Good afternoon.

This is Chair Miller.

Calling the order.

Our community development recommending board.

With that, I'll ask Madame Clerk to please call the roll.

Chair Miller.

Present.

Could McKnight.

Present.

Member Marlin.

Excused.

Member Hadad Bennett.

Present.

Member Prado.

Present.

Member Letrop.

Present.

Member Burks.

Excused.

Member Jackson.

Present.

Member Conyers.

Present.

Member Jones Anguero.

Present.

Member Caliando.

Present.

Member Freeman.

Excused.

Thank you, Chair.

You have a quorum.

Thank you very much.

Also, we are in full compliance with opening meeting law.

Madam Chair.

Clerk.

Yes, Chair, we are.

Thank you.

Moving on to agenda item number three, public comment.

Comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to matters on the agenda for action.

If you wish to be heard, please come forward and give your name for the record.

The amount of discussion as well as the amount of time any single speaker is allowed may be limited.

Is there any public comment?

Seeing none, we'll move on to agenda item number four, report by Colleen Duwiger, grant program coordinator regarding housing and urban development, federal grants and allocation of federal funds.

Colleen Duiger, neighborhood service.

The City of Las Vegas' grant application process began on October 13th, 2025 with the posting of a request for proposal, RFP for agencies seeking program funding from the city's allocation of funds for housing opportunities for persons with AIDS, HOPWA, and the Community Development Block Grant, CDBG.

The grant funds for each of these programs were designated as two-year grants, which were designed to provide funds for selected agencies in fiscal years 2026 to 2027 and 2027 to 2028.

The approximate amount of funding for HOPWA is 3.3 million, and the approximate amount of funding for CDBG is 500,000.

Interested agencies were asked to attend one of two technical workshops held on October 28th, 2025.

The RFP closed on November 13th, 2025, and the Community Development Recommending Board, CDRB received eligible applications for review on December 8th, 2025.

The CDRB met on February 9th, 10th, and 11th, 2026 to hear presentations from applicants who met grant eligibility requirements.

After presentations, the CDRB submitted scores for each eligible applicant in neighborly software.

At this meeting, the board will consider funding for programs that met the established scoring threshold of 70% of the total available points.

The total available points for HOPWA were 220 points with a threshold for funding consideration of 154 points.

The total available points for CDR for CDBG were 210 points with a threshold for funding consideration of 147 points.

The program applications have been ranked based on points earned.

The board will deliberate on funding recommendations that will be presented to the city council for approval.

At this time, I would like to ask all board members to disclose any potential conflicts of interest you may have with any of the agencies being considered today.

Chair recognizes uh member calendo.

Uh yes, so I will be abstaining from voting on foster kinship because I'm the director.

Um is this when I read the statement?

Okay.

After evaluating whether this relationship and material affect my independence of judgment regarding other funding decisions, I conclude that it does not, and that the same would apply to a reasonable person in my position.

Therefore, while I will not participate in this specific decision, I will vote on remaining allocations fairly and without bias.

Um I am also abstaining from voting on um Scouting America Boy Scouts because we are close partners with the organization.

Chair recognizes member Praddle.

I'm abstaining from voting on the leaders in training uh application because um I'm a key person, uh the founder and the chief executive of my organization, and we provide free space and perpetuity for this organization largely at my urging, uh, which is significant part of their operations, and there's a significant relationship between my organization and theirs.

Um, after evaluating whether this relationship would materially affect my independence of judgment regarding other funding decisions, I conclude that it is not in the same would apply to a reasonable person in my position, therefore, while I will not participate in the specific decision regarding leaders and training.

I'll vote on the remaining allocations fairly and without bias.

Thank you.

Member Lanthrop.

Uh for my previous conversations.

We're I'm abstaining from voting on the family promise uh CDRB application and the Desert Spring uh Resource Center uh application.

Thank you.

Sorry, Deputy City Attorney Chris Levielli for the record.

Um are you planning to vote on the other items today?

Yes, I I uh hopefully can uh provide unbiased uh input on all the other uh applicants.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, board members.

Um I guess we will move on to agenda item five.

Okay, the agenda item five is discussion for possible action regarding the scoring and recommended allocations for fiscal year 2026-2027 and 2027-2028 funding for housing opportunities for persons with AIDS HoPWA grant.

The floor is open.

Um member McKnight just making a suggestion.

If we have the three hundred and the three million three hundred, and everything that's in the green um one through five almost comes to that total.

We might need to adjust maybe access of health care network, but if we take the those totals right there, that would actually be the budget.

That's my opening recommendation.

Okay, thank you, Member McKnight.

Member Lanthrop.

Um I have a calculator.

Uh the green uh uh applicants are three million three hundred and seventy-two thousand five hundred and yeah.

Five hundred and eighty-nine uh and seventy-nine cents.

So really the difference uh if we did uh what my fellow member has suggested would be only uh three hundred and seventy-two thousand five eighty-nine.

We I think we can make that uh determination on one of the larger or um I these are all very uh uh deserving uh very effective organizations, and it's very sad that we can't fund everybody, but I think uh a reduction in some of the uh applicants, I think would would make that a little easier for everybody chair recognizes member Prado Um Member Prado for the record.

Um do any of the organizations that were proposed to not be funded currently receive funds, and if so, for how long, like what's their institutional, how many cycles.

I I know I've been on the committee um for several years, and it's we've seen applications, things things may happen after the year ratification if there's capacity and so on so forth.

I just want to understand if any organization is not terminating a relationship just because the math is you know slightly convenient in terms of the the rounding of the numbers.

Gina Kenneller, sorry, I don't think I'm understanding your question fully.

I will I'll make it way more precise.

See the golden rainbow, the just one project or CPLC Nevada current or prior uh recipients of the Ho grant, and if so for how long?

Uh Golden Rainbow, I believe for probably over 10 years, uh just one for about four years, I believe.

Um, and they both do uh permanent housing.

So they currently have HOPWA tenants that are permanent housing and CPLC as well, the about four years, sorry.

Excellent.

Uh and so I don't have a helpful suggestion, but it seems like the the key difference there is in the risk ratings of the uh currently low risk rated applicants.

Some of them are new and therefore probably don't have history, right?

Um guess uh as I recall, maybe access for health care network is new.

Gina Kendallaro, access to health care is not new.

Um hope link would be new, and community counseling center would be new.

Great.

Um food for thought.

All righty.

The floor is open if you want to add to the discussion as we look uh at uh our funding.

Um I do have a question, Chair Miller.

Um, and I know we'll get into particular language about presenting to city council, but if they didn't meet the threshold, we can zero uh balance them out, and there's language we'll use for that, correct.

Colleen doigger neighborhood services.

You're saying if they did not meet the threshold, yes, ma'am.

Then they won't be considered.

Fantastic.

Thank you for that clarification.

Okay.

Uh member, the chair recognizes member Jones Cigaro.

I would just like to advocate for golden rainbow.

Um, I thought the presentation was excellent.

And I realize there is budget cuts, but you know, we all have to look at we can't fund everybody.

I understand that.

