendas. Looking right, looking left, any comments? If not, could could I get a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. And a roll call. Chair Lohrey? Yes. Vice Chair Cooley? Yes. Commissioner Jones? Yes. Commissioner Hill? Yes. Commissioner Scherer? Yes. Commissioner Rowe?
Yes. We are adjourned.