# Social Services & Community Development Committee - October 21, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 21, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3486 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3486?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-10-21 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 15,259 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Social Services & Community Development Committee met on October 21, 2014, at 11:00 a.m., with Ford presiding as Chair. During the meeting, the committee addressed five agenda items, all of which were approved. The committee took 10 motions and votes and heard 6 public comments. The approved agenda items included the Committee Summary, the Partner Agency Funding Process for FY16 with a program name change, BGADD Membership and an audit response regarding the Homecare Program Match, a Workforce Investment & Training Interlocal Agreement, and Items Referred to Committee. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on October 21, 2014: * Ford * Akers * Ellinger * Kay * Lawless * Stinnett * Scutchfield * Myers * Beard * Lane No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Motion to approve 25% of extended social resource program funding allocation to emergency shelters** [timestamp: 0:44:07] Moved by Stinnett, seconded by Ellinger. Passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor: Ford, Akers, Ellinger, Kay, Stinnett, Scutchfield, Myers, Beard, and Lane. **Motion to approve ESR grant target amount based on 1% of prior year's actual revenues** [timestamp: 0:59:01] Moved by Akers, seconded by Ellinger. Passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor: Ford, Akers, Ellinger, Kay, Stinnett, Scutchfield, Myers, Beard, and Lane. **Motion to approve biennial funding process for ESR grants** [timestamp: 1:00:17] Moved by Kaye, seconded by Ellinger. Passed by roll call vote, 4-3. Voting in favor: Ford, Akers, Ellinger, Stinnett. Voting against: Kay, Scutchfield, Myers. This motion will be reconsidered by full council. **Motion to approve announcement of total ESR grant amount in mayor's budget address** [timestamp: 1:02:57] Moved by Stinnett, seconded by Ellinger. Passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor: Ford, Akers, Ellinger, Kay, Stinnett, Scutchfield, Myers, Beard, and Lane. **Motion to approve December 15th deadline for letters of intent** [timestamp: 1:04:05] Moved by Stinnett, seconded by Ellinger. Passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor: Ford, Akers, Ellinger, Kay, Stinnett, Scutchfield, Myers, Beard, and Lane. **Motion to amend bonus points recommendation to 5 points for collaboration and 5 for innovation** [timestamp: 1:06:46] Moved by Akers, seconded by Reniger. Failed by roll call vote, 4-3. Voting in favor: Ford, Akers, Ellinger, Stinnett. Voting against: Kay, Scutchfield, Myers. **Motion to approve 5 bonus points for collaborative applications and 5 for innovation** [timestamp: 1:11:14] Moved by Kaye, seconded by Ellinger. Passed by roll call vote, 4-3. Voting in favor: Ford, Akers, Ellinger, Stinnett. Voting against: Kay, Scutchfield, Myers. **Motion to limit budget link process to department staff and work group** [timestamp: 1:12:22] Moved by Akers, seconded by Beard. Passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor: Ford, Akers, Ellinger, Kay, Stinnett, Scutchfield, Myers, Beard, and Lane. **Motion to separate PSA for BGADD dues and Homecare match** [timestamp: 1:15:07] Moved by Kay, seconded by Akers. Passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor: Ford, Akers, Ellinger, Kay, Stinnett, Scutchfield, Myers, Beard, and Lane. **Resolution 0073-26: Motion regarding amended interlocal cooperative agreement** [timestamp: 1:32:01] Moved by Ford, seconded by Ellinger. Passed by voice vote. All nine members voted in favor: Ford, Akers, Ellinger, Kay, Stinnett, Scutchfield, Myers, Beard, and Lane. The resolution recommends that the mayor not sign the proposed amended interlocal cooperative agreement and that the urban county government take steps to declare Lexington-Fayette County a workforce investment area. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed two significant financial allocations: **Emergency Shelter Programs Grant** A grant of $700,000 was approved under Resolution 0073-26 to fund emergency shelter programs. This funding is to be transferred to the Office of Homeless Prevention and Intervention for administration and implementation. **Extended Social Resource Agencies Appropriation** An appropriation of $3,200,000 was designated for Extended Social Resource Agencies. This target amount was established based on 1% of the prior year's actual revenues. ## Public Comment Several council members raised concerns and offered perspectives on funding allocation and workforce development during the meeting. Council Member Kay addressed a fundamental issue regarding the council's funding priorities [timestamp: 0:23:01]. Kay emphasized the need for clarity on whether the council intends to fund only innovative programs or also ongoing services. Council Member Lane questioned the emergency shelter funding allocation [timestamp: 0:44:07]. Lane expressed concern about allocating 25% of ESR funds to emergency shelters and noted the lack of data supporting this figure. Council Member Stinnett raised concerns about the biennial funding process [timestamp: 1:02:57]. Stinnett expressed worry that a two-year funding cycle could create instability due to annual budget changes and voted against the motion. Council Member Akers proposed an amendment regarding collaboration incentives [timestamp: 1:06:16]. Akers suggested increasing bonus points for collaboration to 10, arguing that collaboration is more important than innovation. The amendment failed. Council Member Clark voiced support for the resolution on workforce development [timestamp: 1:28:52]. Clark stated it is time for Fayette County to take control of workforce training and indicated the issue deserves full council discussion. Council Member Stinnett offered additional perspective on workforce development [timestamp: 1:30:29]. Stinnett argued that the resolution represents only a small part of a larger need to reestablish a workforce development department within the government. ## Contested Items Three items generated significant disagreement during the meeting. **Biennial Funding Process** The body voted on a motion to adopt a biennial funding cycle, which passed 4-3. The close vote reflected member concerns about the impact of annual budget changes on long-term program planning. [timestamp data not provided] **Collaborative Application Bonus Points** An amendment to increase collaboration bonus points from 5 to 10 failed 4-3. Members debated whether such a high incentive might encourage artificial partnerships rather than genuine collaborative efforts. [timestamp data not provided] **Workforce Investment Area Resolution** The resolution to reject the amended interlocal agreement prompted heated discussion. The disagreement centered on whether the committee should allow BGADD additional time to reform or take a firm stance by rejecting the agreement. [timestamp data not provided] ## Committee Summary The committee approved the summary of the September 23, 2014 meeting during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:04:35]. The discussion included a review of the previous meeting's actions and updates on ongoing matters. **Key Participants** The following committee members participated in this discussion: Ford, Ellinger, Kay, Stinnett, Scutchfield, Myers, and Beard. **Outcome** The committee approved the meeting summary. ## Partner Agency Funding Process (FY16) / Change Name of Program [timestamp: 00:05:06] Commissioner Beth Mills presented recommendations for rebranding and restructuring the partner agency funding process. The presentation outlined several key changes to the program's operations and administration. **Proposed Changes** The primary recommendation was to rebrand the partner agency funding process as Extended Social Resource (ESR) Grants. Additional proposals included: * Moving emergency shelter funds to the Office of Homeless Prevention and Intervention * Adopting a biennial funding cycle for the program * Introducing collaborative application incentives to encourage partnerships among agencies **Discussion and Speakers** The agenda item involved discussion among multiple commissioners and staff members, including Mills, Maynard, Kay, Akers, Stinnett, and Clark. The presentation format allowed for examination of the proposed structural and naming changes to the funding mechanism. **Outcome** The recommendations were approved by the body. The decision to rebrand the program as ESR Grants and implement the accompanying operational changes moved forward following the presentation and discussion. ## BGADD Membership, Audit Response – Homecare Program Match [timestamp: 1:14:01] The committee discussed a recommendation to separate the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) for BGADD dues and Homecare match funding. Key speakers in this discussion included Bencz, Kay, Akers, Beard, and Lane. The primary recommendation under consideration was to move Homecare match funds into the Department of Social Services budget. The committee supported this approach, with the rationale that allocating these funds through the Department of Social Services budget would ensure more timely allocation of the Homecare match resources. The discussion centered on improving the administrative process for managing these two distinct funding streams. By separating the PSA and moving the Homecare match into the Department of Social Services budget, the committee sought to address timing and allocation efficiency concerns. **Outcome:** The item was approved. ## Workforce Investment & Training – Interlocal Agreement [timestamp: 1:15:44] The committee reviewed a proposed amended interlocal agreement for the Bluegrass Workforce Investment Board during this agenda item. **Key Speakers and Discussion** The presentation and discussion involved Ford, Akers, Ellinger, Kay, Stinnett, and Clark. **Issues Raised** The committee identified several concerns regarding the agreement: - Governance issues - Conflict of interest matters - Fiscal agent independence **Outcome** The committee approved a recommendation to not sign the agreement as presented. ## Items Referred to Committee [timestamp: 1:32:32] The committee discussed pending items referred from other council members during this agenda item. The discussion centered on two primary matters: increasing commitment to partner agency funding and the proposed reorganization of the Office of Homeless Prevention. Key speakers during this discussion included Ford, Myers, Akers, Ellinger, and Kay. While the specific details of their individual positions and arguments are not available from the meeting record, these five members actively participated in deliberating the referred items. The committee ultimately approved the items referred to committee. This approval concluded the discussion on both the partner agency funding commitment and the Office of Homeless Prevention reorganization proposal. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve recommendation that 25% of extended social resource program funding be allocated to emergency shelters - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve recommendation that the target amount for ESR grants be based on 1% of the prior year's actual revenues - **Motion** — passed (4-3): Motion to approve biennial funding process for ESR grants - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve recommendation that the total ESR grant amount be announced in the mayor's budget address rather than specifying individual awards - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve requirement for letters of intent by December 15th - **Motion** — failed (4-3): Motion to amend recommendation to award 10 bonus points for collaborative applications (replaced with 5 points for collaboration and 5 for innovation) - **Motion** — passed (4-3): Motion to approve recommendation to award 5 bonus points for collaborative applications and 5 for innovation - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve recommendation that budget link process be limited to department staff and work group, not individual agencies - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve budget link recommendation to separate PSA for BGADD dues and Homecare match - **Resolution 0073-26** — passed: Motion to recommend that the mayor not sign the proposed amended interlocal cooperative agreement and that the urban county government take steps to declare Lexington-Fayette County a workforce investment area --- ## Full transcript Music The End ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ Good morning. I'd like to welcome everybody to today's committee of the Social Services and Community Development. This morning is October 21st. Council committee members you have the agenda the first item on our agenda is the committee summary for our meeting on September 23rd Is there a motion to approve? It's a motion by council member Ellinger second by council member Beard any discussion all in favor signify by saying aye motion carries We have three items of working business. The first one is a follow-up on our Towards the end of our last committee meeting. I like to invite Commissioner Beth Mills from the Department of Social Services to come up. We are talking about the partner agency funding process for fiscal year 2016. Welcome Commissioner. Good morning. We will be having a meeting on November 19th at 4 o'clock to where we're going to kick off this year's process. I want to introduce you all to our new administrative officer, Teresa Maynard. A lot of you may know Teresa from her tenure in purchasing and she's going to do the presentation today. There's a number of items that we need the committee to weigh in on and we need answers today so that when we go to the group on the 19th November we'll tell them how to proceed with this year's application. Thank you. Welcome, Theresa. Good morning. As Commissioner Reel said, we've got nine items that we need to get a consensus on today so we'll have all the information we need for the kickoff pre-application meeting on the 19th of November. Commissioner Mills went over them at the end of the last meeting. I'm going to go over them quickly and then to refresh Cheryl's memory on them, and then if anybody has any questions or comments or anything, we'll be glad to elaborate on anything. And the Department of Social Services and the Commissioner have recommended that each of these items be approved from you guys. So the first one, if you – it's a whole five slides. It's not going to be a whole lot. All right. We need to know a number to give the partner agencies, or as we're calling them now, the extended social resource agencies. so they know there's a finite amount of money that's going to be distributed through this process. In the past, for the current year, it was approximately 1% of the total urban county government budget, and if we do a 1% this year, it would be based on the fiscal year 14 budget. Revenue. Revenue. I'm sorry. Excuse me. The second item is to move the emergency housing funds into the Office of Homeless Prevention and Intervention. There are four agencies who currently get money from the extended social resource program that this would apply to, and they are agencies that meet the official definition of emergency shelter, and that would move about 22% of that total ESR funds into the homelessness office, and they would run a concurrent kind of application process with ours, and we would work closely with them to make sure that nobody falls through the cracks, basically. But it just seems like they're a better judge of those kind of programs than we would be. On the third item, we're going to work very closely with Laura Hatfield and Partners for Youth so we don't end up funding an agency or a program more than once out of the ESR budget and for the Partners for Youth budget. We want to make sure that nobody is denied applying, so we're going to work closely. Anybody who applies for both types of grants, we would have the same work group and evaluate those applications together with her process and our process. The fourth one is a big one. We want to move the process to a two-year rather than a biannual process rather than a yearly process. This is very common in the grant world. And we want to make sure that we have better time and better applications and be able to award agencies with a more long-term picture. And this would also be predicated on the fact that the agencies know that the second-year funding would be based on their performance in the first year and allowable funds by the urban county government budget. It's not going to be able to – basically, law has approved that we can do this, that moving it to a two-year process rather than a single-year process. On the fifth item in the mayor's budget address, instead of naming individual agencies and their amounts, we're just going to see if we could just do a lump sum that the total amount awarded that would give us more time in our process to get the applications reviewed and the work groups to be able to do their work and get the allocations nailed down better. So that would give us a few more weeks for that. On the sixth item, that we set a cap on how much each agency can apply for. Right now, it's set at 20% of their total budget of their fiscal year expenditures. And that really provides a bigger advantage to larger agencies, and we like to find a way that would equal, make it more equal for smaller agencies if they don't have as much current year expenditures. On number seven, we're asking that each agency who's going to apply submit a letter of intent by December 15th. This will give us a chance to review their letters, see what they're asking for with their program, and make sure it's applicable to the Division of Social Services, and make sure that it's something we want to be able to fund. These letters will be reviewed by the commissioner, myself, and members from the Social Services Advisory Board, and a director from the Division of Social Services from one of those divisions. on page. Number eight is we want to encourage collaborative applications. We want, like I mentioned earlier with the smaller agencies, you know, they can only, if they can only apply for what's 20% of their expenditures. If they partner with a bigger agency or even two or three agencies together, You know, come up with a program that these agencies can all work together. And if they do file these collaborative applications, should we give some innovation points, extra innovation points, extra points for trying to work together to maybe work on something bigger than an individual agency can do? And the last item we need a consensus on is basically in the budget link meetings, instead of bringing in each of the partner agencies or ESR agencies, those links meetings would be held with the social services staff, basically, and the work group. So you don't have individual agencies in lobbying, basically, in the counseling process that would just be with the social services work groups. So, all right. Those are the nine things. So if you've got any comments or questions, yes, sir. Okay. First up is Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, first I want to say this looks like some good ideas. I just had a couple of minor questions on them. Let's see. I made a couple of notes here. All right. On item number two, it said the amount is currently 22% of total ESR funds. Approximately how many dollars are we talking about? It's about $700,000 this year. It's about $700,000 this year. $700,000? Mm-hmm. Okay. And so the Office of Homeless Prevention and Intervention would then now manage that. Did I misinterpret that, or is that correct? That would be correct, but they would have it. One of the issues we discussed when we set up the Office of Homeless Prevention was not to create a big bureaucracy and keep it small and lean. Do you feel like with the executive director could do this, that would be his primary job to allocate this money, and would he be able to handle it without additional personnel? Yes. There's only a very small number of agencies here in town who can do this type of work. Okay. All right. And we would work closely with him during his process, too. We'd probably run them concurrently. That's what we've been discussing. Okay. His application would be? Yeah, his application would be a whole lot simpler than ours is. Okay. That's good. The other question was using the biannual basis for funding. Would that coincide with council members' terms on council, or could that be actually an alternate, like maybe half in one year and half in the other year, so you don't have them all coming up at one time, or would you have them all come up at once? We did ask law's opinion. Would one council bind another? and they felt like that we could do a two-year process because there will be a caveat in the PSA on available funds and the ability of council to change the amounts. But say an agency has wanted $100,000 for FY16, they would get a $200,000 award, $100,000 for $16,000 and $100,000 for $17,000, depending on available funds. Right. Well, the other question I had, though, is since a biennial is a two-year plan, Would you have, say, half of them in an odd year and half in an even year so that from an administrative standpoint, you would only have half of them coming up for renewal at that time to spread your work product out a little bit? Our plan was to do all of them for two years. You either get money for two years or you don't get funded for two years. That way we don't have any agency not get funded for a year. Okay. Okay, and then on item number seven, I had a question there where it said the LFUCG Department of Social Services may reject an application. And I was just curious, that would just be because it was so totally obvious that maybe this organization didn't qualify, so you don't have to go through the whole process with that. Exactly. They don't have to spend lots of their time and effort completing an application that would, you know, when we got it after the deadline, you know, they wouldn't feel like they'd wasted their time. That if we can see up front this is what they're going to apply for and it doesn't really fit in with the mission, we can let them know before they put a lot of work into it. Okay. Can you give me like three or four good reasons why they would be rejected? I mean, I'd say one of them, they don't have an audited financial statement and things like that. Well, they have to be a 501c3. They have to be registered with the Bluegrass Community Foundation on good giving. The program has to provide an actual service. It can't be passed through just so we give them money, they give somebody else money. It's items like that. We want to make sure that they do fit in with the mission, that it's not just public education, that it's actually a social service. Okay, so in essence, if they don't meet one of these qualifications, they would never be qualified anyway. So that sounds good. That limits the work and keeps these agencies from having to file when they don't even have a chance. Yeah, and we plan to let them know, you know, like have the letters due December 15th and let them know by January 15th so they don't spend a lot of their time and effort for something they're not going to be approved for. All right, very good. I just have one other question on number eight. if agencies are going to be collaborative on a single program, how do you designate responsibility for managing that program? Somebody would have to be a lead manager. We will have something in the we're going to probably have a separate application for the collaborative process, and we would have to have, you know, name all the programs, who will be the financial agent, which are the agencies. You know, sometimes if it's two or three small agencies with a larger agency, they may be more capable in the financial distribution of stuff. Yeah, one agency would have to take the lead on that type of things in a collaborative application. Well, good. Well, I'm very impressed. Your answers were great. I think this is a good move in the future, so I'm supporting what you've recommended here. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Lane. Next is Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. Back to number two again. In addition to the $500,000 that has been allocated for the homeless, this amount that will be created is going to be what? I mean, tell me how it's going to work. It's actually, the money is already there. It's already in the partner agency ESR program now. It's just the applications for what's termed by definition emergency shelter. Those applications and a much simpler application for emergency shelter would be handled by that office and working in concert with us. Yeah. So it's actually funds that are already, would be already in the partner agency program. It's just it's going to help those agencies who do do emergency shelter with a smaller application and separate from the other partner agencies because they have a different definition of their service. So agency number one needs to buy 100 cots. they come to our homeless office to get the money to do so they write you a letter and you buy them you buy them being i mean how how is that going to work i guess in the real world yeah they would get an annual amount of funds and we've talked to charlie lanter about this For example, we may give the Hope Center $200,000 or $300,000 right now to do shelter. That $200,000 or $300,000, they would get that once a year, and Charlie would tell them these are allowable expenses out of that $200,000 or $300,000. You've got one year to spend it. But it would be Charlie Leonard and his office making those decisions on shelter only since we feel that that's more homeless. And I would consider it like a budget amendment. We're just going to, of the whole pot for ESR grants, we're going to carve out the shelter money, transfer that to Charlie Leonard, and he will set the parameters for expenditures and they'll get an annual award or a biannual award if you all want to go that way. And then he can say whether cots are allowed or whether, you know, it will be his decision to manage those things. That's the way we do now. Quarterly they send us an invoice and a report. This is what we spent your money on. And we do that with all our partner agencies, and Charlie's would be similar. Is that what you were asking? Well, that's partially what. It just seems a little laborious. And there's only one Charlie out there. Well, and like we said, his application would be a whole lot simpler. And the way we're planning it, we would run all the applications at the same time. So we'd make sure that nothing's getting double funded or anything like that. So it just seems like that it's just more of a natural fit with that office than with ours. If there needs to be a fit at all, I guess is the question. Right, yeah. I mean, because, you know, we've gone now since 1974 doing it another way. We can keep it. It's just something we thought you all might want to consider, especially reviewing their applications, that they might be a better judge than a working group in social services. That may be. It just doesn't feel exactly right to me. I can't really argue one way or the other on it, but as of seeing it right now for the first time, it just doesn't feel kind of a feel good to me at this point. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Council Member Beer. Any further discussion? We now have Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. The one thing that I'd mentioned last time was the question about whether we are funding innovative programs or we are funding ongoing programs. I don't see anything in the recommendations one way or the other. Have you thought about that? Especially with the collaborative applications, we figured that would be a really good place for innovation, for new programs, for new partnerships, and that's why we wanted to reward that with some extra bonus points. The scoring rubric gives a bonus for innovation. And the scoring rubric that we already used that Craig put into place last year already has points for innovation. Okay. I'm still interested in having the council actually address this question because I think it's fundamental. Part of what the difficulty that we get into in the awarding of these funds is that agencies come and say, we're doing something that's absolutely necessary, even though it's not innovative. And then we're inclined to say, well, let's see if we can find some money for that. But we started having this discussion, but we've never really, I think, finished it. The intent, when we changed some of the ways in which these funds were allocated, was to specifically fund only innovative programs, not ongoing programs. But we still have a hybrid. We still have people who are coming forward with essentially continuation of what they do, which may be very valuable and important to the community, but it doesn't answer the fundamental question, is that what we want to fund or not? And, you know, I don't have a strong feeling that we ought to do one or the other, but I think we ought to be clear. And I guess I'm really speaking to council and not to the administration at this point, but I think council needs to be clear. Do we want to fund only innovation? Do we want to fund innovation and ongoing programs? Do we want to fund only ongoing programs? and if so that ought to be reflected in the process and so far I'm not comfortable with where we are with that thank you chair thanks council member Kay next is council member Akers thank you chair in the rubric I guess that we approved last year or implemented last year it gave bonus points for addressing one of four specific issues or a combination of those is that still part of the process yes it is I think we I believe Commissioner Mills mentioned last month that we had the six basic. That's fine. I know what they are. I remember basically. So, yes, we've not made any changes to that as of yet. Okay. But if, you know, the council points us in that direction, we certainly will. And I like the word, the language that you use, the innovation points. I think that that's really smart and encourages innovation and collaboration. And I think that it's important for our agencies to step outside of their own programming and collaborate because not one agency can do everything. And so I think that it's beneficial to our residents as well as to the agencies to be able to cross-serve. and I think it's to Councilmember Kaye's point I don't know that we could again it is up for discussion I suppose necessarily terminate funding for ongoing programs or make that decision but I do think that we need to discuss it because it's we don't want agencies to be dependent upon our funding exactly and I know that that was the intent to begin with and I agree with that But at the same time, we can't do it all either, and so that's why we have these partner agencies to help us. And we certainly intend on the pre-application meeting on the 19th, which is a mandatory for anybody who's going to apply, that we stress that these are grants. These are not ongoing funding. And we're hoping with moving to a biannual process that it will stress that you need to get us a good application, and we can stress that we are looking for innovation. And with the reduction of moving the emergency shelter funding from this program to Charlie's House and the Office of Homelessness and Intervention, I mean, are we reflecting that in the budget then for these other remaining agencies? For example, what we provided last year, will it be reduced by that $700,000? Yes, yes, yes. Okay. Because if we kept the programs, it would still be the same amount of money. If we kept the emergency shelter programs, it would be the same amount of money to go to the other agencies. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Council Member Akers. Council Member Lane. I just have one follow-up question. I'll go back to item number two again. That has to do with the Office of Homeless Prevention and Intervention. Whoops. And I think that's my other question is I believe that we've already funded that department by $750,000. So will the additional $700,000 that comes from your agency mean they'll have $1.45 million to spend? Would that be their budget then? Yes. Yes, that would be. Okay. Yeah. All right. Thank you. It will be done by budget amendment, I believe. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Chair. Just to follow up on that piece, you said, are you all wanting to move 700,000 to the Office of Homelessness or looking at our 1% moving to 22% because it's a big difference in those two numbers? It's 22% of whatever the number you all agree on to give us. You want us to agree 22%, not 21, not 25. You think 22 is the magic? I mean, we need to come up, to me, we need to have a little more science behind this. We will transfer whatever you all think is appropriate. We're just saying it's currently this year's program is 22% of this year's program. Right. Well, that's what I'm asking. I'd like a recommendation from you all. What do you think is appropriate? Because we may want to expand emergency services, for instance. We make shelter. There may be those. Yeah, this is just shelter. These are just pure shelter homes. So I think you don't have the answers today, but I think we need to come up with a better way to say exactly how much we want to put into the office. Those agencies can compete for that amount versus making it 20% of whatever we put to everybody else. If we can do that, I would be a little more supportive of trying to get that to that office. Well, again, that goes back to the question of innovation. Would you consider emergency shelter an innovative program? It's more an essential service. Yeah, it's more an essential service. Yeah, and that's what I mean. We may want to put more money towards an essential service versus saying we're going to do 22% of 1%. If the other grants, we're going to do more innovation, yeah. I think 20 to 25 is a good goal. Commissioner said she believed 20 to 25 is a good goal. Percent of the 1%? Of the total. Of the total granted to the entire program. That's a quarter of the budget. Yeah. Okay. And then, again, tell me the rationale behind the buy-in. Does it make it easier on staff? Is that just what? Well, it makes it easier not just to have it on the agencies, too. It's a pretty big application, and it's a very common time period in the grants world. A lot of these agencies are used to a biannual program or even longer for grants. United Way is three years. Yeah, United Way is three years, for example. And it would just help agencies write a better application, plan better. It would help us. Yeah. The one thing I'd like to say to that, anyone in the social service world, particularly if you're doing something innovative, excuse me, it's very hard to start year one, get your staff in place, and start the program and finish it and then go, okay, now we're going to start again. It takes a good two or three years, especially if you're going to do something new, is to see what works. You know, you want to change it along the way. Actually, a two-year grant, it's easier for them for application. It's easier for us scoring and making the decision, but in the long run, it's hard to run a social service program in one year. It's easier to run it in two, and if you need to make amendments along the way, you're better fitted, unless it's something that's ongoing. Shelter's shelter. But if you're going to do something collaborative or something new, it takes a little while to figure out how to do it. So in that two-year period, if a new need arised in the community, we wouldn't be able to fund them, except we'd have to wait 24 months, basically. They would. But not everybody in the community gets city funding. We can't fund everyone. Sure, sure. We would just exclude a new opportunity that we have each year now to that. All right. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Council Member Stennett. I'll ask if we can invite Council Member Clark into the discussion, and then we'll come back to Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Chair. I'm not a member of the committee, but interested in the topic, obviously. And I like all the ideas, and I have some questions. Okay. I particularly like the two-year idea, and I think I've already told the commissioner that. I think it makes a lot of sense. Going back to two, I don't know why we're all focused on two, but several questions. How do the agencies feel about this? Have you talked to them about how they would feel about this? Not yet. I mean, it would be something. We have one of them here. If you'd like to hear from her, Janice, we're still comfortable. No? if you wanted to. Someone from the Hope Center. Yes. Sure. I'm always willing to put somebody on the spot. If she's willing to take the spot. Yeah, right. Welcome, Janice. If you would just reintroduce yourself for us, we'd appreciate it. Janice James, Administrative Deputy Director of the Hope Center. And, of course, I've not been approved to speak by Cecil for this, but I think it's a great idea, the idea that it is an essential service. It's saving people's lives. It's getting people in and out of the cold and the hot. I don't think it should be up for debate each year. I think y'all had to deal with this with both Salvation Army and the Hope Center regarding the basic services. And you can have all the innovative programs in the world, but you still have people that need to be saved before you can introduce them to those innovative programs. So I think it's – Yeah, I like it in homeless because it's a different ballgame. As you'll recall, basic needs doesn't get the three bonus points of the programs. So they're always at a disadvantage. It's one of the reasons we didn't score high enough last year because we're basically getting people in to try to save them and keep them healthy. And then we all have programs that lead them to self-sufficiency. And the model that's currently based for the social services is a model to promote self-sufficiency. This, the emergency services, is to rescue people. So I think it's a good idea. You probably wouldn't mind a simpler application either. Application I don't mind. It's this debate each time about whether there's going to be, I mean, if you'll know, Hope Center and Salvation Army and, or I'm sure we all have other resources that we add to support emergency services, It's just that this provides some buy-in from city government to help support these citizens. So I think it's a good idea. Thanks. Good. I appreciate that. And so help me understand, these agencies would not have to apply. It would be automatic. No, they would still have to apply. That's what I understood. Okay. So they would go through the same process. It would be a different process, but probably run concurrently with a much simpler application. Okay. Because the application would apply only to emergency shelter. I understand that. That's my questions. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Council Member Clark. Now we have Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. So I'm also on the two-year funding. I think that it may be easier for the hope centers of the world to think about shifting from a one-year focus to a two-year focus, but I wonder about the other agencies and whether they're coming to a meeting very shortly. And I suppose they'll hear if we make a decision in that regard, but that means that they have to think about now a two-year cycle. and they won't have an opportunity next year to apply for additional funds. So they have to think about what they want to do now. And if they have only a one-year project, I know that mostly they don't, but if they did have a one-year project, that would not be eligible. Well, that's one reason we would like to be able to extend all the application dates by not announcing awards in the mayor's budget address, but just in general here's how much money is going to go to the program. And that gives us more time because we're going to move the application date to maybe March 1st to write a better application to adjust any plans they may have had for a one-year request to make it a two-year. And it gives us more time to evaluate maybe a better proposal. So that's one reason we want to move, not have to announce the amounts of awards until later in the budget process. Okay, but just, again, to be clear, it would be two years, two years only. Next year, we would not be in the position of setting up the entire apparatus. We would simply be coming back and saying the second year of funding is the default position. And with the money that would go to the Office of Homelessness, essentially what we're saying about that is that we believe the government ought to be providing support for shelter services. We know it's an essential service. We're going to peg it at a certain level. those four agencies will then make application for some portion of those funds. A simpler application process, not et cetera. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Council Member Kaye. Council Member Akers. Thank you for letting me come back around. Okay, so about the two years, I understand and appreciate it coming from the nonprofit world myself of the difficulty in starting a program, getting it going, you know, getting the funding, maybe hiring the staff, and then showing outcomes, demonstrating those outcomes in 12 months is difficult. But I am concerned that perhaps we're leaving out good programs or excluding them from that funding opportunity. But how does this also play into the budget? What if, this year we fund $3 million and next year we only have two? That will be in all the purchase service agreements and they will understand, we'll make sure that's clear up front that the second year is always based on the urban county government budget. Yes. You don't want to say there's no guarantee for the second year, but if the revenues are down, we can't afford it. we would have some put some sort of process in place to be able to. So the allocations are annually. They'll just be doubled. I guess the whole grant, let's say you're requesting $200,000, but $100,000 per year, you'll get $100,000 per year. And so the cost of the program can only be that annual amount, I guess. So they shouldn't plan to spend $200,000 over the course of two years. Yes, we're not going to give them the whole amount up front. You'll get your first year's allocation and then July 1st to the next fiscal year, the second year. And, Beth, have you all talked to the agencies? And I'm sure they've been involved in these conversations and they, you know, understand and are okay with working in that way. I think, Siobhan, you're going to have people like it both ways. People are used to two- and three-year awards, but then there are some people that like the one-year award. But the two- and three generally, like, you know, when you get federal grants, they're guaranteed for that two or three. or you know that you have a million dollars over five years. And the thing to keep in mind, we're not supposed to be the sole funder of any program. Our 20% should not be the make or break of this program. If it is, we're not the funding source for you. A federal grant sometimes, they're going to give you $800,000, and they intend, except for your match, for that to be your whole program amount. Remember that our grants are seed money. Our eyes are supplemental to what they're already doing. Okay, thank you. And then one more, back to what I mentioned earlier, the six, not qualifications, but categories of service. Yes. I found them from the last month's meeting. And are these, I guess maybe to the chair, or are these set in stone? Are these up for debate? Are we able to make changes to these? Could you share those with us, Council Member Breakers? Thanks for bringing that. are basic human needs, mental health and substance abuse services, positive youth development, public health services for senior citizens, and violence prevention. Yes. And that was page 26 of last month's packet, if you have that. So have we, as council, approved these? These were from last year's process. Two years ago. I'm sorry, two years ago. Are they open for discussion this year is my question. The committee always has the discretion and the opportunity to discuss them. I guess the question would be, is it the basis of the department to use those going forth? We just need to know by the time we have the meeting on November 19th. Okay, I'll just, I guess, say what my one concern is. I mean, I know that we have very limited funds and understand that and appreciate that. And so when I looked at some of the agencies and programs that we funded in the past, some of them I thought were maybe more necessary than others or more important as a government for us to support, and maybe some that were not under the purview of local government. Specifically, I guess, was public health. And I remember that we funded some diabetes education and maybe some breast cancer programming. I really don't remember the specifics. But so I just wondered if we could, I mean, and I guess, again, it's a discussion we should have of where our priorities are and what we deem is most important to fund with such limited resources. And, you know, and not that I'm against public health. Let's just make sure we know that. And, you know, and I want all, you know, screenings for everyone for breast cancer, of course. But if we, you know, with limited funds, we really need to narrow it down to what we really need to fund and should be funding. And so I just would like to see what the committee thinks about that. And that can also be part of the letter of intent process. Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Council Member Breakers. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Chair. And I think we have a lot of good questions going on today, and I appreciate this is a good start to give us some ideas to debate. But on the first example, number one, first item, first of all, it was 1% of our general fund budget. I want to make sure people don't think it's our entire budget just because that's $506 million, and that would be $5 million. That would be pretty nice, actually. That would be pretty good. But I think that's going to become a big obstacle if we go by percentage for a biannual budget because we don't know what our general fund is. It could go down one year. It could go up one year. We don't know what that amount will be by November 19th. The issue we're going to have on November 19th, we want to make sure that all the agencies are aware that there's a finite amount of dollars. We're subject to y'all. Yes, subject to whatever you all want us to tell them, but we've got this much money. Until we pass the budget on June 12th of next year, we don't know. So it'd be nice to say we're going to do a minimum of what we did last year, but the council could change, and they may not want to do that much. What we can do at the meeting is tell them what we had for this fiscal year. That's what I was going to recommend. I would use that as a base. Yeah, we can certainly do that. And it could go up. It could go down, especially if we use a 1% measurement, because we have had general funds go down. Yeah, we have. As we did in 08 and 09. 