Um, but I think uh we could possibly not um allot the full allotment to access to health care, the 1.1 million.

I think we could take we could shed some off of there.

Um just my opinion.

Thank you.

Uh member had member had that been it.

Thank you.

Um it yes, and I don't know, maybe my screen's not updating.

I'm not sure if you guys are doing calculations on this, but I agree with uh member Jones cigars.

Sorry, I apologize.

Um I agree.

Uh I really appreciated Golden Rainbow's presentation.

I appreciated the just justification that they had around their risk assessment.

Um maybe someone that's better at math, and I don't have strong feelings on if it's you know cutting access to health care network um or a proportional cut to if at all six if someone's better at math than I am to identify what that proportional cut might be to get us to the 3.3.

Um but that would be that would be my suggestion.

Maybe I don't know.

I don't want to throw out a number and it's a stupid number.

Excuse my language.

So what I would be curious to know what's our overage if we had one through six fully funded, what's that total amount?

And then what's our overage, and then that would give us an opportunity to identify um a proportionate reduction potentially for the whole slate.

Sorry, Gina Catalario.

So with the first six you're looking at three point nine million.

So you would have to consider some cuts.

Go ahead and set a minute.

Um I have a question.

Uh go ahead, Ms.

Jackson.

So I was what if we uh did like maybe 30% on all six?

Would that like a 30% amount across the six um so that we could out give gold in rainbow?

Are you um for Jones Cigaro?

Um, were you thinking funding the whole six hundred thousand?

Or were you thinking half or well?

I think we should make cuts appropriately.

Um possibly not the the smallest one here and is community counseling center.

Uh they asked the least amount.

Um, however, you know, if we're gonna cut from everybody, we should cut proportionately, is my opinion.

Um chair recognizes uh member Conyers.

I think that for the organizations that are providing housing, that's the only reason why I wouldn't want to cut proportionally to give them more funding for housing people in need recognizes uh member McKnight.

Um and that by the way, I I I agree with everybody.

There's um in the sense of that we all want to try to fund everyone, but if we if we took off 72,589.79 from access to healthcare network, and then were to take off uh I don't know, uh like a hundred thousand or the whole link of Nevada.

I mean, once again, we're getting into the housing.

If we're trying to get golden uh rainbow some funds, maybe because some of the smaller ones, you know, it it it I'm trying to find a way to maybe the the two larger ones we we we kind of draw from them, uh maybe we don't give golden rainbow everything they're asking for, but still give them you know, like 400,000 or something like that.

were to take off I don't know for uh like a hundred thousand or the whole link of Nevada I mean once again we're getting into the housing if we're trying to get golden uh rainbow some funds maybe uh because some of the smaller ones you know it it it I'm trying to find a way maybe the the two larger ones we we we kind of draw from them uh maybe we don't give gold and rainbow everything they're asking for but still give them you know like four hundred thousand or something like that so at least there is some funding to them also I mean all all of these groups are very but I agree I think housing's the critical thing that that we need to um I wouldn't reduce uh the woman development center I wouldn't reduce anyway it's but I'm just tossing that out to add to the discussion member Jones Zigaro uh whoever's doing the math over there's had too yes or we had to work the math backwards I'm explaining this a little bit for you okay so at the thirty percent that was um thrown out there this is what you would get for the first six that would be putting us I know it's red so it's a little confusing I just had to work the math backwards uh so that would put us at two point seven so that would leave us to be able to fund a few more if you wanted to fund everybody at 30 percent for the first six member jones and guaro um so our minimum is sixty five thousand is that on the CDBG is that same on Hope okay so uh hi Jamie Jackson um so that means that we would fund everyone we would just reduce by 30 percent yes on here yeah yeah and so we would have how much to fund golden rainbow four hundred you would be okay sorry so you'd be funding gold and rainbow uh at 30 percent which would put them at 420 yeah okay that I agree I I'm so we would still have let me give you what you have left over right we'd have like five point eight still to give to hit the three point three member joan sangueros for the record so you would have sorry gina candle you would have five hundred thousand five hundred sorry five hundred and nineteen thousand one hundred and eighty seven and fifteen cents between the last two just one and CPLC this is member Colliniers could we split the last five um five hundred and nineteen thousand um between the different ones that have housing so that would mean that community counseling center would not be included in that split question this is Jamie Jackson again so are you saying like we would fund uh ninety thousand fully right no so we would only fund it at 30 percent so right now it would still be sixty three thousand oh okay got it thank you so you could give about eighty thousand more to each organization that's getting or maybe you only cut it by twenty five percent what happens if you change the thirty percent to twenty five percent member jones and gero for the record gina candelario um so it's still at the two point nine so it didn't change very much so you might have not even seen a difference on what would be allocated out okay how about 20 percent Gina Candelarial so now we're looking at three point one I think that's much easier to adjust um I mean we have one a hundred thousand hundred and twenty two thousand to disperse to some

Gina Candelaureal.

So now we're looking at 3.1.

I think that's much easier to adjust.

Um I mean, we have one a hundred thousand, hundred and twenty-two thousand to disperse to someone.

Member Caliendo, is that your microphone lit up, ma'am?

Thank you.

Um, Ally Calliendo, I wonder if we just considered doing the percentage cut for the first six that would equal the total, which I think is about a 17% cut.

Gina Candelarial, so you have 121 928 and 17 cents left over.

Chair recognizes uh member had to admit it.

And uh thank you, Churchill had a bit.

And is that that's with the 20%?

That's at 20%.

Okay.

Not just spare you just a little bit more pain.

Can you do it at 17% and see where that lands?

Thank you.

Chair recognizes member Burks.

I was gonna ask exactly what uh Patricia did.

Thank you.

So you have two thousand five hundred and fifty and forty-seven cents left over.

Member had that been it?

Thank you.

Um so then I'm just throwing this out there.

Sorry, Patricia had it been it.

Um why don't we just split up the rest of the two thousand seven hundred and fifty across all of them, or pick the top one?

But happy to just spread it out, call it good.

And I think we we've also congratulations to you guys for doing like Excel spreadsheets under pressure.

It's very impressive.

But my my suggestion would be just split it up amongst the ones that are being funded.

Member Prado and Member Burks.

Um totally wrong in the wrong direction here, and I'm sorry if this is gonna take a lot more time, but uh the one concern I have is um well, I guess there's different uh ways of thinking about it, but one of them is you know, we're doing just math to make the obviously because we've got to hit a precise number and all that, but you know, one one element that makes me kind of unsettled this to simply just rewards a bigger ask, meaning uh if we're just gonna work down from a number, so on so forth.

So you've got um some applicants that are requested nearly double what others have, and I think there's in the long run implications for where the city can do work and so on and so forth if it consolidates with stronger and stronger applicant to ask for more and more uh money.

And so um another thought that was rattling in my brain is kind of like what is the what is considered a what would this what would we think is the city's standard award for this grant?

Meaning like what could be reasonably expected to receive based on what's available and how and uh number of applicants and so on and so forth.

So that that number is probably closer to like in the half million range, and you could see several applicants are close to it.

