Good afternoon, everyone.

And welcome to the extended planning and economic development standing committee for the purposes of discussing and uh at least for today at least discussion and deliberating the uh NOF CO CDBG process.

Uh Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

Councilmember Scott Benson.

Councilmember Letitia Johnson present.

Councilmember Gabriela Santiago Romero.

Member Santiago Romero indicated that she would be absent.

So her absence is excused.

Councilmember Mary Waters.

Councilmember Angela Whitfield.

Council President Prothem, call me young the second.

Here.

Council President James Tate.

Councilmember Denzel McCampbell.

Present.

Mr.

President, you have a quorum present.

Thank you, ma'am.

We have a quorum present, which means we're now in session.

As mentioned, we will be uh going over our CDBG uh NOF uh funding uh going through the process and we're gonna turn it over to uh uh LPD for an overview.

Mr.

Gulach Thank you, Mr.

President.

Chris Gulach, uh LPD slash CPC staff.

I do have a so today before council is uh three items.

One is uh NOF overview, and secondly is uh an NOF public hearing, and thirdly is the appeals hearing.

Staff did submit a memo uh in the last few days to the council.

And we submitted a chart a about a week ago, but then the planning commission voted on Thursday night, and we provided an updated chart either Friday or this morning.

I have passed out extra copies of the chart.

I have more if your staff or you need another chart.

Um thank you for this chart as well.

It's very impressive, much more readable than years past, so we appreciate that.

And uh Mr.

Chair, I have a slideshow overview if you'd like.

Uh yes, please.

Trying to see how to share my screen.

Well, I guess I have to be brought in as a um I have to be brought into the Zoom call, I think.

All right, if you can have them raise their hands who for those individuals who are looking to members of staff who are looking to provide um commentary during the presentation, and thank you, Mr.

Chair.

That uh we're uh we're we should be joined by several HRD members.

Um Tamra Fontaine Hardy, Kayla Hare Kayla, I believe is case.

There's only numbers, if they can raise their hand to make sure we can pull them up, identify them and pull them over.

I'm sorry, Kayla Hester should be there.

Uh Tamara Hardy Fountain.

Mr.

Chair, I still need permission to oh here I go.

No, I still need permission to share my screen.

We need to provide Mr.

Gulag permission to share a screen, please.

Is that your screen, Mr.

Gulag?

Uh yes, Mr.

Chair.

All right.

Okay.

And thank you again, Mr.

Chair.

Uh permission to give the slideshow.

Yes, sir.

Thank you.

And as I stated, we're here today to start kind of the NOF, the week of NOF review.

It the administration likes to do that before the budget starts, so that's why we're uh suggesting this week as as the week.

And council voted on this schedule in January.

Um I'm sorry, you you voted on in I think in early February.

Um as I stated, staff did submit a uh overview summary report on NOF and HRD provided the chart.

This is HRD's chart.

Um I have extra copies if you need it.

Um this screen shows the schedule this week.

It's today is the uh overview at one o'clock, which we're doing right now, and then at 1 15 is the hearing.

And if if we're late for that, we might need to uh uh call that hearing.

And then lastly is the appeals hearing.

The appeals hearing is this you this year 67 groups applied, and groups that were recommended for no funding are allowed to appeal.

And they were supposed to email our office those appeals ahead of time.

So far, we have eight.

One might have got one was half submitted, so they might show up today.

But so far we have eight appeals.

So they're supposed to submit an email to our office, and then they're supposed to appear at this hearing.

I assume some will be virtual, some in person.

Um then your schedule usually what happens is um we give the overview of the hearing.

The hearing is where groups who are any group or the public can speak on NOF, even the groups that are appealing, they could talk about how great their program is, but the appeals is just reserved for those appealing.

Uh and then tomorrow we'll we'll review those appeals.

HRD will review them separately from our office, and then we'll submit a response on Wednesday to your your uh offices, and then you're scheduled for two o'clock right after budget finance and audit at two o'clock to take up the appeals and then decide how to how to respond to those.

And then you can go through the start going through the chart on Wednesday, and then if you need more time, we also reserve Thursday at two and then Friday at 10 a.m.

if needed.

Sometimes you finish on Wednesday, sometimes you've gone up to the next week.

But you're scheduled to vote if you're c if you're ready on March 3rd next Tuesday.

And so as I said, we submitted our uh overview background, which talks about you know funding and the number of groups, the process, and then the chart, which I think has about eight pages, each pages long.

Um just uh for new members and the public.

Um I was gonna give a brief overview of CDBG NOF.

So CDBG is community development block grant, and NOF is neighborhood opportunity fund.

CDBG is a federal program, it goes back to the early 1970s, I think 1974.

And so it's a formula-based grant that's distributed to cities that qualify across the country.

So each year uh it's monitored and monitored and awarded through the House Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD.

There's a local HUD office which closely monitors uh the work of the city and in partnership, but also they monitor uh our distribution of block grant funds.

Um the city department in charge of this C D BG NOF is uh housing and revitalization department, HRD.

They are the lead agency.

Um and the NOF is neighborhood opportunity for new neighborhood opportunity fund, which is unique to Detroit.

It's a subset of block grant.

It was started by Irma Henderson back in the late 70s with Mayor Coleman Young, and they reached a deal to carve out a portion of the block grant to give to neighborhood groups across the city.

And it's been going on since uh I think you know 1978, 1978.

Um let's see.

So NOF it used to have you NOF used to have about five different categories.

It had public service, home repair, public facility rehab, economic development.

But since bankruptcy, it's really been whittled down to just the public service and homeless public service.

Though it in previous administrations the the the council would award money, home repair dollars to different neighborhood groups, but that's since been taken in-house under the Duggan administration, where the um uh the home repair is really done essentially from the city, not given to individual groups.

Um so today we're really just looking at public service, homeless public service, homeless solutions funding is part of this, but it's usually done after the budget because the groups uh need to they receive homeless public service, but they also rece receive ESG emergency shell solutions grants, and and those are done after the budget.

And so we'll be coming back to you uh probably in April or May for homeless.

Mr.

Goular, before we go forward, I'd like to call the 10 excuse me, the 115 public hearing and recess it to the call of the chair.

We're joined at the table by my co-worker Timory DeBrule.

We're now back at the um NOF CDBG Um overview.

Thank you for joining us, Mr.

DeBroom.

We'll we'll possibly be joined by Director Todd in in a few moments as well.

Okay.

Uh let's see.

So if um yeah, so like I said, the NOF before council today is really dealing with public service, and then it's important to remember that only no more than 15% of the block grant can be carved out for public service.

That's a federal regulation written in stone since the early 70s.

So our total allocation I think is about 30, it's about 32 million, so only 15 percent of that, no more than 50 percent of that can use be used for public service.

If we didn't have that restriction, the city might spend all of its 32 million on public service, but the federal government doesn't want it, doesn't want it all spend on public service they want.

Some spend on brick and mortar and other other other items.

So it's important to remember that cap.

Next is uh the funding we received.

Uh last year we received about 32.2 million for CDBG, and then the NOF is a subset of that.

And that 32 million you'll see during the budget.

You'll receive it'll be part of the budget.

The HRD and the mayor's office will spend, they'll allocate for the 32 million, and then the public service, what you vote on this week for or next week for NOF will be merged into that during the budget, and then um it it'll be voted on a schedule A on the last day of the budget uh approval.

And then um, so this just shows the funding for the for the last uh 10 plus years.

Uh it's it's it's been hovering.

I know the block grant funding has been hovering above 30, below 35 million, it kind of goes up and down.

We haven't received the allocation yet this year.

HUD will distribute that in the near future, and then we'll adjust the budget accordingly.

Um HRD is expecting hopefully the same amount.

They're hoping there's no cuts, but they don't expect an increase from last year.

Um it's important to remember back in the 90s, the city received about 59 million in block grant, so it's gone down a lot over the years.

Part of it is a reduction in federal funds, part of it is they changed the formula, part of it is decline in population.

So there's a HUD formula that distributes how much each city should receive, but we had a lot more to work with in the 90s, um, just as a perspective.

So the city did a lot more.

They used to use about 10 million for demolition back in the day, so things have changed over the years, but now we we have about 30 plus million.

Um annual program.

Uh groups apply, so nonprofits are encouraged to apply each year.

Usually opens in September through OCP, Office of Contracting and Procurement.

Then they receive the application, there's a window, and then the city HR OCP will distribute the applications to HRD, and HRD will process them, usually October through February, and then they'll make recommendations to the mayor, the mayor will review them, and then they're forwarded to council for your consideration.

And that's what's on the chart before you is the count.

It lists the um the uh HRD's recommendation and it lists the mayor's recommendation, and then the planning commission voted last Thursday night, they accepted all the mayor's recommendations, and now they're forwarded to you for your final deliberations.

Um if a group receives funding this year, then they have to write a contract with the city.

The fiscal year for the city obviously starts July 1st, but this is a grant program following possible the so you won't really receive the funds till January 1st of 2027 for this year.

Uh so groups that receive funding already will kind of continue extill uh continue their contracts.

New groups have to write a new boilerplate contract with the city.

Um the average funding is about 50 to 70,000.

There's a lot of groups applying for a limited pot of funds.

Unfortunately, you know, they there's not uh not enough funds to go around.

In the past, sometimes the city would give small contracts like 25,000, but HUD said that's not a good idea because it's not enough funds.

So they try to have a minimum threshold of 50 to 75,000.

If they have more money, they would probably bump it up to 100.

But there's kind of an average funding lately.

Um in terms of summer outreach, HRD is in charge of this program.

I think they're on on the call, and uh they do a best practices forum in July where they invite all the previous recipients, they do an email blast, and they they they invite groups to learn how to apply for these grants and how to fill out a good application.

They also do two proposal writing workshops, how to fill it out.

It is it is detailed, it's about 40, you know, the application is about 40 pages long.

You have to go on through the computer system, and I think OCP switched last year from Oracle to Bonfire this year.

I think um H uh OCP uh lead stall is is available if there's any questions about the um the procurement process.

Um so um so HRD does do a lot of outreach, mostly in the summer.

You know, they work with different council offices, social media, the DON's, and then city staff meets with groups one-on-one.

Our staff our office met with groups, so they contact us to meet, we'll meet with them, but they can't meet during the we can't meet during the budget process.

Uh, but after the budget is approved, we're free to the city is free to meet with groups um to help them fill out the application.

Um does have a pretty good website on NOF.

If any group Googles Googles and Neighborhood Opportunity Fund, City of Detroit, the website will pull up, it has a lot of information on it.

So this is the the front page of it online here.

city staff meets with groups one on one our staff our office met with groups if they contact us to meet we'll meet with them but they can't meet during the we can't meet during the budget process uh but after the budget is approved we're free to the city is free to meet with groups um to help them fill out the application um hRD does have a pretty good website on NOF if any group Googles Google's and neighborhood opportunity fund city of Detroit the website will pull up it has a lot of information on it so this is the the front page of it online here it talks about who got funded in the past it talks about all the workshops it talks about the checklist um so that the the city does have a pretty good uh website on NOF regarding public service funding there's five categories and these have been kind of settled on over the years public safety is the first one education is the second one health is the third seniors the fourth and recreation is the fifth other categories could be added sometimes we'll get new things like you know housing counseling or programs against human trafficking sometimes we try to figure out which programs they go into or we could count you know council and administration could create new categories if they deem fit in the future but for this year we're stuck with these five main categories so this year HRD received 67 application which was quite a few last year I think they received about 54 52 54 so it's quite a few um there are 29 new groups some of those groups have have been around a while but they didn't they might not have applied for NOF in in the last five years but there are some brand new groups new to NOF and HRD is recommended 11 of those 29 be funded this year.

