For a transcript of the meeting, please read below:
Meeting Transcription Disclaimer:
Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a video recording. Although the transcription, which was done with software, is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or [software] transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
To listen to the meeting alongside a transcript, please visit:
https://otter.ai/u/A-m-bCkF1OzF2DUSi80ojWAmT7s
0:00
Seven o’clock. So I’d like to call the meeting to order. Welcome, everybody. Welcome to the last meeting of the year. May it be our best?
0:12
Maybe not actually.
0:14
If you’re feeling anything like me, it’s it may just be I feel like a really long one. So we will be efficient tonight. And and since it is your last meeting, I don’t want to miss the opportunity to thank you for all of your service and your feedback and the many, many contributions you’ve made to the board. Thank you.
0:39
Thank you.
0:40
You’ve been a tremendous asset to the community as well, I might add.
0:45
Thank you.
0:48
All right. Public invited to be heard. Nicole, I believe you said there are none.
0:53
Correct? There is none.
0:55
Let’s go ahead and move on to the minutes. Everybody should have had an opportunity to review them. Is there a motion to approve the minutes?
1:06
I motion to approve the minutes.
1:08
What a way to go out and with the courageous step. Moving to approve the minutes. I like it. I like it. About a second. Second. Ram second. Any discussion? corrections to the minutes? Okay, then All in favor, please say aye. Any opposed? Paulie. It’s okay. You I saw you put your hand up. You don’t have to be afraid. You’re not be reprimanded.
1:46
Certainly raise my hand to see if
1:48
you can raise your hand as much as you want.
1:51
It still doesn’t count.
1:52
It’s still all counted. Yeah.
1:54
Yeah. Any opposed? Okay, the minutes are approved. And Molly, I’ll let you take it away with our next agenda item which is the TRG recommendations for 2021 CBD g project funding. Great,
2:11
thank you. So we’re first going to have a presentation from Boulder County, the Boulder County personal finance counseling program. They provide counseling services for the whole county, specifically for our programs, both applicants to the downpayment assistance program. The rehabilitation program meets with housing counselors for a budget review and a loan review if they’re purchasing a home or if they are refinancing in our in one of our programs. Last year, the board approved study doing a set aside for the counseling program. For this year, it’s $50,000. And the board also decided they would like to hear more about the trends that the counseling program has seen from their clients as opposed to how other applicants usually provide a an overview of their the history of the organization and the services they provide. So we have Meredith, and Darlene who are from the counseling program, and I believe Meredith is going to give us a presentation with her PowerPoint.
3:28
Thank you, Molly. And Meredith. Just one moment. Just so I’m clear. Molly, is there going to be an actionable item for the borders? Is informational
3:39
information only. You have to make any. take any action.
3:45
Thank you very much. I’m sorry, Meredith. I interrupted you. Go ahead.
3:49
No, it’s good to know what you’re doing. No problem at all. I’m going to attend to share my screen. So give me just a moment. I’ll make sure I can let you guys see the PowerPoint. Right, someone will let me know if and when you can see it.
4:10
We can see it.
4:11
Okay. That’s great. So again, I am Meredith with the personal finance program with Boulder County and we have partnered with the city of Longmont in your CDBG grant for a few years now. So I appreciate you giving me the time to chat with you about what we’re seeing some of the trends and how we’re kind of giving a service to the community. And I want to start off by showing a little bit of what we’re seeing over the last Excuse me. I think I went back five years. So we’ve worked with folks as Molly was saying around housing topics, but in a holistic way. So we look at the whole financial picture. So if you’re looking at doing rehabilitation or if you’re looking to buy a home or if you’re feeling insecure about making your next mortgage payment The folks that you talk to. So looking back at the last several years, when we work with folks on your pre purchase, so folks who are looking to buy the five year average, that’s about 10% of our clients and 9% of our specific city of Longmont clients. And so that’s it. Yeah, that’s about an average, it used to be a little bit higher. But then we saw a shift in folks who really needed to be categorized a little bit more, I want to buy, but I’m not quite ready. So we focus on the overall financial picture. And again, that comes under financial management. So the majority of the clients that we see and haven’t seen over the last five years are four things to get them ready for homeownership, or just to make them more stable and sustainable and their rental status, I guess you could say. So that would be credit improvement, we look at debt reduction and rental Counseling and Student Loan management and goal setting. And we’ve started using a coaching model. So we started looking at someone’s circumstance and what might help them by meeting them where they are. So it’s just like your general advice, but what is your credit report? And what are steps that you would need to take. And so we’re finding that we’re also tracking results now. And it’s working really well to have folks have such an individualized approach. So that’s the majority of how we approached the housing, and the goal setting and the spinning plantation. But we also do reverse mortgage counseling, and then post purchase. So that’s kind of this general term, which is about how we talk about foreclosure intervention, or if you’re feeling insecure about your next mortgage payment, or that can be about refinancing, which sometimes a little bit more positive. And rehabilitation loans and working with modeling and saying, Hey, is this gonna be affordable for this person? How are they going to make it work? Have they really taken a deep dive into those numbers, and we get to do that with someone in a non judgmental way. So traditionally, that is about 7%, of what we see over the last five years of kind of the average. But with foreclosures, we noticed that in 2017, they took a major dip, and they were really down. And then they started creeping up a little bit, people feeling a little insecure, maybe they overbought. And then now we have this interesting and tough time with COVID, where we’re seeing that foreclosure scares are up a little bit there now about 10% of our appointments, which is between three and 6%, up from previous year. So folks are starting to give us a call. And I want to mention that we actually got six calls on Monday about foreclosure. So we’re seeing the writing on the wall, but people are starting to get nervous about that again, and I can in the next slide, I’ll speak to why that’s going to be Um, and then we’ve also picked up this year COVID response. So we’re talking about mortgage navigation and how you make priority payments, how do you know what’s a priority and how to communicate with creditors and what creditors are offering. And really, the biggest thing when I was talking to my counselors and coaches about what they’re seeing is, people are nervous, and they’re, they’re stressed, and they want to figure out a plan to survive this moment. But that doesn’t shoot them in the foot later that how can they thrive later. And in our appointments, again, they’re really, really individualized and we work really hard to understand knowledge of the industry. So most people are walking away and saying, Hey, I feel like I have a little bit of hope I understand what I need to know about my debt, I understand what I need to know, to get my mortgage working again, or how to refinance. And hope was the biggest word that I read in our surveys as well. So we’ve had about 300, a little over 340 contacts since March, that were COVID related people having some financial insecurity.