3.2 million. Yeah, it was 3.2 million this year. And, Chair, I don't know if you want motions right now on some of these items today. I do. I'd like to get one out there and go ahead on number two, make a motion that we look at funding. whatever we allocate for our social partner agencies that do 25% to emergency shelters. Okay. So moved. 25%? The motion by Council Member Stenet is 25% of extended social resource program funding to go towards emergency shelters. There was a second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there a discussion from the committee? Hearing none, all in favor signify by please by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? That motion carries. Aye. What I would like to do, and thanks, Council Member Senate, for starting us off with the actions. Let's go back up to number one, and let's just go down these if we can. But before we get there, I think this is very important. And Teresa, if you could go to the last slide to give us the schedule, and then we'll come back to all of the action items. And the reason I'm going to ask you to do that is comprehensively, it appears that your schedule, your proposed tentative schedule, of course, is based upon the incorporation of most, if not all, of these recommendations. Oh, another button. Sorry. There we go. And this may change based on our action today. But this extends, especially the application deadline. That's a real change. It used to be mid-January. So you can see that gives agencies a much, for us, larger time period to get their applications in. Okay. And then the recommendations. Talk about what happens in May. Of course, the mayor presents his budget generally the second week in April. And if we don't have to have exact figures for each agency, then that gives us more time with the work groups to get the percentages right, to review the applications, to have more time to spend with the agencies for their presentations, and finally get a better handle on things to give to you guys for the budget process. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Teresa. Committee, let's go back up to number one. If you can go back to the slide, please. and this is the target, the fiscal year 2015 appropriation was $3.2 million, just a little bit above that. I'll open the floor for further discussion and our motion on this item. Council Member Kaye. I believe this probably does not require a motion that essentially is guidance. And from the conversation, I think people are comfortable saying a target that's close to what we allocated last year in terms of percentage of the general fund budget and leave it at that. But if somebody wants to make a motion, that's okay, but I don't think we need it. Thank you, Chair. Okay. Okay. All right. Number three, well, with that said, are there any further reservations about any of the remaining action items that's been requested by the department? Council Member Akers. Can the department move forward with their future meetings with the partner agencies without knowing a specific amount regarding number one? That's my question. Yes, we can say here's the amount we are distributing this year. We hope, you know, at the meeting every year we say this is the funds we have available. and Sally comes in and says, this is all the funds we have available. And then we come back in this chamber and it's added to every single year because this council wants to do that with fund budgets. But what we like to tell them is, because when they're planning their budget, we don't want them ask for the moon and the stars, some of the big agencies. So what we would do is we could say, last year we awarded $3.2 million. And our estimation, that's what we're going to have this year, less 25%. And Charlie will be at the meeting. And Charlie's going to have X number of dollars. And then we'll do the subtraction. So everyone except for the shelter agencies will compete for X dollars. And then we'll say, of course, this is what will be recommended through our process, but that's subject to amendment by the mayor and the council. And that's probably as good as we're going to get, I think, Siobhan. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Council Member Akers. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I have a reservation about number six. Okay. and it's a little bit related to the issue I've already raised about the question of innovation. Okay. It seems to me that if we are asking agencies to submit their best notions of what they can and cannot do, that those applications ought to stand on their own merit. And I understand the issue about the larger agencies and their capacity, but if they have the capacity to deliver a better program, we ought to be funding that. So I'm not comfortable with a cap. I'd be more comfortable with it, I guess, if the amount of extra credit for innovation were boosted. And so that might give a smaller agency program a little bit more likelihood of being funded. But I think what that cap suggests is that we're really not clear about what we really do want to fund and not fund. So I'm inclined to support that at this point. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Council Member McKay. Oh, what about amount of programs that any agency can? I feel the same way. It seems to me we're either funding the best that the community can provide or we're funding programs that exist because they exist. And I'm much more comfortable funding the best that we can provide. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Council Member Kaye. Committee members, for us to, the recommendation I would have for the committee, going back to the top of the list, is for clarity and directive and endorsement of the department's recommendation. I know it may be repetitive, but I think motions will be in order to allow clarity. is there a motion to approve recommendation number one in regards to the targeted revenue available? Is there a motion? I'll make the motion. Council Member Akers thinks there's a motion. Is there a second? Is there a second? And I guess I'll click. I'll second it. Yeah, I guess I'll specify that the target amount will be based on what was funded last year, and the agencies will be aware that that may be reduced based on the budget. Yep. Thanks very much. So moved. And, Council Member, thank you, Council Member Akers, for her motion. Thanks to Council Member Ellinger for his second, which does allow discussion. Again, motion and second takes us to discussion. There's further discussion on the motion. Council Member Ellinger? I guess that was my question. When she was trying to clarify what the motion was, does that mean it's going to be our goal will be 1% of the total budget? Is that what you're? Or what be equal to last year's allocation if that fits with what we have in revenue. Okay. Or on the FY14 revenues. Okay. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Chair. I've already kind of indicated. I didn't think a motion was necessary, but I don't think it's harmful, except the language right now says the total target amount to be awarded, and I believe that's misleading. I think if we're going to pass a motion on this, it should say the total target amount for not to be awarded, the total target mark for all programs. Okay. It's based on the figure we used last year, 1% of the total general fund budget. If available. Thank you. I agree. Is the committee, Councilman Rakers, you okay with that? Yes. And the way that Stacey typed it on the motion of progress, I think, is pretty good, too, the way that she summarized it. And so the directive to the department will be projected target 1% of what was adopted in fiscal year 15, which was 3.2 million. Any further discussion? Hearing none, I'll, oh, I'm sorry. Council Member K and then Council Member Stenet. You okay? Great. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Chair. I just, I'm a little uncomfortable giving them a number. I think they should just apply. I don't understand why they really need a number in order to apply for a grant. I just hate promising something we may not be able to deliver come budget time. I think it puts us in a bad spot. And I won't support this because I think it needs to be set during the budget by the mayor when he delivers to the council. I think that could be a target. I just don't understand why they need to know how much we have available. And we also need it when we get into the process to know how much we've got to spend. I still think we're going to have an issue if we set this amount. That's just my opinion. I've been through enough budgets to know it changes every time, no matter what, and sometimes for the worse. Thanks, Council Member Stenick. Council Member Ellinger. I think that's kind of what I was asking earlier. So if we're looking fiscal year 16, which we don't know exactly what that number is going to be, and we set the 1%, we're not really sure what that 1% is going to be. So I guess how are we supposed to know November and to know for July? That's true. That's why it was suggested we base it on the FY14 numbers. We're wanting to hopefully grow in. I guess that's where my question comes in. We're at 1% in the. Thanks, Council Member Billigre. Council Member Kay. So it seems like there's some practical problems. The committee that will be working on making the decisions about allocations needs a target. They need to have a number that says we've got a million bucks, and we have got 12 agencies, and we've got to allocate it over that. And we're not comfortable certainly not setting that in stone, but... We can pay... So, and I'm not, it's not, here comes help. Oh, dear. Commissioner. May I make a suggestion, Council Member? I understand the need for a goal, but I also understand the need for the mayor to look at all parts of the budget when bringing forward a recommendation to the council. So might we consider this to be a goal that is going to be recommended to the mayor in putting together the budget? So there's a recommendation to the mayor through this process, and it would be 1% of the prior year's actual revenues, not the current year's budget because we don't know whether we're going to make that or not, not the budget that is yet to be developed because we don't know what that number is. So the only real true number, if council wants it to be a sliding function of revenues, would be the prior year's actual. And, Commissioner, that would be fiscal, for clarity, that would be fiscal year 14. Chair, I think I'm still, if I'm still on the floor, a question for Bill. It's right off the top of my head, so it may not make any sense at all. However, would it make sense to do the allocation process based on that target figure and then take all of those allocations and reduce them to a percentage so that you knew you were going to get a percentage, a relative percentage, which would add up to 100% of whatever the target is, target changes, then your funding goes up or down a little bit. That's the way we figure it. Yeah, that's exactly the way it's deliberated every year. We say this agency gets, we have this tier gets 85%, this 75%, and it adds up to the total. And then if it changes, they would still get 85% of the new total, 75, 65. We've been doing that for four years anyway. We just need a number to start with. And then if we don't have that number, and then when council adds money, we go back to those percentages that were awarded by the funding committee. So we're already using that process. The only thing we're saying is we need a number to start with. Gotcha. Well, given all that, it seems to me that we need to give them a target. So I would support the motion. Okay. Thank you, Council Member Kay. Council Member Lange. Thank you. Yeah, I think that I would like not to have a budget or a percentage that we ought to allocate that on a year-to-year basis because, number one, it is the prerogative of the council to set the budgets each year. And if we, you know, set a number and we really don't know what our revenues are going to be in the coming year or the needs in the coming year, I think that just is a limiting thing to do. And we'd be