So of the 67 42 overall are recommended you can see that on the chart the last page of the chart does have a summary of of who of the funding amounts so 20 unfortunately 25 are not recommended and that's always controversial 16 did not meet threshold I'll talk a little bit about threshold later but over the years HRD and OCP have created different threshold that you must meet if you and it it sound it can be tiki tacky or sound minor but if a group misses threshold they're not supposed to be funded.

So if you're missing one item it's flagged and recommended not for funding you might be missing more than one but that's been that's been going on for a long time group unfortunately groups always miss something.

Now there's always a debate should we let those groups back in but if you do then well HUD likes us to stick to the rules that we establish if they're reasonable and um if every group was funded then there'd probably not be enough there'd not be enough funds to go around each group would get about 2000.

So there has to be it's a it's a competitive process and so unfortunately some groups miss something each year.

We always try to work with those groups in the future to make sure it doesn't happen but in the old days we did paper and people missed stuff now we do Oracle and the people miss stuff and then we're now we're doing Bonfire so I think OCP is trying to do a better job of improving the pro the process for groups to apply but there's always groups that are missing items.

And then the proposals are scored HRD has a pretty complex scoring chart there's like four main sections four main sections you know background what do you want to do budget and then they're scored if you score below 80 you're not recommended for funding and so HUD does like us to have a scoring system a chart that's communicated to the groups it's not perfect it's it's pretty objective but there's a little little bit of subjectivity in there but um there is an 80 point scoring thing and the scores are listed on the chart you'll see uh it'll say uh consensus ranking score um so sometimes a group can score 95 but if they're missing an item then they're recommended for zero because they didn't meet threshold uh so I think ever every group that rec scored above 80 this year is recommended for funding but those that didn't meet threshold are flagged and not recommended so some years we didn't have enough funds so if you scored say 90 and you met everything they there might not have been enough funds to go around so they might have been recommended for zero but um that's the basic scoring system so this is a example of the scoring chart that HRD has developed this is a summary this slide shows a summary of the applications received usually we received the most in education 33 were submitted this year usually the fewest is public safety we received seven this year proposals health was eight proposals seniors with seven proposals 12 was for recreation so usually education is the most recreation is the second most so this totals up to 67 and then this shows the ones recommended and not recommended so 42 were recommended 25 were not and there's funding by category it's just really based on a lot of really volumes so education receives the most so HRD is estimating 2.3 million for the public service which is shown at the bottom of this table of the 2.3 about 1.1 is recommended for education and then the rest is distributed based on who is get who's recommended for funding moving on let's see so this talks about the threshold criteria um I think there's uh 13 no there's yeah 13 threshold criteria and these have been developed by the city over the years and they're listed in the proposal so number one is you must meet the HUD national objective which is to benefit low and moderate income persons or to eliminate slums and blight you know you can't use the money for city services you cannot use the money for political activities so

Moving on, let's see.

So this talks about the threshold criteria.

I think there's uh 13, you know, there's yeah, 13 threshold criteria, and these have been developed by the city over the years.

Um and they're listed in the proposal.

So number one is you must meet the HUD national objective, which is to benefit low and moderate income persons or to eliminate slums and blight.

You know, you can't use the money for city services, you cannot use the money for political activities.

So there's a national objective that must be met.

Um let's see.

Number two is you must attend one of the workshops.

And there's also a YouTube video of the workshop, so that's really not a challenge for groups to not make the workshop.

Number three, the proposal must be complete.

You can't leave parts blank.

Uh you must meet the deadline, it must be on the correct form.

Sometimes people use a form from previous years, and that's not allowed.

Number the fourth threshold that you must have at least five board members that meet at least twice a year.

So if you have three, you'd be flagged and you're gonna get reduced points or be flagged not to be funded.

So some of these you'll lose points, some you just you can't fund it.

Um five is you must be a 5-1C3.

So this is not really for new grassroots groups, um, it's really for established groups that have a nonprofit and a 5-1c3.

Um number six is you must have two years of operation, you must be able to document that you've been around two years.

It can't be a new group that formed last summer.

Um, you can't have any unresolved audit findings.

Eight, you must have sufficient cash flow.

So they want you to document that you have some money in the bank, because this is a reimbursement program.

So if you ask for 100,000, I think you must have at least uh 10% or 7% of what you asked for.

You must have 7% in the bank.

So because you'll you spend the money and then you submit your receipts to the city and they'll reimburse you.

So I do want you to have some funds in the bank.

Number nine, you must res sign all the forms, you know, there must be a separation of church and state.

Your chairman of the board must sign it.

So it has to be signatures.

Because sometimes the board might not know what the staff is doing, and we don't we don't want to have a conflict.

Uh number 10, you must submit your current Michigan annual nonprofit report.

Every year a handful of groups miss this, but um it's been one of the requirements for a long time.

Number 11, you must submit your articles of our corporation.

Uh number sometimes groups are incorporated at that national, which is fine, but you have to have a local presence in the city.

Um number 12, you must have a certificate of good standing.

That's from the state of Michigan.

Um through Laura, the the um licensing and regulatory affairs office, and 13, oh, it's the cash on hand.

Oh okay, and then so that's the threshold, and then uh winding down here, the there's a lot of attachments in the proposal because these a lot of these relate to the threshold, but like number one, you must show your nonprofit designation from the state of Michigan.

Number two, you have to have operating proof.

For example, you have to have a brochure or meet minutes from your board meeting, um, your annual report, your articles of incorporation, bank statements, um sometimes we ask we do ask for a sustainability plan, so we want to know how groups are trying to get money from other sources.

NOF should not be your only source of funding.

So we want to make sure groups are thinking to the future.

If this is reduced, how can you keep uh operating as a successful agency, whether it's fundraisers and other and other items like that?

Um so there's a lot of attachments.

Um want to make sure you have a good financial management system, um, staff resumes, so there is a lot of boxes you have to check to make a good application.

And next is conflict of interest, which is a big issue.

Um I'm not sure if Director Todd is here to talk about this.

But if not, uh our office has reached out to each council staff, uh each council office to talk about conflict of interest.

So HUD really requires that if council members have a conflict, they must declare it.

And uh I'll I'll give the overview, but Mr.

Todd might be also online or nearby to chime in.

But there's two main conflicts.

One is if you if a council member or an immediate family member has an unpaid relationship with one or more of the groups, and our in our report we sent to the groups.

We listen we sent all 67 groups to council members in the last several weeks.

So you can review the list.

Um then you must uh declare you must declare that um relationship publicly.

You can still participate, but so for example, if your spouse is on a board of a group and they don't receive pay, I believe you just have to declare that.

However, the second one is if you or an immediate family member, which I think is spouse, children, brother-in-law, uh in-laws.

How far it goes out yet to let us know.

I don't think it includes cousins, but I'm not positive.

But HRD and the Board of Ethics can is working with us if you have a particular there's always unique circumstances, right?

So we can always investigate those and hopefully get back to you as soon as possible.

Some were already looking into.

But if there's competition, whether the say you have a brother who is is paid a paid staff member for a group, then you would have to uh disclose that and you would have to recuse yourself from participating in deliberations and voting.

So that's important to remember.

So um uh like I said, director Todd may be here in a little bit to talk more about that.

Um but before we begin deliberating, today is mostly uh listening and answering questions asking questions, but um when we are starting deliberating, then we really have to make sure all the conflicts are declared.

Um winding down.

So just to reiterate the schedule is today is the overview at one, the hearing at 115 and the appeals hearing at 130.

Uh we're scheduled for 2 p.m.

on Wednesday, right after budget finance and audit, then Thursday, 2 o'clock if needed, and Friday at 10 a.m.

if needed.

And lastly, hopefully council can vote next Wednesday if they're comfortable.

Uh if not, we would just have to roll it in the budget, right?

So um that oh, and this is the chart.

Um that's really my overview, and I can try to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

All right, colleagues.

Any questions from Mr.

Gulach or Mr.

Broom before we lead into the next portion of this meeting, which will be a public hearing?

Uh we'll start with Pro Tim Young, followed by Member Johnson.

Pro Tim Young.

Yes, um, thank you, Mr.

Gulag.

Excellent presentation as always.

Thank you by you guys.

And uh, I really like a lot of people who've been approved here.

And what I'm gonna say is probably a little bit different.

I know we have a process, and we have to hear to the process because of federal funds and things that nature, but I'm concerned a little bit about the fact that um I forgot it's not the society of no, it's not that, but it was here we go.

The Latin Americans for social and economic development.

Um I know that they didn't meet the threshold and they didn't uh provide proof for operating for at least um two years, and I know normally I would say that's something that you have to provide.

I I just think though, in the in the political climate that we're in with um immigration and the way in which people are being treated.

Has there been sort of and I'm sure it's probably outside the scope of what you do, but I just want to add just for my own clarification has there been sort of an analysis in terms of what the impact would be if they weren't to receive these funds on the communities that they're serving just because of the situation that we're in right now.

I mean, I'm not saying you have to award the funds, I'm just saying just so I, as a legislator would understand these are the real consequences for these funds not being appropriated to this place.

More so than ever, I I I would assume.

I mean, you know, you have parents being separated from their kids and vice versa.

I mean, these are the groups that more than likely are taking them in.

And so I or providing those services to those communities.

And so I just like to know what the real consequences would that be if they're being announced.

And if not, it's fine.

It's not a gotcha moment, I'm just asking.

Well, if if I if I may uh the the overview portion of it, really just talking about the rules uh and and the process, uh, as we go into the actual hearing, we'll start dive diving more deeply into those that were awarded and be a little bit more pointed on those.

You want to draw the question?

I can withdraw questions.

You want to withdraw it?

Yeah, but I can withdraw it later here.

That's fine.

Thank you so much.

Yeah.

And if you have questions about particular groups, we can be prepared on Wednesday to talk about.

Okay.

Should I just ask you because I got because I got a question about some African groups and North Indian villages?

Well, you want to just ask me always.

I didn't ask you Wednesday.

You can give us a head up.

Yeah, I can ask you always that.

That's no problem.

I'll send me if you want to talk about always that.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Thank you so much.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and good afternoon.

Thank you for the presentation.

Mr.

Gulag, um, I I have two questions.

One I am going to put in a memo because I'd really like to see the breakdown on the criteria, whether or not the criteria is all from the federal government, or if the city has specific criteria that are requested of groups.

Um so we'll submit a memo asking for the breakdown to understand that and I did want to ask how is it determined how much funding the organizations will receive.

And before I answer, I forgot to mention that well, after I'm done, HRD might be available to um if I missed anything in my overview, they might want to chime in and talk about stuff.

But uh to answer question, I I think the uh staff were there's a team that scores them from the city, and then and then I think the uh HRD looks at all the ones that miss threshold, and then they figure out how many groups are eligible, and then they then they guesstimate how much money they're gonna receive based on last year, and then they'll start dividing up the funds based on what they hope to receive and how many groups are asking for funds.

So I think that's it's uh they do it in January, they basically crunch the numbers, I think in December and January, and um present them to the mayor.

But HRD might be online if they want to add more to that.

I know you literally keep on calling asking for I know I know Miss Uh Fontaine Hardy is available.

Okay, there you go.

Good afternoon to the chair.

There she is.

Um again this year.

So to the question, I believe was that how does funding uh how is funding determined and how is that funding distributed uh amongst the organizations?

We do it a number of ways.

First, uh council is given a survey each year, and that survey helps us to determine priority.

Which of the organizations are priority organizations for you.

So you set the priority through that survey.

Uh, once that survey is done, then we look at the amount of dollars that we receive, basically is a it is we don't we won't know how much money we're going to receive until later on this year, but we do have through our department and through budgeting, uh, we are able to look at it and then do at least say what we believe we're going to receive.

And as Chris has very well stated, each year we receive um fewer and fewer dollars, so we have less dollars to go around.

I believe that last year um or this year, when last year when council was presented with the survey, education uh public safety was the number one priority.

And then I believe came in second was maybe education, and from that on, we use that survey to determine how much of the priority will go to those organizations.

Then the organizations they complete the application and we base it on score.

So the score organizations can score anywhere between a hundred points to 80 points.

Within that score, we go from nine a hundred down to ninety-five, um, ninety four down to ninety, and so forth and so on, and then we distribute the funds based on the scoring of each of those organizations, excuse me, each of those organizations.

Did that answer your question?

It did, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

All right, colleagues, any additional special um member Benson.

All right, thank you.

Um, I'm not sure who this would go to, but looking at a number of the applications, and if you go to page two, um, application number 15 as well as 17 are recommended for lower funding amounts than a lower scoring applicant in line item 16 and in line item or tied in line item 19.

If you look at page three, you'll see an inversion as well with application number 21 being recommended for a lower amount than a group that scored lower.

Uh than the next two applications.

So just why are some groups who are scoring higher being recommended for lower funding amounts in the in the approval process.

Um either I can answer that question, or if Kayla is on our programmatic underwriter, she can also respond to that question.

Um and we also provided a response to that question through um CPC as well.

Fontane Hardy, you can uh proceed, and if uh your colleague would like to add, uh she can do so.

So what we typically do is we fund the new organizations, typically less than we uh provide funding to current organizations, because what we found is that many of the new organizations aren't able to don't always spend their funding down.

Um they are very new organizations, they're trying to figure out how to um manage the NOF program.

We have had many organizations that have received the full funding and then left several dollars on the table.

So to um prevent that from happening, what we do is typically fund those organizations at a lower amount.

So that's what you're seeing.

The organization that you might be looking at on that line is a very a brand new organization that would not have ever received funding before.

And because of that, we want to make sure that they understand how to uh run the program, how to spin down those dollars, and make sure that we're not providing them more dollars than they can actually uh spend it with their capacity.

And I will say that most times we have new organizations that unfortunately aren't able to spend down their dollars because of the uh rules and regulations that have been um through through HUD that limits their ability to spend the funding on everything that they were anticipating being able to spend that funding on.

So then should I take it that those three organizations are all first-time recipients then?

Yes, sir.

So Goodwill Green works, downtown boxing, and all saints literacy.

All of those organizations are brand new organizations that are receiving funding for the first time.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Member Calilan.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, and um good afternoon.

Um I have a question on page six line item.

Well, application number 55, disability network, Wayne County, um, Detroit.

Um for a living green program, 10-week comprehensive wellness program.

I've actually gone to um to the location a couple times.

I've seen how the seniors and those who are facing disabilities or have some have permanent disabilities, um, are benefiting from this program.

And they've been getting um this funding since 2022.

So what was it about their application?

I don't know if we can get into it now, Mr.

Chair.

We're gonna wait.

Yeah, this was similar to that's similar to the question that member Tim Young asked to this question.

Okay.

Okay.

This is just the overview of the process.

But the hearing is coming up literally next.

Okay.

So um I just want to put that on your um on your radar, Mr.

Gulag, and the young lady sitting next to you.

Um, I'll have some I'll have more questions, so maybe you have time to go back and take a look at uh why they didn't get it because they've been getting it for four years and what was deficient um about their application this time just falling just a few points below the threshold of 80 80 points.

So um I'll hold all the rest of my questions regarding this one and a few others um at for the appropriate time.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you so much.

And madam clerk, if you can please note that we've been joined by member waters.

Thank you.

Any additional questions again concerning the overview, colleagues, before we go into the actual hearing.

See none.

We'll now like to call back to order the uh public hearing for the community development block grant neighborhood opportunity fund.

Okay, now we're uh in that phase, Mr.

Gulag.

If you would like to talk a bit about who was awarded for those who may not have a document in front of them.

Um any concerns that you may have any recommendations, we'll receive those as well.

Going to handle well, we'll talk about the improving the process or altering the process moving forward.

But right now, just if you would talk about uh provide us information for those who were funded.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Chris Gulach with the CPC LPD staff.

Um, yes, this portion of your uh overview today is the public hearing, and that's a chance for uh it's really a chance for uh it's it's part of the uh procurement process and and the NOF program to give groups a chance to I think HUD wants groups to have some chance to speak on the uh on the uh requests, and um so it's really just a chance for um the the general public or groups who applied to uh comment on the recommendations.

The groups can tell how great they are or concerns they have or uh suggestions they have.

So that's really the the purpose of the of the public hearing.

And again, this is not for the general public.

This is for individuals who are actually uh awarded or were not awarded, correct?

Correct, I misspoke.

Yes, it's for groups that applied this year.

This there's 67 groups who applied, and uh yes, it's for the uh the groups that apply.

Okay.

All right.

So I know we do have uh a number of or individuals who are seeking to speak in the appeals uh portion of the hearing, but there's nothing to preclude you from speaking at this moment if you applied.

If there's any organizations, any groups that applied for funding and you would like to uh provide comment to this body, uh please raise your hand now.

I see one in the committee of the whole.

Uh, if you're at home, raise your hand now as well.

See two in the committee of the whole, when once going twice, going three times.

The collection of public comments have now concluded.

I do see again two hands in the committee of the whole.

We'll allow those two individuals to come forward, please.

Uh and sit at one of those two, not at that one right there, right next to it.

Right next to it.

There you go.

Yes, sir.

Those two chairs.

And make sure when you are ready to speak, you hit your uh the button in front of your mic, you are good to go.

Turn that comms chair.

You need to get your clock up.

Going to get the clock up.

We want to put uh a minute 30 on the clock.

Minute 30 on the clock.

Uh quick comms check in here.

Oh hold on one second, please.

Promise you I got you.

Oh, you can hear me.

All right.

Now we can hear you.

Yes, sir.

The floor is yours.

Please introduce yourself for the record and you may proceed.

Uh yes, sir.

My name is Carlton White, uh, represent North and Village nonprofit.

Uh we applied for the CDBG grant this year.

Uh we did meet the threshold.

Uh we were at 82 above the 80 that was required.

We were told we did not provide proof of operating.

Um we did provide that to Mr.

Gulag.

I uh apologize if I misspelling your name.

Uh and we did receive the grant last year.

Um our program supports roughly 35 seniors monthly, and uh those seniors get food, computer training, uh physical activity amongst other things, such as skill building and group therapy to deal with the aging process, grief and the like.

Um we're appealing today to see if we can be considered.

I did send Mr.

Gulag the paperwork.

I believe we submitted it as well, but in hearing today, I did was not aware that um monthly meeting notes was part of the requirement for proof of operating.

We do meet as a board monthly, uh which can't be provided if that will assist in our our case, and that's all I'll give back 23 seconds of the time.

All right, thank you so much.

Okay.

Good afternoon, ma'am.

The floor is yours.

Sorry, can you hear me okay?

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone.

My name is Meridi Mazaira.

I am the president for the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers.

Um, I just wanted to share some thoughts regarding the application process.

Uh, my organization deny me threshold, although we were at 85 uh points.

Um, one of the reasons was because of the signatures and notarization that was required, was embedded within an uh word document application.

So I just wanted to suggest or offer maybe a suggestion if there are documents to be signed um or notarized, those to be separate attachments within the bonfire application process.

Having them embedded within a word document requires all the applicants to print over 60 pages.

My application was 62 pages to print them all to then notarize one page and then try to re-upload them, rescan 60 something pages to then have one complete file.

So unfortunately, on my case, um we had just printed the three separate sections that uh needed the signatures and attach those separately.

So they were provided just in two different files.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

And we'll have more discussion on that.

We want to make sure we give everyone the opportunity who are here uh to present before this body or provide comment.

Uh those are our two individuals that are in the committee of the whole.

Uh, we will now transition to those who are calling in.

Uh again, these are the applicants for the CDBG NOF uh funding available.

Uh how many callers do we have and who do we have first team afternoon, Council President.

You have four callers online.

Okay.

Who do we have first, sir?

Oh, excuse me, now three.

The first caller is a mean city we all right.

Caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding the C D B G NOF process.

Hi, everyone.

Hello.

Hello.

So I'm from Detroit African Youth Development Organization.

So we are serving the second generation of West African immigrant families in Brightmore since 2019.

And we are a current recipient of the CDBG grant for last year.

And we are doing pretty good great with the programs that we are doing right now.

And I would like to highlight that our score for the proposal was 96, which was like uh more than the people who got awarded.

But there was a clerical error as the other person highlighted that the word document was like a bit long due to the formatting issue.

We were not able to compile it in that file.

So it was there in the file, but then like when we were trying to do the formatting to make everything aligned in the single page.

So there was a clerical error which happened due to which we missed the opportunity to highlight our board members and the uh application of our last year.

It already has our board member list as well.

And we would like to highlight that we are already doing a current program and which is going very great with this community.

So do you due to the clerical error?

Like we would like to appeal that if there is any possibility to get it of that mistake, and then like we can be considered for the opportunity to serve the population that we are serving, which is vulnerable, and also like underprivileged children in the area.

So that was our appeal, and thank you for the giving the opportunity to speak on behalf of Detroit African Youth Development.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Next caller is 826 Michigan, Catherine Calabro.

Caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30.

Hi, thank you so much.

Can everyone hear me okay?

Yes.

Okay, wonderful.

Um, I represent 826 Michigan.

We are um a writing and tutoring organization connecting um young people in the city of Detroit with caring um adult mentors working one-on-one to help to support students' love of literacy, and um we publish students in professional books and work with them over the course of um uh projects on their writing.

And unfortunately, um sounds like many others.

We did complete the application.

We uh scored 90, and um there was a clerical error where um in exhibit n we did not have a signature, but we used bonfire um that frequently asked questions section to to ask a question about this exhibit.

We were unclear.

Um, we read the response, um, which we noted in our appeal.

It said that um if the applicant does not have any lower tier participants, the form could be left blank, and that was our understanding.

Um, and so we left it blank.

But um now we understand that we misunderstood what lower tier participant must have meant, um, and we're happy to sign it.

Um, but again, we thought we did our due diligence.

We did the research, we asked an FAQ, got a response, and um again, just totally did not um understand what lower tier participant meant.

So thanks for the opportunity to appeal.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Next caller is Blanca Salala Yala, excuse me.

Okay, caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding the CDBG NOF process.

Hi, uh, good afternoon.

Can you guys hear me?

Yes.

Hi.

Um, I am Blanca Zelaya.

I am I represent Southwest Detroit Business Association, and I'm the program manager for the Center of Music and Performing Arts in Southwest.

We also had the same issue with uh the submission during a notarized document.

Um, but we wanted to appeal because we know that it our program is one of the only remaining after-school arts programs serving the youth in Southwest Detroit that offers uh music and dance and all the extra classes that sometimes are not allowed uh or are not part of the budgets for the schools.

Um so we were looking for the opportunity to be able to appear.

We are a returning um organization.

We have applied in the past and have received the funding for uh a lot of years now.

Um, and we were just hoping that we can also um request that that funding be uh given to us again.

And um, that is all for me.

I'll give you guys back 30 seconds.

Thank you so much.

Next caller, please.

Uh that is the end of online callers, sir.

Okay, and it takes us to the end of our uh public comments.

Uh Mr.

Gulag, I'll give you an opportunity to uh respond.

And I do know that member Callaway had a question uh that we want to go through.

I have a question along with uh pro Tim Young and I'm sure other members as well.

But we're gonna get the um those who uh uh applied want to deal with their issues first.

Thank you, Chair, and technically that technically that last section was the uh public hearing, but a lot a lot of groups chose to appeal during the public hearing.

So I after this deliberation, then you should maybe open it up for last call for appeals.

Well, so so my understanding, so um, I'm trying to keep them separate.

The first one was open for anybody to call in.

Right, anyone who applied.

So though they may have shot their shot, this is not that wasn't the appeal portion.

Right.

The appeal is coming after we wrap this one.

But you could count that as the appeal if a group appealed, I think it's up to you.

Yeah, I'm gonna let them get back again.

Get back in line.

Um but uh I guess I don't I don't have any more.

Well, the note, so so uh the the notary issue.

So that one came before us, and when we start talking about trying to identify how to make this process easier, I mean it's already complicated, very difficult, a lot of different moving pieces.

One uh slight mistake um moves you out of the process.

How do we what's what's your uh reflection, if you will, on the concern that the two applicants brought up about the notarization issue to the chair uh well, first we we received about eight or nine appeals, and we're gonna have to investigate those to see um if they're accurate, you know, if there was a mistake made on the city side or if the group was actually admissing something.

So uh uh if it the city did switch to a new operating system, and we're not really involved with that much, but it's called bonfire, and so uh director stall might be available today or Wednesday to talk about or before you finish, you know, this week ways to you know how the how it's working, you know.

Is it is there things that could be done for this year or next year to make it better?

So I know last time we used Oracle, I think, and I think they did they took a lot of steps too two years ago to make it easier for groups, but um, I haven't investigated the notary issue yet, whether you have to print out 60 pages to sign it.

I I'm really not an expert on on bonfire, so I would defer to HRD or um OCP if they have more feedback.

Thank you, Ms.

Fontaine Hardy.

Any anything you want to add?

Yeah, through the chair.

Um first let's go to the certification form.

That is a form that is required at the time of application.

It must be um signed and notarized.

The organization, while it is with the application, they do have the option of printing out the one page and then having that signed and notarized.

There is no need um to print just all 60 of the pages for one.

So the organization could have printed that one page, which 44 other organizations did get right and do, and uh and they can submit that organization, they can submit the form in bonfire.

So with Bonfire, it's a new application portal, and I do believe that um the director for the Office of Contracts and Procurement, she can explain in greater detail how bonfire works.

But each uh document is uploaded separately to Bonfire.

You print the one document, you sign it, you notarize it, and then it must be uploaded one document to the section that is required.

Each document must flow that way.

And so while the application does have a many documents in it, um other documents that um OCP requires as well.

Each of those documents, one each has to be uploaded to a separate uh request or a separate space in bonfire.

So unfortunately, the one thing we do find each year is that many organizations through clerical error, as was mentioned before, they may upload a document but upload the incorrect document, or they may upload a think they're uploading a document and not upload that particular document.

As Mr.

Gulac has said, we will look at every single organization's uh appeal process, go back, and if there were some errors that were made on um our end, we will make sure that we bring those organizations back in.

Uh, we have still uh I believe we present our findings to this body on Wednesday once we've had an opportunity to review each of those and then can present them to you.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Um, and then we also had uh member Callaway had a question she wanted to ask.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um page six application number 55.

And we do have um someone in the audience.

I was just um wondering why she didn't come forward, but um she is an employee of Disability Network Wayne County.

I think she was responsible for assisting with the um application process for her um employer, but they've been awarded since 2022 um funding through um through this grant application process, and then it's saying over here the reason why they didn't get um funded this year is because of a low score, did not meet 80 per 80 point threshold.

Can you explain what happened in this instance?

Because this this organization does good work.

Um and um I don't know of a lot of different services across the city that cater to or focus on those who have disabilities.

This program does.

Member Calloway, what what uh line number are we talking about?

It's application number 55, page six, disability network, Wayne County, Detroit.

Thank you.

Oh, you're welcome.

Through the chair, I'm looking up their application score right now.

And see it.

Um if you just give me just a second to pull in their information.

And while you're looking for it, when you go through the spreadsheet, I think there one organization that focuses on those seniors and seniors with disabilities.

I don't see that anywhere else.

I mean, it could be happening, but theirs is actually in the subject line.

That's actually what they focus on, seniors with disabilities and challenges.

I'll have to pull that up.

I am not able to respond.

I don't want to hold up the question or the process, but I will definitely get that information to you.

There is definitely great rationale as to why this organization did not score as high as they've scored in the past.

And so I will make sure to provide that documentation to you.

Thank you.

And as mentioned, this is not the only day we're going to be discussing items.

So give you an opportunity to go back and grab the information so that the responses that are provided to this body and the applicants are as accurate as possible and thorough.

Mr.

Gulag, I know you had a one something you wanted to add.

Um to the chair on that point.

Um we did receive an appeals from this group.

They're allowed to speak during the appeals, but we we can uh they did receive a low score.

They met all the thresholds, but they have a low score.

So I think HRD can provide on Wednesday what they scored low on, and council can review that that response.

So they did they scored a 71 low score.

They met all the threshold.

Um they were marked down in probably different sections of the application, and HRD can provide that in a chart on Wednesday.

Thank you.

Um, yes, ma'am.

Mr.

Chair, to Mr.

Bullock.

Can you answer?

Thank you.

So um, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So, Mr.

Gulach, is this a new process?

Because I'm hearing um one um organization saying that they would have had to upload or print 62 copies twice just to get to the one or two pages that needed to be certified and notarized, and I've heard that like a couple times since we've been sitting here.

So, how long have we been using this system?

To through the chair.

Um my understanding is that this OCP switched to a new system bonfire this um this cycle.

Uh so the application pretty much has the same requirements, but it's a new um software system.

Okay, through the chair, and this is my last question until I can ask more questions.

But for for the new system bonfire, was there advanced training um for all of the um applicants?

Through the chair, I'd defer to Miss uh HRD or OCP if they want to comment.

I usually during the proposal writing workshop, they talk about the the operating system bonfire, but I defer to them.

And I do know Mr.

Chair, I do see Sandra Stahl.

She says she has her hand up and she's had it up for a while.

We don't have to.

As Mr.

Gulach has mentioned the uh HRD, we do host several application workshops, which um bonfire attended those workshops and did give instruction on how to upload documents, how to register, and how to upload documents through this program.

Um also OCP is available if organizations are having any challenges with uploading documents.

I can clearly say that no organization needed to print 60 pages to upload one document.

Um but I'll defer to um to the director of the Office of Contracts and Procurement, which is Sandra Eustaw.

Yes.

Thank you.

Through the chair.

Yes, um, OCP implemented bonfire uh uh last summer fall.

Part of the driving reason that we implemented bonfire was because of these appeal hearings that we heard over the last couple of years, and the challenges that vendors were having our applicants were having specifically in the CDBG NOF process.

Um we saw a record number of submissions, 67 compared to uh low to mid-50s in prior years, um, and a record number of award recommendations from HRD.

Uh, one of the things that helped um there were several things that made it a more user-friendly process um that has been identified, identified by um Ms.

Hardy Fontaine, which is that every required document has its own line for submission, and a submission can't be completed uh before every single requirement is submitted.

However, uh to the um uh appellate's uh comments, there was also uh a set of documents that were within a 54-page document.

So we had both the doc there were documents that we noticed were frequently missed or um incorrectly submitted that we pulled out as individual documents, but in addition, HRD has a 54-page word document.

Um so both did occur.

Uh we continue to work with HRD every year on improving this process.

We've seen great improvements over the last couple of years in successful um applications.

And um that is uh I think that recommendation is a very good one.

Um then uh I would just note that uh we just like Miss Tamara said, we provided um in-person workshops with HRD.

They did a fantastic job of multiple workshops, I think no less than three, um, where OCP staff came.

Um we uh trained on how to register, how to respond, we were available.

Uh Bonfire provided technical assistance.

Our own staff were um prioritizing technical assistance for these um for this project, and um, and so I hope that a lot that effort shows.

So Director Stahl, I know you indicated that there was a record number of submissions.

What is do you know when that's dating, you know, what what date that goes to?

Because I recall initially when I came on, there were larger, I think, um, than a number of 67 or so.

Do you know how far through the chair that was probably when the process was a bit different?

Okay.

So just for the record, we we received more applications in the past.

This is just under this new uh new process, is what you're saying.

Right, in Oracle from Oracle to Bonfire is what I mean.

Yes.

Gotcha.

Actually, this was the first time since I've been uh with this department.

We received ever this number of applications.

Um, and this is the first time we've ever awarded this number of applications as well.

I've been with the city since 2016.

Now, before then, there could it possibly could be different, but since 2016, we've never received more than applications than we did this year.

Gotcha.

Yeah, I predate 2016.

That's the only reason I've done that.

Okay.

All right, got you.

Um, and so we're gonna so colleagues, are these questions about that that deal with potentially appeals?

Okay.

Yours is appeals because we're gonna have the appeals portion coming up next.

Okay.

So a whole hearing dealing with appeals.

Someone just spoke here, that's my ex.

No, we'll they're gonna have an opportunity to speak again during the appeals portion.

So just wanted to make sure if you're if there are appeals, we want to save those to the appeals portion.

But if it's just in general again, um we'll allow please member Wallace.

Oh, I'm sorry.

No, no.

Thank you.

Yes, you are.

Yes, yeah, that's all right.

That's all right.

Um, but I know that next in the queue was member McCampbell.

Member McCampbell.

Thank you.

Thank you, uh, Mr.

President.

I just have a I it could be a potential.

I do have a question.

It was about specific um application numbers four, seven, and thirty.

Um are these any of those folks apply for appeal, Mr.

Gulard?

Uh to the chair looking quickly on the chart, uh, number four is Detroit Justice Center.

I don't think so.

Number seven is forced Detroit.

No, and then 30.

30 is teaching power and no.

So I don't believe those three have submitted appeals.

Um so I just have a general question.

For um, just for my understanding on number four with the Detroit Justice Center, um it says that they submit a 2024 certificate of good standard.

Um, did that mean that they didn't, or were they supposed to submit a different year?

Do the chair is required that they should have submitted a 2025.

Each year, the organizations are required to submit the most current documents for um the certificate of the standing and other documents, and unfortunately, the organization submitted last year's documentation.

That is also something that we stress highly in all of the uh workshops that we present as well, is making sure the organization submit the correct documentation.

And thank you for that.

It's my so for the state.

Um, when we're saying the most current, it's my understanding that the state acts uh organizations to that they give them a February 15th deadline or the year after to get the certificate of good standard.

Is that the same process here?

Do the chair no it is not.

We require that the organization submit the most recent um the current um or document, which uh every year Laura is required, they're required to go on Laura, apply.

I believe it's open around October that they submit that documentation.

This year, because Laura changed their system, we allowed organizations that had applied but not received their certificate to actually show that they submitted an application for that documentation.

So we accepted that as well.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

I think um I guess my question is again that if Laura is telling groups that they have until February 15 to submit the most current to update the certificate of good standing that some organizations may feel that the most current one is the one that they have until that February 15th deadline passes.

So I just want to note that here in the process of moving forward that that even even further clarification would be um good there.

And then for uh the 30, um, I guess for 30, I know in number seven with force Detroit, there is a ding on not meeting.

I know there's a requirement for biannual, so um that is definitely there.

But as we're getting more and more folks at uh talking about the notary and the signatures, four and thirty and seven without that biannual meeting, um, these are folks who scored very high, um, 88 being the lowest and 90 and 93.

So if since we have switched, and I understand the due diligence and and such around that and having the um workshops and such, but since we are on a new system, I think moving forward, if if we can even do more, I know you all are doing a great uh task in this, but even do more to let folks know about the that upload and that notary.

Um so I just wanted to lift that up.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Through the chair, I will note that in all of our conversations with the organizations in all of our workshops, we are clear that we put 2025 on all the documentation, so that when we say current, we also um inform them of what current means.

And so in all the documentation, we're very clear when we say 2025.

As it relates to teach power and achieve that organization went defunct, they did receive a grant from us in 2025, 2026.

They submitted a letter to us saying that they were no longer operational.

So that organization, while it did score high, they're no longer an organization we could grant to because the organization went out of business.

Okay, thank you for that.

If uh as you're welcome.

If we could make that note on these as we get them as well, um, with the additional information, that would be great too.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up on the list, we have member waters.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

I I just have a question about uh 53 North End Village nonprofit.

And it says that they did not make the threshold um for at least two years.

That's a long time.

Can you can you talk more about that?

Do the chair, I can't give uh the direct information around North End Village right now.

I will include that in any um any questions that you have to make sure that we respond to that question.

So that I'm clear, could you please re uh ask the question again?

Member Waters.

Okay, all right.

Well, I just wanted to know.

Um you said at least two years here.

Um that they did not provide proof of operating for at least two years.

Um, okay.

I see what you're saying.

Yeah, I mean, it's that's a long time, so I don't understand that.

So through the chair, this organization was not awarded because they were asked through the application to provide documentation that the program that they've been running had been running for at least two years.

The organization did not provide that documentation.

It wasn't that they didn't um they didn't get a grant, they applied for two years in a row and were denied.

It was because the organization did not upload the correct documentation to show that they had been in operation for at least years in the application and all the documentation that we have, particularly our instructions.

We provide uh examples of what those documents should be.

Unfortunately, the organization did not upload the correct documentation.

That is why they were denied.

Well, that's too bad because I certainly like the services that they offer for uh for seniors.

I agree.

Uh I will say through the chair that each of these organizations that applied, all of them uh provide a needed service for the um citizens of the Detroit, and each of them a warrant being funded.

Unfortunately, we have to abide by our application rules per HUD.

Yeah, we will continue to do our very best to provide as much TA as we can, but unfortunately, to air humanists to air, and these organizations had to pull another applicant, clerical errors that were beyond our control.

All right, just then finally, um, did the applicants have an opportunity to sit in on a meeting or something that you had uh prior to the application process so that you can explain what they needed to do through the chair, yes.

So through the year we have our best practices forum where we outline could completely the application process.

Some of the areas where most or many of the applicants have been tripped up on or made errors in.

We focus on those areas.

We have a um application guideline where we go through every single document and explain what's needed and why.

And we have we had three workshops this year, two application workshops and a uh question and answer session uh so that the applicants could apply.

And even then, we also had um office hours.

My team uh set and was available for any organization that was interested in applying for these funds.

We opened up office hours.

Anyone could uh come online and ask ask any questions that they were or had any challenges with, or if they had challenges with the application, they also could have reached out to the Office of Contracting and Procurement.

So we do make ourselves available before the application opens, and then uh OCP is available when the application is open to respond to questions as well.

So did this applicant uh uh participate in any of your meetings or um either group meetings or the uh coming to your office or anything like that?

We can certainly go back to the chair and look at all of the applicants they are required to sign in to see if this organization attended.

Uh, keep in mind every single organization must show that they attended a workshop in order to apply for these funds.

It is a requirement.

We do understand how important it is for organizations to attend because as has been stated, this is a very competitive application.

We always have more organizations applying for funding than we have funding to give.

We've also received uh feedback from HUD that says we are not to give out many small grants, so that makes it even more competitive.

We score on application, not organization, because all the organizations are worthy.

All the organizations provide services to the most vulnerable populations.

We want to see them funded.

Unfortunately, we just don't have the funding to do that, and we have to abide by HUD final rules and guidelines.

And so uh that's what we try to do.

We do our very best to make sure we do it.

I know how strict they are.

But anyway, so thanks.

Thanks a lot, Miss Mr.

President.

Thank you.

Uh member Miller.

I too had questions regarding the same um applicant because they received award last year.

So I didn't understand why it said they did not present the proof in the last two years.

So they got it last year.

There was some type of proof that was satisfied.

So that's why I was raising my hand prior to Water speaking.

It says they received funds last year.

Yes.

But the document so I figured it was an error or something.

Yes, through the chair.

Each year the applicant had to provide the information every single year.

We cannot use information that was submitted on a previous application.

Each year the applicant must submit the documentation in order to qualify for the funds.

So how'd they get the funds then?

If it they received the funds last year because they submitted all the correct documentation.

Okay, well, your your form said two years, that's why I asked.

No, okay.

What that means that the organization last year submitted documentation to show that they were had been in business and was presenting that program for the last two years.

This year they did not present that information.

Thank you.

That was my interpretation, but thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

All right, colleagues.

We shall member Johnson.

I just saw that load.

Member Johnson.

Hey, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um I I have a couple of questions.

Um, so notably um the switch from Oracle to Bonfire was to make the process perhaps easier for the applicant.

I'm wondering if particularly those that have applied in the past were made aware that the intake process was changing.

Yes, and and um director you stall can also speak to this.

Yes, every single organization that attended the workshop, they were told that the process was changing and they received instruction on how to upload documents through bonfire.

That information can also be found in our information guide.

That information was also shared in the workshops, and I'll turn it over to uh director you stall.

Director?

Yes, thank you.

Through the chair, uh, because uh this project follows a unique timeline where HRD is doing outreach and workshops many months in advance of the bid or the solicitation opening.

Uh we were communicating and reaching out to all prior applicants, all prior awardees, um, new nonprofits uh as early as I believe July for the project that would be opening in September.

Um so yes, we did um we had very, very focused outreach, uh specifically keeping in mind that it would be a new system.

Okay, thank you.

And Director Stahl, while you're there, I wanted to understand better what you said earlier.

Um that some people uploaded one document per question, and then you said there were some people who provided 54 pages.

Can you clarify that?

So previously, I believe the the question is um or the request is to upload the statement, the certificate of good standing, for example, and they have to upload that document where it is requested, not anywhere else, but where it is requested.

Is there could someone just upload all of the documentation at once, or is that still the way the information is submitted?

Through the chair, we had uh I think somewhere around 23 different lines.

So if you think of the application as a questionnaire, and each line has a required document upload.

Um it says uh your sam.gov registration, your proof of ownership.

Um these are uh it's clearly marked which ones are optional, which ones are required.

We have operating proof, nonprofit designation, Michigan annual report, articles of incorporation bylaws, every single one of these documents are spelled out.

Uh HRD required had an information packet that said you must title this document, your uh annual report, your 2025 annual report, um, your um articles of incorporation bylaws, your 2025 certificate of good standing, and each document had to be uploaded, and uh an applicant would not be able to complete their submission unless every single line was filled.

Now, this certification form uh was within a larger document um that was uh required as a long document as opposed to an individual document, and so it was it uh there were a few organizations that did miss uploading that document.

Thank you.

And because that was noted multiple times, is that something we are going to look into and make sure perhaps that it is spelled out like the rest of the requests, because it sounds like that may have gotten some folks in a little bit of trouble, and now they're not receiving funding as a result of it.

Um through the chair for the future, I think that that is a very good recommendation, and for how it's considered during this round, I will have to defer to HRD.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Ms.

Fontaine Hardy, I think you uh were about to say something.

You're on mute though.

Thank you so much to the chair.

I will say that each year we find that a document and and um director you stall she can also support this.

Each year is a different document.

Last year it was another document that organizations somehow missed.

I will say that we in we we also submit a checklist with every single document that must be uploaded, and while the document uh that is being questioned, while it is not at the front of the documents, it is uh listed within the documents on that list of all the documents that must be submitted so that the organizations are made aware uh on several occasions that that document is needed, and so while they may have to print one document out or several documents out, um we do uh I believe we do um share which documents are needed in several different avenues, whether it be the application workshop, the best practices forum, the best um the application uh source book that we use, and through just conversations with those organizations, we're very clear about what documents are needed and what documents need to be notarized as well.

It's unfortunate, but we do find that this happens every year.

I guarantee you next year it's going to be a different document.

I hope that it's not, but these organizations do make the errors.

So thank you for allowing me to share that feedback.

Mr.

Chair.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, so I think having not gone through this process, but just listening to what the process is, it sounds like if you have 15 items that require a one-page document or two-page document that you're uploading, and then you encounter an item that has 54 pages, and you are to sign and notarize um, let's say three of those 54 pages, I think that might be a bit confusing.

If that can just be spelled out, unless I have a misunderstanding of what the request is, but if that can just be spelled out so that people know and understand that it is a separate document individually, I'm not sure what's on the 54 pages that applicants are reviewing and responding to, but if we can just have it spelled out perhaps a little bit more, um reading materials and then items that have to be responded to, noting that that particular document indicates that it has to be signed and notarized.

Just however we can make it clear because we do know that there are organizations that rely upon this funding to do the great work that they do in our communities.

Um, and I think as is if as long as we can make it as simple as possible because it is a lengthy application and a lengthy process, I get that it's competitive.

Um, and it won't be any less competitive if the requests are clear and folks have an understanding of what it is that is expected of them, but to hear multiple people say that um is just a bit concerning to me.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Mr.

Chair.

Um Member Calvin?

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Quick question.

Um, how soon?

Thank you.

How soon is an organization notified that there are some issues with their application.

Um, how much time do you give them to um to take corrective action before we get to today?

When are they notified in the process?

Because some of this doesn't seem major, and like um Member Johnson said, a lot of these are small organizations and they rely on this funding.

So when do we notify them and give them a window of opportunity to take corrective measures so they don't get to today and not get funded?

So through the chair, once the application opens, they have 30 days to upload their documentation, their application.

During that window of time, the applicant can go back into the application at any time to review the applicant application to make sure that they have responded and uploaded the correct documentation.

So that's number one.

We do share that information with the organizations that we encourage them actually to upload the application early so that they can have time to go back through and review what they've uploaded because we do understand that mistakes are made.

Once the application closes, if an organization finds that they made an error or they did not upload all the documentation in time, um, because it was a computer glitch or a computer issue, then OCP will allow them so much time to upload that those documents.

However, once the application closes, it is closed.

We do not go back and ask for the organizations to review their application and to upload those documents.

We want to make sure that this is a fair and equitable process.

You have 43 organizations that uploaded every single document that they met all the requirements.

It is our expectation, and because this is a competitive grant that every single organization followed that process and the lead.

Um, and so we want to make sure that this is an equitable and just process for everyone, even those organizations that followed the instructions.

We want to make sure that everyone's received the same um uh a time frame to do what is necessary to meet the requirements of this application process.

And then I'll turn it over to Director Ustall if you have any further comments to make director you stall.

Anything you want to add.

Um through the chair.

Uh no.

Okay, Mr.

Chair.

Member Calway.

Thank you.

Um, and that's second part of my question, or um, is so when we fill out applications, and I've found if I've missed something, it won't let me advance in the application.

It'll turn red and say error, correct error, and it'll guide you back up into wherever whatever error I've made.

Uh, and is does that happen in this application process?

So uh you're shaking your head, yes, through the chair, Miss Dahl, Director Stahl.

Yes, through the chair, yes.

Uh this software does allow us to do that.

We did do that for um almost every requirement, and as noted, that certification form was uh embedded within a longer document.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

I would like to say that the certification form um when you look at the application, the certification form is at the uh at the tail end of the application.

All the forms that must be signed are at the end of the application, including the appeals form.

Yeah, every single document.

I'm looking at the application as we speak, and every single document that must be signed comes at the very end of the application, so it's not embedded in the middle, it's not at the front, is at the end of the application.

It's the third, the the third um document from the end of the application.

So it's not embedded in the middle, it's not embedded in front, it's the very the third, the very third page of the end of the application, which is where this form has always been in the 10 years that I've been with the city doing this program.

This document is appearing in the same place that it has appeared for the last 10 years.

Okay.

Thank you.

All right, we shall now close out the uh review um hearing, if you will, for this particular session.

Well, now I'd like to call to order the appeals hearing of this particular session.

Those who would like to provide uh comment to the body uh for an official appeal, uh, and it is not open to general public just yet, only for those applicants who would like to provide comments and their appealing.

I have five uh cards here.

You can raise your hand now.

I've got Carlton White, Dr.

Lydia Butler, um Maridie Mazaria, apologize if I mispronounce your name.

Raul Barilla, again, apologize for mispronunciation and to Carl Woods.

Those are the five hands that I have in the committee of the whole thus far.

If there are anyone else who would like to speak, please raise your hand now, also at home.

Going once, twice, going three times.

It's a collection of public comments, have now concluded.

And again, we will now go into our appeals hearings.

Uh let's put a minute and 30 on the clock.

Mr.

Gulach would like to give you an opportunity to provide some comments on how this process is designed to go.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, uh, as part of the procurement process, I think uh HRD gives groups a chance to appeal.

And you can only appeal if you're recommended for zero.

Um we didn't we did notify all the groups uh two weeks ago about their recommendation.

And uh, we did receive eight emails giving it filling out given an appeals form.

So if groups don't have haven't submitted that yet, they still have a chance to do that today.

Submit the appeals form, but they can also speak at the appeals hearing, which is right now.

And uh so we did receive eight um appeals, and um most of them are have already spoken to them.

Okay, uh we'll give them an opportunity to speak during the appeals portion.

Again, as mentioned earlier, it was open to all applicants.

This portion is open only to those who are appealing.

And our first individual in the committee of the home, we'll get all three of you up uh in line.

I've got five.

Uh Carlton White, followed by Lydia Butler, followed by Maridie Mazzara.

And again, remember to please uh push that button in front of you when it's your turn to speak, turn that red into green, and the floor will be yours and against um Mr.

White.

Have everyone has a minute 30.

The floor is yours, sir.

Thank you again.

Um again, Carlton White from North End Village.

Uh thank you, uh, Councilwoman Waters, Councilmember uh Miller for speaking on behalf of our organization.

Um again uh on the proof of operating um that we got discounted for the actual CDBG grant for this year.

Uh we felt like we provide the correct information.

Um and we also need this funding.

It's imperative to what we do for our senior community, especially as we look to expand and grow uh with work we're doing with Woodbridge Manor and uh work we're doing with some other senior homes that are owned by Premier Realty that are independent senior housing um buildings.

Uh so with that being said, I don't want to speak too much on that.

I want to speak more about the application, okay.

To me, uh uh HRD has done a great job with this application.

We felt like we met all of the intent and our application shows.

Um I would love if the board would consider our application uh based upon our getting funded last year and the documentation that we provided.

Uh we'll look to do better in the future if that's not uh feasible.

Um essentially uh thank you to Mr.

Gulach and his team for uh reaching out to us to give us the opportunity to appeal.

Thank you.

Taking that empty seat uh that Mr.

White will be releasing is Raul Barrera.

Dr.

Butler, the floor is yours.

Dr.

Butler, the floor is yours.

Good afternoon.

I'm Dr.

Lydia Butler with Disability Network, Wayne County, Detroit.

We also um use these funds to service our seniors with disabilities, and um we help them with a 10-week program called Living Green.

This 10-week program where we go to their facility to break the barrier of transportation, having them to come to us.

We go to them, we stay uh two hours twice a week.

We teach them things from goal setting, um healthy reactions, physical activity, healthy eating, how to read food labels correctly.

We help them with so many different things and found out that um some seniors don't even know how to use their phones correctly, so we helped them with phones with um technology.

We reached 164 seniors last year with the funding that we received.

We don't understand why we were rated so low.

We missed it by nine points and don't understand why we weren't given an explanation.

We didn't um we reached all the thresholds, so we entered in all our documentation.

We just don't understand where we went wrong, and because we went from the grant that we got the year before to put the same things in.

So thank you very much.

Thank you, Sir Angela Galloway.

Thank you, Dr.

Butler.

Taking Dr.

Butler's empty seat will be our last speaker in the committee of the home, it's Mr.

Carl Woods.

Our next speaker, Maridie Mazara.

Thank you, everyone.

Uh once again, my name is Maridi.

I am representing the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers.

It is application number 38 under education.

Um we represent we serve first generation students and we empower them to pursue higher education in STEM fields.

We do this through college readiness workshops, through mentoring professional development conferences, college fairs, um, and we served over 270 students and parents last year.

Um actually, thanks to the support and help from uh Tamra Hen Hardy's team because we did receive the N of F ARPA, the America Rescue Plan Act last year.

So we have attended various workshops and we were very familiar with the Oracle Oracle site and now switching to Bonfire.

I did have some issues with submitting my application through Bonfire.

So while contacting technical support and as well as uh Miss Tamra Hamry's team, uh they allowed me to submit my application through uh email.

So I did send everything to Miss Angela Sanders.

Um, and like I mentioned, I did send the notarized form, which is why my application was um not um re I guess rejected.

So everything was there, I do have proof documentation that it was submitted.

And regarding the long application, I do want to mention that page three organization identification and signature page.

Um also the certifications and exhibit n are all part of the big embedded document with 50 something pages.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Maridi, how do you pronounce your last name again?

Mazaira.

So I apologize for that.

I always want to get it right.

Thank you.

Uh next speaker, Raul Barrera.

Can I hit that button underneath, turn the red to green?

There you go.

Everybody.

My name is Raul Barrera.

I am the president of the Amor Peranza, no profit organization.

I am here because uh I did not submit my certificate that could stand the MA application.

But I think so.

This is um a little problem when the bonfire, um, the moment when I send the old documents.

I have a copy my certificate now.

This is an apology because I don't know.

I I know the time what this problem because my certificate no sending.

Okay.

Anything else you want to add, sir?

Anything else you want to add?

All right, okay.

What's the name of your organization?

446 college five.

Thank you so much, sir.

Well, thank you.

And our file our final speaker in the committee of the whole Takara Woods.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I am Takara Woods, the founder of Miracles to Inspire Change and Healing After Experiencing Loss.

We provide grief support services for our most forgotten population, which is our child homicide survivors.

So I am a licensed clinical therapist.

I've been running the micro organization for over 10 years now.

We provide grief support, we provide recreational activities, art therapy, and things of that nature to our grieving children in the city.

So it was stated to us that we did not, we met the scoring threshold with 88, which was over the 80, but we did not submit the certification form just as the others who have mentioned today.

But I have the confirmation details.

The um as Tamra stated, we did attend the workshop hours, the in-office hours, the informational sessions, and what the information presented to us, we were to attach that um certification uh notarized in the documents.

I have it listed here, the NOFA required forms, and our certificate was in fact submitted at the time of the application.

I have the time stamped here and the information.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And what's the name of your organization?

One more time.

So it's a it's miracles to inspire change and healing after experiencing loss.

On the form is listed as doing business as the Michael Organization.

It's an acronym.

Thank you so much.

Colleagues wanted to find it on the uh document.

Thank you so much.

Ready.

And we will now transition to those who have called us online.

So we're feeling how many callers do we have, and who's our first caller?

Currently, sir, we have four callers, and the first caller is Blanca Salala Ayala.

The floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding appeals hearings.

Hi, good afternoon, and thank you again for the opportunity to speak today.

Again, my name is Blanca Zelaya, and I represent the Southwest Detroit Business Association.

Our application number is 37.

Um, I oversee the youth program, the Center of Performing Arts Southwest and Southwest Detroit.

We're a returning funded organization, and we are grateful for all the support that we have received in the past couple of years, and that has allowed us to serve our community.

Also be uh with C DBD being one of our main funders.

Um we understand that our application was not recommended due to the submission of a certificate form without the required notary stamp.

And um, we understand that was an administrative error or credit, uh it was an error on our on our behalf, probably like Tamra has been saying, maybe we we might have missed in an upload when we uploaded it to Bonfire.

We did attend as well.

Um the different the session that was held, and we've we continued our conversations over with the team.

However, we did score 90 points on our application.

Uh we have now submitted the correct notarized form for the review for review because we did notarize it back in October, and we just wanted to make sure that you guys do have it.

Compass is one of the only remaining after school arts programs serving the youth in Southwest Detroit, and we serve over 150 students.

So we would love uh to appeal and for you guys to just kind of hear uh um what we were requesting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Next caller is Amin Sidiqui.

Caller, the floor is yours.

You have a minute 30 regarding appeals, CDBG NOF.

Thank you again.

So when we talk about this funding, we are not talking about a line item.

We are talking about the real lives of children and family in bright mode.

So who are working hard to build stable futures with facing economy, hardship and language barriers.

So many of our families, we serve like uh they are the second generation of immigrant population.

So there is like a very big language barrier, which Dado is bridging over here.

So this program like keep the youth engaged and confident and on track.

So if we do not receive this funding, the unpackage will have will youth will lose consistent tutoring and mentorship, and families will lose trusted guidance in navigating the systems that already feel overwhelming.

So in an already underserved community, this would widen existing gaps which are already there.

So regarding the board list, the board members list, it was not a required as a separate attachment and was included within the body of the 50 plus page word document.

So during final formatting and alignment of the LENZE document, which can be a technically challenging thing for us.

So that section was unintentionally deleted, it was not intentionally omitted, and we take full responsibility for the formatting error.

We are currently recipient in good uh for the current year, like we are in good standing and our proposal ranking is 96%, which is very high.

And we respectfully ask that our application be reviewed fully on its merits and considering our track regard and the impact on the families we serve.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Next caller, please.

Next caller is 826 Michigan, Catherine Calabro.

Caller, the floor is yours.

A minute 30 for your appeals.

Good afternoon.

Thank you again for having me.

Um 826 Michigan is an education-focused nonprofit.

We support young students in Detroit with free uh literacy workshops, um, writing and publishing opportunities in schools and in libraries.

Um, we're on the chart where number um 31.

Uh, our application um did meet the threshold, we scored 90, but we um did not sign exhibit N, the certificate of lower tier participants because of a misunderstanding.

We made um great use of the the frequently asked questions or the um the question option on bonfire.

Um, we were very grateful for the opportunity to be able to ask so many questions and get responses.

Um, and then our understanding was that we um because we were um the primary applicant and didn't have any lower tier participants, that we did not need to sign the form.

That was what um the response that um we read through Bonfire, and um now we understand differently.

So we're grateful for the opportunity to um submit that exhibit and uh grateful to Tarant and Renner team for offering so many opportunities to um get guidance and and even with all those opportunities, it was still um you know a very involved and um challenging process.

So um thank you so much for letting us appeal.

Thank you.

Next caller, please.

Next caller is oh, excuse me.

Next caller is Dante Smith.

Um don't believe he has a and I don't believe Mr.

Smith is an applicant.

We'll give an opportunity to say if he is, if if not, then he will have to wait into general public comment.

Mr.

Smith, are you an applicant that is filled out the CDBG NOF processing?

Yes or no.

I am not, I guess I'll have to wait.

Thank you.

We'll get you in during general public comment at the end.

Next caller, please.

Uh that is the end of the list, sir.

All right, thank you so much.

It takes us to the end of our applicants who have moved forward to appeal, and I do want to start off with uh dato, that is uh number 64.

That's the gentleman who just called in.

Um again, a 96 is a significantly high number.

Um, all of the major thresholds have been accomplished, and I do know that we're in a situation where everything has to be submitted.

Um but we're we're talking about five board members that it sounds like we're embedded somewhere in the document, they may not have been on in the proper line.

It sounds like I know you're gonna have to go back and take a look.

Um, but they've been awarded in the past, uh, so it's clear they have uh five board members.

We're not talking about recreating a document, we're not talking about doing any of those things.

We're just talking about acknowledging that there are five board members, which uh I think it's very clear they have and have had in the past, seeing again that they have been awarded.

Um is there any you know talk to to all who are at the table, uh both Mr.

Gulach as well as Ms.

Fontaine Hardy and uh director stall, any way to um reconcile that that issue.

I mean, again, noting that this is a very worthy been mentioned, all of these programs are extremely worthy.

So don't want to take anything from anyone, but when we start talking about an omission or potentially submitting it in an incorrect area of just the five board members as opposed to any of the other financial information or anything like that.

Is there any way to reconcile this particular app application?

I know you may not be able to answer now, but just asking just an umbrella response.

Fontaine Hardy or Mr.

Gulag.

To your point again, all worthy organizations that do phenomenal work.

Um the application process is as it is.

We are very clear in sharing with all the organizations that that if they miss a document or if they upload the wrong documentation, that it does mean that they will be ineligible to receive funding.

Unfortunately, with this organization, if I remember correctly, or if they don't answer all the questions, whatever the case may be.

And I believe with this particular organization, is that they did not respond to that question in the application.

I don't have it in front of me.

I can make sure that we that my team and my and myself, we provide that feedback to you in the document in the documentation that we're gonna provide to you.

But I believe, and again, I read over I read 67 applications, so I can't tell you exactly what happened, but I will definitely share that information with you.

Because again, we want to make sure that we're fair, that we're equitable, and we we do the right thing.

So we will definitely review that and get that information to you.

And I guess thank you so much for that.

And similar to the question that was asked earlier about is this a federal requirement or is this uh a requirement, that particular one about the five uh members, the name of the five members.

Is that a requirement of the federal government uh and the CDBG process, or is that more a city of Detroit policy?

Um CFR five two CFR 200 spells out what needs to be in the application at the time of the application, and it does require that the organization show that it has a number of board members, at least five, and that they have met at least twice.

So that is something that is spelled out in the federal guidelines.

Okay.

I'm interested in this particular organization based on the scoring and what was um at least at this point allegedly omitted.

Thank you for the work that you do.

I see a few more hands.

I see Member Miller, followed by Member Callaway, followed by Proto.

Member Miller.

Although this is an appeals process, it seemed like it's a no-nonsense process, and I'm wondering why do we even have it if we can't get any type of consideration.

Sound like we're wasting time, but I know everybody's allowed due process, but I keep hearing the same thing over and over again.

So it's like we're here with these documents and we're in this propeals portion, and does it seem like we're gonna get any grace or mercy.

I would ask that maybe we should um evaluate this process or pray about it or something because this is just blowing my mind that we're just wasting everybody's time here today.

Because I am concerned, I have especially favored for people that come in person.

If you can miss work and come down here in person, I have an enormous amount of respect for you.

Although I know everybody can't, but if I were to divulge out something, it would be the people that came in person today.

If you just want to know my opinion, but I'm just have one opinion.

Thank you.

So, through the chair, I will say to um council members' question, we're not human.

I mean, we're not perfect, we're human, right?

And we've we don't walk on water, and so we will go back and review everything.

We will uh work with OCP to ensure that the documents were received by them, and we will come back to this council because it's my name on the line, and I like to, you know, my integrity is important to me and my team.

If there was an error made, we will let them back in.

We've done it in the past, we'll do it now, and we'll do it in the future, because we think that these organizations are worthy as well.

And so once we are have an opportunity to go back to the office of contracts and procurement, we will review all the document again, and if there was a chance that we did not receive the documentation for whatever reason, we will let this body know, and we will let those organizations back in and do our very best to provide funding to them.

I do uh want to also caution council that many of the uh we are projecting that we'll receive maybe to maybe 2.3 million dollars this year.

Um, we're getting dangerously low to that $50,000 mark, and as um council president will attest to, um, we can't go below that mark.

And so there may be a need to cost out some organizations.

We're not sure about that just yet, but we are getting dangerously close to that, and we want to make sure that we can support every single organization that applied and that make the federal requirements and the city detroit requirements.

Um, but we only have so much funding, and we can't go beyond that.

So please give us an opportunity to go back to review the documents to bring back a report to this body and um to ensure that we are being fair and equitable across the line.

But we do, and I say this and I don't mean to sound like a broken record.

It is important that we uh uh abide by the federal guidelines, and we want to make sure that for those organizations that did do the right thing, we're they're you know, they're being fit treated fair and equitable as well.

So thank you for this time, and we will definitely bring you back something on Wednesday once we've had an opportunity to meet with OCP and review the documents again.

So thank you.

I just wanted to say you appear to be very fair and competent, and it is an and this is my first time here, so I just had to say that um you run a tight ship, and I believe that you are actually doing an amazing job.

It's just the process for me is you're doing your job, and like you said to everyone that did complete everything appropriately, they should be rewarded.

And I just wanted to let you know that I uh thank you for this stringent process because this is a lot of work and it's a lot of investigating, and um that's all I really wanted to say.

It wasn't um to say anything derogatory about the pri it's just the process itself and the time they were spending going over, but no, your your department seems to be very thorough about uh this whole application process.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Member Callaway?

Yeah, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Real quick, how much um funding are we talking about for this 2026-2027 um CDG, I'm sorry, CDBG.

Um that we're walking we're we're looking at now.

How much are we working?

Uh through the chair, we've had a projection that was given to us of about 2.3 million dollars.

Okay.

And through through the chair to yourself, ma'am, how much in terms of what has was being awarded here or recommended awards of that 2.3 million dollars um is been spoken for or has been granted.

Every dime of it.

So if organizations through the chair, every dime it's been spoken for.

Okay.

If we are required to bring, if we did make a mistake and we um allow or other organizations to get in, what that means is that we have to reduce every single grant amount to fit those organizations in.

So, say, for example, right now, um most of the organizations are receiving $50,000, right?

Uh, we have a couple of organizations that scored high that might be receiving maybe 70, uh 75, I believe under 75.

We'll be pulling from those organizations, they'll come down to 50, and we'll try to let some other organizations in, but we cannot go beneath 50,000.

In the event that we're not able to do that, then we have to cost out organizations.

Cost out means that we tell the organizations that yes, you did apply, yes, you did meet the funding requirements, but unfortunately, we ran out of funds.

That is nothing you knew uh unusual.

That happens in the funding world as a um app as a prior um funder for both Kellogg and Kreske, things like this happen.

We just don't have all the dollars.

If we're able to uh find those dollars through the department, uh that would be something uh director Julie Snyder would talk to, but we also have to ensure that we don't go over our cap.

So as you are aware, the city of Detroit receives a certain amount of funding, public service gets 15% of that funding.

We split that with homelessness.

That means we get 7.5% of the overall balance of of funding for CDBG, and that's all we can spend in one year.

We cannot go over CAP if we do, then HUD deems us and we get a finding, and that can impact our overall ability to receive funding in the future.

So we want to make sure that we adhere to the federal guidelines that we've been um that we sign when we sign our contract with HUD.

So we do our very best, I promise you, but we can't spend over what what we don't have.

Okay.

Um thank you for that, um, Miss Um Frontain.

Um so we have 2.3 million dollars, and we are maxed out.

So even if we wanted to go back and look at some organizations that have not been funded, receive zero funding, we wouldn't be able to do that in this cycle.

Is that what you're saying?

I'm saying that we would look at who's been funded right now.

We would have to pull dollars from each of those organizations.

So, for example, the funding matrix you received has a recommendation for each of those organizations.

We would then have to go back and pull from the organizations that we've already told they're gonna receive so much funding, we'll have to deduct the amount of funding that they're receiving.

That is going to do a number of things.

Um, the organizations will have a gap in their funding, and so each of those organizations will have to go back and figure out how to fill the gap that we're not able to give them.

Um that's what's going to happen.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you, Miss Fontaine.

You're welcome.

Thank you.

Pro Tim Young.

Thank you, Mr.

President, Mr.

Chair.

Um I just want to say for the record, uh, you guys are human.

You I just want to make that clear.

I know that was a mistake on your part of it.

I just want everybody to know you are human.

You're not AI.

So I just want everybody to know that.

Okay.

Just want to get that clear.

Um I also just wanted to say, secondly, um, I know it's it's maybe not be as high as some other people, but I think the Michael organization, I think it's like 88%.

I just wanted to say, I feel that that is a valuable resource because one, you're talking about children who are dealing with trauma of gunfighter, people losing their family, but also people who experience trauma are more likely to go out and inflict it afterwards.

So this is about crime reduction, it's literally about life and death here, about saving people's lives in the community and in the neighborhoods, and you know, this and also forced Detroit as well.

As we all know crime violence intervention, what is done in terms of keeping people safe?

And even though we made great progress, and you know, kudos to the administration, we still have a long way to go.

Or as they say, the biggest room in the world is a room for improvement.

And so I just want to know is there something that we could do to be able to at least advocate for them to be able to be able to have this this opportunity again to be able to reply for this.

I just think this is just so incredibly vital for the city of Detroit, people's mental health and their well-being, and we have not had the apparatus to really be able to deal with that for a long time.

Um America kind of gone away from the deinstitutionalization movement since the 1950s.

So we don't really have that apparatus set in place to deal with mental health like we should.

I think, particularly in this city since the 90s when um the England administration closed a lot of mental health facilities.

And so I just want to know can we at least um have some sort of way in which we can allow them to be able to reapply for this or qualify for this money.

Yes, thank you through the chair.

Um, unfortunately, if the organization does not um meet the qualifications, we cannot let them back in.

Okay.

But what we can do, and what we offer every single year is once the budgeting process is complete, we invite these organizations to reach out to us.

We will go through the application with them, show them where they uh scored low, um, and provide recommendations for how they can do better the next year.

This application will open up again in September, and we will do this process over again.

We start in June, July with the best practices for them.

We are happy, I'm happy.

Typically, I'm the person that's meeting with the organizations to go over that those details and give them tips how to submit a stronger application.

Um, it's uh again, it's a very competitive application.

Um, again, so they will have to just do their very best, but we do give them an opportunity to come back and to apply again.

I I want to make it uh make it this aware to you.

We received 67 applications.

We're award we're requested, uh recommended 42 organizations.

Out of those 42 organizations, I believe 11 or 12 of them are brand new, never applied before.

67 a year, right?

I just make sure I got a clear 67 a year, right?

That's what we applicated through City.

No, that's this year.

Oh, just this year, okay.

Okay, I know the average.

And so we are going to be awarding between 11 to 40 14 new organizations.

That's that's phenomenal.

That goes to the great work that we did as a team, but Sandra's team did.

Um, that's a heavy lift for us because many of these organizations don't understand federal guidelines.

Um, they don't understand how to be a good sub-recipient.

