And it planning and economic development standing committee for the purposes of deliberating over the CDBG NOF process.

Madam Clerk, will you please call the roll?

And good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

Councilmember Scott Benson.

Scott Benson, I.

Councilmember Letitia Johnson.

Present.

Councilmember Denzel McCampbell.

President.

Councilmember Renata Miller.

Councilmember Gabriela Santiago Romero.

Yeah.

Councilmember Mary Waters.

Member Waters did indicate that she would not be present due to uh request due to a necessity to recuse herself from the process.

Clerk will note.

Councilmember Angela Whitfield Callaway.

Present.

Council President Pro Tem Colemine Young.

Here.

Council President James Tate.

Here.

Mr.

Chairman, we have quorum.

Thank you.

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

Before you, colleagues, there is a document that was prepared.

I want to say by uh CPC and HRD Soling.

HRD.

Um and I see Ms.

Tamara Fontaine Hardy available on screen as well.

Thank you all for being here.

When we left off, we had a number of individuals who uh did appeal uh and presented some of their uh finding or some of their information to this body as well, uh of course to the um uh HRD.

And uh we have a document in front of us.

It looks like some of them have been adjusted as a result of that, as Ms.

Fontaine Hardy indicated, they're not perfect, they're not robots, uh and they do go back and uh clarify things as needed.

Um and would like to go over those uh changes, but Mr.

Gulag, before we go forward with that, I'm gonna give you the floor to walk us through where we are today.

Floor is yours.

President uh Mr.

Chair, uh so as council recalls or for the public, the um administration has submitted the chart of the recommendations for NOF.

There are 67 groups that applied, and 42 are recommended for funding.

And then on Monday, the council had their uh overview from staff, and then you had your public hearing on NOF, and then after that you had your official appeals hearing.

And uh, as you noted, well, at the appeals hearing you received eight appeals.

We have not received any additional ones since that time.

And then uh HRD, I think along with OCP and investigated the appeals and they submitted a memo to um not a memo, but a form response to the council for your review.

And we passed that out yesterday uh to council offices.

And um so today is really just uh titled NOF deliberations, and usually your first step is to evaluate the appeals and decide how to deal with those, and then after that you would pivot to the chart to make uh ask questions or deliberate on the the actual chart.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Director Todd excuse me.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Good afternoon to you and members of this honorable body.

Just to append Mr.

Gulak's remarks, and certainly even more so for the benefit of the new council members.

Once you go through your actions today, they will be resolved into two separate actions for the formal.

So what we will do is prepare a chart and resolution to formally adopt your actions relative to the appeals, and then the final action or the subsequent action would of course then be your adoption, uh formal adoption of the recommendations for the chart.

Uh the only other thing I did want to make reference to as it concerns the uh conflicts of interest, uh, as already indicated.

Member Waters does have a conflict of interest under the verification category.

She has elected not to participate.

Mr.

Benson also has one under the education category, the understanding and direction that we have consensed upon HRD, uh, Board of Ethics staff, law department, and CPC staff is that uh if um that Mr.

Benson would uh since he is present declare his conflict of interest uh once we have completed the appeals process and as we are then moving into the full uh consideration of the chart, and when we get to the education category, he would make his declaration and then he would recuse himself from any participation under the discussion of the education category and the group uh is located that he has a conflict with.

And as has been your practice uh and also the practice of the commission, you would take the chart and act upon it in each of the five categories.

Okay, and then just for those who are watching, I know when people hear conflict and recusals uh sometimes their mind goes to wrongdoing.

Uh so if you can explain, you know, what constitutes a conflict and why a recusal is the best appropriate uh motion.

Most certainly, and try to keep it in simple terms.

In this case, we are have the we have uh both HUD regulations that we're attempting to uh uh be in compliance with as well as the city's regulations, which both come under portions of the city code as well, which also includes those things that are specific to the ethics ordinance.

So uh in simple way to put it would be a conflict uh can occur when there is a relationship that a council member has directly with one of these organizations uh or a family member, and um that we could have a perceived conflict where maybe somebody does volunteer work.

In that case, all someone needs to do is declare that, or if in fact you have a uh relative that does work with one of these organizations that is unpaid.

Uh again, that just needs to be declared, and sometimes that will also mean that you have to complete a form with the Board of Ethics to uh formally declare that relationship.

When your relationship or that again of a family member is one where there is compensation, there is some sort of financial interest or benefit, some exchange of funds, then that, particularly from the hood perspective, is considered a conflict, and that can be considered and be waived by Hood, but that is a lengthy process to do so.

It has to be evaluated by HRD and the law department, and then the necessary uh request sent to HUD to do that.

That of course has happened in the past with some members of this honorable body and others within the city.

Um but when that occurs um uh at this point in time where you're considering the program, there is not that opportunity to make that application from HUD and get the response.

So, therefore, the direction is for the person to for the council member to recuse themselves.

So they declare the conflict.

This is the group that I have a conflict with, and until this is resolved, I am unable to participate.

So uh the councilperson will then recuse, step away from the table in order for there not to be uh uh any opportunity or or even appearance thereof for them to uh be participating inappropriately with this process.

Thank you, Mr.

Todd.

And for the record, I had a conflict uh last year and had to step away from the table as well.

So just wanted to make it out put it out there and put it out there very clearly and plainly for folks so they don't take and run with it that anything untoward took place.

Um Ms.

Tamra Fontaine Hardy.

Thank you for joining us uh this afternoon.

I know you provided a document.

Uh we have the appeal recommendations 2627 CDBG NOF and wanted you to please uh go through this particular document.

So let's start at the top.

Um, North End Village nonprofit, they appealed the decision by the um uh recommendations stating that they had submitted the documentation.

Uh, unfortunately, as we went back and through this body, we said that we would work with the Office of Contracting and Procurement along with HRD to review all of the documents that have been submitted upon further review.

We did find that the organization did not submit the operating proof from the last two years.

What they did submit was a law uh report, an annual report that was dated 715, 2024, which you can see as well.

And for and then later um also submitted their articles as record articles of incorporation.

Unfortunately, these two documents do not constitute um the documents that are required in order to fulfill the obligation of submitting documentation showing proof of operation for the last two years, and so as a result, they are no longer qualified, and the recommendation to deny this uh grant this applicant stands.

Again, we just as a matter of information, we do put information in the uh program guidelines of documents that are um acceptable proof for two years of operation.

Unfortunately, the organization failed to submit those documents, so they will be denied.

Moving on down to miracles to inspire change and healing after experiencing loss, doing business as Michael organization.

We have approved that organization.

We found that the applicant uh they did submit the required documentation, but as you know, through the application portal, bonfire, each of those documents are to be submitted in the proper place.

So it will say articles of incorporation.

The applicant is required to then upload the articles of incorporation to that particular link.

Unfortunately, the applicant did not upload the required documentation to the proper link.

Instead, they uploaded the wrong document to that link and then embedded the document in documents that are not required by or for this application.

The Office of a Contract and Procurement also requires documents to be uploaded, and the applicant uploaded and embedded that document within the other documents that the HRD does not verify or check for because they're not necessary for our application.

Those are documents that OCP requires.

Having gone back and reviewed every single document, even going into the OCP's documents, we found the documents.

So we are going to let them in this time because they did indeed upload the document.

The one thing we are going to stress as we always do is to please make sure you follow the directions and upload in the proper place.

The next organization is Detroit African Youth Development Organization.

This organization applied, we are going to deny their application.

The applicant did not list any board members within the application, which is required, which is also a threshold criteria.

If they don't list the board members within the application, or we can no longer certify threshold.

And so it is very clear, we make that very clear in all of our documentation that they have to answer all of the questions.

And moving forward, they have to ensure that they put the information where it needs to go.

Unfortunately, they did not do that.

So this applicant is denied.

Amore Esperanza, based on the review of the Office of Contracting and Procurement.

So this is one of the organizations who was having some technical difficulties with with their, we believe is with their computer system, not with bonfire, but in any event, the organization was not able to upload the documents.

They did reach out to the Office of Contracting and Procurement, and they did allow them to upload the application via email.

The organization uploaded all the documents.

And so the certificate of good standing was not submitted.

So this applicant is denied.

So this was a misunderstanding by a staffer in the Office of Contracting and Procurement.

The organization submitted a question, which is allowed through the Office of Contracting and Procurement.

When the Office of Contracting and Procurement, they answered the question.

Unfortunately, there was a misunderstanding in the documentation that the staffer responded, which based on their response, the applicant did not sign all of the documentation.

And so as a result, we are letting this organization in because it was a mistake that was made just by pure misunderstanding.

And so because of that, we have allowed this organization to come in.

This is the other applicant that submitted all their documents or a great number of documents through email due to some issues with the with their computer or with the bonfire system.

In any event, the required documentation was found.

It was found that the Office of Contract and Procurement inadvertently left this documentation out of the documents that they sent to us.

So therefore we are letting them in because it was a mistake on the city side and not the applicant side.

So that applicant has been approved.

Southwest Detroit Business Association, we found that the organization did not notarize the certification.

So that organization will not be approved to come in.

They are still denied.

Their overall score was an 86.

So they did score enough to be approved for funding.

Unfortunately, throughout the year, the organization did not adhere to their contractual obligations.

At this time, in 2024 2024, for the 2024-2025 funding year, they were awarded 64,143.

As of today, they have still have $60,000 remaining in that contract.

It is required that each subrecipient draw down funds by the 15th of each month.

At this time, they are more than eight months behind in drawing down those funds.

They have until the 30th of March to submit all of the required documentation in order to draw down that $64,000.

Or should I say the remaining $60,000?

It would be against the contract if we were to award this organization additional funds, understanding that they have not spent down all of their funds from the previous year, and they have not been as responsive as they should be as a subrecipient for the previous year.

So we have denied this applicant.

On another note, we do understand how important this organization is to the city of Detroit.

And so leadership is looking to figure out what they can do, and we will get back to you through a memo of next steps for this organization.

That is my report out to the council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we just received another document of like fresh off the press here.

Fontaine Hardy, if you can go over that as well as titled HUD CDBG NOF application required documents versus City of Detroit required documentation.

That's appears to be in response to Member Johnson's question that she raised at the table.

Yes, through the chair.

Thank you again.

It was Council Member Johnson that requested that we submit to council a document showing which documents are required at the time of application from HUD versus the documents that are required from the city of Detroit.

And so as is just like we did last year, this same document was requested last year, so it wasn't difficult to then uh retrieve it and send it again to council.

Um we, if you would go through the memo, you will see that we certainly are I should say that I was able to put together the document uh uh showing the actual uh federal guidelines 24 CFR 570.500, demonstrating what those documents that are required for CDBG public service grants.

The first section is HUD subrecipient selection requirements.

Each of these documents are required, uh whether it's by uh considered by HUD or the uniform administrative requirements, which is two CFR 200.

So if you review the document, you will see that HUD requires that the document that the applicant must meet the national objective, that the program fits with it, projects must fit into the community priorities that are set up by the consolidated plan.

The applicant should have prior experience with CDBG andor experience with other grant programs or proven track record carrying out similar programs.

That's very important because that helps us establish whether this organization has the capacity to fulfill the grant requirements for this grant.

They must have financial stability as indicated by other funding sources and amounts over time.

They must have adequate staffing, and the organization must be able to show that it is able to keep record keeping methods, filing systems, financial assistance, assistance, and existence of a written procedures manual for its financial, programmatic, and personnel management.

Moving on down to the uniform administrative requirements as well as HUD requirements, the agency information at the time of application must be able to show background and program experience, personnel, staff capacity, financial capacity, monitoring, audit requirements, and insurance bonding and workers' compensation.

Further, the organization must be able to show at the time of application the standard required documents, articles of incorporation, the bylaws, certificate of good standing with the state of Michigan, federal and tax uh exemption determination letters, a list of the board of directors, the authorization to request funds, designation of authorized officials, their organizational chart, resumes of program administrators, and financial or fiscal officers, their annual financial statements and audits, conflict of interest questionnaire, documentation of compliance with the national objectives, and certifications, which is what is in question, documents of HUD final rule, revised church and state regulations, conflict of interest regulations, board of directors, HUD debarment list according to the U.S.

Code, Title 18, Section 2, 1001, 1343 and Title 31, Sections 3729-3730 and 3801-3812.

Further down, we see the City of Detroit requirements.

The organizations must have two years of operational experience, a maximum that they can apply for is 100,000.

The minimum is 50,000.

They must have at least 7% of total request in their organization's bank.

That is because this is a reimbursable grant.

They cannot have any unresolved government audit or monitoring problems.

They must submit their consolidated affidavits and again certification regarding debarment, suspension, ineligibility, and voluntary exclusion, lower tier cover transactions.

These are all the documents that at our required at the time of application, which goes to our threshold requirements that we asked for.

If the organization does not present this at the time of application, when the application window is open, which is 30 days, they are automatically disqualified from that application.

They are able to apply the next year as to submit those documents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colleagues' questions, comments, concerns regarding these information we've been provided.

So this doesn't speak to any of these items.

I had a question regarding the scoring and the allocation.

I'm not sure if the administration prepared to discuss that, or should I ask my question again about that?

Whoever would like to respond.

Through the chair, um, I was responding to the direct question that was given related to the memo that was submitted to council by council member Johnson.

I'm happy to discuss the additional questions that came through today from council member Benson.

All right, thank you.

So this question was addressed on Monday.

My question is on the scoring.

And so looking at three groups who scored higher than other groups, but were awarded approximately $2,000 less than those groups that they scored higher than.

For some reason, I do believe they had been awarded in the past and have been through the process, but to automatically have it predetermined that I may perform poorly, and so we're going to give you less money despite the fact that you've scored higher.

And what we see throughout the entire chart is that allocations correspond to the score.

And so if I score 96, I get 52,000.

The other 96 scores get 54,000, and then I look down to a 95 and it gives 52,000.

I've got a concern that wasn't in writing, and it wasn't made clear to the applicants.

To me, there's just an issue of transparency and fairness.

And so just wondering where we are with that.

Again, we assess the organizations based on their ability to have the capacity to fulfill the grant requirements.

It has been our practice, and I will say that the practice of this council, even last year, that we scored these applications the same, and it was approved last year when we had conversation with council regarding the inability of many of the newer organizations to spend down their funds in a timely manner.

Our rationale is sound in that we believe and we have seen that we need to see how the organizations will perform, which has been consistent over the past years.

And so, given the fact that many of these organizations, I can say for sure, two organizations that received funding in 2025-2026 that were brand new organizations declined their grant because they realized they did not have the capacity to perform uh the these the grant in the way that it needed to be performed and meet the program requirements.

Given that council uh made the recommendations last year, and that given that it was approved last year, we continue to look at those organizations to determine if they are new organizations.

The organization that you brought up has never received a CDBG grant before, a CDBG public service NOF grant before.

Now they may have received a grant through the city of Detroit, but each federal grant has different requirements, and therefore they have not been assessed on their ability to perform with this grant, as have none of the others.

Given the funding requirements, given the uh stipulations and the amount of documentation that we have, we have to establish a history of that organization's ability, particularly with monitoring, particularly with all the HUD federal guidelines, that they are able to continue to perform in a manner that is um consistent with the requirements of this grant.

Okay, and so then was this in writing and were groups notified that if they are new that they will receive less money than those they score equal to or better than.

Is that in writing somewhere?

We did notify those organizations during our training sessions that if they are new organizations, the possibility exists that they would receive less funding, particularly given the amount of funding that we receive now, because it is so much less than what we received in previous years.

Um, we want to make sure that those organizations are able to fulfill their grant requirements.

So that is in writing somewhere, correct?

I cannot say that it is in, I believe it's in writing, but I will certainly try to find that information so that I can send it to you so that that information uh if you believe that it's not been made public, we can certainly get that information to you.

Okay, so I just want to make it clear.

And if it's not in writing, we will make sure that we put it in writing moving forward.

What has been made public and if you're I understand that and if it's been made transparent to all the groups, I mean $2,000 may not seem like much to us, but $2,000 can be at least for a vehicle for an organization, it can be food for a year for several youth, it can be part of programming.

So $2,000 can mean a lot to some of these groups which operate on the edge and provide services to our most vulnerable population.

So for me, it's just about fairness, and I understand that this could past practices could dictate that certain groups are not able to perform, but if it's not been placed in writing, then I just have a concern that there's just there needs to be a level of fairness, and I need to be able to understand that hey, if I'm into this, I put a lot of work here.

I actually have put in work at a higher level than others who have been funded in the past, that I should not be um dismissed or my application should not be dismissed diminished based on the fact that I'm new.

Through the right through the chair, I'd like to say um I agree with you 100%, councilman uh member Benson.

It is always our um intention to be fair, to be equitable, to make sure that we are treating each and every applicant with the utmost respect for their time and for the work that they do for the most vulnerable, as you have said.

Um, we will make sure that we get that information to you.

Again, um, we want to be fair across the board.

Uh, I would say that this team has operated with fair, with equity and with integrity, as we have done in the past, and we'll continue to do that.

And so we will make sure that we get that information to you.

We are I am 100% sure we sit we have uh noted that to the applicants during the application workshops, but to your point, we do need to make sure that everything that we do is in writing, so we will make sure that that information is there and make it uh clear for the applicants moving forward.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

And so today we are voting on the appeals process, correct?

Yes, sir.

We're voting basically immediately on this process.

Look okay.

So I I will make a motion, unless you can find that information that was done in writing immediately.

I'm gonna make a motion that to whomever is responsible for the allocation of these dollars that we reallocate the dollars fairly so that those those three applicants, and it doesn't take much, and I could give a how to do it, that they be placed equal to those who scored hot equally to them.

And so for line 15, they should receive $54,000, not $52.

Line item 17, they should receive $54,000, not $52.

And then line item 21 should receive either $53,000 or $54,000 since they're in between a score of 94 and 90, yet they're receiving less than line item number than us than the group that scored 90.

So that's my motion.

Unless we can have some evidence that this was done in writing.

Thank you.

There's a motion on the floor, colleagues.

Um now for the further discussion.

Ms.

Fontaine Hardy.

Oh, excuse me.

Through the chair, I'd like to make note that if we go back, just so that the council's aware that what we have financially is what we have for what's been projected for those dollars.

If we move some up and move some down, it could mean that we would end up costing some organizations out.

And so I just want to make uh council aware that the three organizations that we are bringing in is going to take us.

We don't at this point have the funding to do that.

I believe that through the chair, um director Schneider is we'll be using or going back and trying to reprogram some funds because at this point there's likely that we could be over our cap.

Um, we'll do our best to go back and raise those organizations up.

But um please have the understanding that we are at our cap right now.

Um we are going to try to see if we could bring those three organizations back in.

They are being brought back in at $50,000 because we are out of funds.

I just want to make that very clear that what you see is what we have.

And so bringing those organizations up could mean that some organizations would be go below $50,000, and we have been warned by HUD not the fund under $50,000.

So we will go back to the table as has been recommended, and we will try our best to figure out how we can uh allocate those funds across so those organizations do receive the funding that um council member Benson is um making a motion for.

Mr.

Chair, discussion Benson.

So I was gonna make it clear that those are two separate issues altogether.

My motion is to reallocate fairly, and so that is a six thousand dollar swing here, which would not require any additional monies to come in to the budget, but some groups may instead of receiving more than groups that scored higher, they would receive less than what is here on the sheet, which would be a simple switch.

What Ms.

Harding has indicated, that is a whole separate budgetary allocation issue, not similar to the issue that I have made a motion on here.

But I do appreciate the importance of letting people know that if we're bringing three groups who are not funded, that's at least $150,000 that has to be found.

But I understand that they have a solution for that, and that does not impact the fairness that I am speaking about here.

That if I score higher than you, I should see a higher amount if the others who score the same received higher as well.

Thank you.

Any further on the motion?

All right, we'll go with uh Member Johnson, then we'll go to Member Miller.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, and I just wanted to verify with Member Benson that he was just essentially asking for fairness throughout all of these recommendations, because if you continue going down, you'll see that there are two other organizations with a lower score with a higher amount of funding.

So if it can just be across the board fair based upon the uh score of the organization, um that would be great.

Thank you, Mr.

And I think it's important again, colleagues, just to make sure we level set what the word fair means.

What fair means?

So I know it's your motion, Member Benson.

Uh, what does fair mean?

Just to be very clear as we vote on this.

Discussion.

So for me, fairness here, and I just want to make it clear that if I score higher than you, and others scored the same.

If I scored a 96, I should receive the same amount as the other 96s, which is what we see throughout this chart.

So what I'm not asking for is additional money is to come in.

I'm just looking for a level of fairness.

And I missed those other groups.

Uh, Member Johnson, can you call those out by the the numbers, please?

So I just wanted to get just a narrow fairness explanation, just so we're all on the same page of what fairness means.

Uh and I know that member Johnson, you raised the same issue.

Does that comport with what you believe fairness is as well?

So again, we level set.

So we got two members talking about fairness.

Are we on the same page at least?

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I I believe I just reiterated what Member Benson had indicated, which is it's based upon the score that they receive from the the deliberations of the the group.

Um so line 22 and 23, they both scored 90, but they're getting more than the line item 21 that scored 92.

Yeah, which is getting $2,000 less.

So that was part of my bucket of items.

Those are three.

So I want to just put one second.

Mr.

Chair, go in.

Member Johnson.

Let you finish.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So Member Benson, I saw the ones above that that you mentioned.

I just wanted, I mean, just so that blanketly, without looking at the dollar amounts that's being recommended, and I do just want to reiterate, and based upon previous discussions and previous years, these are recommended amounts for funding.

So if an adjustment needs to be made, an adjustment can be made without upsetting the the entire Apple cart, right?

Um, so we can go back and and make those amendments based upon the scoring that has been provided to each group.

So that is what I believe Member Benson is referring to as fair.

That's what I would be supportive of.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

I'm gonna come back to you, Member Benson, but I know Member Miller had her hand, uh, and then we're gonna go to Member Callaway afterwards.

Member Miller.

I just wanted to say that because I am new, I do have a few questions.

I hear the word fair, but my my word for this is excellence.

If you receive 90 anything opposed to a 70 something, there should be a great disparity amongst the release of funds.

90 means that you have checked every box, you've done everything required for whatever reason, and to seem that this this is not obviously it's not competitive, but is an equalization of funds.

But then I'm hearing that certain groups depend on these funds.

So is that why we have repeat people?

So we're repeating because me being new, I'm looking at holding a big forum to bring new people in that's in district five that has not had the opportunity, or how we can critique where they will line up on the sheet.

So if we're if I'm bringing in five more people, will that affect the people that has historically received these funds because this is what they need to be in existence?

So is it competitive or not?

Why are we not dealing with excellence opposed to satisfactory or fair?

Because these are funds.

I mean, I know I've did a little history over the years.

There's been over 300 applicants before.

I know this used to be like a really big thing going on in the city, but a 90 something opposed to a 70 something, it shows that there is um underlying um disparities in the scoring.

So is this competitive or not?

Is one are we actually holding spots for people who's already been here for years because they actually depend on these funds, or are we actually welcoming?

Because there's people that have talked to me and said, listen, can we get in?

It's the same people all the time.

Now I do realize that I can go back and tell my constituents there's a fair set of requirements, and they do not play.

But as we bring people in, which is my intention, will there be room?

I know we have to.

You said you got to go find funds and see if there can be some more adjustments.

How will the people that seem to be regularly on this list fund their programs if we are just giving 52 to 50,000 dollars across the board when we have people that have 90?

I believe in excellence or nothing at all.

So if you working your tail off and you're bringing it, it should be rewarded based to me on um uh your ability to score high.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

Fontaine Hardy, I saw you hand up the floor is yours.

Um I'd like to direct council to the third page or the second page of the funding matrix.

Uh I believe you have it.

It says detail summary 2627 CDBG public service award recommendations.

So um, as this council is aware, every year we provide to you a survey asking you what are your priorities based on those priorities.

The funding is then allocated to each of those um uh priorities.

You will note um through public safety up where it says public service, public safety is has always scored as the number one priority.

So there's a hundred thousand dollars that has been allocated for those for that section or that priority.

Education, 1.1 million dollars, health 264,000, seniors 28,000, recreation 477,000 dollars.

What you are seeing is we are funding based out of those categories, the number of that the dollar amount that's coming from those categories.

So you would see some some um variation in the funding because for public safety, they have 50 154,000 based on the number of applicants we receive, based on the number of recommended organizations.

Where's we are basing that funding on the 154,000 dollars going down to education?

The 1.1 million dollars, we have 22 organizations.

We are funding out of that category.

So they hire organizations, those organizations that scored higher, they are receiving the lion's share of that funding.

Um, the C I'm just going to the question around equity and around fairness and how we're scoring based on the information we received from council.

Um 264,690 dollars for health, 208,000 for seniors, and then recreation 477,000.

So we are again doing our best to fund within those categories based on council's priorities that we submit, or I should say LPD submits to council every year.

That's where the funding comes from.

So it's we're not just arbitrarily making a decision to fund lower groups outside of the fact that we have funded new organizations at a lesser amount in previous years, and council approved those that that funding.

So to council member Miller, um, yes, it is a child.

This is a very competitive program.

Uh, for this year, we're actually bringing in 14 new organizations that were not funded previously.

We think that's a huge win.

And so we're excited that the all of the great work that me and my team did over the year to um provide technical assistance to these organizations allowed us to bring a greater number of new organizations in.

Again, um that was made possible because of our work, but we also understand that uh 15 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, um, the amount of funding that we received was much greater than what we received now.

HUD has made it clear that they do not want us uh providing small grants to organizations, it goes to capacity and it also goes to the organizations applying for one amount and then the us giving them smaller amounts because we have to let a greater a number a greater number of organizations in to fund them.

And so to your point, uh council member Miller, we are doing our very best to provide funds to all the organizations that apply that are within the funding guidelines and they score at the appropriate level, which is 80 and above, um, we provide funding to those organizations.

If we for whatever reason cannot fund at a level of $50,000 or higher, those organizations must be costed out, and then we do our best to try to find ways to fund them with other dollars.

I I do hope that answers your question.

It does.

Thank you.

Thank you, Member Miller.

Uh, next we have Member Benson followed by Johnson, followed by me.

Thank you.

And I I want to change the adjective I'm using here to from fairness to even handedness.

I just think I don't want to everybody get caught up on the fairness.

I think even handiness is a better way to better word to use here because that's really what I'm trying to do.

I just want to make sure that if I score higher than you, then I am rewarded for my higher score than those who didn't.

And I did do another look, and I thought I caught all three, but there's actually another uh one that I see that if you look on at application number 63, it scores 91 and another score of 91 received $2,000 more.

So I'm sure they're in the same um pot there, but this just once again goes back to even handedness, and I just wanted to to say that.

Thank you.

And so I also wanted to say to Member Johnson, are there others?

I have four that this would apply to, and I believe that this any reallocation here we can shift dollars, and it would not require anybody being cauted out.

Some people would be disappointed based on what's been recommended to date by about a thousand or two thousand dollars, and others would be pleasantly surprised that they had a level of even-handedness applied to them since they scored um equal to somebody who received a recommendation of 54,000.

Now they're not receiving 52, they would also be receiving 54.

Thank you.

So Member Benson, would you be willing to withdraw the motion temporarily to allow both you and Member Johnson to look at motion to reconsider?

And we'll bring it back.

All right, there's a motion to that motion to withdraw.

There is a motion to withdraw the motion uh for member Benson.

No objections.

Hearing none that action shall be taken.

Um now going back to Member Johnson.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

So in alignment with the conversation that we've been having um as it relates to funding and bringing or in providing space for new groups um to go through this competitive process, uh, recognizing that it is a lot of information that's requested of organizations.

I will share with my colleague member Miller in District 4, we've been hosting CDBG discussions trying to encourage more organizations to even apply, whether or not they get funded altogether different, but to apply because year after year I've been underwhelmed with the number of district four organizations that actually apply.

But with that, I think um it's also perhaps a bit um let's say optimistic of me to believe that if I'm able to encourage them to apply, that there is an opportunity for them to receive funding.

Uh so my thought is, and I would like to make a motion to request that CPC um provide a report that indicates CDBG allocations, the full CDBG allocations to this body over the past 10 years, so we can see where funding has been allocated.

I do think, well, my request is is really looking to increase the amount of CDBG funding that's provided to our nonprofit organizations as we go through this process.

Um, and so I would love to see historical numbers because I think that might create more of a space and opportunity for new groups to receive funding, noting that many of the groups that we see on this list are um and have historically been continual organizations or repetitive organizations who receive C D B G funding.

That's a motion, Mr.

Chair.

There's a motion on the floor.

Any objections?

See none, that action shall be taken.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Um, so I go ahead, Mr.

I got a question.

So I mean, I'm I'm I'm torn because I am very much a process guy.

And when I see again an organization like Dado that score as high as they did, 96 and you know, all the real tough hurdles they accomplished got passed all through the gauntlet, and the thing that was not entered was the uh five board members, uh noting that they have five board members, but they just it it wasn't entered.

Um, and I know that it based on I'm glad we received this document from you, um Ms.

Fontaine Hardy, uh, regarding the stat the HUD requirements versus City of Detroit requirements.

Um and the requirements again is that they must submit, not that they must have uh five board members.

Is that correct?

Uh they must have and submit that they uh have five board members, correct.

Okay.

So in the application to the chair through the application, we do have a um question that says, please name all of your board members.

We ask that they indicate where those board members reside.

We ask that they indicate where um if they work in the city, if they don't work in the city, it is a chart.

The organization is required to enter the name of every single board member and what they contribute, and the organization left that question completely blank.

Okay.

Um if there's any prompts, if you will, or that will stop or not allow an applicant to complete the application if a certain question is not responded to.

And I thought I heard the response being yes, there is some mechanism that does not allow a application to be submitted without questions being responded to.

Now, if the question that was responded to was incorrect, that's different.

But if it's not included, it seems like this would be one of those situations.

Am I incorrect or am I going down the road?

There are documents that are required, and the organizations are required to upload those documents, and they can't move forward in the application until they do.

In this particular document, it is the entire application, which is a Word document.

The organization downloads the document and then completes the document and then uploads it to the application portal.

So it is a one document that the organization downloads, completes, saves, and then they upload, they will upload the document back to the portal.

Okay, but it is a word document that they have that they then go through and they respond to all of the questions within that document.

So if if they were again, because I have not gone through this process, if they are they did not submit the five board members, there's nothing in flags to say applicant, you missed one.

And that would be in this particular document.

Through the chair, the questions are in the application for all of the questions that we have are inside the application, which is a word document.

They download the word document and then they complete that word document for each question within that document.

Like many other applications and other funding institutions, it is a word document that they are responsible for answering questions to.

Once they answer those questions, they save it and they upload that document.

Now I will say the organization has the capacity to go back in and review every single document that they've uploaded to ensure that they have answered all the questions and that they have uploaded the correct documentation.

It is open up until the application actually closes, which is at 30 days if the application remains open.

I get it.

I I get it, because again, in process guy, and I understand the process of just trying to figure out again if this was a situation where, again, as member uh Callaway mentioned there's a stop.

You can't go any further because you missed a uh including a particular document.

And when you just even look at the agencies on this very last page, page nine of the um uh worksheet that was provided, all these scored pretty high.

It was like one item that was missed.

So I I just ask, even in terms of the um the the appeals process, again, I'm just spitballing here now, right?

Um is there a possibility of a 24-hour you know reprieve you if you miss one document?

I mean we set that threshold at one.

If there's one document, one item that you already have, not that you have to recreate, not that you now if you don't have a board, you now pull a board together.

You have to have evidence to show that you've already had this this item, this board, this um document.

Is there a possibility as we move forward with the appeals process?

Uh certainly I don't think that it can happen this year.

Um, but looking at future years as we move forward, is there an opportunity for that?

I understand again we talk about fairness, um, but also when you have groups that score 98 and 96, that mean that they are doing pretty good.

And it just to me to be knocked out for something that minor, if you will, even if if the fact that they have it, but to be knocked out, it just seems a bit heavy-handed.

But again, I understand the necessity of being able to thin the herd.

I would say that um two points.

Um, and don't think I'm being hard, because I'm a very much a process girl too.

And so I would say that we had 67 applications.

Um, 44 of those applications, now 45 did the right thing and they answered all the questions within the application and they submitted all the required documentation.

Um, we are talking about 20 some out other 25 other applicants that failed to do that.

And um, I would say that we want to make sure that we are we we do what's right um for the application and for those organizations.

It's it's very it's challenging.

There's a tension there because you want to fund every single organization because they're all doing great work.

I would like to say if I if I had enough money, I would fund them all and let them all in, you know.

But unfortunately, um it's impossible to do that.

Um the application, um we're gonna find no matter what we do, because of we're all human and we err, that there's going to be organizations that missed documents last year.

It was the certificate of good standing.

A lot of organizations didn't submit it the year before that.

It was another document that organizations didn't submit.

I think that um we do the best we can, and some organizations would unfortunately disqualify themselves because we just make mistakes.

I I want to be able to fix it, but I don't know if if there is a fix when you have humans that are answering questions and have the responsibility of uploading documentation.

Uh you kind of you kind of just hit the nail on the head, right?

That every year we have this issue.

So it's clear that there's human error does take place, but there is certain levels of transgressions, if you if you will, right?

If you are completely missing a document versus a signature, if you don't have a board versus not providing the board, and I'm again I totally appreciate having rules that we abide by, but that's why I'm asking for in the appeal process.

And that wouldn't just be for for those who you know, anybody, it would be at a certain threshold.

If you receive 90, you know, uh plus based on the scoring.

I'm just trying to be creative because to your point, every year we have this same situation.

So to help alleviate some of that, um I'm just trying to figure out is there a way?

The chair, there has to be regulations, there has to be thresholds.

There has to be rules that the organizations uh follow when they apply for funding.

Um we have to set uh HUT requires it.

The federal regulations is it's required.

Um even our own office of contracting procurement has rules by which by which we have to abide by for procurement purposes.

Um again, I I hear that the your heart and I hear the tension.

Um we can certainly do the best we can to even work with the Office of Contracting Procurement to figure out a better way to uh design the current application portal so that we can then maybe put every single question in the application portal, and the organization can't move forward without answering that question.

But then I have the thought that if 67 applicants apply, and because we've made the application guidelines so lenient that everybody gets in, how you gonna fund it because we don't have funding for 67 organizations.

But we have thresholds.

We we have thresholds.

We have thresholds, and that's a threshold.

The not completing the information in the application, it says it's a threshold requirement.

You must complete every single question in the application.

No, but I'm sorry.

And you must demonstrate that there is a board, you have a five-member board.

They did not respond to that.

Listen, I totally understand it.

But you just pose something again.

I'm trying to problem solve moving forward.

Because I said the the reality is you said that you know, again, people make mistakes, and you ask, you know, how would you fund all these organizations?

I said a threshold, and we have guidelines that we're not gonna go below a certain percentage.

So we have guidelines.

So that's a guideline, right?

So maybe a threshold is not the word, but it's a guideline, but that is a way that we then heard through that that guideline, that percentage, that 80% above, or if it moves up to uh 85 and above, or whatever that number is.

But again, if we're if we have this issue every year, it means that there's an opportunity for us to try to figure out how to uh improve it.

And I just want to say from my perspective, you all have done a tremendous job.

So I'm not throwing anybody under the bus, not saying you're doing a horrible job.

How dare you to see the process today versus where it was in the past, light years, light years.

So you should be very commended for that.

But just trying to always, as as my colleague uh Pro Tim always says, the biggest room is the room for improvement.

This is an opportunity.

Um, but also to the point that member Callaway brought up, and you just mentioned yourself.

We thought that in the past, when we said there was going to be a stop, you can't move forward.

Again, not knowing that it would be a this wouldn't be a challenge moving forward.

We thought now this would be gone.

Wouldn't have to worry about the one document not being submitted.

Wouldn't have to worry about the one item not being provided.

That was the focus that council had last year, and we were under the impression that that would be in place this year.

But sounds like it didn't go far enough.

So I would certainly be me personally in support of every item to your point, every item having that you know, warning sign or that that prompt that prevents you from moving forward if a document has not been submitted.

I don't think that would automatically include everyone, because they still have to go through each and every threshold, each and every requirement.

It just now says you can't complete this application until every item has been submitted.

Um and you still grade them, uh judge them as you as you currently are doing.

So I just I will definitely work with the Office of Compacting and Procurement.

As you know, we're this year with our first year using bond or last year using bonfire.

Um, I believe there is the possibility to uh take the application that is a word document and upload that and the uh bonfire staff, they create um questions for every there's there's quite a few questions, but put it in the applications and um move forward and again to your point.

We always want to strive to do the best we can.

Um, and if that's going to help the organizations, we will do our best to award who we can award based on score.

Um understanding that because of the work that the city of Detroit has done and our team has done, uh, if you remember, there was very few organizations able to score 90 points.

Now you'll find that most of the organizations are scoring in the 90s because of the time and effort and TA that we provided.

I think that as people get more sophisticated and get greater better at uh filling out the application, we're going to find ourselves trying to figure out another way to uh convince HUD to give us more funding uh to uh I don't I think it's uh member Johnson saying that um asking about the 10 years, the last 10 years in which we receive funding.

Um, just as a reminder to this body that we receive 7.5% of the overall allocation.

7.5 percent.

Um we public service gets 15 percent, 7.5% that goes to homelessness, and 7.5 goes comes to us.

That is a very low number overall when you're trying to spread that out amongst 45 organizations, and we've already been told that we can't go under 50,000.

So I would just make that away, um, put that on the table as well.

Again, we try our best to do our best, and um we'll continue to um work to strive to be excellent in all that we say and do.

Thank you, and I promised last one for me.

Um I usually don't, but it's my turn.

Um so you mentioned that uh you're gonna try to figure out how disability network, which again does extremely good work, try to figure out something for them uh moving forward.

Is that something possibility available for organization like Dado that scored extremely high as well?

No, because unfortunately they did not um I so um with with disability network because they're leaving so much money on the table, there might be a possibility for us, and I can't say this for sure, and I even hate to say it, you know, right now because I don't want to give false hope.

Um, this is something that um director Schneider would have to work out because they're leaving so much money on the table, there may be a way for us to go back and put them under contract for the monies that they're leaving on the table.

Okay, um because the contract has expired, it expired December 31st.

Um, but with data, they did not meet threshold, period.

Um, they didn't meet threshold, and so we would not be able to bring them back in.

We'll be going against our own policies and procedures, which is a huge HUD violation.

Anytime we go back and try to do something that's outside of our policies and procedures, it's a HUD violation, and we can find ourselves with a monitoring issue with a finding, and we don't want that.

So we want to follow up the guidelines as established by HUD and this body.

No, we don't want that at all.

All right.

Uh colleagues, I know that Member Benson was looking to put a motion on the floor.

I don't know if Member Benson and Member Johnson have followed that.

Coordinated on those items that Member Benson?

Oh, uh, before you, Member Benson, let's go to Director Todd.

Thank you.

Um Mr.

President would just like to maybe before that motion is made, uh, maybe make this suggestion, which may relieve some of the headache that I think uh Ms.

Hardy was referring to in the earlier motion that was withdrawn.

Mr.

Benson made reference to specific amounts in order to create that uh even-handedness.

Um I would like to suggest that maybe a motion that went to more toward removing the bump that was given to those other groups and then allowing the department to then recast the uh awards without that, and then that way everything is evenly done across uh whichever categories and set of groups is the case.

Discussion.

Thank you, uh Director Todd Member Bence.

Mr.

Todd in his infinite wisdom has stolen my thunder as my motion was going to be recast to allow the administration and those involved to determine how to reallocate the funds based on the even-handedness that we've discussed.

Colleagues, there's a motion on the floor, the chair.

Any discussion with discussion?

Discussion, thank you.

Uh Ms.

Harding.

Yeah, I just want to make sure that I'm clear on the instruction.

Um, are we saying that we will go through each category where it says public safety as an example?

Um, they've been allowed 154,000 looking between them and casting the um the score, the amount of funding based on that score, or are we saying that we're just going to up those organizations to the score that other um priorities are receiving because of the score?

Because again, if you look at education, they receive uh uh more funding because that's our largest group, and that was the second priority.

So are we saying that we want to fund within priority the score, or are we saying we want to fund regardless of the priority if they receive that same score to fund them at that level?

Discussion member.

No, no, nothing that complex, Ms.

Harding, thank you for that.

So what I what I'm looking for, I'm asking my colleagues to support is that we are sending this list back to you all to reallocate based on the scores.

And so there are four applicants here who have received an allocation less than their cohort who have scored they've scored higher than others.

And so you all take a look at that and you all come back and you figure out how you all want to do it.

So we're not telling you how to do it, we're not giving you a number, we're not saying we prioritize the uh the different um categories that we've already approved, but just for those four, you all go back and then come back with even-handedness as we described here today.

That makes sense.

Uh, through the chair, I would say that it doesn't in the fact that we would be going outside of our priorities if we did that.

Okay, so through the chair, we will take a look at what we can do and we will present something to this body.

Mr.

Chair, I'm gonna do that.

Based on what priorities that Mr.

Todd helped lead these conversations.

I believe he understands where we're trying to go here.

Yep, I saw your hand, Director Todd.

Thank you again, Mr.

President.

Uh certainly we would be happy to do that.

I I think what we were trying to say, uh what I was what I was attempting to say consistent with the wisdom of one Mr.

Benson.

Uh if the department had not inserted the bump, given that additional priority, or rather that additional uh funding for those groups over the others, the new groups uh the or the experienced groups over the others, remove simply remove that and now recast the funding amount uh without that additional bump, or take that additional dollars and then just spread it across all of the other groups that were funded.

That would be a uh in at least in theory the the approach, and you still do that within each category so that you don't have to touch anything, you just removing the bump that was added by practice of the of the department, and then taking those additional dollars and reapportioning them accordingly discussion further discussion, Mr.

Chair, and quickly this let's make sure uh camera Fontaine Harding received at least what director Todd said, or any any clarification.

I would work with uh through the chair, I work with Director Todd so that we can make sure that we are aligning the funding according to council's recommendations.

Okay, thank you.

Um member Benson.

And just for clarification, this only applies to four groups, three in the education category, one in the recreation category.

So I don't believe it's a heavy lift, and I believe that Mr.

Todd and Ms.

Hardy have the what we're trying to achieve here.

Okay.

There's a motion on the floor, colleagues.

Any objections?

See none.

That action shall be taken.

And then Mr.

Chair, I would like to identify my conflict.

And so I am a good friend to the youth connection, and you can find them as applicant number 20.

I went as a delegate with the youth connection and several other elected Detroit officials, as well as senior leadership in the city of Detroit, and photos of this can be seen on my Facebook page where we went to the CADCA Future Leaders Conference to speak on youth substance use prevention.

That and I was up on a panelist uh on the discussion as a government liaison government leader, and I was part of a delegation that went over to Capitol Hill uh during the conference to educate our Michigan delegation on the need for substance use prevention dollars and the and the concern regarding tobacco use regarding marijuana use and drug use period for youth.

This is a youth-centered organization, and so that was funded by the love group, which is a I believe a whole own subsidiary of the youth connection.

I just want to make that very clear.

There is no financial benefit to myself or to my family.

There was no money that went to my pocket.

They did pay for the airline flight as well as the hotel room, as I was a delegate for them to go and sit on a panel and talk about what we're doing here in the city of Detroit and then go talk to our Congress, congressional delegation, and we met with Senator Slotkin's office as well as Congresswoman Taleb's office, as well as Congressman Tanadar's office while we were there.

So we'll make it very clear.

I am recusing myself, and I will be stepping away, also leaving for the day because I gotta go, I got daddy duties.

But I wanted to make it very clear what's what my conflict is, and that there is no personal gain for myself, but a further support of what used to be a district three um grant applicant, which is now moved to district five.

Just wanted to make that very clear.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you for the disclosure, sir.

So member.

I just wanted to say in the passion of our president who is concerned about the one group, maybe bonfires should at the end, because I've done many applications, not let you submit until every field is completed.

I've also had applications where once each section is done, you cannot proceed to that section is completed.

And then if you do choose to bypass it, that's on you, but at the end, they should not be able to submit because it's not a completed application, and that way we'll cover ourselves.

And unless we're using this as an elimination process, and that may be the case because the funds are limited, but there's ways that bonfire should be able to set something up to um halt the process because people are human also, and it's like we're human in the city of Detroit, they're human, and I do understand that part being missing, and it's disheartening.

So I'm it's something to look at or talk with bonfire about, or maybe get another application process.

Just the chair, that is the current practice now.

Through the chair.

Um, you cannot move on to the next section in the application in bonfire until you answer the questions.

So that is the current practice of that um portal.

So how is anything missing on any applications then?

Because the application through the chair, the application is a separate word document.

The organization goes into the system, they download the document, they respond to the questions by typing the questions into the word document application, and then they upload the application back into the proper space in threat in in umfire.

I work for mic.

But it did not, you wouldn't pass, but in the end, it said this field has not been completed.

So the documents should maybe be uploaded within the application and not on a separate thing.

But there is a portion because I can show you where it says this field was left blank.

So that's all.

Thank you, ma'am.

All right, thank you.

Um first we're gonna go to Director Todd, then Member Johnson.

Thank you.

Thank you again, Mr.

President.

Just to that point, uh through you two, member member Miller.

Uh I I hear you loud and clear, and I think that um again, with 35 years of experiencing and remembering, certainly I know as Member Benson and some others wearing a different hat, when we did all of this by paper, that we have indeed, as was acknowledged earlier, have come a long way to where we are now.

And I think we might be pretty darn close to perfection given what we've been discussing these last couple of years.

I think that the improvements that were made uh in Oracle that then ultimately led us now to have bonfire, which is not only benefited this program but others.

The point here, I think that we've really hit on is this.

In an effort to give groups control, we give them a word document.

Once they have control of that word document, that's where the human error enters in.

Correct.

The word document, like all of the other things that is required to be submitted through bonfire, is submitted.

If it's not submitted, that's when the alert goes off.

When it is submitted, then there's no alert.

You have satisfied it.

The issue is I think that maybe, as we have alluded to, whether it's your taxes or others, we now need to maybe give less control on that word document, find a smart document or a limited document or an online document that will do the have the very triggers built in so that the applicant can't inadvertently delete sections, which they may not have realized they did, um, or other such uh conf uh, you know, uh errors like that, uh further eliminate uh that uh possibility for human error.

And again, I would like to think that uh given all that we've been hearing over the last few months about what uh do it can offer.

Maybe we go back to them and uh further refine this document, the application portion, so that it has those very things embedded in it again to further safeguard against those uh instances of human error on behalf of the applicant.

We give them more control with a word document, but that also again allows for more human error to take place as has been evidenced this year and in years past.

Thank you.

Member Johnson, I know you you were next up, but Member Benson got daddy duties and he had one more he wanted to add.

I I just want to concur what with what Mr.

Todd has said, and I'm not sure who else here besides Member Tate, the president.

When I used to do this, I did this for 10 years.

This was done by paper.

We would have our boards out, they were required to have 10 copies, you'd have to have an original, it would be signed.

You had to make sure that all these items in this checklist, and don't be fooled.

They may not say this.

This is a call the heard document.

This breaks down the herd so that we have some something far more manageable.

With that, I have to say, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.

People have to realize, and we see the same mistakes every year.

People have to realize, and what is being done by CPC as well as HRD to professionalize this.

This has come light years from where it used to be.

One of the one of the reasons I was excited to get this job was the fact that I was going to be able to put seven groups into the pot who did not qualify.

City council, it this used to be a knives out type process.

There will be over a hundred people in the auditorium saying, Hey, I want to be here.

We used to make um appointments with each council member, send our postcards, have our customer with send postcards.

This was nowhere near as professional as it is today.

This is a very collegial process.

We're here talking, we're drinking water.

I mean, there's been yelling and shouting.

This is nowhere near where it used to be, and it has come light years.

And the fact that we still have the call the herd document, and people aren't doing it, it also says something.

So I I just want to say there's also a level of accountability that has to be held to people.

And if we're having these workshops and people still are missing documents, uh we just got to take a look at that as well.

And I and I will always say tell people, take a look at your documents, double check, make your list, check it twice.

But a lot of this is on the applicants, and now it's electronic.

I don't have to run down here trying to beat the clock at four o'clock so I can get that stamp on Cadillac Tower, get to that 23rd floor when a hundred other nonprofits from the city were all trying to get upstairs as well.

I mean, it used to be tough.

So I I just want to level set here and just give a level of kudos, number one, to those who do this work because it is much different than what it used to be.

We used to bring groups who were did not meet threshold back into the pot, they had to redo the entire process.

It was in HUD all eventually said enough is enough.

And I still think we're the only ones that do this.

Am I correct in that?

If we're not the only ones, I think we're the first ones that we were we were cutting edge to get this process going.

Am I correct there, Mr.

Todd?

The chair, that is correct.

Uh, this process began with the request of then Council President Irma Henderson to Mayor Young to be able to do this, and then other cities, other entitlement cities followed on.

I'm not sure who's still doing it.

I believe Milwaukee is one that modeled their program after ours.

Uh LA, I think has a similar one, but I'm not sure who is who else is still doing it.

But it was a model process back in the early 80s.

So I just want to just bring a level of there's gotta be some accountability on the on the applicants as well here, and what we've done and how we personalized it is just like years from where it used to be.

And I still wish I could bring groups in who didn't make it.

I got a couple, I got a third district in here now who didn't make the cut.

I'd like to bring them in, but it's just uh they're right, it's just not fair.

And if you don't submit the proper documentation, this is where you have your board helping you or have your family helping you, you do it three, four times to make sure every document is done.

Make your list and check it twice.

It's unfortunate, but it's true.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, so I just want to remind myself um of how things were when Oracle was being utilized, because what I hear as it relates to bonfire is the application is one word document, and if you submit something within that, let's say question, you've answered the question.

It does not raise the red flag that you missed pages 16, 48, and 52.

Um was not Oracle segmented by question, so you had to respond to the the certificate of good standing in one question, you had to respond to the annual report in the next question and so on and so forth.

So you would have had to have submitted the list of your board members or what have you in an independent question through the chair, that is correct.

Bob uh Oracle did allow you to answer each question separately.

Um asked us bonfire, so it's up to the applicant to respond to each question separately.

What neither of the application portals will do is determine whether you answer properly.

So, for example, it'll ask for the certificate of the standing.

You have to upload a document, but it can't tell you if you uploaded the right document.

It just knows you uploaded a document.

So even with that, they can there can be human error.

Um, with the application, it is a word document.

You cannot move forward until you upload that document.

But to uh everyone's point, the system doesn't know if you answered every question in the document.

Uh that's for the applicant to be responsible for and held accountable accountable for.

And it's with it's within in line with a number of jurisdictions that have uh similar programs.

And with um also with uh private foundations, this is the process that they've used.

And so to uh councilman Tate and to others, um to President Tate, I think that we have an opportunity to go back to Oracle and not not go back up but go back to Oracle, but go back to OCP and to work with them.

This is our first time using bonfire.

Um there will be tweaks.

Uh so give us an opportunity to tweak it and come back and say what we can do next year.

And uh again, we stress the importance of going back reviewing, review, review, review, make sure everything is there.

I will say, and I hate to say it, but people will miss stuff because that's what happens, but at least we will um be able to show that we've made every attempt to um make this process um as fair or even-handed, or whatever words you want to throw in there as possible.

Thank thank you for that.

And I'm not asking to rehash the um same thing that has been said.

What I'm trying to verify is is there an application that comes from the federal government that is that has multiple questions in it that is one document that is uploaded because what my mind thinks, okay, if there are 55 questions that are part of the application process, that each one of those questions can be spelled out separately with an asterisk that says 50 of these 55 questions are required.

You're required to respond to it.

What I hear you all saying is there is an application, and I don't know if it comes from the federal government that has a hundred questions on it.

That is one question on the application on the intake part that is responded to, and if you missed 20 of those questions, then you've not responded to 20 of those questions within the one document that is provided to respond to.

So is I'm I'm just trying to understand the process.

I remember going through the um the sessions where you would understand what you needed to prepare to be able to apply for, but I never applied because it was a lot.

It was a lot.

And so I'm just trying to understand if there are ways to um make it so that everyone understands this question here requires you to upload whatever it is, and I know we put examples and all of that, and as we indicated last year, people didn't upload the certificate of good standing.

But they may have uploaded the annual report.

Okay, they didn't do that part, so now they've been they've received fewer points as a result, or they didn't meet threshold because they did not respond to it.

Is there an application that comes from the federal government, or are we allowed to identify each question, have that be a separate question within bonfire that requires a response?

Hardy You through the chair, yes, that's exactly what we've stated is that we will go back to the Office of Contracting and Procurement and put each question in bonfire so that the applicants would respond to each and every question separately so that it becomes a fillable form within the system as opposed to a word document.

That's what we have said that we would do moving forward to help hope that the organizations are able to respond to each question before they're able to move forward to the next question or to submit the application in its entirety at the completion of them doing or applying for this program.

All right, thank you.

I think we've said this 15 times.

All right.

So I and I just wanted to be sure because we kept talking about this one application with all of these responses that somebody missed and you know didn't sign this, that, or whatever, that it was just one document with 50 pages.

Um it's clear as day now.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

All right, thank you so much.

And uh, Madam Clerk, if you can know that we've been joined by member waters.

Clerk will know.

Thank you so much.

Pro Tim Young, followed by Member McCampbell.

Thank you, Mr.

President.

Um, first of all, I just wanted to say uh thank you very much because the the organizations that I asked are for you to uh recommend or recommend it.

So I appreciate that.

I want to say thank you for that.

And uh secondly, I just wanted to ask you um, is there some sort of way in which we can be able to use technology to be able to deal with this issue?

Because I just I I feel like like you said before, this is human error.

And I don't know if it's algorithms or if it's recommendation engines or if it's artificial intelligence, but I think there should be something that should help people be able to, if they forgot something or if they didn't put something together that we are added as part of this system to be able to include that so we don't keep having these same things going again and again and again in terms of human error as part of the system that they're filing.

I don't know if you talked about that.

I don't know if this is a question for do it or not, but I definitely think that that's gonna have to be part of something that we're gonna do.

Otherwise, we're just gonna keep having these conversations, and not that I don't like seeing you, but you know, we're just gonna keep having these discussions to we're blue in the face.

And so it it I don't think that you I don't think that you should be, nor should all the bird be upon you to be able to figure out everybody's application and make sure everybody do that and keep your impartiality all the same time.

And so that's just something I thought we should discuss.

I if you can answer fine or not, I understand.

And uh, thank you again for your reconsideration.

Yeah, pro tem she know you had stepped out, but that she did indicate that they're gonna go back with OCP and identify with the technology with bonfire, how they can address those concerns that we have so that it's not just a blanket that you just filled out this document, but it pauses you um with that word doc, because that's where people are getting getting tied up in that word doc.

So she did indicate that that was going to be the case.

They're gonna go back and come back to us and come with some uh solution uh to that concern.

And correct me if I'm wrong, uh Ms.

Fontaine Hardy, but again, just want to kind of move this discussion along as well.

Um correct, Ron.

You are correct.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well, excellent.

Just make sure you take my recommendations with you as well.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

All right, uh member McCampbell.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

I I just want to uh support what has been said and also uh thank the willingness to go back and for future um but I also want to know that I have to excuse myself for our D um to you for all town hall.

So thank you.

Yes, sir.

Thank you as well.

Um that takes us to the end of our uh hands raise, but it looks like we still need to go back and get additional uh information uh or recalibration, if you will, based on the request from the body.

But I will say, I don't know if we need to come back tomorrow just for that piece.

Is there an opportunity for us?

Because I know we have uh we're looking to vote on this on Tuesday.

Uh is there an opportunity for us to have um a hearing on Tuesday uh so that we can have this discussion and then we vote on it uh informal Mr.

Todd Mr.

President.

So uh I I think the answer is yes, as long as of course there's willingness from this body to to do it.

Uh but it it it could become difficult in terms of processing.

Um having to do the paperwork to put the charts together, and then if you need to make changes, then we're gonna have to step away and make the changes.

It might begin to look a little bit like a preliminary budget uh process in terms of some of that potential back and forth.

That's the only reason why we try to build in as much of that time in advance so that we're fair to um you know the the staff doing the work and obviously the clerk as well.

Um but but let me also state that before you leave today.

If in fact this honorable body is comfortable with the response, generally speaking from HRD, and you want to at uh you you could make a motion today to accept the appeals for groups five, 31 and 38.

I believe I have that correct, Miss Hardy.

Um and and and that would at least allow us to go ahead and prepare that chart, have that ready for action if these other items will still be subject to review um uh at a uh extended session.

I I guess the only other thing procedurally, if um if uh Dr.

Powers is online, it's just how to do it.

I don't know um that there we go.

Yes, Dr.

Power.

Since since since you have you had a scheduled deliberative session today, scheduled deliberative session tomorrow, if it would be more appropriate to go back into a deliberative session on Tuesday and do that and then come out and uh moving back to the formal.

Yeah, I only said it because I don't it doesn't appear that we're ready to vote on this today at this moment.

Dr.

Powers, um yes, sir.

Um I wouldn't presume to know better than Mr.

Todd about the uh proper way to do this.

Um I I'm I'm not really quite sure how to advise you on this, other than other than if you want to have um a time to for Mr.

Todd and his uh group to get the paperwork ready, then would it be possible to meet on Monday instead of before formal on Tuesday as a deliberative session?

Let us see so I'm I'm uh I I guess the floor is open to colleagues because there's one was the recommendation for Tuesday and Dr.

Powers just brought up a possibility of Monday as well.

Um again, it doesn't appear that we're ready right now to vote on these items, uh, or we want to move forward with the session we have tomorrow.

That's why we're here.

Body.

I will start with Pro Tim, then go to Member Johnson.

I I just wanted to say, Mr.

President, I mean, I want to I'm ready to do it however you want to do it.

You want to come back Friday and come back Friday, you want to come back Monday.

I'm willing to come back Saturday if that's whatever it takes.

This is the job and it is where it is.

Uh now, preferably if you come back Saturday, I like Mr.

Corley to cut me so his pancakes.

But uh other than that, I am willing to do this whenever you want to, or however you want to do it, we get this done.

Thank you.

Pro Tim.

Uh member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, my team and I have a team retreat on both Friday and Monday.

We moved the dates several times for the orientations that we had and other items.

Uh, and so we are not able to um change the those dates at this time.

So I will not be present either tomorrow or Monday if um we so choose to deliberate then.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Any further colleagues?

Mr.

Todd, Director Todd.

Thank you, sir.

Uh I am aware uh that uh on Monday PHS is returning to dangerous buildings, so there's not much opportunity there.

Mr.

Gulach has made a somewhat radical suggestion, somewhat consistent with what you said, but I'm just afraid of what may happen if you just take a if if you put it on as a line item with these things unresolved, it would almost be like we do with elections, and then you're gonna have to go ahead and step back and vote, you know, have a discussion go through the process, but then again, we'd have to step away in order to uh formulate the final documents.

My in-between into interim suggestion would maybe be this.

Um given that you have come close on the appeals, and again, and as I suggested, if you're comfortable, you could move for those appeals to be accepted.

If today, if there's the desire, at least since everyone is present, well, recognizing some uh as Mr.

McCampbell would have to leave to at least go through the chart by category so each council member can hear what the issues are and we can determine if there's anything else beyond what has already been discussed with respect to funding amounts process scoring, that sort of thing, then that would greatly eliminate the potential for further discussion and confusion uh if we did move things uh to to the form.

I appreciate that uh director Todd, but we've had this document now for a couple of days.

We've had these sessions for a couple of days as well now.

So we should be thoroughly um have a thorough understanding of what we want, what we don't want.

We've got report back from uh HRD as well.

So I appreciate that, but I think that we should be able by this point to know which ones we want to move or have any any any changes with.

So I but I do think that is a very wise uh suggestion.

I just believe that we should have had we should know by now.

Okay, and and again if I may so without having to go through all of it.

And and I apologize, and that's not what I necessarily meant.

I just meant to go through the category if in fact that's the case and and and and identify if in fact there is a concern, what is it, so that we can then work on it.

If there's not, then that tells us that category is okay.

That's what I so I wasn't suggesting to go through each and every one, but just to lift up the category to determine whether or not any of the colleagues have any issue with it.

Okay, Mr.

Gulag.

Uh uh directory.

Dr.

Powers and Mr.

Gulag.

I I I'm sorry for interrupting, but since I I suggested uh Monday and was that isn't available.

Um would it be possible uh or helpful to have that deliberative session at 9 a.m.

on Tuesday, thus giving um Mr.

Todd time, um, and thus also uh keeping it out of formal session until the vote, of course.

Right.

Just a suggestion, sir.

I appreciate it.

I mean, so so I guess the question is if we were gonna have a session tomorrow, we would still need that document.

We would still need the numbers recalibrated, even if we were gonna have it tomorrow.

So uh why is it impossible to have that document tomorrow at least that's recalibrated?

And if the answer is we can have it, then at least now we know what those numbers would look like.

So that should expedite whatever we do on whatever day we choose to continue uh uh the these proceedings.

Ms.

Harding.

I'm sorry, we I'm messing your name all up.

My apologies.

What was it?

Um would you repeat your question, please?

Yeah, no, so you know, we there was a desire for uh you and your team and the entire team to go back and recalibrate these numbers based on prior prioritization and fairness, even handedness.

You know, we went through that whole definition uh word play, but there was a desire to um recalibrate uh those dollars for a very small number of organizations here.

I think it was only four.

Four.

Yeah, four.

Uh and if we were going to be coming back tomorrow, that would been that would have been the expectation that we would have those that recalibration before us.

We still should be able to get it.

That would allow us for whenever we have this next session.

Again, we're talking about possibly Monday, talking about Tuesday, during formal, talking about Tuesday at 9 a.m.

There's a whole host of opportunities, but it should speed up this process where we would not have that much because I don't it sounds like from college there's no other concerns within these categories outside of the ones that we were talking about today.

Uh most of us were ready um outside of the you know changes that we're we've we've discussed.

So I I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Is council saying that my team would go back and recalibrate those four organizations, and then council would be prepared to vote on these uh on our recommendations to move everything forward.

If that is the case, then this is a bold uh you know question.

Is council willing to go ahead and vote, understanding that we will make those changes and to vote now.

Why do we need to wait?

If we have been tasked to do that, we can assure council that we will make those changes to those four organizations, and then we can come and and it the session will be done.

And so maybe I'm not understanding completely, but we will go back and make those changes based on council's recommendations.

And we think is impossible.

Yeah, I think that's a great idea.

We just need to make sure that there's a uh uh not a trapdoor.

So we want to be able to see it.

No, no, no, no, no.

No, I'm not saying anything bad.

We just need to make sure that if we approve right, need to be able to verify before the final vote.

You have an opportunity to do that on Tuesday, but can we preload, so to speak, the response without having that the information in front of us.

I like what you just said.

Um, but I see some hands.

Uh Mr.

Gulag.

I had two comments.

One is yeah, you could direct HRD to make those four changes, and then they you have a chart in the city council column is blank, and then you could ask them to populate that column with the numbers, and then they would email that to us tomorrow, and then we send a resota for Tuesday, which says City Council votes on the 2027, 26, 27 CDBG in the attached chart, and that's what you would vote on.

So if if HRD can give you numbers tomorrow, a new chart tomorrow, and you can look at it.

If you have problems, then you can raise concerns on Tuesdays.

Uh but the other second comment I want to make is there's eight appeals, and you would need to vote today if you recommend that so HRD is recommended that three appeals be granted.

If you agree with that, you have to vote.

We can do that today.

Yeah, no problem.

But they want to point out that they're recommended that those groups be funded by a reprogram.

I just want to make sure you all agree with that.

If you want those three groups to be funded, it wouldn't be on Tuesday, it would be as a reprogram that would come to the council in the near future.

And if and you guys can make sure you're comfortable with that.

The only other way to fund them is to cut everyone, you know.

You you would need to find 150,000, 160,000, probably, and you need to cut everyone to 50,000, and that's true fairly dramatic.

So you have to decide if you're comfortable with the reprogram.

Yeah, uh the way I look at it is I mean, as long as they receive the funding, I mean, I'm I'm fine with the the however it's it's done for me personally.

But colleagues, any concerns or issues with that at all, what's been proposed by um Ms.

Fontaine Harney?

All right.

Okay.

So colleagues, there is a question on the floor about or we need to put a question on the floor about line items was that five, thirty-one and thirty-eight.

And those are the appeals that uh Mr.

Gulag just mentioned that uh are we would be accepting.

Um is there a motion or if there are any further discussion?

Discussion.

With discussion, Member Johnson.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, can we not just move on all of the recommendations that came to us, whether for approval or denial?

Are we prepared to do that?

Mr.

Todd.

Thank you.

It's been cast in different ways in the past.

The assumption is if you're granting those three, then the others are falling as being denied.

So however you choose to phrase it, but uh we would again be preparing a chart and then a corresponding resolution so that it is perfectly clear what the action is.

But we figured the simplest way is that you would be granting these these three.

Right, thank you.

Uh with that, if there's no further discussion, I move to uh support the appeals recommendations provided by HRD.

All right.

There's a motion on the floor, colleagues, to uh accept the appeals recommendation that was provided by HRD.

Um, and again the document appeals recommendations 26, 27, CDBG NOF as discussed today.

Uh any objections?

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

All right, so we got that part taken care of.

Um so now um how would we like to take up the uh other concern?

Uh I like what uh uh Ms.

Hart Fontaine Hardy said.

Uh I think that is uh the best approach at this point.

This um close to the deadline.

Uh so is there a motion on the floor?

Four.

I can't make the motion, kind of so is there a motion.

Yes, ma'am.

Can you suggest the motion that uh so move move for approval?

Um I will to request that HRD amends the recommended uh no, I'm sorry.

Okay, move for approval to wait.

Let me ask the discussion very quickly.

Because I know we said the three that were just approved will be funded based on revisions, revising previous awards.

What is that that that's separate though, right?

We're just focused on the chart that has been provided to us at this point.

Thank you.

And now we're getting to what I was poorly trying to say earlier.

Essentially, that if you are comfortable with this chart as presented, with the exception of the directed recalibration of awards for four groups, uh or with respect to the issues with four groups, because the recalibration may then affect more.

Uh that that would be it.

If you're otherwise fine with the groups that have been recommended, aside from an understanding, as you just said, Member Johnson, that the other three that are subject of the appeals are going to be funded through reprogramming.

This gets us to what we would need uh for formal, and then and then and and then from there going into budget and the schedule A once you finally approves the uh approve that with further uh Mr.

Goulet, uh to the chair, but to add on that.

I think on Tuesday in the past sometimes there'd be a separate resolution for the appeals.

Right, right.

So there would be a two resolutions, one for the big chart and a separate resolution for the appeals, and that's where you would have documentation by the whole body that you accepted the three appeals and three appeals and denied the five.

And I mean we'll get all this information hopefully uh tomorrow on Monday.

Some well, the well, the the recalibration tomorrow that would help.

But any other documentation we get not at the table, that would be helpful.

I think Mr.

Chair, we're gonna try to get it done and get it to the clerk in some form tomorrow, as well as the the council, whether it's something may have to be modified.

But yes, yes, sir.

Thank you.

Uh member Johnson, the floor remains yours, ma'am.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, I have nothing further.

Satiago Romero.

Team effort.

Um, I guess correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a helpful motion here would be um to approve the the suggestions to amend the suggestions because we want those to be amended prior to um that this is this is the hard because how do we approve an amended proposal that's this sort of verifying uh Mr.

President, I still think we're trying to figure this out so colleagues can we get a can I get a motion to approve the uh 2026-27 C D B G.

So I mean we don't have to go through all of them, we can do the whole document, right?

C D BG NOF uh funding recommendations, uh noting that there will be uh amendments made to at least four of these um recommendations that are before us.

I didn't hear Dr.

Powers, so that means we good seeing no objections.

Um Dr.

Powers.

I I've been listening, waiting to jump in to see if you needed help with the motion, but I think what you said is clear, and documents or items have been sent to formal with with the expectation that additional um documentation will will be provided at formal.

So it's not like you're voting on something that you don't know.

All right, thank you so much.

There's a motion.

So it was a fine motion.

Well, I appreciate that, ma'am.

Thank you very much.

Learn from the best.

Um see any objections, colleagues.

Seeing none, that action shall be taken.

Council President.

I hear a voice.

Oh, yes, ma'am, madam clerk, sorry.

Yes, for a point of clarification, uh, just to make sure before I lose, council uh member Johnson.

I wanted to have her first motion uh repeated back so that I'm clear, so I make sure that I'm on the right uh tracking for documentation.

So council member Johnson's motion was to support the appeals recommendations for questions fine 31 and 38 provided by HRD to be sent to formal with a recommendation to approve.

That sounds like but I believe uh line item five was added as well.

Five, thirty one, and thirty-eight.

Questions five, thirty one, and thirty-eight.

Yes, ma'am.

Sent to formal with recommendation to approve.

Is that correct?

And also, I'm sorry, the other motion that you had, uh, Councilmember Johnson, was that um HRD provide a historical report based on uh prior funding for such um recommendations and is that correct?

Through the chair, yes, ma'am, member Johnson.

Um essentially, yes, uh to provide um a 10-year history of CDBG allocations or CPC.

It was two CPC.

I said LPD, but yeah.

Oh, right.

No, I think I did say CPC.

Yes.

Any further, madam clerk?

Thank you very much.

All right, thank you.

All right, colleagues.

Don't leave just yet.

We still have public comment.

Uh if there's anyone from the public who would like to speak, please raise your hand now.

If there's anyone from the public who would like to speak, please raise your hand now.

Going once, going twice, going three times.

Collection of public comments have now concluded.

All right.

So we have no one in the committee of the whole, and we're gonna give everyone a minute for uh public comment.

One minute for public comment.

Who do we have online and how many and who do we have first?

Sir, currently we have no callers online for public comment.

All right, thank you.

Public comment has now concluded.

Colleagues, is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

See no objections that action shall be taken.