a lot better off just to budget it annually. Thank you. We can certainly say that it's anticipated or estimated. All right. We're not going to walk you into an exact dollar figure. Thanks, Councilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Council Member Lane. Next is Council Member Elliger for discussion. Thank you, Chair. I was kind of on the same breath that Council Member Kay was, and I think we had to put a placeholder in, and just for hypotheticals, say it was $3 million, and the mayor came back with 2.7, then it's a 10% decrease, and I think you can then decrease everything 10%. Basically, yes. And that's kind of, I think it's what we're doing here. Or if you increase it. Exactly. If it's 3.3, then everybody gets a 10% bump. Exactly. Exactly. Thank you. Thanks, Council Member Ellinger. Seeing no further discussion, is the committee ready to take a vote on the motion? All in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay, we'll try to run through these pretty quickly, committee, but room for discussion if there's motions to be made. Number three. Move approval. So moved by Council Member Kay. Is there a second? Second. Second by Council Member Akers. Recommendation on number three. Any discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries. Number four may generate more discussion. Application on a biennial process. Is there a motion to approve this recommendation? recommendation. Is there discussion on this recommendation? I move approval. Second. There's a motion by Council Member Kaye, second by Council Member Elliger for approval. Further discussion? Is there discussion? Hearing none, all in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Can we out ask for a electronic vote? Council members, committee members can log in. We have seven committee members present. Has everybody voted? Thanks. Thanks, Ed. Thanks. We have seven. That recommendation passes on a vote of four to three. I'm sorry, Chair. So I was on the prevailing side. I'm a little bit uncomfortable having this be a 4-3 vote on something that's pretty crucial. I wonder if we could have to go to council? Yes, sir. It still has to go to council. Okay. We have to just move it to council. Yeah, okay. So I'll just say that I voted yes. I'm interested in hearing what the full council has to say. We'll have a little bit more time to think about this. We might hear from some of the agencies about how they think about it as well. So that's just a comment, and I won't call for a reconsideration. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member McKay. That's well noted for further discussion once it gets to full council. Number five is basically, if I can, Commissioner, let me summarize this very quickly. In years past, we've had recommendations and agencies have had figures presented to them before the mayor presented his budget. And what this action would allow for is for the opposite to occur. The mayor will present what the sum total will be for ESR grants, and then the final recommendations will come subsequent to that. Yes. gives us more time for the application process and for the evaluation process. Okay. Councilman, thank you. Councilmember Stenet. Thank you, and I appreciate doing it this way. I like that. But I will go back to number four and say on the biannual issue, most of those agencies that grant biannually or every three years also have a biannual budget. We don't. We have an annual budget, and that's where I'm uncomfortable with doing an over-two-year process because that dollar amount will change. I guarantee it. It will change. So that's why I voted no, but I do like this on budgeting. So I'll make a motion to approve number five. Thank you, Council Member Stenner. There's a motion. There's a second by Council Member Ellinger. Discussion? All in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. Number six is going to set a cap on funding. Council Member Kay has already spoken to his insight on this. Is there further discussion or is there a motion? Hearing no motion, we will set that action item aside. Number six will be set aside. Number seven is to require a letter of intent by December 15th for interested applicants. Is there a motion? Second. Motion by Council Member Stenick, second by Council Member Ellinger. Discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? That recommendation carries. Okay. Number eight, Teresa, I'm going to ask for your guidance again on number eight. What is the ask? We really want to encourage agencies to band together, a large agency with two, one, two, three, four smaller agencies, to come up with new programs, new ideas. And we want to potentially give them extra credit for doing so. And this is going to give the smaller agencies more power dealing with a bigger fiscal agent. And it's going to hopefully, like I said, create some innovation because they can get together and decide on a whole new programs. And we're really going to push this at the pre-application meeting. If approved. Yes, of course, if approved. We have a question by Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. My question is points to be awarded. I support the idea, and I support the idea of bonus points. Right now, the bonus points for innovation is what, five points? Yes, it's five. On a scale of one to what's the total number of points possible, 100 or 140? 140. So you're proposing five points for? We could do five for innovation, five for collaboration. Yeah, five for innovation, five for collaboration. I would so move. There's a motion. Is there a second? Second. Second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there a discussion? I think Council Member Akers, would you like to speak to discussion? Yes, I would. Thank you. I would like to see actually more points given for collaboration versus innovation, because I think that that really is important in our community. So I would like to propose an amendment, I suppose, of 10 points for collaboration versus five. There's a motion to amend. Is there a second? For discussion, Councilman Reniger makes a second. Discussion to the amendment. Before we get to discussion, it's been requested to restate your amended motion. Yes. I move to provide 10 points for agencies that collaborate with another agency, so submit a joint application, more than one agency in an application. And then it would be five, I guess, for innovation, although I'm not sure what we're judging innovation on. So I'm a little hesitant on that. I'm really just concerned about the collaboration. That's what I would really like to encourage that highly. And so that's why I would like to see that raised a little bit. Thank you. Thanks. And we're speaking to the amendment. to the amendment, Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Chair. I'm a little concerned that that much of an additional bonus points would essentially take anybody who submitted a collaborative proposal, I would put them at the top. Given the difference between the programs that were awarded last year and were not, or were in the top tier and were not, were less than 10 points, I mean, they're kind of bunched. So I support a collaboration, but I'm concerned that we don't want all the applications to come in as collaborative and taking things that don't make sense as collaboration, and they're going to kind of feel like they have to kind of put them together in order to get these 10 points. And I'd be interested in your collective wisdom on that, your thoughts about it. We're going to have to develop a whole new application for collaboration, because what we did, we tried to do it last year informally and didn't work. So if you're going to do a collaborative application, you're going to even have to file a different kind of application because of the things that we asked for in there. Since it's the first year, I don't know how much we want to award as a bonus because it's kind of experimental. But we can sit down and talk about the issues we had last year when agencies tried to join hands. It won't fit for everybody, but suppose you wanted to do something, for example, childhood obesity is your issue that you want to face. You could have a food program in there, you could have an exercise program in there, and you could add a homework program in there. So you would have three different agencies that are addressing childhood obesity. But the application is going to have to look different. So since it's new, I don't want to give a whole lot of points for it because, well, that would be my preference. Thanks, Council Member Kaye. Is there further discussion to the amendment? Yes, sir. Council Member Blaine? Yeah, it applies to the amendment and to the original motion. It's just that, to me, bonuses are sort of subjective and very difficult to add on. So you have to have a more complex process. And, for example, in collaboration, there might be only one agency that does something, and they could never collaborate with anybody. but there may be three or four agencies that do the same thing, that they could collaborate. I think you muddy the water up too much and make it a more difficult process when you start trying to give bonus incentives to do this or do that. So that's just my thought. Okay. Thanks, Council Member Lane. Voting to the amendment to increase it to 10 points. All in favor? All opposed? That amendment doesn't pass. Going back to the original motion, Council Member McKay, if you could kindly restate that motion for us, please, sir. Thank you, Chair. It's pretty much as it's stated with the addition of the five points as the bonus for collaborative applications. Okay. Discussion to the motion with the amendment. Voting on the amendment, all in favor? Aye. Opposed? No. If we can sign in, log in rather for a vote. That amendment passes. that motion to amend passes. Now let's take a vote on the action item itself as amended. Final discussion. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? And let's log in for a final vote on the action item. Okay. And it passes again, 4-3. Okay. Okay. And the last action item is the budget link process, which will allow, it won't allow for individual agencies to come in and meet with the committee as we did this last year. Council Member Beard and I and Council Member Akers dedicated a full day meeting some 20 agencies. Of course, that was a process that was available, but this turns the discussion more to the department staff and the funding group to rationalize with the budget link. Yes. Is there a motion? Motion by Council Member Akers. Is there a second? Second by Council Member Beard. Discussion or questions? Hearing none, all in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. I think we've gone through the list. There was one item that was set aside, which is number six, which is the cap. There are two items, the collaboration and the biennial that will have further discussion when this goes to Council. I want to thank Commissioner Mills and Teresa, welcome. for your hard work. We've made a lot of progress. I won't belabor the committee at this time on what we've done, but we've come a long ways in regards to our partner, excuse me, our extended social resource programs. So thank you. Thank you again. Thank you, committee. Committee, the next item is a recommendation that was forwarded by a link of the budget process this past year. I'm going to turn the floor over to Craig Benz, our staffer, to introduce this item and prepare us for discussion and a vote. There's a memo and supporting information starting on page 13 of your packet related to separating the PSA for the bluegrass add into two separate PSAs, and that would be, those two separate PSAs would be for dues and for the home care match, respectively. This was a fiscal year 15 general services and finance and social services budget link recommendation and really that recommendation resulted from a delay in the adoption of the PSA with the bluegrass ad that held home care funds from being released