1/12/2023 - Meeting Minutes ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor y and NEIGHBORHOODS
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
1 1 1 '
MEETING MINUTES
Thursday,January 12th, 2023
4:00-6:oopm
The following members of the Community Recovery Committee were present.All participated electronically:
Jacob Maxwell,Vice Chairperson
Steve Anjewierden
Pook Carson
Jason Wessel
Esther Stowell
Also Present:
Cathie Rigby, Department of Economic Development
Todd Andersen, Department of Economic Development
Absent:
Tanya Hawkins, Chairperson
Sarah Longoria
1. Briefings by the Staff
a. Report from the Program Manager
Ms. Rigby informed the Committee that Chairperson Hawkins submitted her resignation from the Committee.
Vice Chairperson Maxwell will be chairing the meetings until a new election takes place.
BUSINESS ITEMS:
1. Review and Discuss Small Business Applications
Ms. Rigby notified the Committee of some slight updates to the administrative notes section of applicant*61693
(from Round 7). She also explained that Mr. Milam from Information Management Services (IMS)would open
the scoring from Round 7 onwards if Committee members needed to adjust any scores.
Mr.Wessel asked for clarification on applicant *61158, namely if the two owners of the business were business
partners, spouse, or from the same household. He explained that points for Question *3 are dependent on
whether an applicant can be considered the sole proprietor claiming lost revenue, since there is no mention of
employees. Mr.Andersen stated that the two owners of the business were spouses.Mr.Wessel noted there were
other applicants that had the same issue and made it harder for him to score Question *3 fairly. Ms. Rigby said
that staff could go back through all applicants with two owners and verify if they are business partners, spouses,
or from the same household.
ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor y and NEIGHBORHOODS
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT
Mr.Anjewierden asked for clarification on Finance's comments for applicant #63376.
Both Mr. Wessel and Ms. Stowell mentioned applications that they felt answered the question very well and, in
their minds,were some of the top applications out of all scored so far.Ms.Stowell noted that she left a comment
in the scoring section of her "top applicant" requesting that this application be shown as an example to future
applicants.Ms.Rigby responded that she had not seen Ms.Stowell's comment in Salesforce and she would follow
up with Mr. Milam to see if there were technical issues with the Committee comment section. She added that if
Committee members could each provide their pick for"top applicant"and those could be shared with the entire
Committee. This would help Committee members see what others value in an application and inform staff on
how to better train applicants in the next phase of funding.
2. Final Review and Sorting of Applicant Scores
Staff explained that there would be 2 more applicants added to Round 8 scoring in Salesforce.This would make
Round 8 have a total of 27 applicants (as compared to 25 previously).
Ms. Rigby presented a`final review'spreadsheet(attached)that displayed each round's top scorers with the
following:
• Business category(small business, arts business,travel/tourism/hospitality)
• City Council district
• Requested funding amount
• Eligible funding amount(based on staff review)
Ms. Rigby explained that there were no top scorers from District 1 and District 6 and that the Committee
should be mindful of geographic equity when crafting the recommended list of grantees. She also noted that the
Committee had power to craft a recommended list that had a more equitable proportion of business categories,
disproportionately impacted categories (arts business,women-owned business,minority-owned business),or
even create a score cut-off(for example, applicants with a score less than 6o would be removed from
consideration). She explained that staff would also provide a comprehensive list of all applicants ranked by
score/average so that the Committee could see how each applicant fared against all others (as opposed to just
those in their round).
Ms. Carson proposed that staff compile the top scorers from each District and the Committee could create a
recommended list of grantees that is proportionate to the number of total applicants from each District.
The Committee felt it would be best to debate and compile the recommended list of grantees at the next
meeting in-person.
The Committee noted that a discussion and motion should be added to the next meeting's agenda regarding if
Ms. Hawkins'small handful of scores should be included or excluded from Committee scoring.
3. Other Business
None.
ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY
Mayor y and NEIGHBORHOODS
DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC
C,nr` .1 DEVELOPMENT
4. Adjourn
There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned.
.7aiob tilww9a
Jacob Maxwell(Feb 28,202312:19 MST)
Committee Chair
This document and the recording constitute the official minutes of the Community Recovery Committee meeting
held January 12th, 2023.
i
SCORE BUSINESS REQUESTED ELIGIBLE
$750,000.00 AVG. CATEGORY D# W B FUNDING FUNDING
$892,299.00 $480,599.00
72.8 AB 5 $50,000.00 $21,000.00 How many from each District:
75.8 AB 3 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 1 0
80.5 AB 3 $50,000.00 $10,000.00 2 5
ROUND 2 80.5 AB 5 $50,000 $20,000 3 5
81.5 SB 5 $50,000 $0 4
80.2 TTH 5 $50,000 $0 5
86.7 AB 2 $50,000 $20,000 6
87.2 AB 4 $50,000 $0 7
80.7 TTH 2 $50,000 $0
79.7 TTH 5 $50,000 $36,000 How many from each business category:
ROUND 4 77.8 AB 5 $50,000 $50,000 AB 11
69.5 AB 2 $50,000 $50,000 SB 2
71 TTH 2 $50,000 $50,000 TTH 9
75.7 TTH 3 $50,000 $50,000
ROUND 5 81.7 TTH 4 $32,099 $32,099 How many disproportionately impacted businesses:
77.8 TTH 5 $22,000 $0 AB
75.8 TTH 7 $50,000 $50,000 WOMEN
83.3 TTH 2 $48,700 $0 BIPOC
ROUND 6 92.2 AB 7 $26,000.00 $36,000.00
86 AB 3 $25,000 $25,000
82.7 AB 3 $15,000 $7,000
82.8 SB 5 $13,500 $13,500