8:53
So those are newer things that we’re working on. And I’m not gonna read this whole list, but I wanted to address what people are experiencing. And a lot of this, you know, from General, living in Boulder County, and you know, the high rents, and that can sometimes lead to high debts. And we have a really well educated population. But that also comes with high student loan debt, and credit issues and all kinds of things. So over the years, we’ve seen the writing on the wall, and we’ve seen people asking us, we need to know about how to navigate how I can buy a house when I have such high student loan debt. So we got everyone our program certified in federal student loan debt and navigating those options. So we spend a lot of time making sure that we can address that for folks. And we also this past, past two years have all gotten certified. Through HUD, there’s a new exam we all have to pass, making sure that we can confidently advise people on their housing issues, their mortgages, their rental issues and on the such stuff. We’re seeing a lot of ways to answer some of these questions. The previous having, but 2020 has really given us a lot to, to learn. There’s a lot of good, but there’s also a lot of rough stuff. So javin securities up. And so we’re having to make sure we understand how predators work and what they’re offering and what’s a scam and what’s not. But then they’re also really low interest rates. So we’re seeing folks want to refinance, and we’re seeing them want to take advantage of low low cost loans, that can be a car loan or getting a mortgage loan. So people are wanting to take on more debt because of the low interest rates. Which brings us to another thing we’re seeing, which is there now tighten mortgage requirements. So if you imagine a mortgage lender wants to pay their investor, but they’re not receiving payments from a lot of the their borrowers, because the borrower’s can’t make it. So maybe they’re in a forbearance, but they still have to pay their bills on top of that. They’re having to pay out escrow and other and other things. So and then with the low interest rates, they’re not making very much money right now. So they’re tightening all of their requirements, you might need to have a higher credit score a higher down payment, or a lower debt to income ratio in order to qualify for a loan right now. So we’re making sure that we can prepare people for that. And again, help them with each individual step that you do have to get there. And there are several other things that we’re seeing mortgage retention options, some of them are a little easier if you’re mortgage qualified under the cares act, a lot of people didn’t, but a lot of people did. And so there’s some easier access to loan forbearance. And then a big change we saw this year is how people access our service. There are a lot of community organizations that refer to us to help folks have a sustainable plan. One of those is the our center, we partner really heavily with them. And if they do rental assistance, they require that their participants have a personal finance coaching appointment, so we can help kind of attack the root cause. So you know, I can’t make my rent, well, what kind of debts are you paying? Can we help you figure those out, you know, our student loans an issue? Or is there just a chronic issue of not having enough money? And how do we go ahead and address that now? How’s that going to play into your house and your future. And this year, because of so many people having job insecurity and some rental systems, they stopped that requirement. So we actually saw less clients from the our center and some of our other community organizations this year, not because they didn’t think it was important or that we don’t think it’s important. But we also realized there was a lot going on. And we don’t want to require people to have one extra step if it’s just not going to fit into their capacity. And, and we have a couple concerns for 2021. And the next slide, I’ll show a little bit more. But basically, these COVID forbearances will be ending, because they’re only for 12 months, so people will most likely be experiencing some mortgage and security. Also foreclosure and eviction memorandums, they’re scheduled to end, it’s scheduled to end on January one, but cannot be extended till February one, Windows and people’s protections are lost. And so we will see some housing issues come up. And another issue that has arisen that most people don’t realize is that if you’re not paying your mortgage, you’re not paying your escrow, which is your insurance and your taxes. And we all get that letter, if we bought a home once a year that says oh, we’re adjusting your escrow to make sure you’re paying the right amount, people will likely see maybe even several $100 worth
13:42
of cd $100, or a couple $100 of their payment go up. So we might see a significant increase in people’s mortgage payments, which I think could cause some housing insecurity as well. So 2020s brought a lot of new things, we felt pretty comfortable seeing the trends like no foreclosure for low, and then now we’re seeing a little bit of an uptick in those. And pre purchase counseling was high and we’re down and now it’s up again. So we’ve been on a bit of a roller coaster from what was somewhat steady. And the last slide I want to show you will see my last slide. So one reason I wanted to show this slide is just to let you guys know that we are always evaluating our approach and how to be approaching our community and having our community access our services. And obviously, we switch everything to virtual and phone right now. And where I mentioned the coaching model on there, we’re collecting a lot of data from our clients. But the biggest thing this year that we’ve changed is our racial equity lens. That’s one of the largest things that we’ve taken on by looking at who is accessing our services, how they’re accessing them. And we’re we’ve done a lot of research into the history of mortgages and the history of race in housing and how that really plays into what should be fair housing today and how we We can really lean on fair housing laws to protect folks that maybe don’t even realize that there’s a level of discrimination. Because it’s always been the norm. So that’s a lens that we’re really looking at, that we think is really important. And I’m more than happy to speak more to that. But I do want to respect your time. So the last slide here, I do want to talk about our funding and client numbers. So looking back at the last five years, at how many clients we are serving, you can see that we started out per year in 2016 is less than 500 a year and then we peaked last year at over 1000 families that we served, and the residents of the city of Longmont are almost consistently always around 30%, which makes sense since we serve the whole county. And so your residents have a little bit higher as of November of this year. Our goal for this year was knowing we had lower numbers was to hit 200 Longmont resident clients. And as of November 30, when I pulled these numbers, we were at 183. So I’m not entirely sure how December looks, I think we’ll be close. But funding I want to speak to because I think it directly reflects some of these numbers and these numbers directly affect the funding. So in 2019, we had to give back about $3,000 of the $50,000 CDBG grant that we got from the city of Longmont. And that was because of an administrative error on my part, which is really embarrassing to admit, but I took the job in October, and was transitioning from the previous person and I misunderstood how we were documenting certain funds. And at the end of the day, it meant that we had returned $3,000. And again, don’t take that lightly. So you think okay, 2020 I’ve got it right, I’ve got it all together. And then the pandemic hits, and we have less clients and the CDBG funds, which I know you’re all very aware of are tied to clients. So you know, we’ve been very busy this year doing research and making sure we understand how all these industries are changing and how to do accurate advising to folks. We don’t necessarily have all the as many clients as we normally have that we can build that to to say it was for this particular person situation. So while we had to had to do a lot more research, we can’t directly below some of that. So we have yet to see exactly how much we will be spending through the end of December. So that’s a little bit up in the air, and we’ll get to it. But I, I know that our numbers are down this year, because of the pandemic and not seeing as many direct clients. And then 2021, we are predicting a pretty heavy here, and I think folks will be resilient, but there’s gonna be there’s gonna be a lot of learning curve. There’s gonna be mortgage insecurities, deferments. And I think pre purchase counseling will go up as folks continue to want to buy with these low interest rates. And then student loan changes have started to happen. And then under the administration, there are other loan changes that are predicted. And so we are doing your best to be up to date with that as we get a lot of calls from folks about how to navigate the very confusing student loan world. And then our community partners such as our center, efa, and others who lean on us to help with help navigate to clients who have housing insecurity, and do financial coaching. And they have spoken about having to work to
18:30
excuse me having us do their financial counseling is a requirement again, so we anticipate those numbers to be well. So I spoke you’re off for several minutes. But I do want to end with the fact that we love serving the clients in Boulder County and specifically in Longmont. It’s a privilege to do that. And if you have any questions, I’m more than happy to answer them. I’m going to close out my presentation session.
