Loading...
2/23/2023 - Meeting Minutes ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor ti � 9 and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Community Recovery Committee Meeting MINUTES Thursday,February 23rd, 2023 4:oo-6:oopm 451 S State Street,Room 126 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 The Community Recovery Committee meeting will be held as a hybrid meeting,with in-person and virtual options to attend. To access and attend the meeting,please visit: https:llsaltlakeciiy.webex.com/saltlakeciiylj.php?MTID=mcdf.ri ao.de8.9094Re6oaoeo95b.e2d7of Meeting Number: 2482 9910456 Meeting Password:5xNWGAb9(59462464 from phones) Call Number: +1-4o8-418-9388 i. Roll Call Jacob Maxwell—Chair Esther Stowell Pook Carson Sarah Longoria Steve Anjewierden—Vice Chair Amy Dorsey Jason Wessel Staff: Jack Markman Cathie Rigby Todd Andersen Heather Royall Veatriz Alequin 2. Briefings by the Staff Cathie Rigby Gave your recommended list along information about the program to the Director,during the Committee Meeting so they can have an understanding of issues on our product and how we develop the program.We knew that funding decision was likely not being made in that meeting.They really appreciated the dedication of this committee,the recommendation,the hard work and the number of hours that went into the recommended list.They feel like the process works sufficiently well enough so that we have so many applicants and are wanting to expand the funding that happens in phase one so,there is a request to our staff to come back to them on March 7t'with a couple of options or proposals on how funding happens slightly differently than we anticipated.We are carrying three options to increase the funding lists (looking more of the applicants with lower scores than this committee recommended for funding,not require them to come back for a phase two but simply expand the amount of dollars.Option two would be to expand the bonus points and wave the root that is re applying to allow them to receive a bonus for doing the process the second time.We will send an email about this information where you can watch the presentation.We will pair those options and present them on the 7`h,to see what the council would like to do.We have many people in the community aware of phase 2 because we ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor ti � 9 and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT were not anticipating ramping up.We have a list of businesses that are waiting for phase two but,it is the council's decision whether there will be a phase two. Jacob Maxwell Council liked the makeup of our community and there was a straw poll about having a second round and I think the determining factor and tipping point for that was because this board is exactly how they want it to be and they wanted to trust our decision.This board has a good reputation. Jack Markman Is the committee is going to be revisiting any of these details when you're expanding the amount of applications that are going to be awarded potentially? Cathie Rigby No,the score and the scaling would stay in place,so they are appreciative of the work that went into scoring these, they liked the general consensus.We would just look to tell them what the dollar impact is,how far down the list we could with funds still available. 3. Steve Anjewierden made a motion to adopt the Minutes from 1/12 meeting.Pook Carson seconded—unanimously in favor. 4. Jack Markman Prepared a presentation that involved a list of items that should be reviewed and discussed,including: • Reaffirming CRC Funding decisions should be based on scores(be transparent to outside audiences). • How should the committee scoring questions be adjusted? • Should the committee fund as many as possible at full(eligible)ask or at reduced ask? • Should the scores be weighted based on category and number of competing applications in that category? • Whatever the committee decides,what is an appropriate pace for applications?Should applications be considered by category? Alternative scoring questions and weights were proposed to the Committee for consideration. Jacob Maxwell As far as time goes,I love the idea of 5 questions. However,I think these applications are complex;there's a lot of details and a lot of things to consider.Do you feel that we are able to,on these 5 concepts,to stratify the quality of each applicant or do you feel like it's a little too reduced?That would be my fear. Jack Markman I need to talk with some other individuals within my department who are more familiar with brand management and scoring than myself.We are trying to balance your time and committee member,also the different capacities and life experiences.All of you,committee members,are familiar with some of the questions that deal with AMI and we want to be sensitive to that. About your question,whether it still preserves the complexity of the application I would say Yes.And the reason being is:this is two thirds of the component aggregates score.There is also admin score,which deals with more of the complex internal questions to deal with AMI indirect costs budgeting,our eligibility lines,these sort of things that I wouldn't expect ask the committee members to have to parse.Your position is to determine the program as it's presented or whether the community it seems appropriate over other applications.The more technical side is going to be supported by the admin myself and others. ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor ti � 9 and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Jacob Maxwell Does it increase the set of application questions referenced? Esther Stowell I like the idea of referencing certain questions that apply to that question. Jack Markman Agreed. 4:27pm Jason Wessel joined the meeting. Jacob Maxwell Speaking for myself. My ist preference is to make sure that I'm critiquing these in the most fair and equitable way and time saving comes second.As long as you feel like those ratios are good. Jack Markman I'm happy to update these in any other way and add the academic questions corresponding to each of these questions draft.I'd also be open too have committee members emailing me later,any revisions they have. Sarah Longoria If we have only 5 questions and each one is worth 5 points,the total will be just 25 points,this could bring a lot of ties or close scores because the range is smaller. Jack Markman In smaller captions,in blue you can see that each question I put a weighs to each of these questions.For example,they are worth 5 but your score out of the 5 and your score will be multiplied by 3.So,the committee scores total out to 65 which will be added to 35 points score to the admin for a total ioo. Heather Royall I think these 5 questions still get at the heart of what you are trying to do with these funds. Pook Carson Asked about the scoring math and how the committee member's and the admin's score will be added. Jack Markman The system will take each committee member's scores and add them up. For admins,there is about ten questions; most of them are out of 2 points, 1 weight. The total score for each application is out of ioo. Pook Carson I think that the weighing is very nicely done because the program benefits our underserved group.Will receive.That's why I didn't talk about the impact.Thank you. Steve Anjewierden ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor ti � 9 and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT In these 5 questions.Does it capture the nonprofits ability to actually do the work? Question number 4—the clarity of the proposal and the scope of work,they're convincing us that they can do the work and,if that's the case I think that should be weighed more heavily. If question number 3 is more academic and financial,I know that that's important but,if that's what that is,I think that's weighed a little heavily. Jack Markman Yes.That was what question 3 was intended to capture and Jake's suggestion can change the word capacity to ability might make it bit more clear. The scope of work in question 4 but also questions 1 and 2 sort of covered the delivery of services.The proposal promotes community recovery efforts and if it's effective and serving underserved populations,in my mind that lease a judgement on their capacity to deliver the necessary services and it doesn't ask why is it explicitly as it does with the ability to manage bonds and more academic or technical term if you think it would be more appropriate to have a specific question on capacity to provide services as opposed to having it folded into those 3 questions,that's something I can work on and explore Steve Anjewierden I feel like a lot of the questions previously were very similar to each other so there was redundancy.I also feel comfortable reducing it to a smaller number of questions. Jack Markman I will make the adjustments that have been suggested and will upload this to ZoomGrants so it can be used by the committee as your current template going forward. [Considered whether the Committee should award all at full(eligible)ask or reduce amounts to award to more applicants]A way that I would recommend doing this(if we were to take the end option)is to multiply the award eligible asks by their scores(so,if an agency asked for$look and they've got a total score of 83,a little more than $83k).That gives us a bit more money to go around and that would be a fair way to ensure that we are not just arbitrarily choosing which agency is funded what and the highest rated still gets the closest amount to what they asked. Pook Carson Proposed a vote between the 2 options. Jacob Maxwell I guess the third option is:can we get a feel for these applications to better understand what the programming looks like?Because we may have more of a sense of the purpose and may feel more compelled to fund at full or after reading budgets and scopes of work we may feel more compelled to take option 2. Steve Anjewierden The last round of percentages were pretty high.I'd like to start to see what the percentages com in on this because if we as a group tend to score them low and we tie money to that,that could impact their budgets as well. Esther I am in agreement.I feel like this new round of applications is different and making a decision right now will make it difficult for us to move forward at the end.Let's wait and see how things turn out. ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor ti � 9 and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Tyler Durfee You don't have to make a decision right now.What we want is you to keep this framework in mind as you go and keep these ideas in mind as you are scoring. Jason Wessel One of the reasons why we went with that second model last time was also because of how closely grouped together so many of the applicants were;it was within a percentage point or 2 that it the does were getting dropped off so,we tried to spread the money a little bit further. Jack Markman After reviewing the applications,there is a section for you to put your recommended amount and that can be edited. Jason Wessel I think last time where we scored it based on the merits and then addressed equity at the end,worked well. What do you all think? Jacob Maxwell I agree with that and my discomfort comes from not going in and judging a solid set of applications; a better answer would come to light after judging io or more. Jack Markman [Asked the Committee at what speed they would like top consider applications] Pook Carson Proposed to try with 5 first and see how things go.Then,decide to slow the pace down or go faster. Sarah Longoria Jake wanted more at a time in order to be able to compare applicants with each other so that we can see the whole scope.So,maybe we could have access to all of them without getting them all done. Jack Markman I could assign 20 applications sometime tomorrow and use 3 weeks to judge. Jake suggested 5 to io applications. Jason Wessel Agreed. Jack Markman [Presented slide asking Committee whether they would prefer to consider applications segregated by service category or consider a mix of all at a time]. Sarah Longoria Would be fine with getting 20 applications,whatever the categories are,with a 3 weeks period to review ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor ti � 9 and NEIGHBORHOODS DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT them. Jason Wessel Agreed. Steve Anjewierden Agreed but suggested to communicate by email or call another meeting if we have to adjust. Jack Markman We'll set a tentative meeting for next week.I will assign the same 6 applications to be reviewed on this first week to start with the process. Adjourned at 5:26pm /Jacob Maxwell—Chair ARPA CRC 2.23.2023 Minutes Final Audit Report 2023-05-19 Created: 2023-05-19 By: Jack Markman Qack.markman@slcgov.com) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAN7kc0cfZG9wdrUwVPMbgSndkfKl9YSK2 "ARPA CRC 2.23.2023 Minutes" History Document created by Jack Markman Qack.markman@slcgov.com) 2023-05-19-4:37:44 PM GMT Document emailed to jacob.maxwell@slcgov.com for signature 2023-05-19-4:37:58 PM GMT Email viewed by jacob.maxwell@slcgov.com 2023-05-19-7:43:16 PM GMT Signerjacob.maxwell@slcgov.com entered name at signing as Jake Maxwell 2023-05-19-7:43:58 PM GMT 6o Document e-signed by Jake Maxwell Qacob.maxwell@slcgov.com) Signature Date:2023-05-19-7:44:00 PM GMT-Time Source:server Agreement completed. 2023-05-19-7:44:00 PM GMT Powered by F Adobe Acrobat Sign