Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'd also like to recognize Council Member Julian Beard for purposes of quorum. Okay, we have a motion and a second. We'll take a minute for discussion on the minutes. Then there's no discussion. All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed? That passes. On Thursday night's council meeting, the full council asks that we abbreviate today's meeting so that we could have a confirmation hearing for one of our commissioners today or potential commissioners. So I'd like to ask the committee how they'd like to proceed with respect to what's on the agenda, if they want to switch the agenda around or if they want to start from the top. So that's open for discussion. Okay. Do we want to stay with the agenda as proposed? Okay, then we'll have Council Member Ford. We'll turn it over to you to look at the Section 108 Loan Program. Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. I refer this item to our committee, the Section 108 Loan Program, as a part of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's CDBG program. And I know that Paul, on our behalf, has done some work, and we have our grants director, Irene Gooding, here. Basically, we wanted a tool, and I see this perhaps as a tool for this government, to enhance our community development block grant program, which brings us to about $2 million annually. And so I look forward to the discussion and the discovery that we'll have as a committee and the deliberations there. So thank you for this opportunity to discuss it in committee. Ms. Gooding, can you come up? Sure. Could you begin, please, with an overview of the loan program? The Section 8108 loan program. Yes, ma'am. Could you raise your mic? Thank you, ma'am. Is this better? Sure. Okay. The Section 108 loan program is a mechanism that HUD gives its communities to, I guess, maximize the use of our grant funds. What we are permitted to do as an entitlement community is borrow up to five times our annual allocation for up to 20 years, a very favorable rate. As of July 1, 2012, we estimate that our Community Development Block Grant Program allocation will be $1,993,717. We can borrow up to five times that amount, which is slightly less than $10 million. You can use Section 108 for public facilities, for public improvements. However, largely nationwide they're used for economic development projects. About 60% of them nationally have been used for economic development. Being able to borrow large sums of money helps us take on large-scale projects that we couldn't otherwise take on. An example is City of Hopkinsville, and I really couldn't find any Kentucky projects on the HUD website, but I called Hopkinsville. They recently did a Section 108 loan in the amount of $1.5 million for rehabilitation of their badly deteriorated inner city parks. This is something that they would have to take on probably over a 10-year period, and this way they get to do them all at once. And one of the suggestions here has been with our Northland Metals Arlington Improvements Project that instead of doing it street by street, block by block, over a 20- or 30-year period, we would be able to accelerate that program as well. The other advantages are the potential leverage. We get to spread the cost over time, and it's not a general obligation. It is the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, so it doesn't add to our bond debt. We also can access funds at the AAA rate, and we can have the funds at a fixed rate over a long period of time. There are program requirements. The CDBG rules, all of the CDBG rules and requirements apply to this project, which means that all projects and activities must either principally benefit low-moderate income persons, aid in the elimination or prevention of slums and blight, or meet urgent needs of the community. And the following criteria also apply. In addition to the national objectives, the Davis-Bacon labor standards apply projects are subject to the federal prevailing wage law. The environmental review requirements apply. So we would have to do environmental assessments. It would be subject to all of those requirements, the 106 included. There are underwriting guidelines and the compliance with the primary objective, which is that 70% of funds must benefit low-moderate income persons. There are public benefit standards. If you use it for an economic development project, there are anti-piracy provisions. Then there are restrictions on projects involving eminent domain. This means that the Uniform Act applies to these projects. Section 108 consists of two levels of borrowing or lending. Level number one is when the community, which would be us, would borrow money from the private investor, which HUD arranges. And then level two is we can either do the project ourselves or we have the option of re-lending the funds to a third party, which would be an entrepreneur, a developer, or a nonprofit, who would then do the eligible activity. There are no annual fees to the loans. There are some upfront fees. We do have to pledge security for the funds. The primary source of security is our future CDBG funds. However, in addition to that, HUD usually requires other security, and if the loan is for more than 10 years, they most definitely require other security. And I've provided some examples. What they usually like is the pledge of land or property that has value that they can seize and sell. to make sure that the funds are repaid. To my knowledge, there have been no defaults on 108 loans. You can use it for a for-profit business activity as long as you are spending it on an eligible activity. You have to minimize displacement of existing businesses and jobs in the neighborhood. and there is quite a bit of flexibility when you use it for a for-profit business activity. And they are subject to the mandatory public benefit standards and must meet a national objective. And most economic development projects fall under something called a special economic development activity. You can use CDBG funds for special economic development activities. Guidelines for selecting activities to assist are provided in Section 570.209. You must ensure that the appropriate level of public benefit will be derived pursuant to these guidelines before obligating