18:56
Thank you, Meredith. Darlene, is there anything you wanted to add to any of this? before? We?
19:05
No, I
19:06
don’t think so. I think you know, the thing that we wanted to stress the most was just that, you know, because of the pandemic, we have certainly seen a decline, um, in terms of the number of referrals and I think that that a lot of that just has to do with folks being in a state of crisis. And, you know, financial coaching is not necessarily on the top top of their mind, in terms of you know, what they need to do so. We anticipate though, that we’re going to definitely see a spike after the first of the year and certainly ready and able to serve, serve the community. So
19:46
thank you. One question that I have is what’s what’s the best your ideal takeaway for us? What What would you most want for us to take away From this information and and how can we be most helpful to you?
20:07
That’s I think that’s a great question. I think knowing that this service a exists and talking about housing insecurity or financial insecurity, or even food insecurity, whatever it may be, folks are really struggling right now. And it’s not maybe the folks that we always traditionally think it is just someone who’s low income, a lot of people can be concerned or insecure about their financial situation. And so this service is out there for everybody. And we are super happy to be offering it and hope that if you know of anyone that might want a little bit of assistance in navigating some of these really tricky worlds, we’re here, not just for the folks that you might traditionally think of, but for you, for your neighbor, for your family. And it’s a non judgmental environment and waited way to get some assistance out there.
21:01
Great. Thank you. It’s really an impressive range of services, that you’re offering
21:07
much more happy for your assistance to help make it happen to be quite honest.
21:13
Are there any questions from board members or staff? No.
21:23
So quick question, Meredith. Eight. I know it’s been some time. Um, so my understanding of it because I see that you’re still getting homestudy clients. So right. From the Art Center,
21:42
we still do get quite a bit of clients from the Art Center. There’s, they have a particular rental assistance program that they still ask folks may have a heavy suggestion that folks come and take advantage of the service.
21:57
Okay. All right.
22:00
So, two clarifying questions. I have one, as you mentioned, billing, that you had a reduction in billing, I think you said, Who are you billing? Is it agencies or? I wasn’t clear on that.
22:16
Great question. So we get a grant from the CDBG grant from the city of Longmont. We also have a few other grants that we administer. And they every time we meet with a client, we are billing every minute of our time to a particular grant, including what we call the city of Longmont grant, because we account for everything we’re doing and how that relates to an individual or family. And there are, of course, requirements for what you can build what you can’t. And so the city block grant in particular is very client focused, not so much the resource or research or training part of it, but how you’re actually working with that client so we can build certain things and time for that grant. Grant. We bill our time, essentially.
23:05
Okay. Great. Thank you. That’s really helpful. So I spend down the grants, we should also take away the fact that you’re billing less right now is a temporary situation because of COVID, and does not necessarily reflect on future demand.
23:20
Yes. I appreciate you clarifying that, maybe I should have said that myself. Looking back at the last five years, you can see that we’ve increased our scope of services, and therefore we have a wider range of clients, and a lot more clients. In addition to that, we’ve partnered with more community organizations. So you know, the our centers and Fs as well as domestic violence shelters, or we partner with particular I lost my train of thought, homeless shelters and things like that of folks who might need our services or senior centers, and they refer clients. And so as we wind our scope of what we can offer our clientele as wide as well. And so generally, we see an uptick and how many people we meet. This year, has just been a tough year for everybody. Yeah,
24:11
yeah. Great. Thank you. And I forgot what my other question was. I think it was brilliant. So we’ll just have to assume that it was. So any other questions?
24:26
No. Okay. Well,
24:28
thank you so much for taking the time to present this information to us. And I wasn’t aware of it. So it’s very helpful. And I can only imagine you will, unfortunately, have a great deal of demand next year. As these programs, this support network of support that we’ve had this year really diminishes.
24:51
We anticipate that thank you so much for letting us have a time. It’s always a pleasure to let people know about our services and thanks for all you guys do.
24:58
Thank you. Thank you. You have a wonderful evening, you. Okay, wonderful. So Molly, we’re on are you going to take item B as well?
25:15
I am. So the next item is for you all to review and take action on the TR G’s recommendation for funding for the imagine application that they submitted. This was a CDBG application. Their initial request was for 66,000 to do rehabilitation work on their Charles family smart home in Longmont. And so the TRG met with you all when imagine presented, and then they met separately to discuss the application. And their recommendation is grant CDBG grant for $34,000 to repair the two resident bathrooms. That’s shoring up the floors, I think making some replacements. And their their discussion centered around the fact that they believe imagine is fairly well funded, as well as wanting to make sure that imagine was also contributing to the rehabilitation work of the home. And so
26:24
they
26:26
had some follow up questions for imagine wanting to know about their reserves, what their future reserves are. As well as if imagine were to come in for future funding, that they be able to present a capital improvement plan for all of their homes in Longmont, I have talked briefly with imagine about them potentially coming in in the future to purchase single family homes, which would be a companion model where there’s a imagine companion who lives there and then to imagine residence. So the TRG really wants to make sure that they’re in a strong position to maintain those homes as well as the current one into the future. So,
27:11
so the the recommendation from the TRG is to approve the funding request from imagine
27:17
for 34,000
27:19
or 34,000. So
27:20
half of what,
27:22
half of what imagine is asking for dogs. And they want it specifically to go to the bathrooms so that we are it’s just easier to track if you know exactly what that that money is going to be used for.
27:37
Okay. Any questions for Molly?
27:43
Oh, my Molly’s I guess I’m curious what the net effect is on CBD funding from a big picture. Whether or not the 30, the 30 some odd dollars are approved versus the full? Is there a big picture impact there, you could fill us in on.
28:02
So for this fun, this latest funding round that they applied under, we had said $345,000 was available. So they were the only applicant. So we will be going out for other funding applications in the first quarter of next year. So there is still funding available.
28:28
So that does that funding? Is it use it or lose it or does it roll over into the subsequent years or,
28:37
um,
28:38
it rolls over
28:39
the rolls over.
28:40
So you don’t don’t lose it if it’s not spent or allocated right away. And I have also talked with cinnamon Park, which received an affordable housing loan last year in 2019, for their construction of 26 Senior units. And due to the pandemic and a decrease in their tax credits, equity and increase in construction costs. They have asked about applying for additional city funding. So that’s in very initial discussions. So they may be coming in, potentially for CDBG grant or loan to help close that gap. To help that project continue
29:29
forward.
29:33
Thank you, Caitlin. You had a question. And then Karen Ronnie. Um,
29:39
yeah, I think my question was to piggyback a little bit off of grams around sort of the big picture and the rollover is where we have been my recollection and I don’t have it in front of me is that we have had quite a bit of funding that has rolled over in the from previous years, but I’m not 100% sure Karen, maybe you Remember, for some reason, something like 600,000 was in my head as something that had rolled over, but I’m not sure if I’m like picking up from somewhere else.