I mean, some are not the risk could potentially gonna receive significantly more.

Um and uh the ones that do have per highly uh rated applications, and so I'm just kind of wondering if it like working backwards of the other end, like is there a cap like what's too what's too large of a number given the context of other organizations who maybe have similar proposals but are making a significantly lower ask or or would be getting a significantly lower award.

I'm just thinking about like you know, CPLC ends up being awarded 250 or whatever ends up being the number versus a million a million two on the top end that would lengthen our discussion maybe significantly because it'd be like, okay, now I have to do math on like what's the top number.

Member had to admit it.

So um Patricia had a banner.

I appreciate that.

I think that's right.

Uh however, I think there it's more than just these aren't necessarily ranked by total ask.

They are ranked by total score, right?

Inclusive.

And so it happened to be that the largest ask ranked top.

I think it's incumbent on the organizations to apply for what they need.

And if some organizations are applying for more and some organizations are applying for less, that is totally within their purview and and within their rights to to do that.

And so I think it's okay that there are there is a large range of asks at hand.

Um, but I think when we sort of cross-layer that with the scoring is where I think the prioritization can come in.

And I from a philosophical perspective, it's like there's also a world in which we fund the top scoring applications fully, because there's also, you know, uh a good argument to be made that it's not useful to get a 30% cut.

However, recognizing that we've got a limited pot, we've got some extraordinarily worthy organizations, and they were required to submit a sustainability plan that demonstrates their commitment to finding additional dollars that are cut from here.

I feel comfortable with the process that we're moving with right now, as far as having that sort of general across the board cut and prioritizing them in the order of their um total score.

Chair recognizes Member McKnight.

I I I do agree with we need to take into to consideration uh the scoring of the board.

Um even the the ones that are in the medium yield notice that uh they didn't score.

I mean, there's like a 30-point difference between the top and uh the lower ones.

Um and so I do think it's important that uh we as a board recognized as a group which ones uh we gave the higher scores to Chair recognizes Member Burks.

Hi, and this may be because I was late and I apologize for that.

Um was there a discussion about why we were including golden rainbow, being that it was not the first five highest scores.

Did I miss that conversation?

I'm sorry, thank you.

Chair recognizes Member McKnight.

Oh, just that one of the members said, why don't we also involve, I'm not sure which one of us we've all been tossing in, which is great.

Um said, why don't we do golden rainbow also?

My this is Linda Burks.

Um I it my opinion is because the point difference is to do the first five.

Um definitely they get a lot more closer to the requested amount, and um, they are the top performers in our scoring in the cities.

Thank you, Member Burks, member Prado.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I would so I think uh uh we can speak as one voice and so on.

So I just want to bring that consideration because I am looking at the board scoring.

There's like a two-point difference on average, uh, roughly three uh between the proposals.

One thing I've noted is you know, if you have history with the drawdowns and the reports, you have the possibility of having a realistic risk rating, and there's a little bit of a roll of the dice on new applicants.

That's why I asked about that.

If you've not had to turn in a report, we don't know if it'll be 12 reports on time or not, and so on and so forth.

And so there's almost uh like if you also if you filter that out, you know, you you're kind of looking at what golden rainbow actually would have been in the fourth slot there.

I I found some of the answers for the CPLC um presentation to be vague, and I didn't so therefore I think even in a in looking at the color coding, I would have different feelings about which organization, so on so forth.

That's why I asked the question also about the length of the history and performance.

And so um, yeah, I appreciate yeah, I appreciate that point.

And so I I do feel like whatever outcome it is, it should be some kind of rule that can be applied applied consistently.

I do think it's not, oh, you know, that presentation is better than that one, or I sort of know the work better of that organization or the other.

Uh and so something like it's the top five because of the uh the overall ratings and then that that they are across the board, both low risk and meet a certain threshold, or figuring out some rule that to me is part of the rule is uh to some extent to to respond to your point.

Some of the some of the organizations ask maybe due to capacity to request money.

Access to healthcare network is like a massive multi-state uh health conglomerate.

I pulled their audits and stuff, and they're like the in the dozens of millions of dollars in um assets on hand, and so obviously they can simply ask for more and they can put through more uh funds in say an organization that might be local and serves a particular need or geography in the city or something like that, where where there might be a real gap if we don't uh consider that.

Uh and so I guess I'm comfortable going in either direction.

I'm just airing my thoughts as the direction developed, and I thought felt very strong, kind of strongly that without boring down into what was asked, simply just how much was asked might be what's determining the the column J there and and trying to sort of siphon funds from the top to the bottom, if that makes sense.

Uh I was the one who advocated for golden rainbow, and part of the reason I did was I thought their presentation was excellent, and I looked at their line items on their budget, and I noticed a lot of the other organizations, the line items have to do with administrative cost.

Um I felt golden rainbow spent more money on the actual projects that they needed to do, which is why I advocated for them because I don't think people should get rich from nonprofits.

All right.

Well, do we want to throw some more spaghetti uh let me wash my language here?

Okay.

I apologize.

Uh on the record.

Uh does anyone else want to, as we look at all of our screens?

Um, I see that uh member Lanthrop, go ahead, sir.

Uh Robert Lathrop, I want to uh support uh member Prado's uh assertion that the first six people are very very close in scoring.

I think this first six uh should be uh uh funded in a proportional manner.

Thank you.

Member had to add Bennett.

I think so.

Um I think we're I think we are in agreement if I'm re if I'm hearing what folks are saying.

And I think that if we looked at so the with the calculation that we're looking at right now is a reduction of 17% across the fur the top six scoring, and whether you're looking at the board score or the total score, I think there is clearly a drop-off rate um for the last two.

So I feel comfortable sort of taking them out of the conversation.

And um recognizing we've got the 2,750 left over.

Um again open if folks have suggestions on how to I mean that's small potatoes in the sort of grand scheme of what we're talking about here.

Um, but uh chair, I would be ready to make a motion, Chair, if you're ready to accept one on how we sort of move forward from here, just based on what we've got in front of us.

All right, I have no problem with that.

I'll entertain a motion based off of what you're seeing on your screen by a member of the board to start Gina.

Sorry to cut you off.

Let me just add the 2000 split just so you have an accurate amount.

Thanks for cut you off.

I apologize.

Not a problem.

Gina Candelario, so we can put one cent somewhere.

Well, actually, yeah, right.

Alrighty.

So uh we have had the adjustment uh all the way across.

So I will entertain a motion and uh of accepting what we see on the screen, member had that been it?

Great.

Um uh do I need to read each of them individually with their total for the motion?

Yes, okay.

Um it so I motion that we and I'm looking at column I, correct?

For the total okay.

Um that we fund access to healthcare network for their access HIV services Nevada program at 951,200 and 17 cents.

200 dollars and seventeen cents.

Um that we fund AFAN for their housing services program at 500 545, 866,000 dollars and eighteen cents.

Community counseling center for their community health program at 75,158 dollars and forty-one cents.

Hope link of Southern Nevada Housing is Healthcare Initiative at 747,458 and 41 cents.

Women's development center, Hoppe program, permanent housing at 481, eight hundred and fifty-eight dollars and forty-one cents.

Golden Rainbow, HIV permanent housing placement support services at four hundred and ninety-eight thousand four hundred and fifty-eight dollars and forty-one cents.

And I'll just give my apologies for whoever has to do their books and deal with a forty-one cent uh line item.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor.

Is there a second?

Member McKnight.

I second.

Okay, we have a motion on the floor to accept what we see on the screen as a recommendations for the C D BRB for Hopwa.

And uh we have a first and a second.

Is there any discussion?

Seeing none, I'll enter uh I'll entertain a vote.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Opposed?

Aye, sorry.

So is that one nay or no?

Okay.

Okay.

Right.

What?

What happened?

Okay.

Fantastic.

Is there and it looks and peers that it is unanimous.

So we can move on to our next agenda item, correct?

Okay.

Our next agenda item is agenda item six.

Now, this is where it's gonna get interesting.

Um discussion for possible action regarding the scoring and recommended allocations for fiscal year 2026-2027 and 2027-2028.

Funding for the community development block grant, C D B G.

I will open the floor.

Member McKnight.

Um just in kind of following the same path.

If we take everything that's one hundred forty and above and start from that discussion, because as a group, that's what we although that would also include.

Um of Crest team for youth.

And there's one other one.

Uh family promise of Las Vegas also scored over one uh one forty-five and one forty-three.

Um that's it's just a suggestion to to the council, but it makes it easier once we use our board scoring this to set a establish a benchmark.

Go ahead, member Hadette Bennett.

Sorry, just a clarifying question, Patricia Hadabennett.

You mentioned Olive Crest and one other organization.

Sorry, could you just give a little bit more context?

Why am I not saying that I'm seeing them at the oh because they're out of order?

I I'm not sure.

Oh, they've got a medium, no, I don't know.

I'm not really sure why.

Yeah.

Tim Glisten, uh Grant Program Coordinator.

You're seeing, I believe you're going by the actual board score, which they under the board score of the family promise scored 1436.

And then um Olive Crest scored 145.

42.

But the admin score was both um 20.

So that's why they are over there.

So I guess if we want to take the total score of going back up to like 180.

Doing the total score, and then kind of working using that as a benchmark.

Although I do think all these are really good.

I enjoyed anyway.

Some of these programs I plan to support myself, but anyway.

Okay.

This is chair member, just for clarification.

Uh, the minimum amount is uh 65,000.

Is that correct?

Tim Glesson, yes, 65,000.

Okay, thank you.

All righty.

The chair recognizes member Prado.

Yeah, um to dovetail maybe on the prior discussion, but the the current one too.

I don't think the admin scores negligible, meaning like it's important.

Um it just in I think there's a key difference between the last and this scenario, meaning there was literally uh a handful of organizations who may be paying a gigantic penalty and ending a multi-year large program uh and so on so forth.

It seemed to be something you can more carefully consider.

Here we're clearly looking at way too many organizations.

And so my thought process is a little bit different, and it maybe foreshadowed my prior discussion.

I think that if the city wanted to do as many different things as it could, it would just do the minimum amount as much as it can, and just do okay, start at the top and how many organizations can be funded at 65,000.

It's 7.69, and so it'd be like just the top seven, and then the admin score becomes kind of uh not as relevant all the way down to Olive Crest because you're you're potentially not in their same range or near the same range.

Never mind, the math does make it kind of close there, but it might be the one differentiating factor.

Uh but that would be my philosophical how I would approach it, which is the opposite.

Okay, so the point you made last time away to the other stream, it's like the l the lowest possible amount for each organization, regardless of what they asked for.

Thank you, City, for the math.

Thank you very, very much.

Do you mind keep on going as far as yeah, just so let's see how much we can do for the 500 total.

I have a question.

So this is uh Jackson.

So you're saying that we would fund the first what top part of the groups at the minimum.

Is that what we're looking at?

I believe this is Chair Miller.

I believe we're just looking at the whole pot of 500,000 in just minimum uh presentation from the top down to see where we get to closest to the 500,000.

And I have someone correct me if I am if I'm wrong.

Okay.

So I think that's what what they're looking at because it is in numerical order of what our board score is all the way down.

Right on the ranking side.

I get it.

Okay, thank you for clarification.

You're welcome, Member Jackson.

Uh member uh Joan Segaro.

So I believe it was Haddad or Prada, who said we can do seven organizations, I think it was.

Um it look, this is gonna be difficult, period.

Um, there's a lot of great organizations here.

I think we need to think about the focus of the city and our mayor, and I know homelessness is one of her top priorities, um, which I think we as a council need to, or as a grant uh board need to consider what the priorities of our mayor are.

And but with that being said, um there are were a couple.

Um the foster kinship, um, which rank number two, um I think is extremely important.

Uh and uh the real talk youth impact program.

When she came up, she made a comment about her how much money her program would save the city.

And so I think we need to take that into account um because we can put money out there, but are we saving the city money, or are we just putting a band-aid on things?

I guess is for better terms.

Member Jackson.

Yes, so one of the things that I felt um along with um Miss Jones Cigaro is I I really think that we should look at what we need to do for youth so that we can mitigate any issues for them becoming homeless.

So um definitely foster kinship and um I really liked the real talk.

Uh looking at well, what even YMCA, what can we do to um to stop these youth from getting into uh this situation where they might be homeless, right?

So I think we need to start early and so we mitigate homeless in the future.

Um, this is Chair Miller.

I I think I asked this question at one of our first meetings was um in the past historically, there's like been a percentage of going into each of these categories, be it homelessness, youth health services, employment training.

Are we still at that, or is it just a wash and just one thing?

Colleen doigger, neighborhood services.

There's no set percentages that need to be in a specific category.

Okay, thank you very much.

Chair recognizes Member Conyers.

Hi.

Um I really think that we should really focus on the youth because they're the future of our community, and if we don't prioritize funding those programs, then those students, those children, they'll end up being adults that are homeless.

So I know all of these organizations are doing great work.

I think that the priority should be on housing children, and then second, on services that are helping women.

Um so I motion to just consider supporting those organizations fully that are doing work to help the youth and prevent them from being homeless, and even if those are organizations that help their families, that help their families keep them housed, and I think that should be our priority, the youth and making sure they're not homeless.

I think that um there was one organization, um Olive Quest.

I do believe that they match I guess funding to the teens and the youth.

So I definitely want to fund that organization.

I know that they are not at the 80% threshold, but they seem to be giving a lot back to the youth.

Thank you, Member Conyers.

If I remember correctly, aren't they the only this is Chair Miller?

They're the only one that's uh age out and assist the students that are aging out of um foster care if I remember my notes correctly.

All right.

Uh member Prado.

All right.

Um I think those are all really important uh considerations.

I think I'm kind of thinking it on the same lines here.

One uh so one thought I have actually post getting all the scores and and to kind of reflecting on the presentations.

One um is and maybe I don't know, I guess I can have my own ways of thinking about it, but the city has sometimes dual applicants, right?

So it feels like maybe uh if an organization received a large award on the other side, um maybe they could make room on this side.

And so access to health care.

Healthcare had a significant um request on the uh Hopless side that was funded, I think at the largest amount.

Um as I recall their presentation made a lot of sense to me, but there was a lot of questions about what exactly how exactly it um addressed uh keeping seniors in their homes and so on and so forth.

And so I was less convinced uh when listening to that presentation that say uh others that uh some of y'all may have mentioned, including Olive Crest, uh, where I I asked that question about transitioning uh and getting your bad sheets if you're all off to college, like who who fills that gap when a child ages out of the foster system.

So uh I guess it's uh without it becoming kind of a scramble for which organizations we all may have had a quick connection with or or a compelling connection with during the presentations.

I do think the math still kind of matters there, and to and so olive crest is at least on the board side again.

Um not that the Ammon score doesn't impact, but uh Olivecrest did seem to have a similar uh score to that range uh that that's being considered uh and I specifically I guess suggest that maybe we consider not funding access to health care to make space I would agree with that.

This is Jackson, Member McKnight.

Yeah, I'd I would third that I guess.

Um yeah, if someone already received funds from the uh other pot, I I think uh this really shouldn't I agree with the youth too.

I think that's critical.

Um but we do also once again, um, because there's only 500,000, then that's where it it becomes extremely difficult.

Um if we did just do the youth, um, but see, like national organizations um I I also am very much wanting to support those that are uh local um organizations.

I mean, yes, they do get more funding uh from other groups and different things like that, but the ones that started here um I think's also important had to add Bennett.

She could tell from my side.

Um okay.

Sure, she had Bennett.

Um I'm just gonna throw this out here.

Uh like let's let's rip it up if it's if it's not aligned, but what I'm hearing is prioritizing youth, prioritizing local organizations, and if we take that into consideration, and then I heard all of crests get brought up multiple times as well.

So if we you ready?

Okay, if we did, and I still think it's important that like I mean, it's only 500,000, right?

And so I think sticking with the 65,000 and just being really mindful about which organizations we select to me seems like a uh a potential path forward.

So what if we did NPHY, uh sorry, Nevada Partnership for homeless youth, foster kinship, which I heard come up, help of Southern Nevada, because we said youth and homelessness is important.

I heard real talk get elevated.

Oh, sorry, I skipped one.

Um heard leaders in training as a as a focus on youth as well.

And then Olive Crest.

I'm it's I'm it's not to say that I think we should skip over health services completely, but I'm just I think interpreting what I heard um the board say is worth prioritize is a potential way to prioritize the funds.

So then, yeah, so then LIT, real talk, and then Olive Crest.

Um I'm not married to this.

Um happy to anyways, like I said, you're not gonna hurt my feelings if you have alternative proposals, but member Jones Zigaro.

Uh nobody has addressed Westcare, and uh I think Westcare is an absolutely phenomenal, phenomenally successful program.

And uh I really would put my two cents in for them uh to fund them it, whether it just be the 65%, but they uh they have a very good success rate.

So I think that's important as well.

And then I just I'm curious uh as to the rest of the board's feedback.

Um Catholic charities and Salvation Army are huge organizations in the city that deal with the homelessness, and yet I see them a little lower on the scoring.

So I'm just curious as to everybody else's opinion.

Um with member Conyers and then you next member Jackson.

Thank you.

Oh, I was gonna make the same suggestion to fund Westcare in Nevada.

And also I was I don't know if they were on the list, but um solutions of change.

Was that one that was called so I would suggest um also adding solutions of change since it's dealing with families and you okay, member Jackson?

Yeah, so I wanted to address the salvation army.

So um this is I guess my second year on the grants, and I was the the Salvation Army came to us in the the first round, and there was some issues with the risk analysis, and they came the second time, and they had not addressed the risk analysis from the previous.

So I'm wondering what is you know, like if you want to get funding, then maybe you want to shore up the risk analysis from the city.

I'm just yeah.

Member Prado.

Um, yeah, and so um I think I would well the two prisons of thought there.

One of them is that sometimes the organization is like super large, and the this grant like maybe hasn't been the biggest priority.

So it it it seems like in the context of them falling behind, it's particularly galling because you know there's capacity.

Um then uh the other is the the concept of how viable uh the the program is and what percentage of the impact is actually gonna be the city providing this grant versus maybe it's a very large program that's being supplemented.

And so sometimes I've tried to figure that out by looking at the the budgets, both lines items, the size of the organization, so on and so forth.

Um yeah, I mean, since we're all kind of going with uh I'm a professional educator, definitely care about the youth.

I was with the youth earlier today, but uh the thing that has always uh struck me also is seniors, right?

So it seems like there's some long-running programs, helping hands, I think has been a multi-cycle partner.

Um there.

And so I know uh it seems like we are at seven without the seniors.

Like meaning if we add one more, it's uh already over the edge.

Right.

And so um and uh obviously the I think the Jewish family service is also a multi that they were approved and had a grant last time around, right?

And so some of my mindset is whether we're collapsing programs uh cycle over cycle and being kind of inconsistent.

Uh and so I I would be curious if staff can even back of the envelope, the things that are being considered funding now, which one of them are new, you know, which ones of them are not, and then if there's any programs that are multi-cycle programs that are not currently not being funded uh based on the spreadsheet as it is now so Tim Glisten, so the new organizations would be leaders in training and then real talk youth impact.

Um as far as longstanding organizations, probably the only one with Jewish family services in them in there.

No.

So Jewish family services would be a longstanding one that is not currently there, as well as helping hands.

Those are probably the two the the longest two.

Well, and Catholic charities as well.

Um this is Chair Miller.

I have a question about Catholic charities.

From my understanding, um they are the only ones that run that emergency night shelter.

Am I correct?

Okay, so I I'm I'm thinking Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth does have kind of an emergency component to their homeless um facility part facility.

Um as far as in regards to emergency related, they probably are the only ones that I can see.

Um directly dealing with homeless homelessness.

Okay, so I'm I'm thinking Nevada Partner Friendship for Homeless Jews does have kind of an emergency component to their homeless um facility part facility um as far as in regards to emergency related they probably are the only ones that I can see um directly dealing with homeless homelessness thank you go ahead member Prado slides in my thoughts my series you can go for stuff crystallizing a thoughts on go ahead member uh Joan Segaro uh Jones and Garrow for the record um one thing we didn't talk about is Nevada Health Center's the um mobile medical unit uh again that's something that goes to the community where it is needed in the community so I think I I mean I know we're we're throwing a lot of things out there and but um and as far as emergency shelter I'm not so sure that um it's emergency it's not for the in their program but Salvation Army houses about 300 people every night so uh but I think what we should do is maybe cross off the ones that we definitely do not want to or or recommend not to fund and then continue to narrow it down from there because you know you're looking at 36 you know different organizations and we're gonna fund seven Gina Kennelaro if you'd like I could begin hiding the ones you guys don't want so we can start bringing it down closer if that would help if you have agencies that you know you don't I think that might be helpful for I'll start on the bottom and then we can slowly work our way up and then yeah let's um member how to bennett um so if if what's tough is my instinct is to go with what member McKnight said with initially which is create a cut score um and I think he said uh board score of uh 140 or total score of 180 that doesn't address some of the other conversations but I would be comfortable creating a cut score that feels um defensible and um equitable uh by uh looking at it there and then you know maybe we can just have a pool of 13 or so I heard someone say pull access to health care as well so maybe it's 12 that we're really talking about here so from um 13 or from one to 13 minus access to health care and again this is just what I'm I think what I'm hearing um from the group I think also if we wanted to start at 29 and go down like you've got there I think that makes sense too but curious what others think all of crest is down there.

Yeah they're numbered 29 I can hide it correct so let's how about this leave all the everything except yeah sorry excuse me um keep olive crest and then drop anything below 13 other than olive crest and just to say there's some super awesome organizations that are in this and uh to echo what everyone else has shared like this is not fun or easy to think about you know who should be prioritized ultimately overall and access correct member uh joan cigar and then member coi uh coniers um sorry I forgot to okay go ahead member concept and then uh member jackson there was one that we did not um with that we did remove the list it was the family promise of Las Vegas and it's hard to remove that one because it's dealing with housing and it's dealing with housing families to keep them together um I feel like that one should be added back so we can have that one to discuss but keeping families together really matters um so I think that should definitely be added back to the list so we can figure out who we fund member Jackson uh yes so um I'm kind of I am partial to shine a light I think that they are doing even though it's not youth I think that they're doing amazing work by going into very hard environment to help

So I think that should definitely be added back to the list so we can figure out who we found.

Yes, so I'm kind of I am partial to Shine a light.

I think that they're doing, even though it's not youth, I think that they're doing amazing work by going into very hard environment to help people.

And they have kind of a skeleton staff, and I just think that they should be considered as well.

Um I am on the opposite side uh on Shine a Light.

Uh they are an excellent organization, but um they are they are heavily volunteer-based, and they do do an excellent job, but I think our money could be spent better elsewhere as well as uh I would vote to remove Vegas stronger for the same reasons.

I like the this is uh member Jackson.

I like the idea too that they use a lot of volunteers for shine and light, and I'm just you know, I just think that they're doing good work.

And maybe oh sorry.

I'm sorry, this chairmiller.

So is there um are we getting a total?

Because I'm just trying to see how far far off we are.

Yeah, Gina Catalurio.

So you have a total right here with these seven agencies, but uh these ones are not entered yet.

So do you want me to enter the 65 and all of them and start working down that way?

Yes, please.

That'll give us a better idea.

Is that too little for you to see?

You missed Westcare and uh Shine a light.

Okay, so everyone sees that grand total.

Can we create a sorry?

Go ahead.

Remember how to share not a problem.

Um can we create a new column?

Okay.

Okay.

And then um just so we can compare and contrast a little bit.

So let's throw NPHY back in, and everyone's still at 65,000.

Let's throw foster kinship back in.

Um let's throw um I heard Westcare.

Leaders in training, and then I'm gonna I'm not uh we'll go back up to the top here.

Leaders in training, real talk.

Um crust.

So okay.

Yeah.

Oh.

And then it sounds like there's disagreement on Shine O Light.

And some of the I mean my opinion is I think Shine Alite's doing really interesting, unique work that no one else is doing, and I do think that this type this type of funds, these types of funds, this pot of dollars, is really appropriate for that type of work.

So I'm just gonna make a proposal that we throw them in there and see where that lands.

So then maybe from here, if folks have alternatives, can maybe we can create a new column for each one moving forward, and then we can like because it's hard for me to track when we're sort of going over the same ones.

I would feel comfortable with this, but obviously we've got time to discuss.

Um this chair Miller.

Um Nevada Health Centers Incorporated.

Isn't that is that the mobile health centers?

And I don't see them added into the new column.

So then let's start again in the new column.

On that column, right?

Not on back indoors.

Okay.

Um so I feel like I'm gonna frustrate everyone because I try to find like principles and uh ways of thinking.

One that I did really deeply this time was let me look into the the books.

And so there are both with Nevada Health Centers and with Westcare, they're large health congrom conglomerates, and this is probably like rounding error type of money.

Uh and on the opposite side, you know, again, everybody's doing great work and so on and so forth.

When I I met the lady from Real Talk, I still remember have her card in my drawer from like 2016.

Very impersonal person in person, but the books look like they're they might not even have the cash on hand to spend the the the grant award.

This would be like almost a doubling or tripling their budget.

And so there's like capacity concerns around whether that that's gonna happen, who who's gonna do all the reporting, all that stuff.

And so um I I kind of looked at both ends and have I guess thoughts about both both of those uh or rather three of those, right?

With between Westcare, umada health centers and uh real talk, you know, if things got to the home stretch, I I knew I had those things floating in my brain from looking at the um financials.

I guess I'm saying those I'm saying those I think should be not in.

That's the only suggestion I have for those three.

Member Caliendo.

Uh thank you.

I think if I'm remembering correctly, also that Nevada Health Centers was asked what they would do if they didn't get the full amount and they asked for over 200,000.

And they said they wouldn't move their trucks, they would just stay parked.

So if the thing we like is that they're mobile, I don't know if they would be able to go mobile with a reduction in their ask.

Um, and I agree um that capacity for this is a big issue.

And so I would also just mention that you know, with federal funds being under such scrutiny right now, it's important that organizations do have the capacity to spend this money down safely and efficiently.

And I also think we should consider the city's risk score um as part of that and making sure we're being really good stewards of federal dollars.

Member had to admin it.

Okay.

Um so then I can amend my call.

Um, let's what happens if we um looking at risk scores, I think to the point around capacity.

Um pull olive crest, zero them out, and then um, this one's already gone.

Okay, so I don't know.

I think we also talked about prioritizing seniors as well.

So maybe pull up to Jewish family services.

So then we've got homeless youth, foster youth, seniors, youth leadership preventative programs.

Oh, I heard a put let's pull real talk as well.

Sorry, that was the other one that left my brain.

And then pull it up to help of Southern Nevada.

Yeah.

Um as I recall, they have uh infrastructure, so on so forth.

And I it felt like oh, I don't know how how we got that far without uh kind of getting that back in.

So I'd say we're pretty close for me.

That's it.

The only thought I have this is one of these things you and I had some conversations offline, like, oh, I have experiences.

I've done the mobile clinic thing, and it's like actually it's super good if it's stationary because you can have a predictable schedule.

And so if you're traveling around sometimes, uh what really costs money is having providers specialized people in a truck without someone they're actually seeing.

And so um we run those at school and we'll belt 70 kids through in a day, and that's great.

But if it was 30, all of a sudden you're the the efficiency is pretty low.

And so hopefully they'll park them at a school.

So I thought I hope they have school partnerships because we're can give them all the kids they need.

Um so I I'm I guess I'm ready to do this, except what I didn't think about is we also there's just now more money to just distribute equally if we're locked in at these organizations, presuming that uh presuming that uh everybody else is, but if not, uh we can continue discussion.

Member Joan Sigara and uh member Conyers.

I guess I'm still gonna dissent on Shine a Light.

I think uh Olive Crest or Real Talk Youth Impact would be much more beneficial to receive the funds.

Member Conyers, I'm looking at leaders of training and training.

I think those that fund could should be allocated to um olive quests.

Um just because it's providing housing for teens and youth.

And then I do think that we should really fund like real talk youth impact program.

It sounds like she had a lot of experience.

Um I believe it's an operations officer um dealing with students or I guess youth getting out of like juvenile juvie.

So I think she provides something that none of these actually um help with.

So that would be one that I would recommend funding, and probably just removing funding from China Light and also from leaders in training to fund Olive Quests and Road Talk, and I would be comfortable with that.

Chair recognizes uh member Jones Sigar.

Jones and Giro for the record, I agree.

Uh Conyers, do you have anything to add, ma'am?

No.

Okay, thank you.

I just see a green light and I'm like again, thank you, City, for your math and your flexibility with us.

Does that accurately reflect what you were doing?

Yes, that's that's right.

Chair recognizes member dad Bennett.

Thank you.

Would you we're in the negotiation space?

So uh thinking about again back to the capacity uh question and you know, ability to expend funds and like outsized impact on um budgets.

Recognizing that's there's two sides of that coin.

Would you be amenable to trading the real talk investment to the leaders in training one?

And if so, I would be willing to make a motion and ready to move forward.

No.

Can you provide some rationale?

The leaders in training.

With I just look at how much the job workforce is changing.

Um I did have concerns with leaders in training if they were fundamentally teaching high school student jobs that would be that they would have like gainful employment.

I think when it comes to just helping you said remove real talk for leaders in training.

Was that right?

Yes.

Um I still think that the lady from Real Talk, she has real experience working with the youth in Juvie, and she seemed to know how to really reach them.

I'm not saying that the leaders in training isn't important, but I don't know if it's gonna be as impactful as Real Talk Youth Impact Program.

Um I don't see that as a higher priority as a real talk, which is helping students that are already kind of condemned.

They're coming out of Juvie, and I feel like they need support to transition to get to a state where they're able to be functional adults.

And that's why I would put it higher than the high school leadership program.

Member Joan Sigar.

Member Joan Zangero for the record.

Uh two things I'm gonna throw out about Real Talk Youth Impact Program.

The first one, which I stated earlier was she made the comment how much money she would save the city by these youth not going into the adult system.

So I thought that was really huge.

And um there was something else I wanted to say, and I lost it.

I'll come back to it.

Member Lanthrop.

Yeah, dissipatory.

Uh Robert Lathrop.

I both if I'm if my understanding is correct, both leaders in training and real talk are new to the CDRB program.

Is that correct?

Correct.

I think it's important to have some uh even though we're crossing our fingers and hoping that uh some smaller local uh organizations can uh have the capacity and the bandwidth and the talent internally to uh spend this money wisely.

I think it's important to uh take that risk.

Member Caliendo.

Uh yes, just looking at column K and the discussion of not being comfortable um moving into leaders in training.

What about Olive Crest into leaders in training?

Because I just have a fundamental sort of heartburn about skipping over the admin scores and also skipping leaders in training to Olive Crest.

Member Burks.

Um Member Burks.

I was gonna suggest splitting leaders in training and real talk and giving them each half of the 65.

Oh shoot, we can't do that.

Disregard.

I know we wish we could.

Can we give them a little something?

Yeah, just a minim that's the minimal right now.

Um member cigar uh Joe Cigar, did it come back to you?

Uh yes, it did.

Um the one thing I will say about Real Talk Youth Impact when she was asked if she wasn't funded, she said we'll find it some way.

So with that point, yes, I would be willing to concede a little bit.

Um, although I feel very strongly with that program, and um the um were we just oh um one thing I it looks like we're all in agreement on the first five.

So perhaps we can lock those in and finish our debate on the others.

Member Prado and then member Hadad Bennett.

Um all right.

Uh one, uh just a reminder, I completely abstaining from leading training on purpose, not ignoring it.

Um I want to talk kind of in general terms, and so uh it does seem like we have a locked-in sort of top tier, and then we're kind of maybe oscillating between how we reacted to uh the presentation, the proposal, um maybe our own vision of what is a gap and so on so forth, but my brain tends to always uh kind of go back to maybe governing principles that would be defensible.

Uh and so I do think number one helping hands, I think, is a multi-year um multi-cycle recipient who has stuck the landing on the the risk assessment and the performance of their expectations, and so as a result it is I agree kind of hard.

Olivecrest, I think last time also at last cycle also had some um issues in terms of um performance of their responsibility.

So I think as long as we're getting to it's getting harder and harder to get to the finish line, maybe that is the the governing principle is unfortunately there just wasn't room for uh grantees that couldn't meet the expectations of the grant for one uh reason or another.

Uh and so I would propose potentially working our way from the bottom to um to remove all of Crest uh as a uh as a solution there and then and potentially um reinstituting um uh helping hands since it's also in that sort of top tier uh grants, and there's a little bit of a drop off in the uh overall score after that.

Can you just clarify?

Member Jones and Garrett, can you clarify?

Because Olive Crest is a new program.

So I thought you said they were a new program.

Uh Tim Glisten, so Olive Crest is currently funded.

This current two-year cycle.

Okay.

Um a lot of their risk assessment dealt with the beginning of the first of the two years.

They were late on um some submissions.

Usually it was by like a couple days getting the report submitted and their um draws submitted.

Um I think that was tied to them being a new organization itself.

And that results in their lower admin score, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Sorry, was had a pause in this speech in there that allowed a gap in there, but since we're it's a little fluid, the parliamentarian at me is dying right now.

But um, they also are, I think a larger entity with multi-state operations, and so sometimes I go, I'm less forgiving in my assessed estimation of the capacity if it feels like maybe it's just a deprioritized grant because of the size.

That's a projection.

They didn't say that obviously in their proposal or uh, but it's part of the logic uh to me for why um even though I asked them some questions and I find it to be a really compelling thing they're doing if we're getting to the finish line.

Maybe that's the differentiating factor, despite how I felt feel about the topic.

I had a college roommate who was out of the foster system into uh college, and so it's uh very hard for me not to react personally to it, but then looking at all the considerations, just trying to get it to a finish line, it doesn't seem uh it seems like as though it seems as though we've had very little discussion of the multi-year, multi-uh cycle applicants who are sticking the landing and meeting the expectations and and had or rated highly um across the board uh to to cut to to judge the post helping hands, which is higher up on the workbook.

Member Jackson, um I have a question about Shine a Light again.

I'd like to know are they new to the grant cycle?

They would be I propose putting them back in the member had that Bennett.

Um okay, so Patricia had it in it.

So is it possible to scooch it over so we can see all of them really quick?

There's a couple we're diverging on here.

Um I can't see the organizations anymore.

Okay.

Uh no, no, that's me.

That's not you.

Sorry, Gina.

I can hide the program so you can just see the agency.

Is that okay?

Yeah, that's great.

So I mean, there's there's the uh member Prado and Member Jackson's proposals, I think are are helpful.

I would be curious where you guys might fill in the rest of the gaps, because I think those are really the challenge.

Um I think that okay, what if I see Member Jackson added in?

What if we moved my shin a light up to real talk?

Is that something that we could all get behind?

And then basically what I would do with the last well, let's start there.

Okay, so if everyone, this is uh Chair Miller.

There's uh we'll go ahead and uh I'll entertain a motion and uh see if we can get a second, then we'll open it up for discussion.

Chair recognizes Hadad Bennett.

Okay, this is Member Hadda Bennett.

Um let's just see where this gets us.

Um so I'll make a motion to fund at 65,000 for each of the following organizations that I'm about to state.

Nevada Partnership for Homeless Youth, Foster Kinship, Help of Southern Nevada, Jewish Family Service Agency, Westcare, leaders in training, real talk youth impact program, and then with uh uh evenly splitting the final dollars across the funded organizations.

Is there a second?

Member McKnight will second.

Okay, so we have a motion and a second.

Is there any discussion and reference to uh member had Bennett's motion of what you see in the screen, which I believe is column J.

Is that correct?

Member Caliento.

Yes, I have a question probably for the city.

Are we allowed to fund more than has been requested?

Uh Tim Glesson grant program coordinator.

Uh no more than the 500,000.

I'm sorry, for individual organizations who only requested 65,000.

Oh, absolutely.

You can find more than the 65,000.

So that's a good question.

Member Joan Sigar.

Well, mine's right along the lines of that, but if they only requested 65,000, I think we should give the access to the other organizations that requested more.

Um member Hadad Bennett, would you like to amend your motion?

Yeah, absolutely.

Great points.

Thank you guys.

So I would amend my motion, then let's see how this math works out.

Let's fully fund NPHY.

So let's do 75 for uh NPHY.

70 for foster kinship.

Um then wait, we've got 30,000 left.

Let's see.

Six, okay.

So real talk is fully funded, leaders in training fully funded.

So then we've got 30,000 between three organizations, right?

So then let's do 75 for help, 75 for Jewish family services, 75 for Westcare.

That's 500,000, ladies and gentlemen.

So I would amend my motion to what is currently on the screen under had I'd bennett.

So 75 for NPHY, 70 for foster kinship, 75 for help of southern Nevada, 75 for Jewish Family Service Agency, 75 for Westcare, 65 for leaders and training, and 65 for real talk youth impact.

Is there a second to the amendment?

Member McKnight, second.

Okay, we've had a first and a second.

Is there any further discussion?

I just have a quick quick clarifying question.

I made that lengthy statement in the beginning, and the current currently the motion includes that organization, but others.

So now I'm am I just doing an I with a qualifier if or an A with a qualifier or whatever it is.

Deputy City Attorney Chris Levielli for the record.

It did sound like you guys were trying to see whose column most people were in agreement with.

Um, but that at this time I would recommend that each of you guys or that there is a motion for each of the organizations.

That way those that need to abstain can abstain from that specific one.

Wonderful.

That's I thought that's how I remember it worked in the past as each one line by line.

Okay, wonderful.

Okay, so line by line.

Uh so does that mean that uh member had that bennett has to we have to now that we've had a motion and a second, we go line by line uh in order uh to those that need to abstain can abstain.

Is that correct?

Okay, all righty.

So um not seeing any further discussion, uh member had Bennett.

If you'll start and then we'll do we'll do a vote line by line.

Yes.

Okay.

Um first motion to fund Nevada Partnership for homeless youth at 75,000.

Aye.

Aye.

I don't believe I need to start to do it with yes.

And then okay, second.

So there's been seconded by member Prado.

Is there no discussion?

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any nays or an abstention?

Okay.

Next item.

Member had that in it.

I motion to fund foster kinship at 70,000.

Is there a second?

I second the motion.

Joan Zangero.

Thank you.

Discussion.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Nay or abstention.

Or do I have to do that separately?

Okay.

I abstain.

I believe that's member Calliendo.

All righty.

Member had that Bennett.

I motion that we fund help of Southern Nevada at 75,000.

Is there a second?

I'll second that.

And is that member Jackson?

Correct.

Okay, Member Jackson.

Discussion.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

And any opposed.

Or abstention.

Okay.

Motion carries.

Go ahead, Member Hadad Bennett.

Patricia Hadad Bennett.

I motion that we fund.

Where am I?

West Care?

I didn't skip one, right?

West Care.

Jewish Family.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry.

Jewish Family Service Agency at 75,000.

Second.

Second.

Member McKnight.

Discussion.

All those in favor signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed or abstention?

Motion carries.

Member Hadat Bennett.

Thank you.

Now we're at West Care.

Church had a Bennett.

I motion that we fund West Care at 75,000.

I second the motion, Joan Zangero.

Thank you.

Discussion.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed.

Motion carries.

Please continue, Member Hadett Bennett.

Thank you.

Patricia Hadad Bennett.

I motion that we fund leaders in training at $65,000.

This is Allie Kelly.

I know I second.

Okay, we've had a motion and a second.

Any discussion.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Any nay or abstention.

Uh this member Prado, I abstain.

This is Member Conyers.

I sustain too.

Okay, motion carries.

Continue, member uh Hadad Bennett, please.

Thank you.

Sorry, Deputy City Attorney.

Um, Chris, have you got a look here for the record?

It's not like there was an abstention on that last one.

Was that a nay?

Or should that have been a nay?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um Patricia Hadad Bennett.

Um, I motion that we fund Real Talk Youth Impact program at 65,000.

Second.

Aye, second.

Member Conyers.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second and discussion.

All those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

I have aye.

Any opposed or abstention.

Opposed.

Member, which member opposed.

Member Burks.

Motion carries.

And I believe that's the whole slate for $500,000.

Members of the board.

Good job.

Thank you.

That's tough.

Okay, moving on to agenda item seven, citizens' participation.

Before I start, City, thank you so much for working with us in the math.

I'm definitely want to make sure that goes on the record because this is not easy to do this.

We have many, many wonderful agencies that do great work.

And that's why we're on the board to make those decisions.

But your assistance with the math is very helpful.

So thank you again.

We'll move on to yeah, go ahead and applaud them if you want to.

That's because they earned it.

Okay.

We're moving on to agenda item number seven, citizens' participation.

Public comment during this portion of the agenda must be limited to men matters within the jurisdiction of the board.

No subject may be acted upon by the board unless the subject is on the agenda and is scheduled for action.

If you wish to be heard, come forward and give your name for the record.

The amount of discussion on any single subject as well as the amount of time any single speaker is allowed may be limited.

Is there any citizens' participation?

Seeing none, I will entertain from this outstanding board.

Thank you for allowing me to serve with you.

Well, you're gonna make the motion.

I just entertained a motion.

Okay, I'm making a motion to adjourn.

Do we have a second?

I'll second this member product.

We have a first and second.

There are any discussion.

Until next time, my friends, thank you for your service and thank you for serving our city of Las Vegas.

We're adjourned.