funds under this authority. And there are some examples of what these activities are. The acquisition, construction, reconstruction, rehabilitation, or installation of commercial or industrial building structures and other real property equipment improvements. These activities can be carried out by the recipient or public or private nonprofit subrecipients or the provision of assistance to a private for-profit business, including but not limited to grants, loans, loan guarantees, interest supplements, technical assistance, and other forms of support for any activity where the assistance is appropriate to carry out an economic development project. Then there are some other economic development services that can be provided. And I've mentioned the public benefits standard, and they start at the bottom of the page. Recipients making loans for special economic development projects must comply with public benefit standards. These standards have two levels. For an aggregate benefit, and this usually applies when you have more than one project, It's a minimum of one job per $35,000 of CDBG investment, and for an individual benefit, it is a maximum of $50,000 of CDBG funds per job created. There are financial guidelines for economic development underwriting. The project costs have to be reasonable. All sources of project financing have to be committed. To the extent practicable, CDBG funds are not substituted for non-federal financial support. Project has to be feasible. And to the extent practicable, the return of the owner's equity investment will not be unreasonably high. To the extent practicable, CDBG funds are dispersed on a prorated basis with other finances that are in the project. And all of these are a little further described in the next several pages. I'm not going to go into that. All of those have some flexibility in it. In making an application for the process, you know, there are essentially two screens. One is credit and one is CDBG eligibility. And I think we've talked enough about CDBG eligibility. The screening for credit requires that local practitioners receive financial information on the project and the principals early in the project. There are some examples of the type of information that's needed. It's the independent cost estimates, the projections, historical financials, personal financials, appraisals, credit history, comparable properties regarding rents, vacancies, and operating expenses, evidence of site control, business plan, market study as an example. and again has to meet a national objective. Step two is after you've determined that you've screened the project adequately and you want to make an application, you submit the loan application to HUD. You submit it to the Louisville office where it's reviewed, and if it's appropriate at that point, then it can be submitted further to Washington, and they review it again, and they will make sure that you can repay the project and that you have appropriately pledged security for it and that you've submitted all the certifications. And again, once HUD approves it, they borrow the money from Wall Street and then we enter into a loan agreement with HUD. If it's a public improvement project, public facility project, or project that the LFUCG wants to do, then we do the project. However, if we want an economic development project and we want to relend the funds, we have another level of financial documents to enter into. The funds do have to be paid back. If it's a public facility or a public improvement, those types of projects do not create revenue, and therefore it is assumed that you either pay them out of your general fund, if you like, or you would pay them out of your future CDBG revenues. However, if you have a third-party borrower and if it's a business, you are requesting repayment of that loan. Loan is repaid to the CDBG program as program income, and then those payments are made not to HUD but to the person you borrowed the funds from, the private entity. and I don't know that do you have any questions about the program? These have been used a lot nationally. We've never used this here. We've thought about it from time to time. We've certainly thought about it to speed up the public improvements in Northland Meadows, Arlington. I thought about it recently for a senior citizen center. You know, there have been a few problems with moving ahead on doing it with public improvements, and that has to do with our ability to get the utility companies to cooperate with us in a reasonable length of time so that it's even possible to do this or that it's even advantageous to do it. If you are doing the Section 108 program and you're relending it to a private developer, you can charge them the same interest. Actually, you can charge them a higher interest rate. You can actually earn money on these programs. The economic development projects, I do want to emphasize that it is, again, it has to be a project that benefits persons who are low and moderate income, which means, I mentioned the job standard, which means that 51% of the jobs that are created, and these are the permanent jobs that are created, would have to go to people who are low-moderate income, and we would have to verify it. We would have to monitor the program and reassure HUD that we had met that requirement. You have questions? I'll open the floor. Mr. Ford, Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Ms. Gooding, for your report. it sounds pretty impressive as an opportunity for the government to partake. I think we've been fortunate over the years to have a strong compliance record with HUD in the administration of our home dollars, emergency shelter dollars, and as well as our block grant dollars. But I think also this would allow us to be somewhat more responsive to the economic development needs of low- to moderate-income areas. Again, for example, I know there's been a lot of discussion for years and years about the project in District 1, the Meadows, Norfolk, and Arlington public improvement projects. A much needed project, but we're unfortunately having to piecemeal that project, if you will, based upon the availability of funds with our block grant funds. And this will allow us to expand our economic development scopes of work in our low to moderate areas. Ms. Gooding, I bring some of the other communities in the state. I consider the city of Lexington the second largest city to be a leader amongst local governments. But there are other local governments in the state of Kentucky that utilize this project, that utilize this program. Can you mention just a few of those? by reference? The one that I got some information on was Covington. And Covington, by and large, I believe, is an across-the-board low-income community, which means I think all of Covington is more than 51% low-mod. They have used the funds for a supermarket, and they have used the funds for, I believe, a small factory. The HUD website, which has lots and lots and lots of 108 projects through several years, I didn't find one in Kentucky. I understand Louisville has done these in the past, but I didn't find anything recent on the city of Louisville or Jefferson County. But I am aware that they have done them. It just may have been quite some time ago. And the state also. The state is a CDBG recipient. They have the ability to do them. But again, find any Kentucky projects on the website. And what I did get was from the HUD Louisville office. Okay, Mr. Myers, and again, I appreciate the committee's attention to this. I think it's a no-brainer, in my opinion, for the council to work with the administration to utilize this and make this a new tool in our toolbox for economic development and low to moderate community improvements. So I'm not endorsing any particular project. And there's several come to mind, perhaps in my district. But for the collective good of the council and our community, I endorse us adopting and implementing the Section 108 program. And I'm prepared to make a motion to do so if that is necessary to get this before the entire council and get that ball rolling. But I know that you have a comment, so I'll defer until that time. Okay. Thank you, Councilman Ford. If I could ask a couple questions, committee. You answered a few of them already, but are there any additional standards, requirements, or anything like that that a Section 108 project would have to go through that a normal CDBG project doesn't have to adhere to? I know you listed a lot of things, but are there any of those extra? If it's an economic development project, it has to be financially feasible. Okay. You're talking about a financially feasible project that has all the other funds committed, And again, loan documents in place, promises in place about creating, and in this case if it's a special economic development project, about the only low-moderate income activity would be the creation of jobs for persons who are low-moderate income. These are not the construction jobs. These would be the permanent jobs. this is one year after the assistance is there, then you can go out and you can document. You're documenting household incomes of these employees, and that's being sustained over a period of time. Okay. Would the expectation be that those jobs be sustained over the period of time that the loan's in place? I looked for that answer, and I could not find that answer. There is definitely a two-year period. If the job becomes vacant within two years, there is definitely a requirement that you go back and provide it to a low, moderate income person. Okay. And then how does this affect the future planning for funding use of CDBG grant dollars? If you use it for public improvements, you have to, you know, depending on how much you're borrowing and how long you're borrowing it for, you have to look annually at how much money is going to come out. If it's for public improvements, because there's no income to be earned there, you are going to have to make this assumption every year that that much money is coming off the top and you're not going to be able to spend it for other projects. So you do have to create a plan. When you pay back the money and you create that funding, the repayment plan, say we borrow $10 million and we get $1 million a year and there's no income coming off of that loan or off the project, do we have to pay back? I guess you stretch it out. It depends on how much you borrow and how many years it is. I guess I was trying to figure out, could you do it in such a way that you still have a half a million dollars coming in every year from CDBG that could be used for other projects, or would you take all of your funding that comes in from CDBG for the next three years for that project? So in other words, what I'm trying to get at, are there projects right now that we have funded that are looking for additional funding downstream from CDBG, but if we did something big in this area, it would cut off the ability to fund any of those other projects for the next couple of years? Well, we use up to 20% of our funds for administration. Not quite 20. We're not at 20, but we do use some for administration. We do use some funds for our single-family housing rehab program. That is an ongoing program. The services, if we choose to fund them, we can fund up to 15% of our allocation for services. So if you didn't have funds for that, then you wouldn't be paying for it. Let me ask it a different way. Is there a way that we could make sure that we have enough of our annual allotment of CDBG funding to do certain things, and then we borrow the rest of it for whatever project we want to do? I think that's what you'd want to do. Okay. Then my final question to you would be, what type of feasibility study needs to be done to see if a particular project would be suited for this type of a loan? For instance, the North Loudon project. What would we need to do to see if that's the right fit for this program? I think we need to, I guess there are a couple of, we have a couple of problems right now in our public improvements program. And I've mentioned one of those. One is utilities. Right. And the second one actually is staff capacity to do projects. So, and one of the things that's slowing down our public improvements project right now is the purchase of easements. because it takes people to do this, and if you lose people and you don't replace them, then you're probably doing less of it. So I think you would want to work out those particular bugs. I think you'd really want to get a handle on the utility relocation. Then you also want to get a handle on how you're impacting the neighborhood while you're working on these projects. we've wondered from time to time if you could do that whole area at one time, should you really do that? Because there's such an impact whenever you go into the neighborhood that you really have to have people. They have to be able to circulate throughout the neighborhood, get to work, get to school. So there's probably only a certain amount. Given all the money in the world, there's probably only a certain amount you can do at a time anyway. And I'm not sure what that is. Okay. And forgive me, I have one more question. You talked about job creation. Is there a way that you can attach to a project? I understand that funding ratio that you talked about for an individual job, $30,000 or $50,000. But is there a way that you can attach to a project that they have to have something like an apprenticeship program if this project is used for this loan program? I think all of those things are things that you can choose to do. You know, HUD sort of establishes the minimum. They say 51% of the jobs can be low-mined. You could say 60%. I mean, this could be as long as you met the regulatory minimum, I believe you can add those programs, those kinds of requirements, yes. Okay. And the apprenticeship program would be primarily, I think, with construction. So I know that doesn't meet the other criteria, but if the jobs that were created long-term met the criteria for the loan, and this was just something that we as a government placed on the project, that they had to do some type of apprenticeship program, that would work? I don't see why it wouldn't work. If you're talking about doing a special economic development project, you could require it. It might be a little bit difficult for the developer to do it, but you could certainly require it. Yes. Okay. That's all my questions. Thank you. Council Member Ford? Thank you, Council Member Myers. And I'm going to speed up because I know our hour is shortening as we conclude the committee. Personally, from District 1, my interest in bringing this forward a few months ago, and I want to emphasize to the committee, is that this is a tool for low to moderate communities, as is our block grant. And an economic development tool to support those. So Ms. Gooding mentioned public facilities. The public facilities would, of course, have an obligation in future years on the allocation that we receive for block grant. It does not have an income stream coming back directly. But I would contend, and certainly give you guys some vivid examples, that sidewalks on North Limestone that we could accelerate would have an economic development benefit in that area, a distressed commercial corridor that we're tirelessly trying to improve on East 3rd Street. It's going to have an indirect financial ability. Park improvements in the low-to-mod areas, increase the quality of life. Senior citizens, no doubt about it, everybody here in our community sees the importance of that. So these are things that we don't have the cash for in general fund support as of right now until things get better. And then our annual allocation and block grant in some ways are already dedicated to long-term projects. This is a tool to help low to mild areas improve the quality of life and economic development opportunities. So I appreciate the attention. If it suits the committee, I'll make a motion that we initiate the application to HUD to create and implement a Section 108 loan program. So moved, Mr. Chair. Second. We have a motion and a second. Could I ask a question, though? Do you have a specific project you want that? No, sir. And I'll say this. I've kind of illustrated some examples in District 1 for projects. I think it's important that we commit, create, and implement the program, and then we discuss specific projects. In my opinion, that's the best way to go from a policy standpoint for this government to adopt and endorse the program principally and then use that as a toolbox to take on projects as they may present themselves. Okay. Is there any other discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Oh, I'm sorry. Was it? If I can. I apologize. Mr. Kay? That's okay. I just want to be sure that I'm clear. I appreciate the effort in bringing this forward. but to just in my own mind what it sounds like is that for the public improvement projects essentially what we'd be doing is borrowing money and committing ourselves to repay that money out of the successive years income so it's in a sense it operates like a bond but it does not increase bonded capacity but what it does do is it commits us for X number of years to use the CDBG funds that come in for the purpose of retiring that loan. So it's a planning tool. It's an acceleration tool and it's a planning tool for public improvement. For economic development, because it's really more like a bonded loan program where the economic development activity repays the loan, so it's not a commitment of future CDBG funds. It's an opportunity to provide a loan at low income to a private entity, that is going to result in some economic development that has impact on loan and water income, but it does not commit future CDBG funds because the project itself would be paying back the loan. Does that all sound? Okay. As long as they pay the loan back. Right. I get it. So we're on the hook for it, but ostensibly the private developer is committed to repaying the loan, The advantage to them is they get a reduced rate on their own. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Any more discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed? No. Can we have a show of hands? Those in favor, say aye, or raise your hand. Those in favor, raise your hand. Don't want to use the system. Oh, we can use the system. And the nays vote at the same time. Okay, that vote passes. Thank you. Is there any more on this issue? Council Member Ford? No, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Irene. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, the second issue is the Senior Citizens Center Task Force. and we'll have our CAO, Richard Maloney, come up and give us an update. Yeah, the vice mayor put a committee together for the senior citizen task force, and as of right now, we have been approached, the administration on a property that we are interested in, but that doesn't mean we're going to abide. We are working with them right now, so the vice mayor has recommended that we put a hold on the task force until if we decide to buy this building and then she'll put the task force back to see what goes in that building. For the senior citizen, if we do not end up getting the building, then the task force will come together and start looking for a location for the new senior citizen building. Okay. Can you give us any kind of time frame on when the negotiations might end on the purchase of that building? Well, right now we're working with the property, and we're having a meeting tomorrow with the folks that own it, and then it's probably going on for the next couple weeks. And they also have some other people interested in it. So that likely will go on a fast track for leaving the next 30 to 60 days, two months. We'll be working with them on that. We'll be coming back. If we decide to go that route, we'll be coming back to the council, and we're going to close that discussion to talk about property acquisition. Is it possible to give us maybe a little bit more of an update in closed session? Yeah, we'll give you locations and all that when we go to closed session. Okay. Could you do that maybe sooner rather than later, though? Well, it probably would be sooner if we decide to continue on this page. So hopefully we'll know something in the next week or two with the realtor now. But I'm saying in the next two weeks we may be coming back and ask for a closed session. Okay. Thank you very much. Any questions for the CAO? I'm sorry. Council Member Stennett? I'm not used to looking at the screen here. Now repeat what you said, that the task force has picked a location and you're entering negotiations? The task force originally was formed under the, what was the name of it, Senior Services Commission. Senior Services Commission. They put something together. They have not formed it yet. When we brought this out, this property came available. Who made the decision to go after this single property that it's the best location? Well, we have not. We're just looking. It is a good location. It hits all the needs. We've asked folks here to look at it. It's got plenty of parking, and the most important thing is access for the seniors. It doesn't mean we're going to buy it. It's just an opportunity. It came aboard. We just started to look at it. The council will decide if we want to go forward or not with this property. And if we don't, then we'll go back to the task force and ask them to put a committee together to look at locations which they would like to see? I feel like we're circumventing the work of the task force. I mean, they're supposed to be the ones identifying locations and opportunities. I feel like we're going to pick and say either you all like it or then if you don't like it, we're going to. Well, rarely you get an opportunity when a property like this comes about. And they approach us as the folks did. And I personally feel talking to some of the folks that are on the committee, they really think this is a golden opportunity if we decide to go that way. But that doesn't mean there's a lot of ifs. There's a lot of moving parts. But when you get an opportunity like this, a prime location, it's sometimes best that we have to set aside and look for the best interest for overall. And if it ends up being the best, we'll bring it to the council and we'll decide if it's something we want to go forward with. But I just don't want to give something up that was a good opportunity. Okay, so you're going to come back in about a week or so and meet with us in closed session about it? I hope to have it. Well, I just encourage you. It sounds like it's a great location, but let's not be short-sighted on this opportunity. We are not, no. We need a gold standard in senior assistance centers in Fayette County. We have too many people that are going to be in need of those services, and I don't want to leave it short-changed. I don't want to do it halfway. I want to do it all the way. I want to make sure it's at the best possible location for bus lines, transportation, amenities, et cetera. All those things you've hit is what this location is, and that's why we thought it was a great opportunity not to give up. And there was a study done a couple years ago that we're looking anywhere from 50,000 to 60,000 square feet. This property is that amount. And the number one thing that we were concerned about is getting in and out. As you know where we are right now, that's not a very good place to be. And the bus line and what surrounds that property has a big, huge impact on foot and senior safety. We think that it was a great opportunity, but, I mean, we'd have to do it. Dream big. Dream big. Thank you. Okay. Council Member McCord. Sorry, Council Member Beard. I've got a couple of questions. One, did you say that they told you all they had another buyer that they were working with? Yeah, there's been some buyers looking at what they have. Did they also sell swampland in Florida? I mean, that's one of the oldest ploys on earth to get away from that. When we go in closed sessions, you will see where this location is, and you all will know that there have been some other people interested in this pop. Well, I did a quick hand count here, and the baby boomers started hitting here if they went to 65 last year. and the longer we wait we may we may miss the baby boomers boomers if we if we move at a relatively slow pace so that's why we're on fast track with this because we got a roof that needs to be replaced at this senior citizen that we that it was a lot of 265 thousand dollars we feel this is a good opportunity to start going fast track but uh again i must want to tell everybody that this is the property that we have been approached we're we're listening to them but But if we do go any farther, we'll make sure to counsel his first. Well, you know, I favor doing this, but I want us to do it right. Okay. I doubt. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councilman McCord. I don't know, Richard, if this is for you or not, but the task force's work, was it also to look at what programming goes on involved in there as well? Yeah. Can you speak a little bit to that? Because I know we're talking about the building, but I want to talk a little bit about that. Well, first of all, the task force is really not formed yet. The Senior Services Commission has met. And was it 2008, Christy, when we got the study? In 2008, there was a study with all the kinds of programming that was to be in the building. And then we kind of have drawn a semi-floor plan of what we would want. We envision, the thing is, we envision a multipurpose use for this after hours. You know, Parks and Recreation could use the building. If there's communal meeting space, a theater, the city could use it for rental. The task force, if we find an existing location, the task force would decide those things. If this location doesn't work, then the task force, and we're going to put it together dependent on this property, if that doesn't work, then that task force will look for the property. Well, and I just would encourage you, a lot of times we try and shoehorn things in, hey, we've got this building, and so therefore this programming goes in that building. And I think it's actually a dual track simultaneously. I think that regardless of what building you put it in, we really need to identify what it is we're going to do going forward. And, you know, as Council Member Beard mentioned, you know, first folks are hitting, first baby boomers are hitting 65, and so now you have this silver tsunami that's coming. And it really will transform everything. And folks kind of thinking about it as a government, if you think about it, all the McMansions that we've built in this town, where you have five bedrooms on the top floor and two baths and so forth, when you've got a hip replacement and a knee replacement, you don't go up and down steps anymore. And so at some point in time, our whole land use and the way we've built our city is absolutely going to be realized to be wrong. And so I think that as we take a leadership role on this, I just continue to encourage you guys to not necessarily make one about the other, but really roll those two tracks simultaneously. And anything and everything we can do to look at that programming, because you will have this crossover of traditionals and boomers both utilizing the same space, totally different sets of needs and desires. And so we do have an opportunity. It's kind of like Council Member Myers' skate park. We've got this really good opportunity to do it right, and government somehow doesn't seem to have enough money to ever do it right the first time, but pays four times as much later. So let's do it right the first time. Anything we can do, I certainly would help. I would just like to end by saying we are excited that everybody's on the fast track because we've hit critical mass out there at Nicholasville Road. The place is falling apart. We don't have enough space. We're already in trouble with the fire marshal in the dining room on some days. So this is not a project we can plan 10 years out. In our view, it's something that we need to get on now. So we're very excited that everybody wants to do this. One other thing, Commissioner, that I would just encourage you, as the task force does its work and as that commission looks at this, will you walk around and look at all those who supply services to seniors even more creatively than just the obvious, like Social Security and so forth, and let's look at what they will chip in to have access to that financially as well as programmatic. There are so many folks that have built their businesses and their services around meeting the needs of this upcoming group that I think we need to engage those folks right now and ask them what kind of financial stake they'd like to have in this new facility, wherever it might be, and what kind of programmings they want to help underwrite. We do think the public-private partnership is the way to go. Exactly. But I would encourage you to think as creatively as possible in regard to that, because there are the obvious ones like Social Security Office, But there are some others that might not be on the surface like that. But anyway, anything I can do to help on that, I'd be delighted to lend my help. Thank you. Appreciate the offer. Thank you, Council Member McCord. Commissioner, a couple things I'd like to add to that. We currently have, is it seven partner agencies inside the current facility? Is it seven? Five. We're down to five now. Okay. And are they contributing financially to? They are giving us some program income, but the new leases that was passed by council, those will come before council next work session. I've been working with Commissioner Hamilton on that. Okay. The reason I say that is because I think Councilman McCord made a great point that there will be people who want to pay because they'll have a financial stake in providing those services. And we need to look at the benefit of that going forward in the new building. Also, I'd like to add that before we've kind of talked about an indoor swimming pool, and maybe that could be a part of this project. and I don't know if this building fits that criteria or not. But let's continue to dream big and think big. We're hoping the task force is going to do that, and they'll probably bring things we hadn't thought of. Okay. So could you do me one more favor? The 2008 report that outlines the list of services, can you guys provide that for all the council members? And you'll have to, we will send it to you all, and it was based on 37,000 square feet, and we've already decided that that's not big enough. but we will send you what the 2008 report came out with. Okay. Sure. Thank you very much. Any more questions for the commissioner or on this issue for the CAO? Okay. Thank you. And last on the agenda, Commissioner, you're back up. Okay. And we've got a partner agency funding recommendation process discussion. Sure. And I'll turn it over to you. Okay. We went through the process. Before I even start, I would like to say that Craig Benz has just done an amazing job on this whole project. I know when we started and talked about how we were going to tackle the new process, given the requirements of this committee, we wondered if we could do it in-house. And we have a very talented employee back there. Craig has just taken all these moving parts and done a beautiful job with it. So I applaud him for his work. In deciding how the funds would be allocated, we started with the first premise that this committee wanted, that we are funding programs, not agencies. So that was the way we started when we had the review committees. People applied by program, they were reviewed by program. So that was the first premise. So after that happened, the rankings were done, and we put together a work group to make a recommendation allocation to the mayor. and the one thing that that work group did was trust in total the rankings of the review committees. They didn't start with picking why is this person 1 and why is this person 41. They trusted the process. The work group was made up of two council members, two who are here today, Council Member Beard and Council Member Ford. Two of the mayor's senior staff, Jeff Reed and Glenn Brown, sat on this work group and then two people from my advisory board, Anna Johnson and Robin Pease. Craig Benz and I just staffed this committee of six. We really didn't enter our opinions. We just answered questions as much as we would to this committee if they had any. As the allocation decisions moved forward, Craig did the math for the group until they came up with a decision. Basically, the decision that they offered the mayor, it was a very hard decision to make. I'll let Council Member Ford and Council Member Beard speak to that if they want to. It was hard to decide. There was a decision whether to fund everybody or some folks, and in order to fund more agencies, the decision was made that no one would be funded at 100%. So the group started at 85% and tiered the funding down based on ranking 85, 75, 65, and 50, and I think you all have that in a memo. And when the dust settled, 13 existing agencies who had received funds from the social services group were funded and eight new agencies who have not had an opportunity for urban county government funded were funded. And the amounts that were given were based on the request by the formula that the work group came up with. And the mayor took the funding allocation recommendations verbatim and put them in his proposed budget as this work group suggested. So that's it in a nutshell. And for specific questions, you might talk to your council members or Craig can answer questions about the process. Are there any questions? I've got a question, Commissioner, and it kind of goes back. I'll let Council Member Henson go first. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I really don't have a question, but I do have a comment that I know, although this process, we agreed that it wasn't perfect. No, it's not. But I think it is definitely a big start from where we had been. And I appreciate the work of Craig and the rest of the volunteers, especially that participated in the program, I mean, in the process. But I do think it makes much more sense to really know where our tax dollars are going rather than just handing it out and by funding the programs. I just think it is a much better process, and I appreciate you, Commissioner, for getting on that. And I would like to say I appreciate this committee starting this work long before I even came. It is a step in the right direction. It is a more objective process. It's a more fair process. And you may hear comments from agencies either way, but a lot of people have said this is the way it should always be. And it feels like a grant that you apply for anywhere. And I appreciate this group's taking us in this path. It's been a long process. And it's not perfect, but I think it's worked out really well. Right. Well, I thank you, and I also like to thank the agencies that participated and that they do provide a very needed service to citizens in our community. So thank you. Sure. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner, looking at number 15, 17, 18, and 20, they got zero under this one, but did they get it at other areas? How does that work? Because they were within the 75% funded range. Okay, that is the Hope Center. Right. And the Hope Center submitted 10 programs. The Hope Center's total requests were going to be exorbitant to the budget, But they do good work, so they rank high on all their programs. So they did have a lot of 85% programs. So the committee made a decision to cap the Hope Center funding at an amount from last year, the work group did. And so the allocations were made at the tier until that cap ran out. Okay. And what was that total number? That total cap was $666,000. And so the way we did that allocation is, for example, the work group decided that all of the applications ranked 1 through 10 received 85%. So we used those allocations for Hope Center as their applications were ranked until they hit that ceiling. Thank you so much. Sure. Thank you. Council Member Kaye? Thank you, Chair. This is also not a question. Well, it's a comment and a question, I guess. We talked a little bit in going through the process about revising the process. I was particularly interested in the application form and the scoring sheet and the way in which the points are allocated on that. Are there plans to convene a group? What's the thinking about how to refine the process now that we've gone mostly through it for one year? There are definitely plans for improvement. The first step we're going to take is we're going to send out a survey to both the reviewers that participated on all of the committees, as well as the applicants to get their input on the process, as well as the content of the application, and for the reviewers, the content of the scoring tool that was used. So we're going to take that information and then form an internal work group, and I'll be asking for members of this committee to be members of that work group as well to refine it before we finalize it and move forward with next year's process, which will be here before we know it. Well, that was part of the reason for my question. We'll be through the budget process and then on break, and then we'll be right up against it. So I hope this will be done. In my mind, this could be initiated immediately. Even while we're going through the budget process. Other people may not feel the same way, but I'd like to see it move forward so it's time to think about it. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Are there any other questions? I have a couple myself. Anybody? Okay. Okay. First I would ask, when you guys looked at your scoring rubric, you said everybody who received a 1 through a 10 received 85 percent? That's true. The applications that were ranked 1st through 10th received 85 percent of their funding request. Oh, never mind. Okay. I was going to ask, but it's on here. Thank you. I was going to ask for the rest of it going down. I think one of the things that this shows is that there is a need for a needs assessment. And the reason I say that is when you look at the total request for services by sector, if you will, senior citizens, there was only an ask of $2,008,857. And I guess $65,000 was funded. So does that mean only 3.7% of their funding request was actually funded? 3.7% of the total funding of the $1.75 million was allocated to senior services. And a lot of that, I mean, there were fewer applications for senior services, but the other part of that equation was that the ask was less on average than some of the other categories. Right. So I guess the needs assessment will help us ferret out that, you know, with the silver tsunami that Councilman McCord talked about coming, we know we're going to need to put services around that population increasingly as we go forward. So I think the needs assessment will help kind of ferret out what those need to be and that kind of thing. You want to just take a couple minutes, and, Commissioner, you can come up and do the same if you'd like, just to talk about the process and how it worked for you. If there are things you could tweak, what would they be? I know we'll probably do a debrief. Like you said, you're going to send your surveys out. Sure. And I think we're still sorting that out, but overall the process went fairly well. The committee structure worked well. I think the scoring tool that was used for the committees needs a little bit of work for next year. It was okay for a first time through, but it can be better. and we can take a closer look at how we handle some of the presentations. The presentation process, we allowed the scoring committees to adjust their scores by up to 10 points. After hearing those presentations, that's something we may want to look at as well to decide whether that was of value. Not too many people had large adjustments as a result of hearing the presentations, but I think it was helpful to hear the presentations to understand the proposals. But overall, I've been receiving pretty positive feedback, especially from the existing partner agencies. What have you heard in terms of the application process and the education piece that you guys required people to come to? You mean the pre-application meeting? Yes. We received positive feedback on the pre-application meeting. The one criticism I received for the pre-application meeting was that we only had one of them. So next year we may look at breaking that up and doing two different pre-application meetings. Some of the other suggestions were to potentially put the information online and have that suffice. But I'm not sure that's a good idea because it doesn't provide the opportunity for questions, and it really creates a situation where there may be some misunderstanding with the way things are interpreted. So we may go to two of those pre-apps at different times of the week and so on next year. Okay. And the goodgiving.net, how'd that work out? The goodgiving.net piece of it? Goodgiving.net seemed to work out pretty well. Not only did it help us out with our process and eliminate a lot of paper, but it allowed the agencies to get the word out about their own agencies and what they do. There's a Donate Now button on that site, so anybody can go to the website and learn more about them. Okay. So positive feedback on goodgiving.net as well. Okay. Okay. Well, I want to thank you guys for all the hard work you did. And it sounds like you guys really took things to heart and are looking for ways to continue to tweak the system. So one final question. Did you have trouble getting people to serve on the committees and the conflicts and that kind of stuff? We had a little bit of difficulty. We had six different meetings because I think we received more applications than we expected to. We received 41 applications. And last year there were 17 total, I believe. So it was a big jump. And in order to accommodate that, we needed more committee members than we expected to need. So there was a bit of a push to try to get enough people to serve on the committees. I think the committees probably reviewed a few more applications than I would have liked to have had them review. They were all reviewing at least six, and most of them reviewed seven. I'd like to drop that down to five next year to make it a little bit more reasonable for them. But everybody did the job. It got done. Well, you guys did a fantastic job. I want to thank you for all your hard work. Thank you. And Council Member Kay has one more. Thank you, Chair. Again, not a question or comment. Really to follow up on your comment, Council Member Myers, about the needs assessment, going forward, I think what we all need to be thinking about is ways to integrate the needs assessment into the evaluation process. So right now, if you look at those, they're called priority needs, funding priorities, but there's no way to differentiate amongst them in terms of the actual relative need one to the other. So in my mind, what we're looking for is a weighted system that reflects the assessment, that reflects the priorities so that when we come up to a decision about a particular agency, it all is done on as rational a basis as possible. So I think that's the work between now and the next year is to make sure we've got an idea about how those needs assessments, what the needs are, and to make some hard decisions about the relative need so that we then are funding those things that really are the most important. Thank you, Chair. And thank you for all your work. Thank you, and that was very well said. We need to wrap up here. Are there any final thoughts? Okay. Do we have a motion to adjourn? Got a motion in a second? All those in favor say aye. That passes. Thank you. We're adjourned. Thank you.