30:12
Karen Roni?
30:14
Well, I don’t know if I can answer that specifically in terms of the amount, but what I will add is that the, what we have to pay attention to as relates to our CDBG dollars, is that we do not have more than one and a half times our allocation in the Treasury, or we get dinged for that. So it’s really about the timeliness of, of the, of the spending. So so we can, staff has done a great job of continuing to monitor that. So come, like November 1 of each year, we have to make sure that we don’t have you know, more than one and a half times our, our allocation in the Treasury. So we we do, it will roll over. But our focus is to continue to spend that so we stay below that. What sounds a little bit like brushing,
31:12
that’s like a department budget that if you don’t spend your budget, they are concerned about it, and they’re gonna reduce it the next time. And so there’s
31:19
no net. Yeah, there are large, large cities that, you know, seem to it doesn’t matter. So but yeah, so that’s what we really have to pay attention to, is the timeliness of, of spending those spending those dollars. And we are you know, and just a reminder, we are going out quarterly. So, you know, we are releasing funding applications on a quarterly basis basis for CDBG portable housing. Other funding.
31:55
Right, and Karen, did you have a?
31:57
No, I was no, I just wanted to come make that comment. Okay, it’s done grams. grams comment.
32:04
Thank you. And Caitlin.
32:07
Yeah, I was gonna say, I
32:08
think one of the things that struck me as this isn’t really a question, but more of a comment. One of the things that struck me when imagine was doing their presentation was around, sort of the things that help bring in funds for them, like their everything is fairly limited. So for example, like Medicaid funding cannot be used for capital improvements, whereas things like CDBG funding, are limited to capital improvements, and are sort of very directed at that. And so I guess, to me, it feels a little bit like, and they are providing something that is desperately needed, and that not a lot of people are doing like not a lot of organizations are doing. And because it’s such a long term care, it’s sort of like, it’s one of those things that I think like as a community, it can be easy to forget that we need long term care for adults with developmental disabilities like that those can’t just like be institutions or just be families. Like those are things that are just long term, ongoing needs, that aren’t necessarily like flashy, or like the, you know, the current thing that people are concerned about, but those people are in our community and making sure that they have safe and secure housing is something that as a community, like that’s something that I feel like really strongly about supporting. And so I guess I’m looking at the, like, not helping with, like the flooring, and it’s like, that’s a fairly, like, it’s a fairly small drop in the bucket for the funding we have. And it seems like, like the explanation there seemed very, like, legitimate of like when you’ve got wheelchairs, and you’ve got eight to 10 people moving through some of these common spaces day to day, like, I guess I’m like, not quite sure why we wouldn’t fund something like that, just because they might have another source of funding that sort of feels like Oh, we don’t want like, I’m not sure there.
34:17
I had a similar question. Molly, could you speak maybe to more specifically to the rationale for approving the bathrooms and not the rest is there are a belief that the funding is basically there’s opportunity cost to funding the floors? For instance, if they could be funded somewhere else because the CBD Joe funds could be used somewhere else, or Dino?
34:46
Um, no, it
34:48
was it was more along the lines of they felt like the bathrooms obviously were very important part of the repair work to be done and that it was They’re thinking that provided half of the the request and the bathroom costs come to 34,000. Okay, though it seemed that that could just be allocated
35:11
towards for you.
35:13
I’m sorry. Are you aware of the rationale for half of the request? Is that a financial concern or just
35:20
there was a lot of discussion about imagines overall finances, and that they do do a lot of fundraising, they bring in a lot of revenue. So some hesitation in funding the whole the whole project. They also didn’t believe that the furnaces should have to be repaired or replaced after only 10 years. So there was uncertainty as to why that would those two repairs would need to happen.
35:56
Hmm. Interesting. Graham,
36:00
I’m curious if you know, if we funded the full amount would due diligence require that you receive receipts to confirm the money was spent per the grant requests or the funding request? Or is it just like, here’s, like an insurance payment? Like, here’s money for what you requested? And then we’re not going to follow up with?
36:21
No, they would have to turn in everything. So we would reimburse them based on the documentation that they’ve provided, showing the work was done. Okay.
36:33
Karen, do you are there any other staff positions on this that the board should consider?
36:45
Um,
36:47
I guess the comment I’ll make an I certainly wasn’t part of the conversations, I think, particularly when, when we have received requests from entities that are that own and operate buildings, the things that we want to make sure that they are doing is that they have a capital replacements, you know, preventive maintenance capital replacement plan, because, you know, to keep coming back every so often to CDBG, or, or other sources
37:23
to
37:24
define maintenance for which that entity should be responsible for planning for, I think, is, is is probably a major issue. And imagine, you know, Molly, that’s a lot of what the TRG, you know, talked about so, so again, I think just looking at kind of balancing between the need, what is, you know, what is the organization’s responsibility to, to plan and fund and to an ongoing capital, maintenance and replacement program? And again, I didn’t see their financials, but also what is their capacity to be able to fundraise for that? So it sounds like, if I’m, if I’m understanding kind of what Molly’s saying is that Yeah, we think that the city should invest some dollars in here that can help leverage the other things that we think that they might be able to raise? And it seemed like there’s a question about is it a little premature to to be replacing the furnaces? I don’t I don’t know whether that is correct or not. So. So I think probably most of it is about sharing that responsibility and making sure they have a capital maintenance.
38:35
Yeah. Okay. That’s helpful. Thank you. I, for myself, I’m like when it comes to should the furnaces be replaced or not? I’m hesitant to take a position on that kind of thing. I’m not a furnace expert. And I have to believe that there’s good faith in the information that’s presented to the Board. And the idea of routine maintenance should be handled as a part of a ongoing, fiscally responsible plan, I think makes a lot of sense to me. You know, you. Yeah, that just makes sense. So, are there any other questions for clarification or more information from the board? Okay, so why don’t at this point, I think we can entertain a motion and the motion could, we could do this a couple of different ways. If there’s anybody who believes that the entire amount should be funded, there could be a motion to that that could be entertained. If somebody wants to make a motion to approve, the recommendation is made by TRG. That motion can be made, and voting will carry the day in terms of what the outcome is. Caitlin,
40:05
I’d like to move that we approve funding for everything other than the furnaces.
40:11
Snap Caitlin you came up with Oh, totally.
40:17
A second thought.
40:20
Okay. Karen,
40:28
Somalia, you calculating how much that is?
40:33
I was going to
40:35
good.
40:38
Well, I think the
40:40
nine I think it comes to 59. Because it’s 66. And they have 7000 estimated for the furnaces? Yep.