for about 10 months later than 10. With separating the agreement staff would also recommend moving funds for the home care program match into social services. And please note that the fiscal year 15 PSA has been approved already. So any action that you would take related to this today would be effective for the fiscal year 16 PSA. Thank you, Craig. Are there any questions or requested clarity by the committee. Is there a motion to approve this Lincoln recommendation? So moved. It's a motion by Council Member Kay. Second. Second by Council Member Akers. Is there a discussion? All in favor? Aye. All opposed? That motion carries. And, Commissioner, we hope that will be an assistance to you and your aging staff working with the folks over at Bluegrass Ad. Thank you. The last item on the agenda, committee members, starts on page 39 of your packet. And we've studied this issue. I hope that you have had the opportunity to read the memo and the timeline that I've offered to the committee. We've been studying this issue in this committee for the last two years, going back to November of 2012. And I think that we've taken several steps to try to engage not only the Bluegrass Workforce Investment Board, but also have a better understanding of the ad. we were visited by members of the ad, I think at our last committee meeting, if I recall, in regards to the request for us to amend the interlocal agreement that we, the existing interlocal agreement, we voted on in the summer of 2013, and that was after almost three-year hiatus based on our reservations to signing. The resolution that I brought forward is a resolution of the council to recommend to the mayor and to the administration not to sign and execute the amended interlocal agreement that has been presented by Bluegrass Ad. if the committee will allow me from the chair, I'll turn over the chair to Council Member Akers if that's okay, and I'll kindly make this motion to send this resolution to council. So moved. Second. Second by Council Member Ellinger. Is there discussion on the motion? I'll lend some discussion just finally as it's already been stated. Council Member Lane has signed in. Okay, I realized there were some issues with the operation of the Bluegrass Ad, but they seem to have totally reorganized their operations and restructuring the management and financial controls. So I I'm just wondering if this is a good strategy to change our relationship with them and not give them an opportunity to make amends. And let me just say that they're not the only organization. I mean, our airport got criticized, and we've had the library got criticized, and we have worked with those organizations to let them go through a restructuring and reorganization. and it seems to me we should maybe provide a little longer time for the Bluegrass ad to do their thing before we try to modify our relationship because they have been around for a long time and they do administer quite a bit of funding for our community. That's just, to me, is a good strategy rather than breaking up the relationship and not trying to fix it and make it better. Thank you. Council Member Ford. Thanks, Council Member Akers. And to Council Member Lane's point, he raises a good point. And there's two distinctions I would like to make. While this action is probably fair to say will strain or has the potential to strain our relationship with the Bluegrass Act, I still think it's important for us to take this step. If you guys look at the timeline that I've provided on page 40, and when we started this discussion back in November of 2012, I can only speak for myself as a council member. It took great patience and attention to get a better understanding of the dynamics between the Workforce Investment Board and the Bluegrass ad. And I think to make it plain and to get right to the point, I think we're at a position now where we've exhausted responsibly all efforts to be supportive of the ad. If you guys remember, it was Mayor Gray who called the state auditor in to examine the ad. And a lot of the findings related to workforce investment. And in short, you know, we're coming out of the recession, but there are still areas in our community that are not being served as well as they possibly can based on the federal dollars that have gone over the Bluegrass ad. I will also say that we have been notified through communications from constituencies and otherwise that it doesn't appear that things are changing very much at the ad as it pertains to workforce. And again, I know it may be hard to separate. You know, we're one of 17 counties right in the heart geographically of the Area Development District. We work very well with them on aging as an agenda item we just touched on. And, of course, we support regionalism. But we already have passed a resolution as a council requesting the fiscal aging independence of the Bluegrass Workforce Investment Board from the ad. And in summary, what has happened since that time is that officials at the ad have dug their heels in to try to find every way possible to circumvent what should be the process. The last thing I will say is that the action that we're taking now, ironically, is not the first action that's being taken. Representatives down in Bowling Green and Warren County have already officially taken steps to request state officials to allow them to have better oversight and programmatic guidance over their workforce ventures. And so that's kind of where we are today. I just don't, I think it's a step that we definitely have to explore. And I support it wholeheartedly based on what's needed for Fayette County and maybe those areas very close to Fayette County. we can't keep doing the same thing that we've done and expect job training and workforce to improve in the urban areas we need it to improve the most. Thanks Council Member Akers. Thank you. Would you like the chair back? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you. Actually I would like to ask Council Member Ford by taking this action could you tell us what actually will happen with the money and how How Lexington, how will we be treated then, or what's our goal or objective down the road then? What will happen? Well, my understanding is right now the timing of such an action actually serves in our favor, from my opinion. The request, and I'll go back to answer your question, Council Member Gallagher. If you look on the timeline on page 40, when we issued our resolution back in April to endorse the fiscal aid and independence of the Workforce Investment Board, at that time, officials from Bluegrass Ad, again, some who were here last month, and have been working with our Bluegrass Workforce Investment Board and working with Commissioner Beth Brinley down in the Economic Development Cabinet. And mediation is ongoing, and there's been back and forth in regards to ways to try to settle this. In the interim, we have a new federal piece of legislation that's going to come online in the summer of 2015. So the interlocal agreement as it exists now that we have in effect, that we've signed, not the amended, but the existing one, I believe will still remain in effect. the entire state and the way we approach workforce is going to change here in the summer of 2015 anyway. And it's going to go back, my understanding is the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act is going to be, from the perspective of Fayette County, probably more advantageous in regards to reaching disadvantaged and more economically challenged workers in our community. every other county has signed the amended interlocal agreement just as they had when we signed back in 2013. But my understanding is that the existing will remain in effect until the new federal legislation comes aboard. I will say I know that Kevin Atkins is traveling this morning. I've been in communication with him. He's in training down in Texas. and so I'm kind of relaying what my understanding is of it. A great lion's share of the federal dollars now, in large part by pro rata, would be eligible to come to Fayette County if we were successful in going our own way for a new workforce investment area. We're a long ways from that. this would just be our intent to Council Member Lane. My question is if the money rather than goes over to the Bluegrass ad it comes back to the Irvin County government what would be the plan of how we would spend that money who would be responsible for that who sets up the workforce program and in addition to that since the mayor is our representative on that board, the Bluegrass Area Development Board. I think Kevin Atkinson maybe has designated a representative there. Are they recommending that we do this? Is this their recommendation to make this change or is this just coming out of our committee? This would be a first step coming out of our committee that would go to the entire council. I think that it's a show of leadership that we have, an opportunity of a show of leadership from council. again is our resolution to not endorse, I mean our resolution to endorse the fiscal agent independence. That was an action that the council took proactively, but it was also in concert with indication from the mayor's office that he was not pleased in the initial steps that they were taking right after the findings of the state auditor were released. And so it's my hope and to a certain degree my expectation that the mayor's office, the mayor of Gray, would be welcoming and definitely responsive to this action that the council chose to take this step not to sign in a local agreement. Council Member Clark. Oh, sorry. How are we going to spend the money if we get the money? How do we spend that money? Well, and thanks, Council Member Lane, for bringing that up. This resolution, we're a long ways from that. I know that we just recently, the council, working now with the Business and Education Network, we just approved the process to allow a more detailed workforce analysis of Fayette County in the areas very close to us, and we hope to have that information. I see Billy Pevel is here this morning. I see PG from the Urban League here who's been monitoring this situation and supportive of these types of efforts. This resolution, just to be clear, only talks about the interlocal agreement that's been presented to us now, and I believe, just in my opinion, that it's flawed and not in the best interest of Fayette County. But the second thing, Council Member Lane, that it really speaks to is that it recommends that the urban county government, primarily our administration, take the steps necessary to move us down that road. I don't have the answers this afternoon, but of course, as we demonstrated with the earlier committee action, the administration really goes forward by the leadership and director that the council gives them. So they will go down that way and hopefully bring us back information as it pertains going forward. Will these funds apply to fiscal year 16 or fiscal year 15 that we're talking about right now? I think at the earliest, we're talking 16. Okay. At the very earliest. All right. And now, Council Member Clark. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Chair. I again I'll say I'm not a member of the committee but I have strong feelings about this and I've been studying the history of workforce and what we're doing in Fayette County I'm unhappy of what I'm seeing I know it's a long history going back way before even the mayor's youth training center and through Commerce Lexington and so forth and Bluegrass Ad all that But I think based on that history and based on what we're seeing now, I think it's time that we take a move. As a matter of fact, it's probably past time. I think our goal here, our goal is to see that workforce training is as done as well as we in Fayette County can possibly do it. And unless we're in charge, I don't think that's going to happen. So I would speak in favor of this primarily because I think it needs to go to council. I think we need to have rigorous discussion there because it is quite involved, convoluted even. And I'd like to see it in the full council because it deserves discussion and it points us in a little different direction. And I think it's probably something we ought to consider. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Chair. You know, I'm in support of this motion, but I think we're missing the bigger picture. And to Council Member Lane's point, this is just the tip of the iceberg. There's a much bigger issue here, and that's bringing back a workforce development department within government to coordinate not just this small amount of funds, but there's a lot of other monies available that we're leaving on the table out there. And I think it's time, as we prepare next year's budget, FY16, that we take a serious look at reestablishing that within the Office of Economic Development and start coordinating some of these efforts. This is just a small piece that's getting us to those discussions, but there's a much bigger thing that needs to happen within this government. And call it what you want. We had one similar in the past, but there's a much bigger opportunity waiting for all of us. We got the job fund going, got a lot of things we can do, but this is just a small piece of what really needs to happen. And I'm supportive of this, but as we prepare next year's budget with a new council, that really needs to happen during that time frame. So thank you, Council Member Ford, for bringing this piece forward. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Council Member Akerson. Committee, the last word that I will share in asking your request to support this is, again, if you look at the page 40, I think that we're qualified, our committee on behalf of the council, to bring this recommendation forward. We've studied this issue over and over. By no way or means are we subject matter experts yet. But I think that we've seen enough based on our needs in the community. and we've been able to monitor the dynamics and the dysfunction to this point to bring this recommendation to the mayor. I ask for your support. Any other comments? Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? No. One no. Okay, that passes. Thank you, Council Member Ford. Thanks, Council Member Akers, and thank you, committee members. The last item on our agenda is on page number 56. just going down the list I think there are some things that can be taken out I'm going to ask the committee to allow us to come back to workforce investment and training in just a second and Craig I'll ask for your guidance to let me know the status of where we are the second item referred by Council Member Myers is increasing commitment to partner agency funding. You have an update? That's still a pending item that may be coming forward to the committee. Okay, we still have one meeting left. So we'll coordinate with Council Member Myers to see if we can bring that forth at our December 2nd meeting. The next item we just took action on. That probably can be removed. Is there a motion? Motion by Council Member Ellinger, second by Council Member K. All in favor? Aye. That item is removed. The next item, the names change. I think we've effectively done that with extended social resource. Is there a motion to remove? Second. Motion. Council Member Ellinger second. Council Member Akers. All in favor? Aye. The same goes for the funding process. Who can remove? Second. Motion, Council Member Elliger. Second, Council Member K. All in favor? Aye. That item is removed as well. The next one is a social service link recommendation, managed part and agency prescription programs. I don't really have an update on that one. I'm not sure if there's a clear action associated with it. If I recall, committee, I think that we in the interim found or discovered that that may not be practical based on our relationship with the dynamics of health care and the relationship with our clinic. So that may not be something that we can deal with in this committee. So it's a motion by Council Member Akers, second by Council Member Kay. All in favor? That item is removed. The item of proposed reorganization, I brought this item into committee. I'm going to make a motion to remove it. My understanding is that we're going to give this Office of Homelessness Prevention at least a year and allow the mayor's office to evaluate that during the budget where it probably should be on the org chart. So I'll make a motion to remove it. Second. Council Member Ellinger, second. All in favor? Okay. That item is removed. The last item that I'll have, going back to workforce training, committee members, and I'll talk with you guys before our work session, speaking in conversation with Kevin Atkins, there may be an interest in us expediting the action that we've taken today. If you guys remember, there was discussion about an October 15 deadline on the ad. I'll work with our legal team and our clerk to see if we can bring that forth at work session and report that out. Is there any reservation from the committee if we went that route to bring it that quick to the attention of the council? Okay. So I'll probably work to bring that forth to work session this afternoon. our next meeting is December 2nd is there a motion to adjourn motion and there's a second we stand adjourned thank you All you ever give me All you ever give me All you ever give me Is the blues Is the blues I gave you my Catholic keys You don't drive I heard you a limousine You won't ride But you're the house on the hill You hate the view Even wrote you into my will Gave you something to look forward to But don't you know what hurts me to know That I gave all my love to you All you've ever given me All you've ever given me All you've ever given me Is a blues, nothing but the blues Is a blues I've tried and tried But I've missed the fire I've done all that I can do I've given you my best You've put me through the test All you ever give me All you ever give me All you ever give me Is the blues Nothing but the blues But don't you know What hurts me the most Is I gave all my love to you All you ever give me All you ever give me All you ever gave me was the blues. All you ever gave me, all you ever gave me, all you ever gave me, all you ever gave me was the blues. Nothing but the blues. I'm out. I'm going to have a day today. I'm going to have a day. Howl's She's mighty mighty Just lettin' it all hang out She's a freak Howl's Like Lady Stack That's a fact Ain't holdin' nothin' back She's a freak Howl's Well put together Everybody knows This is how the story goes She knows she's got everything That a woman needs To get a man Yeah, yeah How can she lose With the soap she used 36, 24, 36 What a winning hand Cause she's a brick House She's mighty mighty Just letting it all hang out She's a brick House Oh, like lady stack That's a fact, ain't holding nothing back. Oh, she's a great house. Yeah, she's the one, the only one, built like an Amazon. The clothes she wear, her sexy waist. Make an old man wish for younger days, yeah, yeah. She knows she's built and knows how to please. So enough to knock a strong man to his knees. Cause she's a brick house Yeah, she's mighty, mighty Just letting it all hang out Brick house Like a little stack, that's a fact Ain't holding nothing back now Shake it down, shake it down now Shake it down, shake it down now Shake it down, shake it down now Shake it down, shake it down, shake it down now I shook her car, shook her down now I shook her car, shook her down now I shook her car, shook her down Brick house Yeah, she's mighty mighty Just letting it all hang out Brick house Yeah, she's the one, the only one Built like an Amazon, yeah Shook her car, shook her car, shook her down now Shook her car, shook her down now I want brick house. I was born three months too early The doctor gave me 30 days But I must have had my mama's will And God's amazing grace I guess I'll keep on living Even if this love's to die for Cause your bags are packed and I ain't crying You're walking out and I'm not trying To change your mind cause I was born to be The baby girl without a chance A victim of circumstance The one who ought to give up But she's just too hard-headed A single mom who works two jobs, who loves her kids and never stops. With gentle hands and the heart of a fighter. I'm a survivor. I don't believe in self-pity. It only brings you down. Maybe the queen of broken hearts But I don't hide behind the crown When the deck is stacked against me I just play a different game My roots are planted in the past And though my life is changing fast Who I am is who I want to be The baby girl without a chance A victim of circumstance The one who ought to give up, but she's just too hard-headed A single mom who works two jobs, arrests her kids and never stops With gentle hands and the heart of a fighter I'm a survivor Oh, a single mom who works two jobs Who loves her kids and never stops With gentle hands and the heart of a fighter I'm a survivor But I must have had my mama's will And God's amazement for the sake I'm a survivor I'm a survivor Thank you. Now I want to understand I have done all that I could To see the evil and the good Without hiding You must help me if you can Doctor, my eyes Tell me what it's wrong Cause I am wise To leave that moment for so long I have wandered through this world And as each moment has unfurled I've been waiting to awaken from these dreams People go just where they will I never noticed them until I got this feeling That it's later than it seems Doctor, my eyes Tell me what you see I hear their cries Just say if it's too late for me Oh, my God. I cannot see the sky Is it a surprise For having learned how not to cry Thank you. The long and winding road That leads to your door Will never disappear I've seen that road before It always needs me Lead me to your door The wild and windy night But the rain washed away Has left a moon of tears Crying for the day Why leave me standing here Let me know the way Many times I've been alone And many times I've cried Many words you'll never know But many ways I've tried And still they keep me back to the long winding road. You left me standing here a long, long time ago. Don't leave me to your waiting room Leave me to your door ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶ Still they lead me back ¶¶ ¶ To the long-finding road You left me standing here A long, long time ago Don't keep me waiting here Leave me to the door I'm sorry. I'm going to go. Well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well, well Oh, come on, ride, girl. Yeah. Woo-hoo! Wow, yeah! Ha-ha! Ow! Rolling faster. I love you. Rolling faster. I love you. Rolling faster. Loving you. Here's a free lap, girl Let me ride One more time Hide Hide Hide Oh Hide Hide I'm gonna Girl, I'm faster Ooh, ooh, ooh Girl, I'm faster I'm faster, baby, baby I need fish to ride Why don't you let me ride? I'm faster Girl, I'm faster Baby, baby, I need fish to ride Girl, I'm faster Girl, I'm faster Girl, I'm faster Baby, baby, I need fish to ride Girl, I'm faster Oh, my God. Oh, the sharp baby has such teeth, dear And it shows them pearly white Just a jackknife has old Maggie Heath, baby And it keeps it out of sight You know, when that sharp bite With its teeth, baby Scarlet billows start to spread Fancy gloves though Where's old Maggie Heath, baby So there's never, never a trace of red Down the sidewalk Sunday morning Lies a body just oozing life And someone's sneaking round the corner Could that someone be Mack the knife? There's a tugboat down by the river, don't you know Where a cement bag just drooping on down Oh, that cement is just It's there for the way to dare Five will get your ten old Mackeys back in town Don't you hear about Louis Miller He disappeared, babe After drawing out all his modern catch And now, Mackey, he's been just like a singer Could it be our boys done something rash Now Jenny Diver Yes, who guitar dreams Ooh, Miss Lottie Lenya And old Lucy Brown