We're going to spend the time to help them along that track.

And so we're excited for the new organizations, and I will say this to council that we provided funding for NOF R.

Uh, and one of those, one of the uh goals was to help organizations, small nonprofit grassroots organizations to apply for this funding.

And I know of at least 10 organizations that applied for this funding that received NOF ARPA funding, which is phenomenal.

So that tells us that we did our work and we did it well.

Uh, we're gonna continue to work with them and do our very best to allow the organizations that have followed the guidelines and awarded to be the best applicants and subrecipients they can be.

Okay, look, well, I just want to ask you if your system caused the problem, is it still an issue that you need to look at in terms of equity?

And what about the people who appealed who stated that your computer system shut them out, and then there was one organization that said that they received a response to a uh frequently asked question, and they acted in accordance with the response, and they they and they act in accordance with the response that you gave them.

Is there no recourse for that?

Is there no recourse for these organizations who say you shut them out of the system?

Of course, there's recourse for the two organizations.

Speak a little bit louder for me, I can't hear you.

I'm sorry, of course, there's always recourse for the two organizations that um unfortunately were shut out of the system, they were having system challenges.

Um, we were allowed those two organizations to submit their documents through email.

Okay, we received those documents.

And so, what we're going to do is working with the Office of Contracts and Procurement, because they don't come to me, they go directly to the Office of Contracts and Procurement.

Okay.

We will meet with them to determine whether those documents were submitted to us.

And then if they were submitted, we will let them back in.

So yes, there's always recourse.

If the organizations did what they were responsible for doing, we will honor that.

Definitely.

Well, listen, I'm in the issue about the question I had earlier about the equity piece.

Do you feel that there's a responsibility on your hand to be able to deal with these people that provide some sort of equity for people who don't qualify for the system?

I mean, is there some sort of the equity program or process you have for you?

The equity is ensuring that the individuals that did the right thing that they receive funding.

The equity is in ensuring that the organizations that had issues with uploading documents, they did the that we bring those organizations in.

That's why we have an appeals process.

So that everyone can uh we can ensure that everyone is being treated fairly and that we're responding to issues that may have occurred.

And if we are wrong, and I'll say this again, if we made a mistake, then we will let them back in.

But again, I've not walked on water, and so for that reason, I'm going to make sure that I do everything that I can to ensure that if we were wrong, that we will fix it and we will allow them back in.

Well, if you do right thing to do.

Well, if you did walk on water, I would say it's because you can't swim, but that's a different conversation for another day.

Um, but but what uh but but what I will say, I mean, i I understand what you're saying.

It's said that sounds a little bit more like equality in terms of equity for me.

For what you're talking about, everybody gets the same thing instead of people getting what they need.

But I understand the process and I understand how this works.

And um, I just want to ask this is my final question.

I just wanted to ask you.

Um, is the rules that are set?

Are are those rules and I'm kind of piggybacking off of um Member Johnson's uh question?

But are the rules that I'll talking about, are those rules set primarily by the federal government, or are they city rules that we could change?

Oh, through the chair, there are several different bodies that govern this process.

First of all, there's two CFR 200 um that we have to go by.

Those are federal rules.

They're the HUD guidelines that we have to go through when it comes to applications, and then there are procurement guidelines that we have to go through related to the process, the procurement process by which we got we're governed by that is a city rule that um uh director you stall can speak through.

But as it relates to the federal guidelines, those are hard.

We cannot change those.

So I'll let uh director you stall speak to the other portion of your question.

May she, Mr.

President.

Director You stall.

Any of our requirements, um the the city requirements are not requirements at the time of uh application submission.

The ones that can be disqualifiers are the ones that um HRD through their expertise and knowledge of HUD requirements require at the time of submission.

Okay.

So what I'm talking about is federal then.

What I'll talk about with the process, people being disqualified, that's a that's that's a federal process, not a city process.

Um I'm uh for example, you know, the this is a different agency, but the FTA, you know, if you don't have certain certifications completed at the time of submission, we risk our federal dollars if we move forward with them.

And I'm sure that that is also the case with certain requirements from HUD.

The certification form um that is missing from some of these uh applicants is about um HUD's ruling on church and state.

Um, so you know it's it's they there are important forms um that are required.

So so just just to be clear here, I'm just trying to try to narrow it down.

So so that's a yes.

These are federal requirements that we have to adhere to that I cannot change here from this body, correct?

I would say that there's two class of requirements.

There are ones that are directly required by the federal government.

Um, and then another requirement is that we have to follow we can't change the rules after the fact.

Oh that changes the playing field for everybody who did the hard work of making sure that they submitted every requirement.

Okay.

Um, so you know, two categories of requirements.

Okay.

So are one of those categories for the city and the other one for the feds?

Or are they, or is one the federal hard and the other one influenced heavily by the feds?

Uh, whatever our city requirements um at the time of submission, I would need to defer to uh Ms.

Tamra.

All right.

So what we're gonna do is to bring this discussion.

Need to bring this discussion to a close because we're not having any decision making that's taking place today.

We can continue to ask questions.

There's gonna be another hearing.

We got more sessions on this as we move forward.

Um, but I think what was promised one was a document or documents plural that uh outline what are the federal requirements in this process and what are the city policies aspect of it.

That was requested by member Johnson earlier today, and I think that would satisfy both your question, my question, as well as Member Johnson's question as well.

So if we can get that uh document uh with that information on it before our next uh session, that would be extremely helpful, and uh, I think eliminate some of the questions that we have moving forward, um, at least in that particular space.

So thank you uh for providing us with that information.

I'm gonna go next to Member Miller, followed by Member Johnson, and we're gonna close it out, colleagues.

I just wanted to say maybe we should consider not offering the amounts to the recipients before the appeal process, because the people there were allowed to email their documents in.

Now you're considering possibly uh adding them in.

So now that means contacting the people that are beneficiaries of this award with a reduction.

So I was just wondering the process seemed to be uh maybe in the future because we are human and some things can happen or get bias, or there may be a reconsideration.

Maybe there's it should be the awarding amount should go out after the fact.

That's all.

Thank you.

Um our recommended amounts, they are not set in stone.

Um, so that we do allow um at least alert the organizations that this is what we're recommending, but it's not necessarily exactly what they may receive.

And so typically when we receive our grant agreement from HUD, with the dollar amount that we're gonna receive, typically that amount goes up.

Um, and sometimes it may go down.

So we don't know exactly what we're going to get from HUD until later on this year, but it is a recommended amount, is not set in stone just yet.

But that may help a little.

But I do agree with you, it might be helpful not to, but um at the same time, is we can go back and talk about that along with some of the other recommendations that this body is recommending.

All right, thank you.

Um Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Just a quick request um for the Michael organization.

I would just like to ask um if you all can take another look at the item that it indicates was not signed or notarized, uh, the certification form.

Um, I do have a copy of the document, so just want to be sure that you all take a closer look.

Um, and if you can share the document that you have with me, if if the information that disqualify them, indicating that they did not meet threshold if your document is different from the document that I received a copy of.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

All right.

Discussion.

Um with uh last discussion, last discussion item on this one today.

We're gonna wrap it up with uh member Scott Benson.

All right, thank you.

Uh Mr.

Chair, just to the administration and to CPC staff, just looking at the uh applications 15, uh 17, and then 21, just knowing that if I were an applicant and I scored higher than somebody else, and I was recommended for a lower amount, I I'd have heartburn there.

So my plan is to ask about the history of those groups, goodwills green works, downtown boxing gym, as well as all Saints literacy um being identified as new applicants, and just uh looking at how we're dispersing the funds.

I believe they should um have funds that correspond to the level of their score, and just wanted to talk about that.

We're gonna have that offline, and which may result in a motion for another funding um amount from the city council, just based on their scores and where they were placed in the uh queue.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Uh colleagues, we shall now close out the appeals portion of or the appeals hearing uh portion of this uh committee of the whole.

We will now go to public comment.

If there's anyone for the public who would like to speak, please raise your hand now.

For the general public, if there's anyone from the general public who would like to speak, please raise your hand now, going once, going twice, going three times.

The collection of public comments have now concluded.

Uh, the most important folks in this particular conversation were the applicants, and we've heard from them.

So we're gonna give everyone one minute for general public comment.

One minute general public comment.

Let's put that on the clock.

I don't see any hands in the committee of the whole mr.

Whitfield, how many callers do we have?

And who do we have first?

Sorry about that, Council President.

Uh we just have one caller online, and that is the Kayla Randall.

Okay, I know we had another gentleman who was here earlier.

Yeah, Mr.

Smith.

If you are here, want to be respectful of your opportunity.

So if you raise your hand, we'll give you a chance to speak as well.

Caller, the floor is yours.

You have one minute.

General public comment.

Caller, are you there?

Yes, hello.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Thank you so much for your time.

My name again is the Kayla Randall, and I serve as the program coordinator at a nonprofit called Johnny Saheling, also known as J2H to us in the number two.

Um, unfortunately, I'm uncertain if we have reply for either one of these applications.

However, I do want to share just a bit of the shameless pull to introduce Jenny to healing um as a nonprofit that I would like for you guys to have on your radar.

So our journey to hearing we're a trauma informed culturally responsive mental health organization dedicated to supporting children, adults, and families and our community here in Detroit.

We focus on individuals transforming their pain into power through accessible evidence-based emotional wellness services, including SEO workshops, that social emotional workshops and sport-based programming.

We just want to put our um out there and let you guys know to um expect some.

Thank you so much.

Next caller, please.

All right.

Thank you so much.

Colleagues, is there a motion to adjourn?

Oh, oh, before we go forward, Mr.

Gulag, walk us through those next steps, the depth the various meetings and what the public should expect.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Yes, your next scheduled NOF deliberations are on the Wednesday at 2 p.m.

And that's just NOF deliberations amongst amongst PED expanded.

And uh then you'd have general public comment as part of the.

And you say that you're talking about this document right here, right?

Uh correct.

Um HRD will submit a response regarding the appeals, its findings, and we'll either send that to you tomorrow or Wednesday morning, and then we'll walk through that response when you convene on on Wednesday at two, and then councils usually tries to act on the appeals at it on Wednesday, and then you could look at the whole chart as well on Wednesday at two.

And then uh if you can't finish then, if you don't finish then, you're scheduled for uh 2 p.m.

on Thursday, and then if you're not finished then you're scheduled for 10 a.m.

on Friday.

Gotcha.

And then the vote.

The vote uh you you voted on it voting, uh, I mean, you uh Tuesday, March 3rd, I believe.

All right, thank you.

Just want to make sure the public knew what to expect.

Now typically we have not taken that last Friday, uh, that last day.

Um so I just want to again make it very clear that we don't plan on doing that this year, if not necessary, but we will take the necessary time uh to go through these and give it the respect that it deserves.

Director Todd.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Good afternoon, City Council.

The only thing I'd like to add to uh Mr.

Gulach's remarks uh concerns the only other uh issue that does outstanding, and that is uh conflict of interest.

Uh there's still a couple of council members I believe we're waiting to hear from, but we hope to also have that wrapped up tomorrow once we hear back from the board of ethics and from the law department in order to be able to address those issues as it concerns the rest of your proceedings this week.

Thank you so much.

Uh Mr.

Gulart.

Mr.

Chair, I forgot to add if a group failed to if they missed the appeals hearing today.

We'd let groups know that you have the groups have a right to appeal to counsel through the clerk's office as normal appeals are happen.

Uh but the the window is closing, so they would really have to uh be present um at uh your council tomorrow, council session tomorrow, or on Wednesday to make an appeal if they missed it for some reason.