40:56
And I think the exact amount may not be exactly necessary, because staff knows what the exact amount is. I mean, we’re approving those items
41:11
to have it in okay.
41:16
So yes, it is 59.
41:17
Okay, great. Okay, so there is a motion on the table that’s been seconded to fund the imagine request to the tune of 59,000 for the floor and the bathrooms. Any further discussion on the motion?
41:43
I would I really take the concern of planning seriously that that that is a you know, routine maintenance should be routine and not require necessarily kind of unanticipated outside funding, unless this is part of their routine planning this kind of ask. So I think it would be if the motion is approved, I would ask that there’s communication with imagine about this specific issue. And that this will be an item that’s highlighted in future requests, at least for consideration of the board. Oh, god, that was a long sentence. And I don’t know that made much sense. But why don’t we go ahead and take a vote if there’s no other discussion? So all in favor of the motion to approve funding? At the amount of 59,000? For imagine the imagine project cover floors and bathrooms, please say aye. A few approve. or raise your hand.
43:03
Okay.
43:06
Any opposed? Please say nay. And any abstentions? Okay. The eyes Haven’t
43:23
I show it passing unanimously. Right chair?
43:26
Yes, that is correct, Nicole, thank you. Yeah, I did not raise my hand, I was still kind of on the fence. So I was like, it kind of got a twitch in my elbow, but it never really manifested into anything. Because I also want to be sensitive to tr G’s work and their expertise and the time that they spend and acknowledge that that’s respected. And I think it was just a different viewpoint in terms of risk and benefit.
43:59
Okay,
44:00
thank you so much, Molly. Appreciate it.
44:05
Thank you.
44:08
Let’s move on to agenda item five, the 21 human service agency funding matrix brought to you by Alberto.
44:22
All right, well, I want to thank Caitlin for helping me think through this. We had a pretty long discussion last Thursday think just thinking it’s a complicated reality. So I’m going to share my screen I updated the PowerPoint presentation that I did last meeting in November. I did remove the audio because that’s not the individ I can read them back but the individual limits were approved. That’s all fine. It’s really on the occasion formulas. That’s really what this PowerPoint has I want to go over the the first one I did again, quickly. And then I’m going to jump to the other option that Caitlin I worked out together. And then we’re going to have a conversation about trade offs and the differences between them. And I mean, ultimately, it’s the choice of the board. So I’m gonna go ahead and share my screen. Okay, let’s see if this works. All right, so as a reminder, Okay, can I see that? I’m assuming, okay. So option one, we, as a reminder, it minimizes because I won’t be able to see you all, because in order for you to see the Expo, I have to minimize everybody. So just speak up if you want me to stop. Um, you know, the option one that we created, we had changed the weights from the questions that the board has depth to answer, we remove those weights, and made it all straight. They’re all worth what they’re worth. And so and we shifted how the weights points were awarded to the agency. In the past, we did it by activity. In our in this option, we’re doing it by just the area, right. And we had shifted, we had created a new schema for the areas. So housing, somebody who was number one got the most pointed 35. And it went down by five that way. So that was the that was the changes that we did. And then this is what we got. It shows it shows you the scores, the the new ranges, for housing stability, as you can see, it went down, but we didn’t have as many points because of removing the weights from the board and staff questions. And then it goes down from there. Depending on how many weighted points they get for priority area. You can see that it on both sides, it goes down. And that’s because these get less points. So I’m gonna go through these real quick. All right. So this is option two. This is what Kayla and I worked on last week, and I and I finalized earlier this week. This option is based basically on two factors. One is the prioritization, prioritization. And weighting has happened in how we approve how we we assess the priority areas. So for example, we we gave housing stability 25% of the funding, right, so that’s where their prior decision has happened. So we don’t necessarily have to do it in the weights. We did it, we’ve done it, we’ve done it in how we allocated certain amount of funding to each area. And then that has some that has some implications that we’ll talk about in a second. Then the other thing, the other factor is it in the way that we in option one, while we honor their priority areas, we don’t pay a whole bunch of attention to the activities, other than we want to see that there’s are happening in this option, we’re actually giving extra points, if an agency is in the is, is serving a priority area, and is also doing an activity that we have prioritized or that the human serve needs assessment has identified as a need activity needed activity in the community. Okay, hope that makes sense. And I can bring up the in a second, when I get done, I can bring up the the actual spreadsheet if you all want to see it too. So just letting you know. So it’s one slide because it does simplify it. So now, we are not, you know, it’s all about your scores. And these are the highest scores that any agency can get perfect. And I can tell you that you know, this is I chose these numbers arbitrary again, I always put that caveat. Because really, I just had to choose some numbers. So a 95 is a perfect score. And so I
49:23
if you get an 87.5 the way that works to get to 87.5 is that you get an average of four on each of the questions from the board have four or four points, I forget exactly but you get into I can go back and look you get a certain amount for each you get an average amount for each question. In the in the evaluation, you are you are doing something in a priority and you get an extra 10 points if you are actually doing one of the activities that’s listed in that priority. Okay, and then that gives you a total of 95 So then we look at the percentage of requests. So at 100, to get 100%, you got to get any 7.5. And I think that’s 4.5. And then it goes down from there, I think it’s 4.54. And then 3.5. totally arbitrary, we can change that I just need to choose something to start from. So that is the the other options. here’s, here’s a couple of things to think about. And I don’t care how had looked at you and have some thoughts as well. Because we are now using the we’re in the, in the past, the priority limits were just a guide. In this method, because we are using those priority limits that 25% of funding, however, those are broken down. It could mean, it could doesn’t mean it will. But it could mean that in areas where we tend to have lots of applicants asking from lots of funding, if we run out unless if we’ve been able to. And that was one of the things that can I talked about unless we are able to take from another area that didn’t that underspent, you technically could score enough to get funded and not receive funding, if there was no funding available in that priority area. And we couldn’t, we couldn’t take an underspend area and transfer transfer funds there. So that is something to think about as well, that it’s that it potentially can happen, doesn’t mean it will, the only one that I would be concerned about in my short time with the city and looking at the numbers is education, because that tends to be one that gets heavily applied for so. So yeah, that’s my presentation. And we can have a discussion like can leave this up your I can take it down if I’m, if I’ll take it down, and we can start talking. First of all, any questions or killing if you want to share anything as well, because you, you really were instrumental in helping put that together. We talked to this quite a bit.
52:14
You put that last slide back up. Alberto. Actually, yes, yes. One of the things that I was thinking about with this one is that, that human services needs assessment identified sort of some really key activities that were needed by our community. And my thinking was that if you’re not doing one of those activities, then you’re not meeting one of those sort of, like priorities of the city. And so like, if funding you at 100% doesn’t seem like the right thing to do, if you’re not doing one of those things that we’ve identified as a as, like, the core needs that our community needs. Yeah, we shouldn’t start with like with that, like, whereas the ones that are doing the things that are like, really increasing housing stability, like we really want those to float to the top, where it’s providing rental assistance, or those really key things where the Human Services needs assessment identified big risks for people in our community. So, um, by by doing this and making sure that you’re actually hitting not only one of these just like big buckets, but one of those activities. That was that was one of the goals there.
53:31
So, um, you know, my reaction is it’s so this looks good. I mean, any framework to me is a great just place to be
53:43
the,
53:45
I think it’s really hard to know whether the distribution is the right one until we actually got all the numbers in and see what how that results in funding distribution in reality. So I’m good with it as it is knowing that we’ll probably want to adjust as we see some of these areas that seem to be out of balance with the original premise, and we’ll want to adjust some of those percentages. Does that make sense?
54:16
It does, and I am and I want to be careful because it
54:21
it
54:23
you know, it feels like you could put so the idea behind doing these formulas is to make it a formulaic process. Right. And that’s, you know, it, it removes the not you can remove the humanists because you are scoring in your humans. But once you put a formula and I and I say this my experience with CSBG in the state they had a formulaic process, it didn’t always agree with how it came out, but but it’s hard to argue because it’s formula? Yeah. So so not that we can’t change the formula. I don’t I don’t want to say that I just want us to be thoughtful about it, I guess is what I would say.
55:10
Yeah. I mean,
55:11
I think your point, though, Brian, about the, like, adjusting the distribution makes sense. Because like, typically, like I would, rather than numbers, we, like I, I’ve seen stuff like this, where it’s like the top 10% or the top 20% are in the that like, top tier, and then the middle 50% is in that middle tier, and then the bottom, you know, 25%, is it and doing it by percentages, rather than specific numbers, the specific numbers give us a starting point. But if we have, you know, nobody who hits a, you know, a 90, for example, I mean, I don’t necessarily think we should say nobody gets funded at 100%. Right, like, we may want to adjust that down, but still do it in a formulaic way. So that we still use all of our funding, and distribute all of it rather than being like, nobody gets it all. Nobody met the criteria, you know, I mean, there’s some like floor, right? Like, if you if we have a whole bunch of agencies that are not using money well, like, we don’t want to just like hand them city money to go spend inappropriately, but I don’t think I don’t think we’re in that position.
56:23
Yeah, I agree with that rationale. Caitlin? I think from my standpoint, the what’s working well, about the formula is that one, we have clear criteria that we’re evaluating organizations against to the most objective extent possible, which is happening, and to remove individual favoritism or emotional kind of content, because we would all have to have that emotional content in order to move the needle on us, you know, specific agency. So that’s working. And then I think the question of, should the should it be like the threshold for 100% actually be an 80 instead of an 87? That seems to be the mean more of a question of efficiency and destroy distribution of funding. And I’m sensitive to what you mentioned, Elberta, we don’t want to turn, we don’t want to start, you know, like, well, I really did like that agency, and they almost came in. So let’s go ahead and drop that. And that’s, I think, certainly something we want to avoid.
57:44
Okay, so if there’s no other feedback, which I’m going to interpret it as acquiescence to some extent. Do you have what you need? liberto? Or do you? Are
57:58
you here? Karen has a question?
58:02
What Karen, please.
58:08
So
58:11
enable, we just have to work with that, you know, again, I think that what we are doing is we’re evaluating along two dimensions. So we’re evaluating, you know, are the agencies providing a serve the service in the area, that’s a priority of the city? Based on our needs assessment? And are they are they providing the activities? So it’s kind of what are they doing? And is the what lined up with our, our needs assessment? And then, and then what we are also evaluating is how well do they do it? So what are they doing? And how well do they that they do that? And so that’s what we’re really trying to, you know, to work out. My, you know, my initial concern when I reviewed this was, you know, obviously, okay, if you’re doing anything that’s in the needs assessment, you know, regardless of how important it was, y’all get the same amount of points, you all get the same amount of points for the for the, what are you doing, and, and that did create some,
59:17
you know, concern for me
59:20
to the point that liberto talked about is that, that, that we have, we have moved things around we had some guidelines in terms of the amount that we set aside, which was which was waited, but and, and every year we we make we make some changes based on what we’ve spent and not spent. And I’m just worried about doing that when we haven’t had the call you want to lead in Karen Phillips.
59:53
And so
59:56
so by by just saying everyone gets to see you department is Like we don’t even need to add, add those 10 points that, you know, or maybe we only add the 10 points for the act if they’re at least doing one of the activities, because no one should be applying or we should have screened out any entity that is that is applying for something that’s not in one of those overall buckets. So, right. So, you know, it’s, it’s, it’s science and art, and, you know, we can certainly try a different, you know, a different approach. But the waiting, it does matter, it means something, it means that it is not everything was the highest priority, there was a range of priorities. And so I’m just a little worried about, if ever, you get the same amount of points, regardless of what priority you’re meeting, where that might lead us. But you know, I don’t know. I appreciate the simplicity around that. But I am just a little worried about not everything was when equal, you know, your the priorities, but not every priority, and the assessment was at the same
1:01:17
level of importance. It Karen, I
1:01:19
think is important.
1:01:23
And it chokes you up.
1:01:25
It’s what we have here
1:01:26
is a hard one, Alberto to talk about. So let’s create a safe space for
1:01:33
the one safeguard that we do have, though, is so is those individual agency limits to that, because they they do go down through the priority. So that is a safeguard to, to the, you know, yes, you might get the same point. But you know, what, you can’t get same amount of funding because or limit is lower. Right.
1:01:59
So there are checks and balances in terms of the weighting? I do. So.
1:02:03
Yeah, impossible.
1:02:05
So I think the waiting, like one of the things I run up against when I think through it is that if we essentially have like think seven questions per application that we’re writing, and we have eight, we have seven. All right, because the two at the end. Okay. So eight questions. And there is the presumption that each question is as important as the next. And I think if the questions are well phrased, you could argue that that, you know, you could make that case that that would be true. I, I haven’t found I have actually the evaluations, I really appreciate the alignment between the the evaluation and the questions asked on the application. I think that’s been going much better for me, at least this year because of that. And I haven’t seen any specific questions where I felt like, Man, this is the question. Like if that, you know, they’re not doing well on this, they should just be, you know, go to the bottom of the stack. So it seems to me to be pretty even. And it does seem like the priority, the amount of funding we put we prioritize the buckets by their funding levels.
1:03:47
Yeah, but prior prioritization is just such a it’s such a handy little flexible tool, right, that you can kind of say, well, we’re going to turn this one up to 10 this year, and that one down to five, without really modifying the structure too much. But I guess the question ultimately, because a lot of this is academic until we know if it’s created material changes in funding.
1:04:21
It’ll definitely the prioritization will create it I’ll give you a clear example. self sufficiency has gone up in the last year, the only agency that was that was hit a ceiling was a self sufficiency agency. Where education I think has gone down, I don’t remember exactly. And I think that there will be more agencies hitting that ceiling, because there are
1:04:47
terms of the in terms of the height, the level of priority. Yes, self sufficiency did go up
1:04:52
between the buckets in the buckets. What that means is, is individual limits also went up
1:05:00
Right. So it makes sense to me that the prioritization changed that way, because of the circumstances we’re in we’ve, you know, agreed that self sufficiency is a high priority, because it’s more on the survival level. The L Oberto, do you expect that the chain like not having the waiting like we did before, setting aside the funding allocation overall, would you expect to some agencies, which previously had scored highly relevant to relative to another one, now, the seven wouldn’t be because the weighting system somehow gave it an advantage or put it at a disadvantage? The other one? I’m not seeing that myself, but it’s hard to know until the numbers actually kind of are
1:05:52
run. So there’s two pieces to this one is you never know. So one year an agency may may answer the questions in ways that the board or the staff feel are more are excellent. Right. So they get the score the, you know, the weight piece does help. But ultimately, it is the scores that you all and that we do that are the foundation. Yeah. Yeah, they help but they’re not they’re not the they’re not the one thing, right? It’s, it’s, it’s almost a third of third and third, but you are thirds are, in fact, your thirds, a little bigger than our third, third, right. And then the smallest third is is the the weights. And that’s the same last year, too. Right? That has not changed the weights is is always the smallest third. But it’s still important because that depending on the ranges, whether you do an activity or not, can decide whether you get 50% 75 or 100% of the funding. Right. So they’re still important. But the foundational bedrock of the score is your scores and our scores.
1:07:16
So it seems to me that in years past, and since we started this formulaic approach, we’ve had the opportunity to review the data and kind of do a gut check. Like, yep, that’s working, or, wow, that’s not the outcomes that I thought, you know, would have expected, maybe it requires some finessing with having sensitivity to the fact that we don’t want to manipulate the formulas, but we want to make sure that limits and parameters are set in order to be a functional formula, that God check seems to me will will answer a lot of these questions to look at the outcomes, I think the outcome that we’re going to see is going to be like, Yeah, actually, that pretty much reflects the feedback. I think it’s going to work, frankly, whether there’s the weighted in there or not, but I think we may need some fine tuning. Karen, were you gonna say something?
1:08:19
I think, you know, I think if if the advisor board, you know, wants to go with the, you know, the the option that, that Caitlin and alligretto kind of worked out. I mean, I think we just, you just give us that direction. And and that’s the that’s the matrix that we will use. And, you know, if we just seems like if we run into something really wild that we that we couldn’t have anticipated, then then then we have a fallback formula, you know, that we could certainly, that we could certainly, you know, apply. So we’re really not going to know until we till we plug into scores and see that it seems like we have, we have two viable options. And if we want to go with the option two, which is the new one that we talked about tonight, it really depends on what the board wants to do. We can just we can do that. And and see where see where it takes us again, again, we don’t want to really Oh, I wanted that ages to get more. I think it really has to be looked at what’s the whole scheme? And is something really, you know, skewed or do we get an unintended consequence that we just didn’t anticipate that I think we we just give it a shot.
1:09:43
I completely agree with Karen, if we see that there’s just way too many outliers on both sides. And I think we we reevaluate the formula, but it’s not based on individual agency. It’ll be based on what the whole big picture the scores are telling us.
1:10:00
Caitlin,
1:10:01
so yeah, I mean, that’s kind of my thought too, is like, tweaking it, when we get in there because like, if we, if the score if we go in and the score is basically end up with us, you know, not not funding something in like housing stability, which is our top priority, that, you know, like, if we end up set, you know, nobody meets criteria for housing stability, but we’ve got all that money setting there like that, that seems to be a pretty obvious case of like, maybe the scoring is off in some way. And so we need to look at that. And it’s less about like, one agency didn’t meet it and more that like, holistically, we aren’t going to do be able to meet the city’s funding priorities for this in some way. So
1:10:50
Deanna, did you have something you’re gonna say I wasn’t certain. Okay. I caught a motion over there out of the corner of my eye, I thought maybe it was your hand up.
1:11:01
I was also gonna add that I mean, that that is part of the reason why we have people reviewing applications and going through this funding, like, we want it to be objective, right. But we also don’t want it to just be a computer spits out what everybody gets funded. And then that’s it, and nobody looks at it. Right? Like, we don’t just want that to be the case. Like, there’s a reason that we have a board that looks at these and tries to figure out the best way to allocate it. And so like, the directionality of it, I think is really helpful to help us remove like biases and make sure that we’re actually getting a holistic view of an agency and what they’re doing. But then, like, we’re a check on, sort of just being like, oh, there’s the knob, the computer, spit it out, you know, which is what, like, banks tell people they’re like,
1:11:46
that’s what they told me. I
1:11:47
could give your credit limit, like,
1:11:49
yeah, oh, no, somebody,
1:11:50
somebody programmed that like,
1:11:54
yeah, so if we run this and Longmont Meals on Wheels ends up at the bottom of the stack, somehow, we’ll be like, wait, crunch, the numbers, again, some something didn’t quite work, you know, there’s
1:12:07
Okay, so let’s go with option two. I do like that. It’s simplified, I think that can help with accuracy and consistency and just kind of reconstruct, resetting things in future years. And let’s see what happens. We’ll do a gut check and see if everything works out. Okay. And if not, then Caitlin and Alberto are really to blame.
1:12:37
I’m always to blame. That’s it. I just real quickly, Ryan, and have
1:12:42
someone to blame.
1:12:46
I’m still working on myself. But if we hit all the scores, by Friday, that would be great. I still have like five to go. I’m done yet, either. So
1:12:55
yeah, I am the
1:12:57
end of the day tomorrow. Or Saturday? That’s fine. I’ll probably take a look at on Monday. If I get the energy. I’ll look it on Sunday. I’m just I don’t have the energy that Karen Roni has I wish I did.
1:13:10
Not energy, it’s something else. But yeah, I think it would be super desirable. Like Friday is manyana. But but for sure, by the end of the weekend. So you know, so we can work it on Monday, because we do need to be setting our What’s our we talked about even meeting later on, like meeting on the 17th. So that’s that’s kind of Number Number 6am. i
1:13:40
the only laggard, who hasn’t finished his evaluations. Okay. All right. All right. Thank you all for your company. But we’ll try to, we’ll try to push together as a group and get these things done. I think, if we can get them done, end of day Saturday, that’s a really good target, because that is two days after our due date.
1:14:10
And I I’d like to say I’m just finishing mine up. But it might be more accurate to say, I’m just starting them up. So we’ll see. But we’ll we’ll get it done. Thank you for the reminder,
1:14:24
you know, we we realize it’s a lot of work. And so people have lives, it takes a long time to go through all this. So we we deeply appreciate all of the effort that it’s requiring all the time that is requiring requiring and so just, you know, try to get to the finish line as is as quickly as feasible that we realize it’s a big ask So,
1:14:52
and Graham, I applaud your discipline. It sounds like you did get yours done on time. Congratulations for
1:15:01
the deadline. You’re You’re
1:15:03
my model. Right? I bow to you.
1:15:13
Okay.
1:15:16
Sounds like we’re good on that set meeting date for funding deliberations.
1:15:23
But they was at I got I got here late. But day is we doing that?
1:15:27
We don’t know yet. We’re the agenda items to set it now.
1:15:38
So it would seem like I think we tentatively talked about this, you know, next next week, we can’t make it too early, because we won’t have everything ready. So I think all right. We have thrown out the option of maybe next Thursday, we get into the next week, and we’re, we’re starting to get into the holiday week that I bet you’re not even though we can’t go anywhere, do anything. And I’ve just bet that’s not going to be a real desirable, you know, time. So if we don’t, if we don’t really work on this, you know, later on next week, then we’re probably looking at after the first of the year. Yeah, but
1:16:31
isn’t that too late?
1:16:35
It’s not too late. But that’s, you know, within off the board and knowing it would be good for new birds.
1:16:44
I think the thing is, can can we how many folks could make a meeting a week from today? Next Thursday night? I see a no Miss battlin is a no. Another no to the kid.
1:17:02
I have another board meeting.
1:17:06
At night photo? Ah,
1:17:09
yeah.
1:17:11
So let’s talk real quick about what we’re gonna do in the funding deliberation discussion. This is I’m, I’m working off of poor memory. Does this. Go ahead?
1:17:24
So I mean, so what, what will happen is that we’re gonna we, Alberto is, is going to run the numbers, right? So he’s going to plug in all the, all your scores, you have to do the, you know, apply the the weights that we’ve made, we’ve just identified an option to, and and you all will receive a spreadsheet that says, here’s, here’s basically what we are, you know, what, what we are recommending, based on the scores. So, um, and then we work it from there. So, you know, actually, it doesn’t take well, anyhow, so that’s so we’re coming with, here’s, here’s the matrix. And here’s how the scores came out, based on how everyone managed them.
1:18:18
Do we have to do any fine tuning or
1:18:21
fine tuning?
1:18:22
Yeah. You know, so what? So the other thing? You know, would there be desire? if, if, because I think we really would love to pick a time where everyone could be there. You know, Monday, the 21st. Hmm. How would How is that as a
1:18:44
option?
1:18:45
That works for me? I’m
1:18:49
wide open.
1:18:49
Can we do it early?
1:18:53
So how early is early? I some folks are like working. I don’t know how they can get up.
1:18:59
Oh, okay. I was thinking around 11? Or probably?
1:19:06
Probably not that early.
1:19:07
Or the 22nd 22nd actually would be way better. But, yeah, either early on the 21st. or early on the 22nd. I can do it either. No, no, but everybody else.
1:19:23
So Karen, I think it’s gonna be very difficult to get all of us on the same day. But maybe Nicole could send out a doodle and with the the Thursday, the 17th, the 21st or the 22nd. And we just pick the day that most of us can be there. You’re on mute.
1:19:49
Most popular phrase of 2020 Yeah. So how how Early. I mean, I don’t think I love it. I mean, I mean, so if we were to try to, to, you know, meet later in the afternoon like started four or five, does that make it any better or more desirable?
1:20:17
So let’s
1:20:18
or is that possible?
1:20:21
For Hello? Karen, if we started, let’s say if we did it for how long would we need crapper? So,
1:20:32
you know, I would say
1:20:34
with, with how we been doing that and we have the scores already there. It doesn’t take, you know, a two hour block of time is, is adequate.
1:20:48
Yeah. And we typically we will probably, we could reserve two hours, but I I honestly think Unless Unless we hit that hypothetical at
1:20:57
the outset, you know, I think two hours would be max probably, you know,
1:21:01
we want Yeah, we probably done before that. Yeah, I would say we, but yeah,
1:21:05
I think okay, so four to six on the 21st.
1:21:10
So let’s do a quick straw poll. If you can do four to six on the 21st. Raise your hand. Okay, Caitlin’s out Graham’s out and out. So if you can do five to seven on the 21st? Raise your hand? Graham, what’s your time frame?
1:21:35
That’s just a bad day for me. The 21st. The
1:21:37
21st? in general? Yeah. Same time period on the 22nd. Four to six. If you can do four to six on the 22nd. Raise your hand? You
1:21:49
can you guys need me to attend that?
1:21:54
Do we need to
1:21:54
go to
1:21:57
I’d love to attend.
1:21:59
A parent can either Can you attend live from five to seven? Karen?
1:22:07
No. Well, like could I? Yeah.
1:22:10
I can switch somebody my son’s appointment I can do
1:22:14
Oh, well. You
1:22:14
know, I’m just I’m just asking. So I don’t want to.
1:22:20
Okay, so five to seven gram, you can do four to six you can do on the 22nd. It looks like most people can do four to six on the 22nd. Yeah. Karen Philips cannot?
1:22:33
Well, I’ll see what I can do. I can try to switch something around. I’ll work on it.
1:22:37
Do we need to vote on that day?
1:22:42
We’ll need a quorum. Yeah. So because it will be happening is we’re gonna be those are the recommendations that were given to Council.
1:22:50
I see. Okay, we’re at that point. Got it. Yeah, we’re done with. Let’s Let’s shoot for if if you can do four to six gram and Caitlin, for six weeks, okay, on the 22nd. Let’s shoot for that. I think it’ll be good to get it over a little earlier. Maybe we’ll all have Well, maybe I’ll have a little more energy and Karen Phillips,
1:23:21
I’ll try to get my son’s appointment moved. I
1:23:23
think I can
1:23:24
Okay, and if you can’t it’s it’s very understandable. So please don’t create stress over it. Oh, problem. Okay. So Karen and Ellie Berto. We good?
1:23:41
Yeah, once I get all the scores, I will start putting stuff in and by the 22nd. I I will have something more before to show you.
1:23:51
Awesome. Well, you’ll have mine by nine o’clock tomorrow morning. And probably because it went to your junk email, box and email.
1:24:03
Bam.
1:24:07
Exactly. The spam folder. Okay. I lost my
1:24:14
business
1:24:15
and the journey.
1:24:16
Is there any other business for this evening? No. In that case, I would like to entertain a motion to adjourn.
1:24:30
move to adjourn.
1:24:32
That was so many motion. Always so many hands shoot up when it’s the motion to adjourn. Never a laggard in the group. Then we are adjourned. And it is 830. So we’ve got an extra half an hour. I hope you make use of it to have the most joyful half an hour. This entire week.
1:24:52
Yay.
1:24:54
Thanks, everybody. Bye then. Yeah.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai