Um welcome everyone.

We have uh, let's see, it is 6 31, Tuesday, May 19th at 6.

Okay, you said 6 31.

Um chess, community development, housing, education, social services, state and commerce.

Welcome.

Uh can we please take attendance, Angie?

Um Representative Goldberg.

Oh, I didn't hear you, but okay.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Uh yes, yes, I'm here.

Thank you.

Okay.

Representative Gross.

Here, present.

Representative McEwen.

Present.

Representative um Pollock.

Sorry.

I am here.

Okay.

Representative Price.

He's excused.

Okay.

Uh Representative Sivestri.

Oh, she just locked in.

Perfect timing.

He's present.

Okay.

Representative Walton.

President.

Representative Weirs.

Present.

And Representative Yeager.

Present.

Okay.

All right.

Um, Representative Camporelli is also in attendance.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else from the board?

Hi, Representative Camparelli.

Hello, madam chair.

Do we have anyone else from the board?

That's right.

I'm living Susanna Jones.

Okay.

Representative Joneson.

There we go.

Okay.

Let's jump right into it.

Do I have a motion to take up item chess 32.011 resolution and public hearing, approving submittal of a tax list of programs to the State Department and Revenue Services in accordance with the provisions of the Connecticut Neighborhood Assistant Act.

So all right, we got numerous motions and seconds.

Let's see.

Mr.

Juliki, would you like to leave the way?

Sure.

Would you like a little brief introduction?

Uh for your committee members on what the NA program is.

I'll keep it brief.

I know you have a long night, but I'll up to you, or I'll just start with the presenters.

It's up to you.

That would be great.

Okay.

It would be lovely.

Go ahead.

Okay.

So the Connecticut Neighborhood Assistance Act Tax Credit Program facilitates funding for nonprofits by giving tax credits to businesses that contribute cash donations to their projects.

So the way the Department of Revenue Service has set up the program is it's run through municipalities.

So applicants submit the program applications to me.

Businesses will make contributions and they can get up to 100% contributions for energy conservation programs and 60% uh tax credits for other service-related uh projects.

Uh once the applications come through uh and it goes to the full board.

Uh I have to submit the minutes and the certified resolution, which is on the agenda for the June board meeting.

If you folks approve these projects tonight, and that along with the applications and the legal notice I put in the paper goes to the Department of Revenue Services.

They approve the applications and then uh I think the important point to take from this is neither the state nor the city uh uh distributes any funding to these organizations.

It's not a traditional grant program.

The organization is responsible for finding a business who wants to uh contribute to their project, and for some reason the state has given the time frame from September 15th to October 1st when the businesses have to apply.

Uh once they do, and then everything is put through, then the businesses, the I'm sorry, the nonprofits get the cash donations, and then the business gets the corresponding tax credit.

So tonight we have 16 agencies which have uh submitted for 18 projects, and uh this served as the public hearing, which I did leave out, which is also a requirement of the uh NAA program.

So with that, we can start with the first applicant we received, which is the Mill Weber Collaborative.

And I believe I saw Nettie here, so I'm just gonna I just sent a quick um one second.

Sorry to interrupt.

We have a question from a committee member.

Sure.

Yeah, thank you, Joe.

So I'm just wondering, are all of these like uh there's the business part and the nonprofit part?

I'm trying to wrap my head around it.

So are the applications for us?

Are they are they from nonprofits or they're yeah, no, they're from the nonprofits, and then uh once they meet all the criteria and DRS is approved it, then the nonprofits have to find a business who's willing to donate to their project.

Then that business must fill out a separate application and submit it to DRS, and once that's approved, then the uh nonprofit gets the cash donations from the business, and then the state gives them the corresponding tax credit.

I okay that that clarifies it.

So, so the the non-profits are are fronting the cost of these projects, so they're not requesting any money, but they're they're encouraging their like incentivized to donate to the nonprofits to exactly, exactly.

Yes, exactly.

Um so there could be a a nonprofit that gets approved through the process, but if they're unable to find a business willing to donate, then that project doesn't get any any funding for it.

So it's really uh incumbent upon the nonprofit to be able to find a business, but DRS has set up these steps to run it through municipalities, and uh we are a participating municipality, so that we are going through the steps of trying to facilitate most of the nonprofits that apply are nonprofits that have been in our community for many years.

Uh so the city says it's a great thing to try to help them out.

If they can get a large contribution uh uh that they don't have to try to fund or try to get through a traditional grant funding source, and they find a business that's gonna get a tax credit, it seems to be a pretty good marriage.

Many of the presenters you're gonna hear tonight have have been on this program, at least for the 12 years I've been doing it, and every year they've been able to find businesses to donate.

So I think it's a very uh worthwhile uh program.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay, we have one more question from Ricardo.

You have the floor.

Thank you, madam chair.

Uh Mr.

He, I just had a very quick follow-up question.

So the amounts in the amount requested column of the resolution, are though you mentioned earlier that some projects are entitled to 60% funding, some projects are entitled to 100% credit.

Um is it the amount that's requested here?

Does that represent 100% of the credit if they were to receive all that, or or is that yes?

So the uh Department of Revenue Services put a cap of 150,000 per year that a nonprofit's allowed to receive, and a business is allowed to get in tax credits.

So they could apply for 150,000, but in discussions once the uh process goes through, that business may only uh give them 100,000, then that the nonprofit would only get 100,000, and then the business would only get the corresponding 100,000 tax credit, but at the application stage, sort of like when I apply for grants for the city, we ask for everything we want, and then we hope we what we can get.

Okay, that's helpful.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

And I yield.

Okay, I don't see any other hands.

We can continue, go ahead.

Thank you.

Honestly, explaining this program is the hardest part of this program.

Every time we're talking to a new business about participating, we're like, I know it's weird, but trust us, it's it's a great opportunity.

Um I'm just gonna share.

I just have a couple of uh slides because I'm visual person.

Um so good evening, everyone.

Thank you so much for uh taking the time to review um our application.

My name is Nettie Compton.

I'm from the Mill River Collaborative.

Um, I know we have a number of new board members, so just to orient you all, if you're not familiar um with Mill River Collaborative, we're a nonprofit that has a contract with the city to operate um everything about Mill River Park.

Um, and so our mission is both to manage the design and construction, the fundraising, and also all of the activation programming, summer camps and things that we do here in Mill River.

And so as I mentioned, part of that is construction.

And so the park continues to be built out, and we've been able to take advantage of this NAA program in a number of different ways.

You can see a picture here of the Whittingham Discovery Center.

The NAA program has funded a number of enhancements to this building, including our green roof that we have that covers 85% of the energy demands for that building, which is great.

This year we are requesting continued funds to work on building out an energy efficient kitchen.

So within the Discovery Center, we have a cafe space that we haven't fully built out yet.

Last year we put in for phase one, and similar to what Joe was describing, we put in for 150.

We were able to secure about 100K in donations towards that project.

And so we're coming back for phase two funding to complete the build out of a energy efficient kitchen in this space, using state of the art energy saving technologies in terms of the equipment, reducing water and waste consumption.

This kitchen, you know, like I said, yeah, we'll continue using our NAA.

Another factor for us, we've experienced since originally estimating this kitchen is just the enormous amount of cost increases between the kitchen equipment, shipping costs, etc.

And so this will help us catch up with that cost.

Um the Wittingham Discovery Center, this kind of just gives you a sense of it.

If you've never been, please let me know.

I'd love to give you a tour.

Um has a number of um green energy design features.

Um, some of these are featured here.

We actually were able to secure lead platinum certification for the building, and that's a big part of the educational programming that we pursue in the building.

We have over 4,000 kids come through with field trips, and so the energy efficient kitchen will also be part of that program.

And we run our after-school program here.

Um we partner with Stanford Health to do a weekly nutrition class.

So the kids are actually learning how to cook, and so they'll be able to take advantage of this cafe and kitchen space to expand more about their um their culinary education in an energy efficient setting.

This just gives you some views.

If you're familiar with the building, when you enter, if you were to take a left, you'd go into kind of the exhibit space with the um all the fish tanks.

If you're to take a right, it takes you to the Dudley Williams Community Center.

The cafe right now just looks like a walled-off space.

This will now become open for people to um to check it out, and so it'll be um open for both food vending um but also for our our kids to use when it's um closed to the public.

This is you know, kitchen equipment schedule, um, and that kind of just gives you a quick sense of what we're hoping to do with these funds.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Um, yeah, I'm um do we have any hands up, uh Representative Gross, you have the floor?

Thank you.

Uh sorry, could you uh expand a little just on um like what are the well what's making the kitchen energy efficient?

Like what aspects of it?

Absolutely.

So um a big part of it is focusing on electric-based cooking, so um new conduction, so moving away from gas consumption to um electric-based, so um new convection stoves, um, both uh, you know, cook to convection cooktops because we already have the solar panels, anything that's um, you know, electric powered is basically being powered by the sun.

So we're not depending on fossil fuels for that.

Um high energy efficiency in terms of refrigeration.

Um we have to maintain, you know, large coolers because the um after-school program is certified by the state, we actually have to meet um commercial kitchen standards, it's inspected regularly, so we have to have a significant amount of equipment storage that um, you know, all the after-school food needs to be totally separate from cafe food, and so we need to have multiple commercial refrigerators, and then all of the water-based equipment is is um low flow.

Very great, thank you.

Sure.

And a lot of the material.

Oh, good.

Sorry.

That's okay, go ahead.

I was gonna say a lot of um in terms of the other materials, we're also looking at embodied energy from all of the materials were specing, right?

So the recycled materials and how the countertop is made, um, the wood that's being used, because it the building meets lead platinum standards, which is the hardest to meet, they really thought through the specing of every single piece of equipment because it all goes into these calculations to be as energy efficient as possible.

Thank you very much.

Cool, thanks.

Okay, so the next presenter is Children in Placement Connecticut.

Good evening.

I am not Joe Hickey, but he's been wonderful to work with.

Um, my name is Janet Primo.

I'm the executive director of children in placement.

We are here today to request your support through the neighborhood assistance act for our guardian and lighting program, which provides court appointed volunteer advocates for children involved in abuse and neglect cases right here in Stanford.

Uh children in placement has been serving Connecticut's most vulnerable children for more than 47 years.

Our mission is to protect and empower children facing abuse and neglect through court advocacy, social service connections, and long-term mentoring.

Last year alone, our Guardian Leiden program served approximately 450 children statewide, and 90% of our cases closed with a safe permanent home.

We are a 501c3 organization with a proven track record of managing public funding and with full accountability.

In Stanford and across Connecticut, thousands of children are active in the child welfare system at any given time.

With a dedicated advocate, these children risk these children risk having their voices uh lost, navigating complex court proceedings with judges, attorneys, and caseworkers carrying overwhelming cases.

Children in the child welfare system are presumably low and moderate income.

Economic instability and poverty are well documented, contributing factors to the DCF involvement.

These are children with no consistent adult voice in the legal process.

NAA investment ensures that they have one.

Our Guardian Lightham program directly addresses the gaps.

We recruit and train community volunteers right here in Stanford who are then matched to one-on-one to children in the system.

Each volunteer visits their assigned child at least once a month, gathers information from teachers, therapists, uh foster parents, prepares written court reports and attends hearings to speak on the child's behalf.

We're requesting 30,000 through the neighborhood assistance act.

Just 6% of our total program cost of 499,000.

The remaining 94 is already secured through state of Connecticut and private foundations.

With this investment, we project 25 children, Stanford children will be served directly, and that many more new volunteers will be recruited and trained and continued progress towards 90% safe closure.

We have achieved historically.

Every NIA dollar is leveraged by more than $15 in other funding already committed to the work.

Research consists consistently shows that children with strong advocates achieve more stable placements, maintain better educational progress, and access the mental health and social services they need to thrive.

We've received public funding before, and every award has been fully expended with complete compliance.

You can trust that these dogs would put to work immediately and accountably.

Thank you for your time and consideration, and we're happy to answer any questions.

Um nobody else has any questions.

I have one quick clarification question.

Um did I hear you correctly that you said you're requesting 30,000?

I think so.

I think maybe it was 15.

Your application says 20, Janet.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, we have to work in your application.

So yeah, I've been all over the state today.

So my apologies.

That's okay.

Just to clarify, but it's it's listed here as 20,000.

Thank you.

Sure.

Does anyone else have any other questions before we move on to the next one?

Uh, before we go to the next one, I one thing I neglected to tell the committee, which I really should.

Any project that receives 25,000 or more in NAA funds is subject to a post-project audit uh conducted by a certified public accountant within 90 days after the project ends.

That audit is submitted to me.

I review it with Anita and our department to make sure that it meets our criteria.

We send it off to along with a compliance letter to the Department of Revenue Service who approves it.

So it's the piece that I left out.

If you were wondering how is there any oversight with this?

That's the oversight.

Any project over 25,000 has to be uh include a post-project audit.

I just wanted to, that was a piece that I left out of my little spiel.

I just wanted you to be aware of that.

So the next I'm sorry.

Did you have a question?

No, go ahead.

So you do the overview, you do the interviews, you go through all the applications, but then you know 25,000, you also do an audit afterwards.

Yeah, well, it's got to be conducted by a certified public accountant, and they have to submit it to me within 90 days.

Now, if there's a problem with that, we can request extensions, revisions.

Uh, a lot of these agencies on here have done so in years past.

DRS has been very uh good to work with.

There's an individual who runs the program, and uh I have a direct communication with her.

So uh if we have any issues, I just get right on the phone with her and we discuss them.

And we're all trying to get the nonprofits to get what they need.

So we make it work, but but there is oversight.

They they have to, it's gotta be done by certified public accountant or the program, it's it's just it can't fly that way without it.

Sounds good.

Thank you.

So the next uh presenter is Pacific House.

Jen Broadbyn, are you here, Jen?

I talked to her today, so I knew she was aware of it.

I think she's uh let me let her over.

I believe I see her on the other side.

Hold on.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, it was strange, Andrew.

Were a few that said they didn't get your email, so that's why you see a bunch of Joe Hickeys pop up.

So when they contact me, I just forwarded mine to make sure they can access the meeting.

Okay, great.

Okay, I'm not sure what happened, but I got two or three of those late this afternoon.

Oh, okay.

Thank you though.

Yeah.

Hi, folks.

Can you can you see me or no?

I don't, I'm I'm I'm in the dark zone.

We can hear you.

Okay, hold on.

Uh were you all able to hear Jen?

She just came on.

I don't know if you could.

I'm not sure.

I think she's getting her camera on.

Hi, Jen.

Hi everyone, thank you so much.

Um so my name is Jennifer Broadbyn.

I'm the director of development for Pacific House.

It's a nonprofit here in Stamford, Connecticut.

And uh we've been based in Stanford for a little over 40 years serving individuals and families uh experiencing homelessness.

So just in case folks aren't familiar with Pacific House, we started uh back in the mid-80s as a small emergency shelter in the basement of a local church.

And today we operate our emergency shelter over on Pacific Street.

We serve nearly 75 uh people daily in that shelter, and we also own and operate 15 supportive housing properties across Stanford, Norwalk, and Darien.

In total, we currently house and support more than 200 people every day.

Uh so the reason that we're here tonight, though, um, is our newest project, which is called Rotary Commons, which is on Stillwater Avenue in Stanford.

It's our largest and most impactful development to date.

The building will include 39 permanent supportive housing units serving 18 families and 21 individuals.

And it will also be the home to our world headquarters for Pacific House for our administrative offices.

Um I do have some photos.

Um I'm wondering if I could just share just a couple of our architectural uh designs, um, if that would be okay.

So uh hopefully I can do this okay.

So here this is the actual.

So our project is um it's gonna be an all-electric building and it aligns with our commitment to sustainability and long-term efficiency.

And as part of that effort, we're seeking uh support for our rooftop solar system, which is here on the screen, and it's uh estimated at approximately 179,000 for this solar panel project.

Um if you don't know also, our agency also supports our tenants with uh utility costs for our residents.

So we support our uh currently all of our I would say most, probably 95% of our units, we uh help support them with paying for utilities.

So the solar panel system will actually help defray the cost for our agency and it will generate renewable energy on site and will significantly reduce long-term operating expenses and redirect all of those savings back into what matters the most, which is of course to support our residents through services, case management and housing uh stability support.

Um, the people who will live at the Rotary Commons are going to be low to moderate uh income individuals, many of whom have experienced homelessness and significant housing instability.

This project is not just about creating housing uh stability, but it's creating affordable housing, long-term stability, dignity and opportunity, and the construction is currently underway.

I don't know if you've had a chance to drive by.

Um, we're over on Stillwater Avenue right next to the um Graves Medley funeral home.

And um we're anticipating that we'll have this project uh, right now you can drive by it.

We're right now framing the second floor.

Uh so it's gonna it's gonna be a few months until we get, you know, the um the envelope created on the building, but we'll be fully operational this time next year.

So um we appreciate your help and your support for our project, and um that's that's basically it for me tonight.

Thank you.

Does anyone here have any questions?

I see none.

Um I have one question for you.

Um, what is the best way for people to find housing or apply or to get in touch with the public?

I would tell anyone that has someone that's in their, you know, it could be uh a relative, it could be a friend that's looking for housing.

The best way absolutely is to call 211.

Um you'd be directed if you're in this local area to the hub, which is at our shelter.

Um, we have people that meet with with folks on a daily basis, Monday through Friday.

They do an intake, they get into the um homeless management information system.

If they have certain situations, we might have funding that could help, you know, pay back some rent.

I mean, there's other things that we do, diversion tactics uh that we could help people with to help keep them housed.

So yeah, absolutely 211 is the way to go.

Thank you very much.

You're very welcome.

And lastly, I I heard you say the project costs 179,000 in your requesting 150, correct?

That's for the solar panel.

Yes.

Yep.

Okay.

And the rest of that money will come from a local um Stanford Rotary Trust Fund, uh, which is why the project is called Rotary Commons, because the we're heavily involved with the Rotary Club, and as part of their 100 year anniversary, they dedicated a million dollars to this project so um to help with all of the overall costs of the entire project.

And um they'll be supporting the uh solar panels with the remaining like roughly 29,000 through their through their support.

Wonderful.

Thank you very much.

You're very welcome.

Thank you all, and I hope you have a great evening.

You too.

All right, next up is junior achievement.

Hi everyone.

Uh my name is Laura Stern.

I'm here representing junior achievement of Greater Fairfield County, and thank you so much for this opportunity to present and talk about JA.

So our mission at Junior Achievement is to accelerate economic mobility through education.

And what that means is that we are supporting youth uh with uh financial literacy, work and career readiness, and entrepreneurship lessons, making sure that they're ready to find good jobs once they finish their education, making sure that once they have a job, they know how to manage their personal finances.

And also if they're interested in starting a business, making sure that they understand what all that means.

Our office here in Greater Fairfield County has operated for over 75 years.

Across the country, we have close to 100 area offices.

We operate independently, but we also get the support from our national office.

And then globally junior achievement is actually our lessons, our model is in over 100 countries across the world.

So it's pretty great to see that reach.

All of our lessons and experiences we do through hands-on learning.

So there are always activities, they're always um learning through doing and um having uh experiential learning is uh really a core piece of our model.

And another core piece is that we use volunteers from uh corporate partners, community partners to um to engage with the students to uh to do the lessons so those volunteers act as role models and mentors for the students so they can hopefully see someone who comes from their background, maybe comes from their neighborhood, and see, oh, this person has uh done this and that, and uh that's something that I want to pursue.

And then they um have the understanding of how the steps they need to take to get on a certain career path to eventually have the um financial stability and the lifestyle that they're um that they want to have.

Um so that's uh junior achievement in uh in brief.

Um I'm happy to answer any questions.

Oh, I should have said, sorry, I meant I meant to give a few numbers.

Um last year in Stanford, we served over 2300 students.

Most of our um most of our um lessons experiences happen through the schools, although although we also um do uh serve students through uh community partners, like after school programs, uh some uh summer programs as well.

And overall in our footprint, um last year we served over 14,000 students.

Um so now I'll stop for real and um again say thank you, and I welcome any questions.

Thank you very much.

Um Representative Gross.

Thank you.

Yeah, just in terms of I guess what would the money be supporting in the programs that's supporting like more staff, for instance.

Uh the money, um, as you can imagine.

Uh many nonprofits are our uh budgets are heavy on uh staff costs, so yes, the money um any of our uh any revenue supports um the staff.

We are a lean but mighty staff of 10 right now.

And um, and then also things like um travel marketing uh program materials, that's very important, and because we're part of a federated system through um junior achievement USA, we also have to pay a little bit in uh national license fees to access the uh vetted curricula that we get from um from our national office.

Yeah, that makes sense.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Scholars.

Yeah, hi.

Can you hear me?

Sure.

Hold on one second.

Um, I didn't see that we had a lot of two minutes for presentation, okay.

Um Joe, this question for you.

Do we have a time limit per presenter here?

Um, yes, I asked everybody to keep it to three minutes because I know you folks have a long night.

We're enjoying it immensely, but I'll um I'll keep time moving forward.

Sorry, everyone.

Okay.

Oh boy, okay.

I will I will adhere as best as I can.

Hi, I'm Betsy McNeil.

I'm the executive director of Connecticut Financial Scholars and really appreciate the opportunity to be here.

And it's also great to listen and connect and see all the rest of my peers and the amazing work that they're doing.

Um, we at Financial Scholars believe that access to financial education is critical to overcoming systemic economic barriers and is really a key piece to unlocking economic mobility.

And we we support this work by providing high school students, teachers, and families with the tools needed to develop financial skills, build greater wealth, and achieve financial empowerment.

We are a 501c3.

We launched in 2020 actually in Philadelphia, and Connecticut is the first expansion of this successful model that's coming out of Philadelphia.

The program was shaped by conversations with school leaders and and is intentionally designed to reflect their needs and vision for their schools.

And we continue to grow and expand in the same way.

Everything we do is responsive to the needs of teachers in schools.

As you may know, Connecticut passed legislation in 2023 that requires all public high school students to take at least one semester of personal finance in order to graduate.

So we are focused on providing implementation support for this mandate, completely free of charge and in partnership specifically with the highest need districts across the state.

How do we do this?

We work in partnership alongside teachers and schools to not just meet the mandate but to go beyond the mandate.

Um, we're focused on helping to build a full ecosystem around financial empowerment for schools and communities, and we do this through sort of a four-part strategy.

The first is curriculum.

We partner with Next Gen Personal Finance, which we find to be the most teacher-friendly and student engaging personal finance curriculum in the country.

It's also the recommended curriculum by the Connecticut Department of Education for the personal finance course.

But we build on that by providing local personalized support to make it work in classrooms every single day for teachers.

We provide training and professional development for our teacher partners.

We pay them for their time, um, and we provide summer professional development, ongoing monthly professional learning communities, classroom visits, one-on-one support.

We also provide adult financial empowerment workshops for families, um, parents, caregivers in the school community that sort of mirrors the units that were that they're teaching in school as well.

And for those who attend all six sessions, um, we provide a contribution to their child's 529 or other education plan.

And the last piece is the is community.

So we engage the community to provide real world student opportunities like guest speakers, financial reality fairs, teen investors summit, paid summer experiences, actually.

Just finished uh interviewing students for this summer, um, three of whom are from Stanford.

Um, and and so that we can connect students and teachers to real world financial systems, companies, and professionals to bring the learning to life.

And in um Stanford, this project um it's approximately 50,000, 51,000 to bring this program and provide support to Stanford.

We're requesting 20,000 just to support that.

Um we currently working with five teachers across two of the schools, but it we anticipate increasing that to about eight teachers in the three in the three high schools in Stanford.

But at the time, that was great.

Perfect.

Okay, soundwaters.

We have one question here.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry.

That's okay.

So you had said this is the first time uh venturing into out of Philadelphia in Connecticut.

I'm curious why in Connecticut.

Ah, great question.

So three three main reasons.

One, um, they we in 2023 we we passed that that mandate, right?

So, and they we also, as you know, um initiated the baby bonds.

So there's a lot of momentum.

We came here in 2024.

So there was a lot of uh positive momentum and energy and interest in um uh financial empowerment and financial education.

Um also I think as you know, this state is very rich in a lot of ways, and it's uh has also one of the largest um wealth gaps in the country.

Um, and so we are very we are targeted on Connecticut Alliance District specifically to try to support um those who need the most um in terms of capacity to implement the mandate.

Thank you.

Yeah, you're good.

Okay.

Um representative Yeager, you have the floor.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um thank you.

I just had a quick question.

I believe you said that you need around 50,000, but you're only requesting 20.

Yes.

Uh can uh you speak to um the the plan to get the rest or yeah.

Yeah, so we um you know our funding model is um both because we provide support statewide, right?

So we solicit funds and do fundraising for general operating um from those who are interested in supporting us statewide, and then we also support specific um uh request support for specific communities.

So we are uh, you know, we could pull from funding um from um investors who have are supporting us statewide to support pieces across the board um in each of the communities.

Great, thank you very much.

Yeah.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

One more question over here, representative.

Thank you.

Um yeah, just to clarify, so has the program already launched in Connecticut, or this is somewhere you got wood to help launch it?

It launched.

So technically, we we launched in 2024.

This this current school year that's about to end was our first full programming year.

We are working with 52 teacher partners in 35 schools across 10 districts.

Um in Stanford, we were in Stanford High School this year and um AITE, um, and working with Dr.

Burlange at the district to to have a district partnership and also try to bring it to the students at West Hill in Stanford as well.

Thank you, yep.

Thank you very much.

Okay, soundwaters.

Thank you, Joe.

Um, my name is Bob Mazzoni, and I'm the head of development at Soundwaters.

Uh we are about 36 years old, and we have been teaching the science of Long Island Sound and more recently climate science and microplastics uh to about 30,000 students a year, um, including every Stanford sixth grade student every year and every Stanford ninth grade student every year and pretty much every Stanford elementary school student at some point in their elementary school career.

Most of those students are going to be coming through our coastal education center at Cove Island Park.

Um, and the HVAC system there has been failing for six years and is finally dead.

Um, and so we have been raising money through the neighborhood assistance act for three years, this being the third year to have that all replaced, and we expect that to be done uh this year.

So we're we are seeking approval to raise 150,000 from corporate partners uh to finish that HVAC program at the coastal education center at Cove Island.

Thank you very much.

Do we have any questions for Soundwaters?

Or HVAC?

I've been there.

I know how hot it is, and it's a summer program.

Okay.

Um, I see no hands.

Thank you very much, Bob.

Thank you.

Okay, so we're on to Pilgrim Towers.

All right, good evening, everyone.

My name is Nile Hutchinson.

I'm the strategic initiative coordinator for Kingsley Group, and we manage Pilgrim Towers.

I just have some slides I'd like to share with all of you.

Okay.

All right, can you still hear me?

Yes.

Alright, wonderful.

Yes.

So Pilgrim Towers is a nonprofit committed to providing affordable housing to seniors in Stanford.

Kingsway group provides affordable housing to seniors all throughout Fairfield County, including Bridgeport and Norwalk.

And Pilgrim Towers, it operates under the Section 202 HUD program.

This critically limits our resources for capital improvement projects.

Despite that, in our two years of management, we have been ambitious trying to turn that property around, make it more efficient.

We did so by um being awarded a tax credit from NAA last year for a roof replacement project.

That project is in progress.

We renovated the hallways and are replacing the boiler for this property.

The current need is to replace the AC units in all of our 72 apartments and to replace the interior and exterior common area lighting.

These systems are both over 15 years old, past their serviceable life.

Uh, but these we know that this project will be very beneficial from a pro-social standpoint and an energy efficiency standpoint.

The project cost is 97,361, and we're requesting for 90,000.

Um just again, more detail.

One of the key things with this HVAC upgrade is that we expect a reduction of about 212 kilowatt hours per year for the ACs and then 4,122 for the lighting.

Part of how that'll be achieved is one, this will be we're talking about a 15-year jump in the actual machinery, so it's going to be more efficient just from that standpoint.

But for the lighting specifically, it'll utilize occupancy sensors.

So when spaces aren't being used, for example, our resident kitchen area, it'll dim um the lighting.

But then these, as I mentioned, not only does their uh energy efficiency, which we expect about a 21% reduction in our power consumption, but some pro-social benefits as well, where the residents will have more autonomy over controlling the heating and cooling of their apartments.

As you know, with seniors, they and anyone, they like to keep the rooms at a specific temperature, and this empowers them to do so.

It also pairs well with our roof replacement, where we one of the aspects is that by replacing the roof, we'll be able to retain conditioned air better.

So this project also stacks on that as an energy efficiency component where we're improving the way how we condition the air.

And then lastly, with the better light quality for residents, it also helps with their safety.

And then we've found studies that state that with uh well-lit spaces lead to more pro-social or positive interactions between residents, and so doing that in our common areas is also beneficial in that sense too.

Uh, and those are the main hit points.

Uh, just going over them again.

You know, it'll reduce the power consumption, it'll also improve resident comfort and um it's a continuation of our overall movement to turn the property around uh to really bring it to a state where it's energy efficient, and all those deferred maintenance that accrued from the limitations of the project are completed.

But thank you for your time, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you have.

Um I see one hand up, Representative Weirs.

Um, I just wanted to confirm the number of units.

I believe I heard you say 72 units.

The uh worksheet I have in front of me says seven units, so I just wanted to confirm that number.

Sure.

Yes, it is 72.

Um sorry for for the um the typo there, the misprint there, but yes, it's 72 units.

Thank you for clarifying.

Very good question.

I do not see any other hands.

Uh, thank you very much.

All right, thank you for your time.

Okay, so up next is St.

Joseph's Parenting Center.

Hi, uh, good evening, um, and thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

My name is Ryan Drenzik, and I am the executive director of St.

Joseph's Parenting Center.

For more than 16 years, St.

Joseph Parenting Center has served Stanford Families by preventing child abuse and neglect through parenting education and case management services.

Um last year we served about 400 families across Fairfield County, including over 250 parents right here in Stanford.

Through um through our programs, we see transformations happen every day.

Uh tonight I want to specifically uh talk about our Dads Are the Difference program, which was first launched in 2013.

Right now, one in four children in this country are growing up without a father in the home.

The long-term impact is measurable in educational outcomes, behavioral health, juvenile justice involvement, and family stability.

The estimated taxpayer cost associated with father absence nationally is 154 billion dollars annually.

The question for all of us is whether we invest upstream or pay more downstream.

St.

Joseph Parenting Center serves families across Stanford with 95% living uh below the 200% of the federal poverty line.

These families are facing real pressures, often with limited support, uh systems where early intervention can make an enormous difference.

Our data of the difference program uses the evidence-based 24-7 dads curriculum to equip fathers with practical parenting skills, strengthen family relationships, and reduce the risk factors that can lead to crisis intervention later.

We see fathers who may once have felt unsure of their role step into parenthood with confidence.

We see men build healthy relationships with their children, improve communication, and develop the skills to parent with the patient with patience and consistency.

We see fathers create the kind of stability their children need to thrive.

Many of the dads we serve did not grow up with positive models of fatherhood themselves.

For many, this is the first time that they've had structured support around what it means to be an engaged father.

They show up after long work days despite financial stress and the many pressures that come with trying to provide for their families because they want something different for their children.

That commitment is exactly why this work matters.

Last fall, uh St.

Joseph's Parenting Center lost more than $650,000 annually in federal funding that supported this program specifically.

We made the decision to continue to operate our Dads Are the Difference program because we know how critical this program is for the families that we serve.

We're actively rebuilding funding to sustain and grow this work, but maintaining these services during this transition requires community investment.

When fathers are engaged, children do better.

Families are stronger and communities are safer.

Um 100,000 in support from the Stanford NNA would help us ensure Stanford fathers continue to have access to this proven support, not after a crisis, but before what happens.

Thank you for your time and consideration tonight.

Thank you very much.

I have a question that I don't know if it's appropriate.

Is this like a mandated program?

Or it depends.

So we receive um people can self-refer them to this program.

Um however, um, there is about there are um referrals that we receive from DCF, as well as the court system and probation system, which um are more mandated, uh, but the program is open to both mandated and voluntary referrals.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Okay, so next is the Exchange Club for Prevention of Child Abuse.

Joe Dudek.

Hello, are you here?

Hey.

Okay.

Unfortunately, uh Joe could not uh come today, so I had the last minute to join, so I do apologize.

I do not have a presentation to present tonight.

But uh, so uh yeah, thank you for the opportunity to uh speak tonight.

My name is Kristen Matte from Health for Kids.

We have been in Stanford for over 35 years.

Uh we work with families who are struggling who provide home visiting, uh parenting support, diapers, basic need services to keep children safe and family stable.

This funding would allow us to expand our support uh services to Stanford families by providing more diapers, uh grocery assistance, uh child care support and emergency help for parents who are facing difficult times.

Um these are needs that many families are struggling with every day, and this funding would um make a real difference for them.

Families we serve face overwhelming financial hardship, often forced to choose between food, diapers, or child care.

While state funding supports our education and home visiting programs, um it does not cover these essential needs, uh leaving critical gaps to put children at risk.

Um thank you for consideration.

Thank you.

Um, Chris.

Thank you.

Um, just trying to get a better sense of how uh you provide the services.

Is it is it like financial assistance or you know our programs are home visiting?

We support the families um uh through our program with office of early childhood.

We support pregnant moms um to relieve stress and we support them through um age five of their children.

Um, but these families do need more support than what the Office of Early Childhood and other state programs can provide for us.

So this funding would help us provide more diapers, uh get the grocery gift cards and food, more food for the families, um, and help them pay for child care support.

So is it is it direct financial assistance or are you buying like your original gift cards?

No, we we are buying or paying for it.

Yeah, so we're not giving them any money now.

I got it okay, thank you.

Um I have a follow-up to that similar to a question I asked earlier.

Is how do people find you who are in need?

And before when people say call two and one, um I've had I've tried to help people source things like diapers, and um what is the best way for someone to find your organization?

Um yeah, through uh Office of Early Childhood, we are on their website as a home visiting uh uh program.

And um also 211.

Uh we are yeah, we receive the people who need the diapers, certainly from two and one as well.

Uh, we have a diaper distribution center at our office, and anyone who is in need of diapers can come and uh receive 50 diapers a month.

Right now we have about 350 families to come just for the diapers.

That's at the 141 Franklin.

Correct.

Thank you very much.

Does anyone else have any questions?

Okay.

Yes, in Spiro.

Great.

Hi, everyone.

So my name is Sydney Delago.

I am the VP of development at Inspira, and I am here to present uh our NAA projects for this year, but just a little bit about Inspiraca.

So Inspiraca is dedicated to breaking the cycle of homelessness and housing and security by providing housing and comprehensive support services to individuals and families in need in Fairfield County.

Uh each night in Spirock actually serves 500 plus individuals and families across 14 programs and 12 facilities.

All of these include a continuum of care for different various reasons, so emergency shelter, permanent supportive housing, deeply affordable housing, all located in Stanford.

Um our programs focus on stability, self-sufficiency, and ensuring that the vulnerable populations are able to get what they need.

Um I am here to present on NAA projects that we're looking to do for a few of our residential facilities.

So uh this year the proposal focuses on about 50 residents are served in these three buildings daily, um including individuals and families uh experiencing chronic homelessness, housing instability, mental illness, and other mental, I mean, other health and wellness challenges.

It's prevalent that we need to maintain safe, comfortable, and energy efficient living environments across all of our sites.

So in our proposal, we were looking to do two projects.

One of them is window and exterior trim restoration at 24 Woodland, 26 Woodland and Inspire House.

And that work will include full removal and replacement of those aging windows, interior trim restoration, sealing, and all the necessary finishing work to improve the building to make sure that we are not having drafts so that we are not using too much air conditioning or heat in any of those facilities to lower our costs.

As you know, uh things continue to be more expensive.

So we're trying to be as beneficial as possible.

And then the other funding that we're looking to help support these buildings would be two new washer and dryers in two of our facilities.

So 26 Woodland and Inspire House.

Obviously, with you know, a lot of individuals living in these facilities.

They get daily use and they increasingly become inefficient.

So we're looking to upgrade, improve efficiency, get more energy efficient material for those, and strengthen the daily living conditions for those who are living in our facilities.

And with your support, we're able to continue providing safe, sustainable and dignified housing for those experiencing homelessness.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, right on time.

Um I have a question that may be a little bit strange for this, but I know that um Eversource is our power company.

Um primary power company offers a lot of energy efficient services.

Yeah, such as what you're asking for for residents.

Do they do this for nonprofits and commercial?

So actually, Eversource is actually one of the tax credit funders for some of these projects.

So we do get tax funding through them for this.

Um we do have a team and our operations teams tries to work with Eversource to lower costs as much as possible.

Um, but no, they don't pay for all of these materials.

Okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, of course.

Okay, um, representative Wilson, you have the floor.

Hi, can you hear me?

I'll probably hear you.

Okay.

Quick question with the washer and dryers.

Yeah.

Do the um clients have to pay or is it free?

So at some of our facilities, the clients do pay, but a lot of the times we provide quarters for them.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah, of course.

Uh Representative Camborelli, you have the floor.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, my question is is if the public benefit portion of the electric bill is reduced or goes away, which some uh some politicians are suggesting.

Does that affect you?

Uh that I actually am not sure.

I don't work on the operations or the the maintenance team, so I don't have that answer, but I can get that answer for you at some point.

I would appreciate that.

Yeah, of course.

Thank you so much.

And I yield chair.

Thank you.

That was representative camparelli.

If you do get other information, you're welcome to send it through to the board.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Um, Representative Wilson, do you have your hand up again or is that from before?

I'm I'm I'm taking it down.

Okay.

Okay, I think we're ready to move on, Joe.

I know it's okay.

All right, Stanford Center for the Arts.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Mike Moran.

I'm president and CEO at Stanford Center for the Arts Palace Theater.

Joe, thank you for your time tonight.

Committee, thank you for your uh your time in allowing me to present.

We are a mission-driven organization.

We entertain, educate, and enrich.

And when I have Diana Ross on August 16th, you all know about it because somehow word travels fast when you have more talent.

But we also have a robust education program.

As a matter of fact, we have a young man from Stanford, Connecticut that participated seven years in our triple threat performer intensive to chase his dream.

He came to see Stomp at the Palace as a young boy, and now he's traveling the world in the cast of Stomp as a result of that education program.

We are also a enrichment opportunity partner for our community.

When the Stanford Police Department does their graduation, they do it at the Palace Theater at no cost.

We also have a couple of local schools that use it for their graduations because it is the best facility for a large gathering in the city of Stanford.

In addition to that, we're a major economic impact contributor.

80,000 people come through our doors and we generate about 2.8 million dollars in revenue above and beyond the price of the ticket that people pay for to come to the theater through parking, babysitters, hotels, restaurants, retail purchases, et cetera, et cetera.

And on June 2nd, we're going to turn 99 years old at the palace.

So that's the early happy birthday singing that I was doing.

This project was previously approved last year, but we were not able to find a corporation that wanted to participate in the program.

And what we're looking to do is we're looking to replace some incandescent stage lighting with LED stage lighting.

This would be 39 units.

Obviously, there'd be a huge impact in energy savings.

So we're hoping that we can get this approved again this year and then find the partner that's willing to participate by funding this and get into state tax credit.

Happy to answer any questions.

I do not see any in here.

But that was a great.

It seemed like I was in the theater as you were speaking.

So thank you very much for it.

Have a wonderful evening.

Thank you.

Thank you again for your time.

Thank you.

Okay, Optimus Healthcare is next.

Good evening.

My name is Catherine Burns.

I'm very pleased to be here.

Thank you.

I'm the director of grants and development at Optimus Healthcare.

And thank you for the opportunity to speak with you tonight and for your continued commitment to supporting organizations that strengthen our communities.

For the past 50 years, this is our 50th anniversary.

Optimus has served as a cornerstone of health care access in southwestern Connecticut.

We are the largest provider of primary care services.

We provide medical, dental, behavioral health, and specialty care to over 35,000 patients a year in Southwestern Connecticut, regardless of their ability to pay.

So we are a federally qualified health center, and our mission is rooted in ensuring that everyone has access to quality health care.

Tonight I'm here to request support for our energy conservation for health care clinics initiative at our Stanford location at 805 Atlantic Street.

This clinic serves a neighborhood designated as a health professional shortage area where many residents face economic hardship and limited health care options.

For many people in this community, Optimus is not simply one health care choice among many.

It's their primary access point for care.

So our request is straightforward but meaningful.

We're seeking neighborhood assistance act support to replace an aging rooftop HVAC unit at this facility.

The existing infrastructure has become outdated and inefficient.

And it's important that we maintain safe and comfortable and reliable clinical environments.

It's not simply a facilities issue.

It directly impacts our patient care staff effectiveness and our ability to operate efficiently.

So by investing in this energy conservation project, we can reduce energy consumption, improve environmental sustainability, excuse me, and lower operational costs and create a more comfortable setting for all patients and families who rely on us every day.

And savings generated through the greater efficiency allows us to direct more resources towards what matters most, which is delivering healthcare services to our community.

So we're asking for Stanford support to raise 83,490 in NAA funds from companies in the Stanford area.

And I just wanted to make mention that Optimus not only has clinics at 805 Atlantic Street, but also at 1351 Washington Boulevard, where we serve patients through our partnership with Stanford Hospital and we provide them with a residency program for their interns.

And we also partner with Inspire and Pacific House, who spoke earlier, for the homeless.

So with that, I um want to thank you for your consideration and for your partnership and supporting organizations that make measurable differences in our community.

And I would be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you very much.

Do we have any questions here?

No, thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

Good night.

Okay, Stanford Museum.

Hello, Joe and the committee.

Thank you so much for the opportunity to present tonight.

Um I'm Karen Mizells, Director of Development at the Stanford Museum and Nature Center.

We have two proposals actually, one for the 100% tax credit and one for the 60% tax credit.

Um, the 100% one is the energy efficiency, you know, upgrades.

Um, we are located in North Stanford since 1955, although we're celebrating our 90th year.

Um, we're on 118 acres and we have a host of buildings throughout the campus, old and new.

Um, our 100-year-old Bendell Mansion, which is home to our museum, um, and administrative offices and education offices, attic and basement storage, and climate-controlled storage for our permanent collection, is in dire need of upgraded windows and doors.

And I mean, I don't know if you've ever been there, but it's it's a big building and it's old.

Um, and we also have our farm office, our garages, we've got all sorts of buildings that really, really need this these upgrades.

We applied for these last year, and then when we went out to get the funding, we didn't really get a huge response.

So we're kind of going back again to um the drawing board in hopes to get the funding.

Um, so all of these windows and doors are the original single pain style, and our farm garage and operation shop and overbrook building and our preschool are all in need of also LED lighting upgrades.

So all of these improvements will increase energy efficiency, obviously, and result in a cost savings for the SMNC, and you know, particularly in a time where you know utility costs have been increasing.

So we are looking for 104,000 for helping our museum, our farm.

And by the way, we don't need it for our brand new 100 seat 11,000 square foot planetarium and astronomy center.

I just want to throw that out there in case anybody needed to know that we just opened that, and it's really exciting.

So come up and visit.

Um, our second proposal is for our education programs, so for the 60% um tax credit.

We serve various students through on-site hands-on STEAM education and science programs.

This past school year, we've served 131 schools and nearly 30,000 students.

Um, the program enhances the science curriculum in Connecticut public schools by providing students with hands-on learning opportunities and using our 118-acre campus with 80 acres of forest, our 16-acre farm, our new astronomy center.

I mean, it's amazing.

We bring the natural world and now the universe to our students.

And 25% of the schools we serve are classified Title One, which are those that, as you know, receive financial assistance due to high numbers of students from low-income families to help ensure that all students meet challenging state academic standards.

But a lot of these schools, not only Title I, but other districts as well, whose budgets have been cut, lack the funding for just simple bus transportation to come to our site and have these hands-on experiential um educational experiences.

So we're just asking for 20,000 for that to provide buses for approximately 100 classrooms.

$20,000 will provide buses for 100 classrooms and bring students that otherwise would not be able to come to our site and have this incredible experience.

So thank you to the committee.

Thank you, Joe.

Joe, by the way, I just want to give a shout out to Joe.

You've been so helpful during the audit process last year and this year.

So I just want to say thank you so much.

Oh, you're welcome, Karen.

Yeah.

And yeah, no, I mean, because that was new in the last few years.

So really you've been incredible.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um, so that's what we're looking for.

And I, you know, we appreciate your consideration.

And if you have any questions, I'm here.

Thank you very much.

Um I have one question over here.

So the 20K that you guys are requesting, are these buses that you would be renting through Stanford Public Schools or is this public?

Yeah, so it would it would basically be we would we would basically pay for the buses that they would have tried to pay for themselves.

So it's not it's not a private busing company.

It's it's the it's the public school buses, and we're just simply paying the bill.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, I see no other hands.

Thank you very much for presenting, Karen.

Thank you.

Okay, so now we're on to the Mutual Housing Association.

Hi everyone, thank you very much for your precious time.

I am Kathleen Williams, and I am the director of funding initiatives and public relations for Mutual Housing Association of Southwestern Connecticut, doing business as Connecticut Housing Partners.

We've been around for 35 years, uh basically developing and preserving, which is just as important, um, housing for individuals, families, seniors, veterans, and the precious workforce that we all need throughout the region.

We are uh based in Connecticut, we develop in Connecticut, most of our properties are in Fairfield County.

Uh we have several properties in Stanford, but I am here tonight uh per the application for Trinity Park, which houses 48 families, both voucher and income-based, uh, one to four bedroom units.

And it was built in 1995.

There was some capital improvements in 2016.

Uh, but what we've been doing for the last couple of years is basically trying to um continue an energy efficiency upgrade program, which includes um replacement of old appliances with energy efficiency appliances, um uh installing low faucets, low flow faucets and shower heads, um, insulation and weatherproofing.

The teletotal project is is basically estimated at a little over 256,000.

And each year, as we are allowed to go um uh connect with corporations to buy the tax credits, we reduce that cost.

And we eventually we will get to a point where the project is complete, but as we all know, it's you know, it takes time to raise the money.

So we're working hard at that, working with different avenues to increase our connectability with the corporations.

Um, basically, the you know, we're we're just really just continuing the same program and reducing it as I said.

So um I would love to hear any questions and thank you again for allowing me to do this.

Thank you very much.

Uh, do we have any questions over here?

I don't see any online.

Um, I have a quick question.

I heard that you mentioned that this one is for another location that you have some in Stanford.

How do people?

I should ask everybody to say this as they're presenting, but how do people in need find you?

We use different avenues.

Um our heaviest is over the last few years, social media.

Um we also put we work with the Zillows and other groups and we are located when we when they go to our um site, they get to uh they see that it's income-based.

So therefore, that's why if you know if you're if you're on Zillow and you see something that's like half the price of another apartment in Stanford, we have at the bottom that it's income-based.

So we basically work with people of 50, 60, 80 percent, and in some project, some properties we have 30% income.

Um, and basically as they qualify, they only pay 30% of that income.

So um, but the social media we find to be very um useful, and we really work heavily with that.

Hey, would you like to drop your handle since this is a public meeting?

Um how can people find you on social media?

What is your social handle?

Uh well, I don't have those in my head.

I have the URLs I can send you.

We have a website called uh WWCT housingpartners.org.

So of course it takes you to our website when we have properties that are all listed for the different areas that we have developed and preserved.

Um the social handles would be Instagram, um, Facebook, LinkedIn, you know, every um every one that there is.

Um I could send you those URLs.

That would be lovely.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right, thank you for presenting.

I do not see any other hands up.

All right, new neighborhoods is next.

Hello everyone.

Um, well, thank you for your time this evening.

My name is Gemma Fernandez.

I'm the development and asset management uh director at New Neighborhoods.

Um neighborhoods is a development and property uh management affordable housing company founded and based here in Stanford.

And um today I wanted to talk, we have several properties here in Stanford, but I wanted to start talking about Belton Manor.

This is a hot building with 27 units for senior residents.

Um over time, the brick joints and window uh window coking uh have significantly deteriorated, so leading to increased energy loss and moisture intrusion and leaks, uh causing driving up the utility cost and also the discomfort and uh health and safety risk for our elderly residents.

So we are today requesting your help uh to repair the exterior brick fashion and recalling around the windows.

We were likely awarded with a CDBG grant last year, but this money is not enough to do this repair.

So today we are requesting additional 150,000.

Um that's basically the our requests uh for this first project because Kevin Pocker uh is going to talk about the second request.

Um so yeah, this is this is all for Belltown Manor.

Uh thank you again for your time, and I will be happy to uh reply any questions that you may have.

Um, meeting Joe, thank you.

Uh, our second request would be for Pember Commons.

Um, that is our low-income uh property.

It's 25 units.

Um uh currently that property has uh a lot of water intrusion coming from the roof and our the idea we're trying to submit is to right right now.

We have acquired the property recently and we're patching slowly as we go, but we want to have the actual true remediation, which is well replacing the entire roof.

We have a couple proposals.

Um currently, we're asking for 150, uh 100 150 from the NAA and the rest we're trying to secure, but if we don't secure from any other properties, we don't have for SERS uh in place to cover the balance remaining.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Um do we have any questions for either of the projects?

Where is Pembroke Commons?

It's located in Bushport.

I'm sorry, I you were disconnected.

Say that again located in Bushport.

In Bridgeport, okay.

That one's in Bridgeport for the second for the roof.

Yeah.

Okay.

You have a question, Representative Reese.

Yeah.

Um gross, sorry.

Yeah.

Wait.

Okay, I'm just confused.

The brothers in Bridgeport are they for clear about?

Well, there's numerous projects that are outside of Stanford.

This is a resolution for the state.

So there's a few on here that are not just Stanford.

Why are you?

Well, but NAA regulations state as long as the project is located in the state of Connecticut, they're allowed to uh uh apply at any uh participating municipality.

What is it?

We have to ask the agency why they chose us, but they're but it's permissible to do so.

Is it before us just because it's one together with the Bell Town Manor?

No, there are two separate applications.

They submitted it to us.

So if as long as the project is taking place in the state of Connecticut, you're allowed to submit your application to any participating municipality.

So we uh was going to say Belltown Manor is is uh located in in Stanford.

Uh they think like we missed the deadline in Bridgeport, and it because it was allowed to present it today.

We just include uh Pembroke also.

It's new new neighborhoods your headquarters is in Stanford.

Yes, it is.

It was founded here, and we have um eight different properties in Stanford and now we're um headquarters are here in the Stanford.

Um, I mean, they need similar approval from the city of Bridgeport.

No, no, just look as long as it's approved by the city of Stanford as we're participating municipality that that meets NAA criteria.

New neighborhoods has applied for projects for many years, so they they've gotten approval every year.

It's it's permissible through the program.

Okay, so I'm assuming it's because it's a Stanford-based nonprofit that is before us.

Uh that would probably be the most likely reason why they'd apply in Stanford, but it doesn't have to be.

They would still meet the criteria as long as the project is based in Connecticut.

And it just needs okay.

I'm just trying to understand our role.

So I mean it just needs approval from a city in Connecticut to go.

Most large cities, uh all the cities of our size and most of the uh mid-sized cities participate in the program, but like Darien doesn't participate in the program.

So if an agency was based in Darien, they would apply to us because Darien doesn't do it.

But NAA does not discriminate as long as it's uh and they meet our criteria and NAA criteria, they're allowed to uh submit an application to any participating municipality.

We're not just to make sure we're not capped in the amount of uh I guess tax credits that could be offered by the state.

So the program uh the state of Connecticut has put a five million dollar cap on on uh what donations could be received.

Um donations unfortunately have not reached that uh that level in some years.

When I first started doing the program, that was the case, and then each program would get prorated, but that's the only cap that the state has put on it, that it's the program will only allow five million dollars in aggregate.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

We can also come back to the overall questions.

Also, at the end.

We have two more presenters or one more presenter, but um, I do see representative Walston, you have the floor.

Um, I think um the presenter said that they missed the Bridgeport deadline, and I know there it's all over.

So I'm just would they be looking for a sponsor in Stanford, or would they be looking for a sponsor in Bridgeport who want the tax credit?

I think I said it right.

I mean, the sponsor that we look at that we found is Eversource.

So they are in both places.

I don't know if I understood the the question correctly.

Okay, so your sponsor is Eversource.

Because I was just a little concerned because you said you missed the deadline in Bridgeport.

For the presentation for the public hearing.

Yeah, yeah, state statute requires that they that by July 1st they receive all municipal documentation, but they leave it at the discretion of the municipality to decide how you go about doing it.

So our deadline for the applications was May 5th to make this public hearing tonight in order to make the June full board meeting to get the certified resolution that has to go, but that timing is left up to the discretion of each municipality.

So apparently Bridgeport's deadline was prior to ours.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, everyone.

Thank you, Joel.

So I see one other hand up before you go, just in case.

Uh, Representative Goldberg, you have the floor.

So I guess I I think I know the answer to this, but I'm gonna ask it as a clarifying question.

The fact that they apply here or in Bridgeport does not disadvantage them or us in any way or our locally based charities or nonprofits.

Is that correct?

That's correct, because it's still up to the individual agency to find the business who's donating.

Like I said, the state nor the city is not giving out any funds.

We're just certifying that they've met the criteria that we've set, and that the state uh DRS has set for the program.

Okay, so this in no way impacts the Stanford budget, Stanford mill rates.

No, so I just wanted I yeah, I've been on this for a while, and I know I know this, but there are new people listening in, and I want to make sure that they understand that there is absolutely there is no reason not to approve these good organizations, right?

Whether or not they're doing the work here or not, right?

Right.

We're trying to help them.

The idea of the program is to connect them to the people who have the funding to help them, and that's what we're here to facilitate.

Very good.

Thank you for answering my questions.

You're welcome.

Thank you for clarifying that.

Thank you very much for presenting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so we're on to our last one, which is domestic violence center.

Hi, everyone.

It's it's uh we have an echo on our end.

Oh, no, how is this?

I might want to try to mute and unmute again.

Is that better?

That is better.

Yes, I'm so sorry, and it's been uh wonderful hearing everybody.

Um, and uh, you know, we work closely with many of these organizations for which we're very grateful and grateful for all the support that Stanford City um give us at on it with it on our mission.

Um DBCC is domestic violence crisis center.

I'm Stella Clark from uh representing the organization, chief development officer.

Um, and our mission is to prevent and eliminate domestic violence by educating our communities and by supporting individuals in building safer lives.

We have uh with the only state certified domestic violence uh provider for the seven communities of Norwalk, Stanford, New Cane and Darien, Westport, Wilton, and Weston.

Um, we have a number of services, all free and confidential, and um these include a 24 hour seven confidential helpline, which is for anybody who wishes to speak with a domestic violence advocate to just figure out maybe they need some advice and help and a listening ear, or maybe they're in a situation where they need to immediately flee a very serious situation and they need help.

From that crisis intake line, which is as I said 24-7, they are um then listened to, connected with, and offered services.

The services we offer range uh according to the victim, the survivor, we do a safety plan, we help support them with whatever they need.

The resources will include one of our um emergency safe houses.

We have two, one in Stanford, one in Norwalk.

So the um we can set up uh transport and help somebody who is fleeing to go to the Stanford Safe House in a confidential location with all the supports that are necessary for somebody in that very traumatic situation with their children, with their families, um, with their pets, whatever it may be, um, who may arrive with nothing.

So we're serving people that are um really in a very difficult time of life with expert um counselors and all the different services providers that we um the this is what we provide for the people that come through the houses.

Um the average length of stay is about 104 days um and it's become uh longer because of the difficulty with housing, as you can imagine from hearing all the other um nonprofits.

So we work, we provide housing advocacy, legal advocacy.

Um I'm sort of you know trying to give you a big picture.

We also do uh prevention education in all the Stanford schools.

Um but this particular request, um I know we've got little time here.

This particular request is to support the operating costs of the Stanford Safe House.

And uh so we raise funds in various different ways, and uh including private fundraising, including services uh that we provide for um that is reimbursed federally, state, but of course, federal funding is you know, there are challenges.

Um, so we're really trying to reach out in every direction possible to seek support, and this is one of those great opportunities.

Um, even if we get one or two small uh grants, it really helps.

So we are um we have our request out for 24,999, I believe.

I think it's correct, and um, you know, we're at the three minute mark, even though this is amazing.

Yes, I mean I could go on, of course, and I don't want to keep you all night, and um, but you know, we I'm here for answering any questions, and uh would be grateful for support to continue the work we're doing to provide that emergency service.

Thank you very much.

Does anyone have any questions?

Um, I'm gonna do my same question.

Um for people to find you, I believe in the past, people have been able to even text your line.

Is it still 203589097?

Or is there an easier way for people in crisis to find you?

So that is our 247 helpline, and then there is the Connecticut um, I don't know that one off by heart.

There's the Connecticut Safe Connect, which is 888-774-290.

That one does have texts.

I'm it's 774 or 744.

774.

Okay.

So I'll say it again just in case anyone is listening.

It's 888-774-290, and that one you can text.

Yes, that's the statewide.

And if for whatever reason, you know, we do have the crisis intake people there 24-7, but if there's two people phone at the same time, that will roll directly to um Safe Connect.

So there's always that cover um for people to access services, and also obviously people can connect via our website and um and walk into the offices.

We have the office on Summer Street um during business hours.

Summer Street.

What is the address for the summer street?

Summer Street address is 1111 Summer Street Suite 203.

Thank you very much.

We also have the Norwalk office.

That's again walk in during uh business hours, which is near to the city um City Hall in Norwalk, which is Five Aversley Avenue.

Thank you very much for presenting and all that you do.

You're very welcome.

Thank you.

There's no other hands.

Um do we have any questions for the total or anything for Joe before we move on?

Okay, which one do you want to go first?

Representative Weirs.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Um, so my my question is is I get a sense um just understanding how do how do potential businesses get involved in this and what kind of outreach there might be.

It sounds to me as though each awardee um or each each nonprofit that was here is at their own to find corporate sponsors that would be willing to move the money forward, and um, and I'm sure everyone is limited on resources and the ability to do that, and it sounds like there have been selections in the past where they were not able to find the funding, which is really unfortunate.

I think what is what is done at um Joe from a you know central standpoint, if you will, to solicit businesses and promote this at as an opportunity for businesses.

There may very well be companies out there, big and small, that you know are totally willing to do this, have no idea that the this opportunity exists.

Right.

So in years past, uh DRS would send out once all the businesses have did their contributions, they would send to me in late December a list of every business that donated to every company in the state, and I would forward that to all of our NAA applicants to say this is the business that's familiar with the program.

They've done it in the past.

Now I'll have to tell you that DRS is now limited to just sending us our Stanford donation.

So I only can send that out to uh everyone that the companies that donated to Stanford.

Uh for whatever reason DRS has limited the amount of information they release.

I don't know the cause for that, but I've always uh submitted that out to anyone who asks for it.

Uh it's about 88 pages.

So there's there's a lot of businesses in there.

So that gives them the opportunity to maybe make a contact with one of those businesses.

Uh other than that, there's there's really nothing that else that DRS does as far as outreach goes.

Uh there's nothing that they require the municipality to do, although I try informally as a lot of these uh uh people who present tonight will tell you to try to help to guide them, but honestly, they really have more contacts than I do.

They they've been doing this, they know who to reach out to.

So I always suggest to people, you know, get someone from Stanford Museum or from Sound Waters who's done this for years and years on end, and get their feedback on what lead you might take.

Uh my time is spent trying to get money for the city, so I don't really have too much time to try to help these nonprofits.

It just basically manages program.

But you're right, it's it's it's a it's a sore spot, particularly with federal funding uh drying up and more resources needed.

Uh those connections need to be made, but for whatever reason DRS has limited uh uh distributing the companies that have uh donated in the past.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, okay.

We have one more, representative Gross.

Thank you.

Um for uh like in the case of uh you know new neighborhoods where the money might be going to like Bridgeport, um, you know, since that's over the 25,000 uh threshold, do we be performing the audit in that case?

Nobody can form the the audit has to be performed by a certified public accountant, so all they would be doing is they would be submitting it to me because uh they uh applied through the city of Stanford.

So all the audits are done by the agencies, they have to get it done by a certified public accountant.

Once it comes to us, we certify it as meeting municipal compliance, and then we send it to DRS who reviews it for state compliance, and then once that audits approved, then the letter goes out to the agency.

Okay, um, and then I'm sure we'll you're probably about to explain this, but I guess what is our role in in this?

Like we're like today, like we're approving.

Well, technically, I don't know how what your rules are, but technically what you all have to do is basically approve to move this on to the full board, so the full board uh could vote on the certified resolution which is on the agenda for June.

Uh that's typically what's happened in years past is you know, everyone's just approved the programs and and it goes on to the agenda, and once that resolution and the minutes of that meeting, I take that with all the applications, uh the organizational chart with the legal notice that I'm required to publish, and I forward that off to DRS.

They're required to have all that by state statute by July first.

We approve these, are we proving them like on block or are we can we reject individual applications reading one by one?

I'm not really sure because I it the 12 year old.

There's nothing to be rejected, so I don't know.

So I'm gonna try to explain what I've seen in the past and tell me the change.

We're right now there's a motion on the floor for a resolution, and it's for everything that was submitted, and it's a flock of all the items.

Yes.

And we're not approving or denying each, I think you can't abstain from something, or if you have a problem with one, then we can ask questions and pull it and debate it, but it's set up to where it's we're asking the state to continue this process.

It's not that we're approving because we're not allocating money.

Right, right, but but we're essentially moving all these applications to the next step in the process.

If you have to abstain from one, you can say I'm abstaining from number seven.

Um, but then you can just say that.

Yes.

So I'm gonna say uh I'm voting on yes and then abstain from number seven.

Okay, but like we can't reject individual ones or vote no on individual ones if we wanted to.

If you wanted to, I think there's a way where we could, but do you want to?

Is that my no?

I'm just asking because we're trying to like well, just putting the rubber stamp on all of it all together.

Is there, is there individual scriptures?

We're putting an approval for this to go on the next stage for all of them, and if somebody has an issue, then we would pull one off.

So does anyone here have oh, we have our parliamentarian on with this hand up.

Go ahead, thank you, madam chair.

Um, I'm not familiar obviously with the particulars of the program or necessarily if there are any other outside influences as to our process, meaning specifically the charter or state statute.

So I'm only going to speak strictly to like a from a you know procedural standpoint um within our own governing rules.

In theory, if somebody wanted to either reject something specific, given that this is a resolution, one mechanism I'd I'd uh suggest to the chair is by means of an amendment, striking a program from the text of the resolution.

I think procedurally that would make the most sense.

Uh, but again, I just want to caution this committee that there could be other requirements that make that impractical or not possible, and so and we don't we don't know the answers to that yet.

Thank you very much.

So maybe with that I will ask, does anyone have an appetite for or were you just asking how would we do it?

I'm just asking hi for safe hallucination.

So we know, you know, what it is we're actually doing.

Okay.

Do we need to close the public hearing first?

Is that?

Well, the public hearing is together with it.

Joe, um, this is go ahead with your public hearing.

This counts as a public hearing.

Yes, we're doing so.

We have a motion on the floor for the resolution, and if we don't have any other questions and we go straight to a vote to approve or deny or reject the resolution.

Well, is do you have a question?

Is it saying if I think informally we should at least move over to now like a discussion among ourselves?

Transition to the well, this is a discussion.

So yes, all right.

So that's so one at a time.

Sorry.

So we're not just discussing here.

Do we have any questions?

Anyone want to speak on the floor?

Oh no, nobody.

Okay.

Representative Grossi on the floor.

Thank you.

Procedure.

Uh this is um say I it's just a simple vote whether to approve or not.

Oh, as a block, okay.

Okay, is there any other discussion?

No.

I see them.

So I think now we can take it to a vote.

Oh, sorry.

I see you.

Yeah.

Uh maybe um Joe could explain what would happen if we did remove somebody from the list, just so just so people know.

I mean, I don't remember us ever removing anybody from the list.

We have it in 12 years, but I think what I'd have to do is revise the paperwork and just strike whatever applications that need to be removed, removed, and revise the amount requested, and revise the applications submitted to the board uh further certified resolution.

I would assume, yeah.

I okay, thanks.

Um, so that concludes my question.

I guess, Chair, do I still have the floor so I can make it work?

I'm sorry, you still have the floor.

Thank you.

So I guess the only thing I would say is um I can't imagine why we would remove somebody from this list.

All of these organizations are doing good work, they just need a municipal sponsor.

Um to move them along.

I believe it would do uh substantial harm to our reputation if we were to remove somebody from this list.

So I would urge my colleagues to keep everybody on the list and always show a welcoming uh and inclusive uh desire to help these nonprofits help the people in our community and our neighboring communities.

I yield.

Thank you, Representative Goldberg.

Um, I don't believe anybody has an appetite to remove it, so since there's no other discussion, I think we could take this to a voice vote.

All in favor of approving resolution 32.01 in all its entirety, please say aye.

Um any nays?

Any abstentions?

I will abstain from item seven if it's possible, and I think that passes unanimously, Angie.

And the only representative we do not have on right now is representative price.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Okay.

Uh can I you know what?

Now that you mention it, I probably need to abstain from the um optimists.

My wife is a physician educator at Optimus, and I guess in some bizarre circumstances, you could imply that my family receives compensation from Optimus, but I think that's okay.

Which one is that item?

I I think you would have to abstain from the whole item because then so you want me to just put you both down as abstained.

Well, I don't want to abstain from the whole thing because I want to support everybody, but I just want to go burg.

I think that if you feel that you have to abstain from any of them, you have to abstain from all.

So, then I'll go down swinging with the ethics board.

I'm not abstaining from any of them.

Okay.

Yes.

Um, you can make me an abstention, Angie, for everything.

Okay, I will.

Okay.

Okay.

Moving on.

Thank you.

It was lovely hearing from you all.

Keep up the actual good work.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Carrie.

I appreciate it.

Thank you to the five Joe Hickeys.

Okay.

Um, do is Ralph Blessing on?

Oh, I do see him.

Okay.

Hello.

Hello.

So do I have a motion?

Uh for chess 32.014 rejection item of an allocation of 2.1 million dollars to the Heritage Housing Inc.

St.

John Urban Development Court to redevelop 305 units of affordable housing at the St.

John Towers property.

So all right, we have a motion by Representative Rose and a second by Representative Weirs.

Hello, Ralph Blessing.

Nice to see you.

Uh take it away.

Uh sure.

I uh have prepared a little presentation.

So um the affordable housing trust fund at its um April meeting um approved an allocation of um 2.1 million dollars uh from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund uh to the development uh redevelopment of uh St.

John's Towers.

Um and I'm just uh giving you a little overview of what the project looks like.

So you're probably all familiar, it's right across the street uh from uh the government center with uh the property owned by the St.

John's uh Urban Development Corporation, it's those two towers.

Uh they are um uh over 50 years old uh by now um they have uh combined 240 units, 120 in each um tower, and uh they are also uh currently about 50% vacant, um, because uh in anticipation of um the uh the redevelopment or actually originally they wanted to rehab the towers, they uh did not um uh sign any new uh lease uh agreements with anyone.

So uh currently they're about um uh 50% vacant.

Um and uh what has made the redevelopment of the site uh quite complicated, uh uh that there's a number of environmental issues uh with the towers um that have something to do with the time uh they were constructed.

So uh they used sealants, for example, that uh contain PCBs uh and there might be other uh chemicals in there.

So uh this is as uh actually been uh quite uh a long saga um to uh find a viable plan uh to redevelop um those towers as you've might have seen uh in uh the advocate.

Uh there was an app uh an article uh recently uh the site is to uh proposed to be redeveloped so the two towers would be torn down.

Uh and uh this is a rendering of uh the building that's uh supposed to uh replace uh the two towers.

And um, and um as I mentioned before, uh while the two towers currently have 240 units, this new building is proposed to have 305 uh units, and uh they will be all affordable uh at uh a variety of different um affordability levels.

Uh this is actually here uh the proposed um unit mix, so it ranges from uh 30% of the area median income to 80%, so 80% of the area median income uh that's considered um affordable housing.

Um so uh we see a mix of uh studios to um uh four bedroom apartments, and uh at the bottom uh you see uh the rents um at the different uh income levels uh that would be charged.

Obviously, the rents change every year.

Uh the numbers get updated, so this is uh basically this year's uh uh rent.

Um let's talk a little bit about um the proposed budget for the project.

So the whole project is uh uh estimated to cost uh about 180 million dollars.

Uh and this is just uh a very condensed overview of uh the financing.

So uh the city of Stanford uh would give uh about 10 million dollars.

This is actually those are old numbers.

Uh those had 1 million dollars in there uh that um the city, the administration had applied for uh capital funds um for uh next fiscal year for this project.

Uh as you may be aware, uh the Board of Finance uh cut that so that leaves uh about 9.6 million um dollars from the city uh left.

Um seven and a half million uh dollars roughly are um old fee and loop payments.

Uh they are in a uh in an escrow account um that the city holds.

Um and they are in this escrow account because uh those fee and loop payments were actually generated before the affordable housing trust fund uh actually was created, and then uh the 2.1 million uh dollars that you see highlighted in red here.

This is what the affordable housing trust fund um has approved in uh April of this year.

Um you can see here uh the uh state of Connecticut uh is making a substantial uh contribution to this project.

Um it's probably one of the biggest um affordable housing projects uh currently uh in the state.

If uh all goes to plan, uh there is a mortgage and uh another uh large chunk of the money for this project comes from uh low-income housing um tax uh credits.

So um the overall city uh participation um is uh relatively small, it's about $30,000 per unit.

Um, but it's a very important uh contribution because the state uh when making their financing uh decisions uh they want uh the municipalities to have skin in the game and and show that that they really supportive of that uh project.

Um as to the timeline, uh so for the rest of the year um they are um the applicant uh which is um the St.

John's urban uh redevelopment corporation and heritage housing.

Uh they're going to find um finalize the financing um for uh this project, which it's a very big project, uh and it's very complicated.

Uh they have secured uh uh some of the state funding, other uh for other funding, they are still waiting um for the decision.

Umce uh the financing is secured, uh which is expected uh by the end of this year, um uh the relocation of the tenants uh will begin uh as well as the uh remediation and the demolition um of uh the two towers.

Um as I said before, because there are um a lot of environmental um uh issues here.

Uh this is uh probably um going to take uh one and a half years.

Um and then once uh the site is cleaned up, uh the completion of the project uh is expected to be uh by uh late 2029, early 2030, and uh the commitment letter from the Affordable Housing Trust Fund um basically says that um the affordable housing trust fund funds would become available uh mid-construction.

So uh the affordable housing trust fund was concerned that uh there might be some unforeseeable circumstances with regard to the demolition and the remediation.

So they wanted to make sure that that the project is moving forward and uh is uh being completed, and um this is um all I have prepared, and I'm happy to um answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr.

Bussing.

Um quick question because uh motorcycle came by right as you were saying it.

Did you say that your um your letters showing that we do have the funds in the affordable housing trust fund to allocate towards us at this time, motorcycles back?

Yes, yes, we have uh the money uh the the housing trust fund only allocates money that is actually in the account.

So uh we do have the 2.1 uh million uh uh available and uh and the commitment letter um uh will go out to uh the applicant uh as soon uh as uh you the board of representatives have decided uh um to um support it.

Before I ask my questions, does anyone else here have any questions?

Representative.

Thank you.

Um thank you for the uh for the presentation.

I have just a few questions.

Um so to be clear, this um allocation from the affordable housing trust funds.

This was this was planned before the board of finance cut the capital budget, right?

Um I'm not quite sure.

So they applied.

This allocation isn't meant to address that.

This was already no, no.

There were two um they applied for uh the money from the affordable housing trust fund uh last year.

Uh so it's been uh quite a process.

Uh um and in parallel, um the city had uh put in one million dollars for uh in the capital budget.

So the idea was that both the affordable housing trust fund and city capital funds would go into this project, and then uh um as the capital budget process uh uh moved forward, um the Board of Finance decided to not fund uh this project or the other capital budget uh uh funds that were um dedicated to affordable housing.

It was for uh Stanford Manor, I believe.

Yeah, until you clear is this, uh how much are we left with in the Affordable Housing Trust Fund after this allocation if it's approved?

So we are awaiting um about 80,000 uh dollars.

Um the city has gotten the check, uh, but it's making its process through OPM.

Um, so uh it it uh should be in the account shortly or already is uh uh in the account.

Um then uh I'm aware, and there were 25,000, roughly 25,000 left after the 2.1 million uh dollars were spent.

Uh so the 82,000 came in uh just uh a couple of weeks ago.

Um there's another thirty thousand dollars uh coming in.

Um the problem with the affordable housing trust fund is uh that um developers who make a fee and loo payment, which which is the money that goes into the affordable housing trust fund in addition to the um uh uh the linkage funds uh from from the building permit fees.

Uh the problem with the fee and loo money is uh it's due when the building permit is issued for a project.

Um so uh we don't exactly know when uh that's that's happening.

So we have a tally of uh projects where we expect um uh um money uh from fee and loo, but uh we don't allocate it uh because we don't know when and if it hits um uh uh the affordable housing trust fund.

Right, okay.

Yeah, that was my understanding that this is pretty much you know close to draining the the trust fund, but it's a significant investment.

So um I'm wondering from the uh we were showing the slide with the sort of budget.

Um where is the seven million coming from?

That's listed under the other source.

I think part of it uh is reserves uh and there is uh deferred um uh uh developer uh uh compensation.

Okay, um and then you had mentioned that the funds from the affordable housing trust fund wouldn't become available until mid-construction.

Could you clarify why that's the case?

Um so uh the uh affordable housing trust fund board is is very uh uh obviously concerned uh to make make sure that projects supported by the trust fund uh uh see completion.

Uh so uh it's it's been sort of the policy of the trust fund to uh um uh commit the money later uh in the process and not um uh uh right at the beginning.

Um and obviously we talked to the applicant uh and that's not a problem um for uh uh during during their process.

Thank you.

Um good evening, Mr.

Westing.

Good evening.

Um I was wondering, could you please email your presentation so I can just take a look at it, you know, and just kind of digest it on my own.

Yeah, um, I wanted to point out that on the website, um, I don't know if it needs to be updated, but it says as of May 14, 2026, there is 845,859 available to be allocated at the June 17, 2026 meeting.

And that's the um yeah, yeah.

Is that a true number?

Uh that is a true number.

I think I might have said eighty thousand dollars, it's eight hundred thousand dollars.

It's eight hundred and forty-five thousand, yeah.

So that's that's the check we got um for uh um the project that that was uh generated that money, uh the eight hundred thousand is um a condo development on Hope Street.

So uh that that's the money uh that's that's the accurate number, and if it's posted on the website, it also means that it has hit um the affordable housing trust fund account.

So it's not just uh a check floating around in the building.

It it has been by by OPM uh um uh assigned to that particular account and then takes um also the the remaining uh money, the the 25,000 dollars or uh plus minus that were left after um the 2.1 million dollars were uh uh were allocated.

Okay, my last question is um I think it was a meeting with you or Emily or both, and in 2025, we had no BMR apartment, so there was no fee in lieu during the year of 2025.

Um I would have to look back um at uh what what was put in the affordable housing trust fund uh in uh 2025, but I can get you uh those numbers.

Yeah, okay.

Alrighty.

Well, thank you so much, and I'm glad that you showed up tonight.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Yeah, once again, the issue with with the affordable housing trust fund and the fee and loo uh funds is it can be fees or famine.

So there might be a couple of projects that that uh pull a building permit and we then we get uh a lot of money in.

Um but there's other projects that we've been expecting money uh for for quite some time when nothing is happening, they're not working on the building permits because they might have financing issues.

Uh the developers, um, so uh uh that's that's why we're also very conservative and only like post the money that's actually in the account rather than our little sheet that we have where we're trying to keep account of of what might be coming in uh in uh in the future.

So in a sense, we have to chase the money that they owe us in a sense.

We we don't have to chase the money because we don't give them a building permit uh unless they give us the check, but um they uh for whatever reason they might not uh um work uh um they might be trying to secure the financing for a project um and that gets delayed.

I mean one of the things um one project uh that that we've been hopefully that moves forward quickly, which would be another 1.8 million dollars in fee and loo funds um is uh at Seaview Avenue.

Um, and uh there the issue it's a conversion of an existing office building into condos, and uh there the problem is that um the building was built before the the um coastal regulations went into effect.

So part of the building uh uh is basically uh in the floodplain, and in order to uh make it um uh meet all the uh FEMA requirements for floodproofing and so on and so forth.

Uh they actually need to cut a piece of the building off uh to make it smaller.

It's not much, it's literally a couple of inches.

But uh the problem there is uh the way the building is built, um, it's very difficult to cut even those few inches off.

Um so they've been working uh now for years uh trying to find a company that can do that.

Uh and then of course the changes, sort of the math for for paying for the whole development.

Um they are eager to go and and uh they probably would be very happy if if the project was already finished and they could sell the units, um, but uh it's it's oftentimes or sometimes those technical issues that that um delay projects um moving forward.

I have one more question and then I'll I'll yield.

Um I was just looking at my notes here.

So we had an account, an escrow account with the fee in Lou.

You said that was before the Affordable House Housing Trust Fund had come about.

Okay, and it was 7.5 million in that account that was before the out housing it affordable housing trust fund.

Yeah.

Okay, so there was no way that you couldn't marry, like they couldn't marry together.

They just had to stay separate like that.

I mean, I think uh in practice, it's uh uh it's doesn't make a difference if if it goes through the Affordable housing trust Fund.

Um, I mean the the issue or not the issue, but actually how it was originally set up.

Um and and this money is is really old, it's from like probably six, seven years ago, even longer.

Uh that money was actually generated by the Smith and the Lifetime Building, also across the street from the government center.

So uh originally actually the money was held by uh not by the city, but in an escrow account uh set up by one of the local uh law firms.

Um and uh I mean the expectation at the time was that the money would go into the rehab of the two towers, um, but as it became clear that uh the rehab would be prohibitively expensive, and also there wasn't really not a partner to who would be willing to to uh do that.

Uh the money uh was just sitting there.

Um at some point we got uh contacted by by the law firms who said we don't want to deal with this money anymore.

Um so we said okay, the city uh is is putting it into an escrow account.

Um and uh uh it will be released um uh when the zoning board uh um uh decides to do so.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

All right, I do not see any other hands up.

Um anyone else?

Um, I just have one, I think, quick question, and I think we could move it along.

Um I know that this is you saying that you're allocating the 2.1 million dollars.

Uh is there a timeline or an end, or is it indefinitely saying when they're ready?

I know you mentioned the timeline, but I'm not sure if I missed it.

There's no good until date.

Uh so there usually it comes uh the the commitment letter from um the affordable housing trust fund is usually good for three years.

So uh if nothing uh uh happens within the three years, then it would go back and could be reallocated uh uh again.

Um and as I like putting those financing deals um uh together for affordable housing causes severe brain damage to people who are not uh used to doing that kind of work.

Thank you very much.

Yeah, you answered my question.

Um okay, so since this is a rejection item, if we're in favor of this, we say no, correct?

Um you should ask your parliamentarian.

I always get confused.

Parliamentarian, hello.

Hello, hello madam chair.

I just want to clarify before we go into the vote.

Can you please confirm that if we are in favor of moving this to the next stage, we say no?

I believe that is correct.

I think the the phrasing of the motion is important.

Um I don't think I recall the motion being phrased, you know, a move to reject.

Um, but if that is the motion on the floor, then yes, if you'd support it.

Yes, I saw it.

Well, if we approve the objection, that's what the motion is.

The motion on the floor is to accrue.

Yeah, it's right.

It's your group.

So if we're against rejecting, we see it.

Correct.

We we just need we just need the chair to confirm what the language of the motion is.

It can be a motion to reject, it can be, and then we vote against it.

You know, that that's perfectly fine.

Yes.

So the motion that's currently on the floor is a motion to reject.

Then yes, I would suggest that if you're in favor of funding, you would vote no against the votion the motion to reject.

Thank you for clarifying.

Of course.

Okay.

So since there's no other discussion, um, Angie, let's try this by voice.

Okay, all in favor of rejecting uh item thirty-two.14, say I, and that is it.

You don't want to.

Okay.

All in favor wait, all the all opposed to rejecting this item thirty-two.

Okay.

Any abstentions.

Okay.

That unanimously failed.

Thank you very much.

It does.

Thank you, Ralph Blessing.

This on the floor and getting three hundred and five units of affordable housing here in Stanford.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So before we move on to item three, is everyone okay with a five minute break?

This is a segue where we move into the C of D D G so five minute extra break and good news we second.

Oh, we have a motion.

All right, five minute recess real quick.

Sorry.

Okay, eight forty eight.

I can leave these open all the way.

Yeah, I did hear it.

So I just want to turn it off for a second.

I think we'll have a turn back on the eight degrees.

Yes, either.

Yeah, we are coming off a shell from West Broad Street.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So we are unmuted now.

So we are coming back from our recess.

Thank you, everyone.

Okay, moving on to chess thirty-two dot zero one five.

It's a presentation, and it's a presentation from the mayor's office for the CDBG program year fifty two, but first I'm gonna have Moira Saj, please share a few statements with us, and then we will have James Freeman.

Hi, thank you all.

Um thank you very much uh for having us today and for all of your hard work.

I know a lot of you guys um I think almost everybody scored the applications, the CDBG applications, and I appreciate your putting your time and energy into that.

Um so tonight the plan is for the committee to portion out what quantum what portions what each applicant gets if anything.

Um there's certain limitations to the amounts allowed by each type of allocation.

We have public service and public improvement, and then the administration costs.

Um, and then later on after that, uh, we're gonna ask for a resolution to be passed authorizing the mayor to submit the annual action plan to HUD.

The annual action plan incorporates what you will decide tonight, and it has to be submitted to HUD this summer for HUD to give us the funding.

That the community development office also has a second grant open right now.

Uh it's called food housing and supportive services grant.

Um, and nine of our public service applications qualify under the Support of Services Grant, and the Support of Services Grant has a much larger budget than the CDPG portion of public service.

Um, so what I would like to and the requirements, the reporting and the uh environmental review, all the requirements are basically the same.

So um I would like to suggest that those nine applications which are highlighted in green on the spreadsheet, we'll be looking at uh I would suggest that we that the committee makes a nominal allocation to that closed grant, and then we can fund them fully from the supportive services grant.

Um that would open up a huge portion of the very small public service portion of the CDPG grant that's allowed.

Um, yeah, so just want to explain that.

And yeah, I think Freeman is here, so um, thank you.

Thank you very much.

And we'll go into that when we pull up our charts, but thank you very much for that overview.

Um, you have the floor, Janine.

Good welcome.

Thank you very much.

Good evening.

My name is Janine Freeman, and I'm in the mayor's office, and I am serving as the mayor's representative tonight to present her recommendations for year fifty-two of the community development block grant funding pool.

Um, and so just a couple of things before I share my screen so I can um let you see how the mayor decided to uh proportion the grants.

Um I wanted to let you all know that the mayor supported all of the projects and um particularly in the public improvement area.

Typically, what we do with this process is the mayor's office will present the mayor's recommendations, and then you all as a committee sometimes accept the um proposals that are made.

Oftentimes you have your own thoughts about how things should be funded, and it ends up being at least the basis for your discussions, and so I'm hoping that that will be the process for this evening's presentation.

So with that, um I am going to share my screen.

Okay, can everyone see the screen?

Okay, fantastic.

So if we look at the first bucket of funding opportunities in the public improvement space, there is $614,657 to allocate.

And for this area, it was relatively easy, um, only because there's so much more funding available for organizations to access, and um so the mayor wanted to fully fund all of the organizations, but did make changes to three groups uh to help make sure that the funding was allocated to the amount available.

So as you will see, the only places where there is a slight difference is first for Inspiraca, and um the mayor recommended that Inspiroca be funded at 78%.

The reason being it was the largest of the requests made, and so making a slight cut to their funding.

She thought that they could still move forward with the project.

The second place where she made just a minor cut was with um mutual housing partners and basically funded that at a 98% level, just a slight decrease in the amount that was that was asked for or requested, and then the third place was children's learning centers, and again um funded that at 80% of the request amount.

Um again because it was on the larger side of the requests, and that is how we got to the total with just a couple of cents.

But you know, at the end of the day, the requests tally to that 614,657.

So very much.

Sure.

Would you like me to go to public service?

You can move on to unless there's questions, but we have three or four total.

Requests.

Um hold on one second.

Um, especially email us the spreadsheet so we can look at what our computer.

I'm gonna I'm entering it here and I can.

So we're gonna we're going to afterwards, we're gonna be booking, so we're not making anything final, but when we go through all of our numbers, umra has a whole category of the mayor's recommendations that we can look at live together.

We can have it as well.

We have it and be set to or you go so we can just have it on your own devices.

Yes, Maria can send it.

Actually, but it's she's working on it live as well with ours.

How do you want to do that?

Does Angie have it?

It's not the mayor's recommendations, correct?

Yes, we can see them.

Do you want me to stop sharing um um it's it's okay.

You can keep sharing, but representative gross is wondering if you can email the mayor's recommendations to the committee should we try to email them to Angie right now.

Angie, could you then forward it to the committee?

Sure.

You can you can email it to me.

I'll forward it.

Okay.

Moira, are you emailing or do I need to?

I just sent it to Angie.

Okay.

All right, thank you okay um you can move on to the next section okay service yes so public service which had 141843 dollars available was obviously a lot tougher um because these are all organizations that our office works with very closely and that provide critical services to Stanford residents um and so I am going to show two options the first being if we just went with um a straight recommendation across the board and then the second option um understanding now that there are additional dollars available in the supportive services bucket how we might um make the recommendations so that we can provide additional funding to the organizations that are only eligible for CDBG funding.

So again the mayor did not want to pull funding from any of the organizations.

So where she landed was providing and this is gonna sound odd but 31% of grant funding for each of the organizations.

Now obviously the challenge with that is that some organizations may get some um but it's not clear that they would really be able to benefit from the amount given.

So for example New Covenant Center which requested $20,000 to help support a case manager if we went with 31% New Covenant Center would get um $6,200 which I don't know that that would be very helpful um but it is something and they would get some CDBG funding.

And so under this formula they would receive $11,315.

But again in an effort to try to have relatively equal funding across all of the organizations 31% seem to be about the um the area where where we would want to fund there are a couple of organizations that um again as the mayor looked at it made some minor adjustments and those are highlighted in blue.

And then the second option would be if we used the supportive services fund where and we gave as Moira said a very modest investment from CDBG so that the organization could indicate that they received CDBG funding from the city um that those particular organizations and there were nine of them in total um eight would receive between 53 to 63 percent so those are the ones that are highlighted in blue so as you'll see um the project new hope um program and the all of the the ones that are in blue are either between 58% to 63 percent the only one out of the remaining organizations that um that would only be eligible for CDBG funding that we recommended be funded at 100% was um was for the Connecticut Institute for refugees and Immigrants Siri, which asked for $15,000.

And we've and we felt that the mayor felt that if we reduce them um we're not sure that again, it would be worthwhile.

So holding the nine organizations that could potentially get the additional full funding from the supportive services grant to 1,000, the amounts that you see in blue are the ones that are recommended for the organizations that would um only get the CDBG funding.

And when we compare to what would happen if we only provided 31% of the request, the dollar amount requested, it is significant.

And in some cases, um, you know, while it's not the full funding, they're getting a much larger percentage of what they have asked for.

And that is the presentation.

So I will stop sharing.

Thank you very much.

And uh to the whole administration for going through that.

Uh representative Gross, did you receive an email?

Are you um because we will be going through the charts as well?

But um Angie, do you happen to know if you guys received Moira's email?

Yes, I sent it.

Did he not receive it?

Well, thank you again for the presentation.

But uh we do not uh it looks like I'm seeing a shaking of heads that we do not have it yet.

But Moira, you have it in your system.

So we're gonna if I can if uh Angie, if you can let me share my screen, um, I can bring everything up on my.

Well, we're gonna be going over to our end with the review, and you have that on yours, correct?

Okay, I'm gonna close out item three.

Thank you for the presentation, Janine.

Um moving on to item four, chess 32.016.

This is where you can.

Sorry, madam chair.

I had a quick question for Janine before we go for the rest of her evening.

Uh go go ahead, you have the floor.

My apologies.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Hi Janina, it's good to see you.

Good evening.

I had a quick question.

Um, when you and the mayor and the rest of the members of the team that were involved in the conversation um formulated these recommendations, was the office in receipt of our scores in aggregate form or in any form, or were they not considered in in the recommendations?

I just wanted to know if they if they had that context or not.

So typically we look at them independently, got it.

Okay.

And make the decision based on the application, sort of some sometimes if we know that additional funding is coming from another source, we're able to leverage that information and got it.

Understood.

That's that's helpful.

That's that's the only question I had.

Thank you for your time and and for all the effort.

Thank you.

Any other comments or questions for Janine?

Sure.

Okay, moving on to item four, chess 32.016.

This is the fun part.

This is a review where we finalize the results from the evaluation forms for final recommendations for the CDBG program year 52.

Um, first off, I'd like to say thank you again, Moira.

Sure.

Um, in the past, we have spent many hours going through our scores and allocating where the money goes, and it's very, very difficult.

We want to give 100% to everyone.

And Moira found a wonderful way to allocate the nine as she mentioned earlier applicants into another category to get them a lot more money.

And it opens up our pool to be able to disperse it more appropriately.

Um, Moira will be pulling up a graph, but essentially we took all of our scores, correct me if I'm wrong, all of our scores and broke them apart into different categories, um, the top scoring, mid, and lower, and we have a few options that we worked on beforehand, almost as samples.

We will go through it.

It's our job to take our scores.

We have to keep it close to that, but if we're allocating money elsewhere, we could justify it by the administration's suggestions.

And with that said, Moira, you have the floor.

Thank you.

So um, let's shoot.

Angie, can I share my screen, please?

You have to log, I just sent you an email, you have to log in to Zoom to share.

I oh, I don't see.

Sorry.

Max will be so great.

Upgrade.

Can you can you try sharing now?

Here next to it.

Okay.

No.

I'm at the browser.

Next to that.

Yeah, I just don't see it.

Next to that, not the other side.

I don't know.

You want me to hit that?

That doesn't look right.

No.

Um be able to show we keep working.

Let's see.

Can we go to more?

Very bad.

The way to get rid of panels, right?

Full screen.

Here we go.

And I think okay.

So um I think that the first thing to tackle are the easy ones, which are public improvement, and then uh the administrative costs, and then we can go with the fund one to the public service.

That's okay with you.

So the total we the total amount that we can allocate for public improvement is 614, 657.

Uh we have 670,585 in requests.

Um I've worked out if we uh this this column here, the average that is your scores.

So these are ranked in uh highest to lowest.

We do have to take the scores into consideration when you make your your allocations.

Um I'd like to request with the exception of the Pacific House refrigerator grant, we don't fund anything under 10,000 dollars if possible.

These grants take a lot of paperwork, and I don't think it's worth it for the applicants to give them less than that.

Um obviously, Pacific House they only asked for 5,000 for that fridge, so uh or 5300.

So if we were to fund the last the closest one I got, and then we can play with it here, is in column I.

If we funded the Pacific House fridge fully, and then everybody else at 89%, we come to 597 403.

Also, if we cannot include sense, that just makes it much more difficult for those of us, so we could round up or down, that would be helpful.

Um so I don't know that I can.

This is not the same page that I have the mayor's on.

This is this here is the mayor's recommendations.

Oh, by both screens how we can uh see that well, maybe we should go through what ours is and then if we need to adjust things, we could justify it based on the mayor's okay.

So here that's this top part is public improvement column I is funding at 89% for everybody, uh as I said, with the exception of the Pacific House bridge.

That's the public improvement.

So we're about $15,000, eight to 17,000 short.

Okay, please.

So that so right now we're going through the public improvement.

We're all looking through this, and she's saying that in one of the columns, it's everything face 89%, but it's laid out based on their ranking.

So if we want to adjust things and give the money that we're short or take away, we have to keep in mind the ones at the bottom are lower in ranking.

Right.

So what's the uh what's the maximum that we can now for the total maximum for public improvement?

If we fund, so it's really the maximum we can fund for public service is 15%.

And when you take that plus the public, uh plus the uh administrative fees, the amount left for public improvement is 614,657.

614, yeah, 614 657, 65, 7.

So, public.

Also, just real quick, for the sake of this exercise, I'm gonna be really relaxed.

I think this is more of an open conversation as we go through, so you guys don't really have to raise your hands and uh we're gonna keep having a dialogue.

Um, so with all these recommendations, there's money left over.

So you're saying, with if column I, yes, there's about 13, 17,000 left over.

So it is roughly is the question where we're putting that for me.

No, the question is of that 614, how do you want to allocate it among these first?

Well, well, why would you why would we not allocate all the funding that we have?

So we are right now, yeah.

So we're now saying we have the 614.

Where does this committee want to put it?

So we have our I I think I understand.

I was answering it, not the question.

So the total request was 670,000, right?

We only have 614.

Right, but uh the 89% that you're showing is less than 614.

Yes.

So you guys can go up and give somebody we're 92%.

So that's just a starting point.

How much money do we have to allocate on that we're shy of?

So where do we get to play and have a fun and put it in our higher ranking?

Do math now.

Um, be the coaches who are so the higher ranking ones, we should be able to justify that they get more because they got higher ratings.

That would be where it starts, and we could also look to see which one the administration wanted to do.

I think it was um Stanford immigration.

How many are correct questions?

11 lines.

Um, 17,250, right?

So 17.

Also, wondering, I mean you're taking the average of our scores.

Is it possible to see the median also?

I do not have that information.

So we can so we're in ranking, right?

So all of our scores for each one.

I get that, but if if one person, for instance, gave very low scores to all of them, like that would be reflecting the average.

So I'm saying if there's yeah, but it should be reflected in our average because it's an average of all of our scores put together, and we're not supposed to see what each other's scoring.

So it's based on an average, and then it's ranked.

So we have to go off a pod and say and justify why did we give one more?

Because it was the highest ranked.

So the top three are the highest ranked one from our collective scores.

Right, but I'm just saying, like if most of the committee gave higher scores, but then someone gave lower scores would bring the whole average down by quite a bit.

So that's why I'm but that's you're saying that's the guidelines that we have to do by average.

Yes, really.

Okay, interesting.

It's because I mean, I mean, I didn't like anybody below 70 people all like low.

Well, then it's because we don't have as much money to allocate.

We all used a different scale, so but um, so we have 17,253.

Do we want to see and start plugging in to the top three?

And divide that number and add, or do you want to do first, it by percentage?

Um that's up to you.

I what I am going to do first is okay.

Is these few that have cents out at the bottom?

I'm going to round up or down.

So that'll change that 17253 by okay, five dollars.

But if you guys want to um do you go outside, you guys were to do that.

I'll use this formula and I can't even do that.

That never mind.

Uh, we yeah, go ahead.

I'm I'm I'm thinking in my head on how to actually put it in there.

So if you add up all of the scores, and then what is that add up to?

Just highlight all highlight column E.

Okay, 747.

So that now if you take 79 and divide it by 747, that gives you a percentage.

So it has a heavier weight.

So that line is, you know, just just for illustration purposes, so it's 11%.

No, if you take the one at the bottom, just to illustrate 50 divided by 747.

What do these foods?

These are the other percentage of how much they have of the total allocated funds.

Yeah, so it if you were to do that now for every one of them, they're gonna add up to 100%.

Yes.

So this is how much of a percentage are they getting from the asking?

Yeah, but you just project is asking for different amounts because they have different projects.

Right.

So one project is 5300 and one ask is 5300, and another ask is the highest, 135,000.

So real quick, if we just looked at our top three highest ranking scores from our averages, and Spirica is asking for the most amount, and if I remember correctly, the mayor's presentation did not want.

So if we do not because that's a very high number, Pacific House only has 5,000 Ferguson Library 24.

So the next three if we divide up the remaining money and award it to our top ranking providers.

Do you want to see how that looks?

That means we would give this year for more money.

No, in spare cut we're removing from that.

So the top three, so it'd be Pacific House Ferguson and building one.

If we divided the remaining balance and just allocated that number to them because they rank the highest, we justify it through high.

So the 17253 divided by three.

Oh, and just awarded to the top three highest ranking.

Sorry, am I am I missing it?

That isn't Pacific House that top item already fully funded at 89%.

They're all at 89% of their asking, except for that.

Oh, you're right, okay.

So it's so small.

So then the next three items minus in Spiroca.

So Ferguson building one and mutual housing.

So if we increase them each by 500 5,751.

Yes.

So okay.

So Ferguson building one and mutual housing you said.

Um, Ferguson building one and mutual housing.

Is there a reason why we're excluding inspiration?

Because that one asked for a large amount and based off of the administration's recommendation.

I see.

So the administration recommended 105,000.

Yeah, they went they went down on that one.

Got it.

I think we could justify it based on the administration and our rankings to just award the next three highest rankings.

Why'd you why would we not just divide up the remaining funds among all organizations?

We could you could do that, but then essentially our rankings didn't play into anything.

Um, dividing everything.

Yeah, I I do want to suggest though that even though the rankings here are should be informative.

I don't know if they have to be conclusive.

I mean, part of this I would imagine is our our rankings were were given in a vacuum.

Um, and and part of this is a discussion where I feel like, you know, and correct me if I'm wrong if I'm way off base from historic practice, but it sounds like there isn't actually really much room for debate as to the value of any of these individual programs if one person feels strongly and wants to make that pitch.

Absolutely is, and you're not off.

That's a starting point for allocating it based on our scores.

We do have the ability to advocate and try to move money elsewhere.

But in the end of the day with HUD, we do have to justify it based on our scores.

So it'd be very difficult to say we're going to give through our discussion to the three bottom ones let's say how are we going to justify it?

Does it does it have to be justified exclusively based on the scores or can the scores inform a discussion that you know allows us to justify based on other compelling information with the scores as part of that overall decision process.

It has it's the second option but it does have to be closely correlated.

You know you could you can say that you know we didn't give to the second highest that extra amount because we were already giving them a hundred and two 12000 so appropriate but um yeah so it's informed but not dispositive how much do we have again total to 1465 seven to well those remaining leader remains yeah what do we have left in 250 to 1725.

So that was just dividing it up by three another option is you could we could do this this is what happens on the the prior ones not saying we can't do this but we could go through numerous different ways saying all right 1000 of that we're gonna divvy up between the top ones and the remaining 7,000 we're gonna put where people we have many options of how to do this.

I just started with top three justify it.

So yeah so column J is doing just that if we added 5751 to Ferguson library building one and mutual housing and you see that comes to within sense of the dollar the total dollar amount then if you guys want to look at other options you added the 17253 by three which gave us 5751 and then I added that to those three that we did about the um but we also have to I know we're just allocating just a lot of money but we have to make sure that they're not being pushed over the request also right yes but nobody is at this point um but can we can we potentially see there's a smaller reality well I know but if the project's only um the project's only thirty thousand dollars then that's yeah seven thousand dollars is significant percentage of that can we see the percent of the project that's funded if we were to do that for each other for those the request is what the project was of the total project or of the request of the requests.

So right now the those doing for those three column C is the requested amount of like produced libraries over.

Yeah because we're requested 2400 so we have to be right so the question would just be the creative column but we just have to know like you know we're not gonna just push them up it's just J minus C.

C.

Yeah.

Because I mean I don't know I mean just doing the top three seems pretty arbitrary.

Starting point yeah really why not the top five you can pick anywhere and start there's numerous I think the perhaps the criteria we should be using is what how much percent of their project is this money pushing them up to I think that's really the more important factor rather than just then getting we could do that and then we'll be playing with percentages.

We could totally do it by percentages and then you'll start to see the numbers will be like going, okay, another half a percent for this one.

So we can try it.

I've just seen it where we are playing growers with percentages.

Right, but I mean if we're only going to allocate to three or five organizations, this additional money, then I think that makes sense to calculate what percent of the request.

Yeah what what what I was attempting to do with the weighted averages, you would see the 8020 rule surface really quick.

I mean, you would find so the top one was eleven percent, the second one is probably 10, the next one was probably nine, eight.

You would find that the top the ones that we all scored highest, would probably be at 80%.

You know, the top 20% would probably I'm just putting more weight on the ones that we all see.

I think we should put more weight.

So that would do it.

That would do whatever.

Do you want to play with that?

Or do you want to make another column with the weighting?

You're saying to make it like proportional in percentwork.

Yeah, what's when you look at the you know the top score was 79 and the bottom was 50, so you kind of have to think of that, kind of reset those to zero and a hundred, you know.

So we're all on a right.

So by by weighting them, but yeah, I mean, it's just putting a lot of weight on our scoring, and and I say that just gives us a starting point.

Do you do you wanna do you need to tell with that?

So we need it.

Yeah, yes.

So I would go if we take column C right?

So um go uh what column are you gonna put the formula in?

Uh I'll do N.

Okay.

So um go to the down here now.

Go to N4.

Um I think um we needed to add all this up again.

Yeah, well add up.

Um the scores, the actual scores, we just need to 747.

Oh, it's there, yeah.

So you can just so now divide whatever that cell is.

Not um go you have to go over, it's hidden now.

It'll be quick once you get the first one.

I don't know why it's going to divide it by 747.

Um, it looks like you put it that right?

Oh, you put uh um, it's blocked.

Can you arrow just arrow over to um that's your quick question?

Yeah, Samila.

Um what happened to Stanford Manor?

I don't see it on this list at all, would you e4?

Stanford Manor is that looks request.

There are a couple of them, and I apologize for this.

That we have another grant pool, and we don't have that set up in home grant in the in Zoom grants yet.

So I asked them to just enter their application in CDPG in here, and I if you notice it did say home do not score.

Um there was a few in there that did not present to us and it slipped in, and a few of us rated them anyway.

So I apologize.

That was the that that was made, those are being funded with a third program that is not yet fully set up in Zoom grants, so just to get program started.

I use this as a shortcut.

But we know how you feel about them now.

I mean, but I saw two million requests, but there's also no M4.

Yes, just put in there.

That's why I was wondering for E4.

Yeah, E4.

I think you can put in a yeah, if E4 divided by 747, and it'll be a percentage.

Yeah, so 11 can I just pull that down all the way to the 15th.

I mean M15.

I don't know you guys following what I'm doing here.

Yes, yes.

Yeah, so now if you just highlight highlight N4, and you see the sum.

Well, some.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, if you were to if you were now to just go to the right, go to column O.

This is just this is just a starting point.

But now multiply N4 by 17,000.

Again, it's just an illustration.

No, this is great.

Because then we could change some numbers and yeah, whatever that actually can put in the actual 1725.

Yeah.

Oh, so Ferguson Library.

1725.

7253.

Yeah, whatever we have left to allocate.

Oh, and four.

But we want to go down to row six.

What did you do?

Yeah, sell and sell n 4, which is 11%.

So here.

Yeah.

And multiple multiply that by this, whatever the 17,000 number is.

The money left over, but we're not going to give it to the Civic House.

We're going down to Ferguson.

We say 17253.

It's just a starting point.

Yeah, just for all of them.

Yeah.

So you're saying call it.

He's gonna do a problem.

Yeah, now pull it down.

Yeah.

And you'll see at the bottom they're gonna add up to that number.

Right.

No, that was I'm confused.

Is that the dollar now?

I'm thinking.

Yeah, it will be.

Yeah, just pull that down to the Pacificus.

Yeah, we'll have to eliminate certain one.

I think it's gonna eliminate and add it in the bottom.

Yeah.

This is the automated part, and then you have to do it in a manual manner.

You have to remove some.

But you can see how the weight distribution is.

It's just putting more weight on where we already waited.

Right.

Okay.

All right.

Right.

So then we're removing.

We could just do that and we're so this is weighted based on the percent there requests.

What could you explain the percentage point?

Um so we our scoring is now weighted.

We did on one.

So the where we scored the highest.

It's getting the largest portion.

I see I see.

So it's basically the weight of our scores.

Yeah.

And then it's not as now what do you want to do with it?

Well, so we should remove Pacific house, right?

Because we're moving.

Yeah, so then we it and this is where you're you know, whatever we're removing, you need now need to add into somewhere else.

Okay, so instead of should we just copy and paste it to the right?

It's uh column P.

So if we're removing it, we're gonna move it over to the next.

I could do it again in the next column.

Yeah, that would get really scientific.

Well, this way we don't we know where it's gonna go.

All right, so can you copy and paste uh O4 and move it to P4?

So I just or cut and paste, not copy and paste cut.

And then I think we should do the same thing for the bottom ones, or that so just for that one or for all of them.

No, in spherica.

I mean to make a real because the mayor said you could just it's a small number, so you could just divide the 1824 evenly among all the others.

Is it still weighted though that way?

No, but it's I think honestly you're getting into such small dollar amounts at this point.

I think we're almost overthinking it's the top.

Um well I've I mean but not I think in general it's good, but when we start saying oh is are we taking that one out or are there any others that are over at this point if we were to add those numbers in?

So we were gonna take this one out, right?

Which one's that one?

The uh library, the result, it would be over.

They only requested 24, but that's because we added that it went over.

It's at 21.

It's not gonna go over anymore.

It won't go.

Okay, and then should we you wanna so we should have the lowest ranking or well it it it uh I don't know, I don't understand how it's weighted now.

It it's still the money.

It's still weighted.

Um we just everywhere to yeah, but we we now need to do the uh column P.

Yes.

And an easy way to do it is just to divide those up among all the, you know, everyone evenly in column O.

Can you explain to me when we divvy it up how that is accounting for the weighting?

It just seems not anymore.

That's but it's um I mean you you can apply the same, you could do this again.

You you could still apply the weighting by getting the sum of the items in column P and then inserting that sum into the 17,000 of column O before the multiplier of the percentage.

How do you do that?

So if you hit equal sign and then so if you sum this, yep, take that figure, and then if you look at the formulas for column O.

You see the 17 figure?

If you add 3,478 to 17, yeah.

That will get you a new total additional allocation, and then it'll then be multiplied out.

However, the problem is because we've eliminated 0.11 and 0.10 in the top, you're now gonna have a sub-100% distribution.

I mean I think this is where you get manual.

So go ahead and do a manual because this is your option and how you want to allocate it.

Um, I mean so this 20,731 is 3478 plus 1720, 1725.

How do we have more money than we started off?

I'm not sure.

Well, oh no, yeah, that was not.

I I think I missed that.

I'm happy to go through this, but um I think the simplest way is we manually put in the 1725 three where it makes sense, starting from the top going down, and if one goes over, we just give it to that maximum amount and then go down.

Rather than rather than doing this weighted, that's why I I was my intent was to say this is a starting point.

So now we have you know, you can manually go in and instead of using that's instead of 1834, is it 1634?

We just made it 1600 or yeah, well until the number shows that it's it's still good.

It's still very close to the same weighting.

It's you have something you want to suggest.

Yeah, um I just wanna you know we should we should think about perhaps with the remaining money if there's any projects that we can bring sort of to the line and fully fund the requests because then they're sort of they're able to do all that they're seeking to do.

So perhaps I mean we have to think through start here, start with up above.

Right.

So it's 24,000.

24,000.

So we could do that.

So if we if we wanted to keep this oh that's fine.

If we so like if we wanted to of the what is it, 7,000.

17.

So we have 17,000.

Okay, so like if we if we want if we all agree that we want to fully fund Ferguson, we could just say, okay, we'll fund that.

Okay, let's do it.

That's yeah.

Yeah, let's put that number in.

Well we yeah.

So first we have to go through ours.

Because it's the top ranking.

Yes.

So the 20, bring that one up to fully funded, yeah.

Which, you know, I mean, that makes sense.

It's it's one of the it's one of the highest ranking that we've given.

So if we have the money to fully fund the request, since it's only a uh meager amount to bring it to that.

Next one is building one.

Building one.

We're at eighty.

So we don't have the money to, or actually, we do actually.

Yeah, building one they have to eight and eighty.

All right, so we put in the remaining three thousand.

What is it?

49?

Well, 3,049.

Because it's 80.

What is what is it, J?

J is J was 89 plus these.

Oh yeah.

Is it was 80?

Was J was 89% plus 5751?

Okay, so we're going off of this one.

Yeah, I'm going off of just the 89%.

Sorry.

I.

Sorry, I, okay.

So nine thousand or eight thousand eighty eight hundred, eight thousand eight hundred.

Four, which's a lot.

For building one.

Do you want to total?

That's fully funded.

If we were to fully fund that, we don't have to fully fund it.

We brought it up with the Divi of to 76.

What?

You want to just fully fund what we can at the top?

That was the mayor's record.

That's for this one for building that's uh okay for building.

That was for building 80.

So if if just for the sake of going through this exercise, so if we were to fully fund it, first in building one, how much would we have fully funded until we run out of money?

How much would we have left in the pot?

That's it.

And there'll be the remainder gets the there wouldn't be any.

No, I'm saying the remainder goes to the next one.

Oh right.

So we're skipping experience.

Uh we're by $10, probably.

All right.

It's $614,594.

Okay, give it to the next one.

Did you say $10?

Yeah, well, I can't do the math that quick.

Yeah, $6.

So like $60.

$63.

Really?

Yeah.

All right.

Give it what's the next one?

I'm actually surprised to add something off.

Wait.

Wait, I thought there was wait, hold up.

I thought there was $17,000.

Yeah, there was, but we added nine, almost 9,000 to building one to building one, and three thousand to library limit.

That leaves a few thousand before.

Yeah, thirteen.

And leaves a few thousand.

And we fully funded.

So right, so Pacific House is fully funded, eighty-nine percent, or inspira, fully funded Ferguson.

Fully funded building one.

But Pacific House was already fully funded in the eighty-nine percent total.

So if we have from column I, if we have seventeen thousand to allocate, right?

You're saying 17, 25.

So column J is fully funding those three.

Pacific House Library Building One.

Plus, I think these are all still eighty-nine percent one twenty.

Oh no, we added, I'm sorry, we added more for mutual housing.

Oh we did, yeah, that was the five thousand.

All right.

Is that is that is that the remainder?

We want um uh eight mutual housing to have the remaining balance of uh wait.

That's it.

What's the difference?

I want to see the difference.

Two first.

8800 for one.

Yeah, but this I want to see what the difference is between these two.

So we added the sixty-three dollars.

Perfect, I'm I'm not I'm not following.

Because this is how much we added it to get to there.

It's not this is this difference, okay.

And this difference should add up to the 17.

So we added that we we of the 17,000 that was left over from 89%.

We added this in fund.

Uh 1,000 and change to Pacific House, fully funded.

We added.

That was already fully funded in 89%.

I think.

Or was it not?

The 89%.

Yes, it was.

So we have 80.

So we have 50 we fully funded that.

We have 89% for Inspiraca.

We fully funded Ferguson Library.

We fully funded building one community.

Okay, so what's that total?

What's the total difference between I and J between Burgesson and building?

J minus I added up.

So I'm sorry, which do you want?

J minus I for six.

Six and seven.

Six, seven, and eight.

I'm not well just pull it down.

I'm not sure we have enough.

Actually, what we mentioned.

I just want to see.

Or not step.

I guess I just want to make sure if this was the easy one.

Yeah.

It is.

This is hand waving.

Hand wave.

Yeah, yeah, but it's good to develop a system on an easier one.

It is.

So we're you know, we now we so and then so what are those three add up to?

That's if we're fully funding those three.

So what are those add up?

And then that's what the sixty dollars remain from the or no seventeen, two five three.

No, that's fully but that's 49 cents over.

49 cents over.

Wow.

Right?

Because column J.

Column J.

Can you take off?

Weren't we supposed to do it with no sense?

Yes, but when we did a percentage, can't a sense.

So we're gonna have to round.

Okay, but because it's set up as a percentage, okay, change the whole.

I'll have to copy it after it is a uh text as opposed to a formula.

Okay.

17, 25, 3.

3 is what we had to allocate.

So we want to subtract 80.

And wait, how is oh I see.

So it's that's not it's not fully funding mutual house.

I guess short by a little bit by like a thousand.

You just gave the remaining balance left, or right, okay.

So that's almost fully funded, but it's not because that's where the remainder is going to be.

Okay.

So we funded it off, and I think that's good.

Right, because and this way we're taking into account like their their requests essentially, so like you know, we're fully we're pretty much fully funding our top three.

I think this is fair.

Well, we took the mayor's recommendation from um Pacific House, and then we based it off of our scores.

So it's my understanding that we're supposed to be doing it off of our scores, but taking into account the mayors to justify, which is well, we're way off on it, right?

Yeah, we could compare them.

But which one was her, I mean, this did our ranking followed.

Oh, she fully funded.

She had two different options.

She was saying this is just divide it all up.

This is just for the capital questions.

Um but now more will make the numbers work.

And we're gonna have to approve this once we're done.

Um I think the mayor recommended we fund those three as we did, I think.

The only change was that she funded CLC at 80%.

Which can't which would have given us more money.

She also cut in Spirica further.

Yeah, she cut in Spirica down and allocated that money elsewhere.

That's kind of what I was doing.

We can do that if we want.

So shouldn't yeah, because that would give us more money.

Well, I guess do we want to disclose it.

Um can I get a real quick and formal show of hands if we're happy with this, or we want to remove.

So option one, keep it.

Option two, remove from inspiration and allocate that elsewhere.

So show of hands if you want to stay with this one for number one, raise your hand.

And sphere goods is applying for the spirit guidance seals.

The mayor's recording offered against the vote.

Yeah, right.

It's in spirit several of these apply to our public service and public infrastructure.

So the public service is um not really a tangible council and that sort of thing.

Um, show of hands if we want to now look at removing some from inspirate or I just raise your hand if you want to explore that.

I'm fine with it the way it is.

All right, so raise your hand if you're fine with it the way it is.

So this is the same amount of sense.

Yeah, if the sensor, but the way the way we just did it, raise your hand if you're fine with it this way again.

I saw uh Yeager McCuean.

There's four.

All right, raise your hand if you would like us to now remove from Inspiraca and try reallocating.

Try reallocating.

Well that's one, two, yeah, three, it's informal, so we're not gonna say four versus three, but I I mean if we could like talk it out, perhaps.

I mean, um go for it.

I'm uh so the I mean the mayor's logic that he behind not funding aspiraca was just it's a lot of money, right?

And for CLC, just because they're the bigger requests, so but I mean they're still worthwhile in projects, or you know, funding I guess.

I think whether we whether we want more, whether we want that remaining money to allocate to these other projects.

So those are the only two requests that were six figures, everything else was under 100,000.

The next largest was eighty thousand and two.

Yeah, okay.

So, so the only thing I was gonna ask is I would rather my general philosophy was to deprioritize capital improvements and prioritize delivering direct services to people.

What I'm still struggling with a little bit is how this new um uh grant pool that we have access to impacts that thinking, so all being equal, given what's going on in today's world, it feels like the most important things for us to target providing help with um immigration services, health care for the underinsured, uninsured, um, and social services, direct social services where we're helping people.

I just it doesn't feel like this is the moment to go spending a bunch of money on buildings, well, if I could address that HUD rules only allow us to fund 15% of our CDBG total allocation to direct public services, so the direct public services only has a pool of 1401 and chained 142,000, so that's why that's so small, and which is why I would like to direct some of those to the supportive services grant, which does not have that restriction, and which so and it is a larger pool.

Right.

And that's what I was trying to figure out is how does I mean I'd like to do the most, I'd also like to fund the most organizations at 100%.

Right.

That is possible.

So I would almost start from the bottom up and say who has the smallest grants, give them the most, you know, fill them and see what's left over, and then go start hitting the bigger grants requests, factoring in, factoring in.

I mean, listen, I'm I'm saying based on our weighted average scores.

Of course, we can't ignore our scores.

But just in general, uh, this wrinkle of the other pool is thrown me for a loop in my thinking.

I'm sorry.

No, it's okay.

Sticking to the public improvement, the one that we're on.

If you want to try to do where we remove which was part of the discussion before from Inspiraca, for the mayor's recommendation, dropping it down to what she recommended, and then we can divvy up that amount into some of the smaller portions, smaller um asks.

Oh, Representative McQueen, you can speak freely because it's an open discussion right now.

Yeah, I know.

I I there was a couple of folks speaking, so I figured I'd wait until there was a lull, and I put my hand up so I didn't forget I had a point.

Um I you know, I as we kind of sit with these numbers more, and you know, as I kind of review the the recommendations from the mayor further and looking at the magnitude of these requests in relation to each other, you know, I I honestly am beginning to think that the mayor's recommendation is largely very sound.

Um I do agree with Emil that, or excuse me, Representative Goldberg, that I think there's a lot of benefit and value to fully funding as much as we can across the board.

Um, and to do that, I think the mayor has proposed a very reasonable cut to what is otherwise very, very large allocations uh where we can without jeopardizing those projects, spread the the wealth literally, um, amongst more impact, um, especially where some of these smaller grants uh might be critically impaired by not receiving full funding, yeah.

Um, and that's something that we I think we should consider.

So I I actually think that the mayor's recommendation as it is, maybe with minor tweaking, is something that I would support.

Okay.

So I think that's what um with removing from Inspirage, that's what was from the Mayor's recommendation.

But if you think we should just pull up and copy and paste hers and put it in there and see where it lines up with ours, I think that's a great idea, and I think we're all on the same page with wanting to allocate to as many of the smaller ones as possible.

Is that what everybody's feeling?

Yeah, like that like maximize the value of our dollars, right?

So, in Spirica and CLC at the mayor's recommended funds, is what we're saying.

So column, I was gonna copy and paste the whole mayor.

So column L was the same one.

Yeah, this is I'm trying to I'm trying to put the mayor's in there.

Uh the mayor's is slightly over because oh, excuse me, no, never mind.

Who knew this was gonna become a chess game?

Check me.

I was so gonna start calling people by names here, so I just took out sense.

That that's right.

Didn't you say away funds for shoes?

Or would you use it?

I gotta step away for a minute, but then I'll be right back.

I can't I can't hear you're stepping out for a minute.

Yeah, just one minute, I'll be back in less than five minutes.

No problem.

So the mayor's recommended is that we take that money from Spiraca and CLC in the amount that would fund fully fund the rest of the projects, pretty much.

No.

Yeah, I think that thank you administration for already working on this.

Except for Trinity Clark, which is like a pressure.

So did she give a reason why?

98%.

I don't think she I think I think that was just to make the numbers work.

She takes some, you know, the the reduction.

Oh Janine, welcome back.

We need you.

I see your hand is raised.

Oh, how um how happy are you right now?

So I just wanted to offer.

I went and looked in the spreadsheet.

Um there was a slight.

I think we must have had an increase somewhere, and so um we reduced the mutual housing by 998 dollars, which is what led us to the 6146.

Why did you take the overage from that one rather than say family centers?

Um, so I'm so sorry, I might be going crazy, but uh and it maybe it's late.

The mayor's recommendation looks like it's actually larger than the request, or which it's it's off by one dollar, yes.

It's one dollar over the yeah, so that's not a that's not a reduction.

I think the deni I think the unless I'm looking at this incorrectly, I think the I think the denominator and the numerator are switched on the Excel Janine passed along.

Maybe I am going crazy.

Well, I think if you look at the total dollar amounts between I'm so sorry, no, I'm I'm just illiterate.

I see where I've misread it.

Apologies.

I'm back, welcome back, Emile.

Um, so we just need to make the balance work.

Well, but it's just one dollar or something, so we'll just remove a dollar from somewhere.

Janine, could you could you did you hear my question about the why uh which one is it?

Mutual housing, mutual housing rather than family centers, which has a larger request, for instance.

Uh I think the only let's see, 98.

I think the only it was literally just trying to tweak.

So according to the spreadsheet, mutual housing is funded at 98% versus 100.

Let me just take well, you're also looking at it in our ranking.

So maybe it was different or not hers.

Right.

And she just pulled from one.

Yes.

Right.

If it's just arbitrary, it is arbitrary, but she had a different, it was laid out different because this is organized by our scores.

So she just pulled from one because she had to make the math.

No, that's I know, but why pulled from that one rather than family centers, which is a larger version.

You're saying it's arbitrary, it was the next one on the line.

It was yes, that it wasn't specifically because of any I'm trying to.

If you just give me one second, let me look at reallocate.

Yeah, we can't.

Yeah, which is what I'm gonna suggest.

So go ahead and just do it, see how it looks.

So rather than so fully fund, if we were to fully fund mutual housing and then take it from if others agree, family centers, which is a larger request.

It's higher up in our ranking.

So we'll take them away from because you're going right, and then it's higher up in a ranking.

There we go.

Yeah, to say these.

And it's high, and because it's higher up in a ranking, so we wouldn't we would want to fully fund that and take it from one closer to the bottom.

My recommendation would be or I'm suggesting the from family centers, because that's the largest of the ones at the bottom.

There we go.

Rather than if we were to take it from like ARE, then that might not be able to do that process.

Can you do the numbers for columns?

Are you good?

So what would you like to do?

So fully fund mutual housing.

Which is 61144?

46.

This one?

Yeah, which one?

It is it's the last.

And take that amount, whatever the differences between the ours minus the mayors, and then subtract that from family centers.

We sent terms columns and numbers.

So eight minus eight.

It's been checkmate.

Sounds like that'll show that.

We try to.

So I'm just gonna do the math.

So is it 998 dollars?

Probably.

Yes, which is what was taken from mutual housing.

And then so subtract that then from family centers.

Yes.

So that would be 71,542.

That's kind of at the risk of embarrassing myself again.

All right, so we're gonna subtract two dollars from the bottom one.

Well no, the bottom one.

You could subtract it from the other one wherever you want.

They just have to subtract two dollars.

Right, I would subtract it from family centers again.

It's two dollars, though.

So subtract the one dollar from submit, just reduce it by one.

Family centers, actually 40.

Yeah.

Now the total is six one four six five seven.

Which is which is the amount we have to allocate.

Alright.

I think I square a circle.

Good job.

Okay.

So I think this all goes back to the administration.

That's going around and figuring it out, and as many of them being funded as possible.

Yeah.

Is everybody okay to move on from public improvement?

Yes.

And we're all happy.

Yes.

Okay.

We will later be voting on all of them to finalize.

But we could move on to the next section.

It's okay.

Whenever you're ready, no rush.

I don't want to rush it.

So happen.

We're gonna maybe you say yeah.

We're doing the public improvement money.

Yeah, or okay.

So this is the one where remember Moira was saying that there was other areas.

So she will show you on the graph where she made a recommendation of doing $3,000 for the nine organizations that she could get funding elsewhere.

Which is and those are in that peachy color.

So those will this is what we worked on, but oh, so we tried to work on this one before.

So imagine doing what we just did.

So the public.

Oh, did it die?

I think so.

So the great news again is that we have more money to play with by dropping down the nine organizations, and they're gonna be ending up getting more money.

This one we had a very large discrepancy of how much was requested was four times the amount, right, Laura?

Yeah, for 470, we have a hundred and forty-two.

So we did a benchmark.

We try to break it up into categories, which I'll show you is the top scoring one, mid and lower.

And again, we can do whatever we want, but it was starting off before the meeting.

Just try to put something into a logical order based on our scores.

We can look at that with the mayor's recommendation.

I'm so happy you got to the administration and they did the same thing with removing yes.

Um I don't know what's happening with the computer, I don't even know.

Do you want to share or log in through mine?

Um can that get onto the cities?

Oh, I don't know.

Are you all logged into the cities?

City web.

I can you provide I don't know that I'm sure that I can would you be able to present?

Yeah, you don't know if you could log into your documents.

Right.

This is the city's laptop, those are on city laptops, right?

Yeah, this is completely good, which is really good.

Okay, wait, say new computer.

Oh, it might need a minute to start charging.

I don't even think it was okay.

That's right.

It wasn't even close to out of power.

Stop working at 10 o'clock.

That's right, it's in the union.

Okay.

All right, you guys could take a break, but stay close.

Okay, I'm back.

Oh, come back.

Um, go ahead, take you to I gotta log in, so it'll be a second.

You're gonna have to explain again what you figure out, but what we're looking at is when we were looking at the numbers.

What you just explained.

Yes, when we have it up, we'll go through as like the sample.

Yeah, we'll take the administration again as you guys have seen for this last process.

We can do whatever we want.

Okay, there we are.

Sorry about that.

I don't know what happened.

Oh good, okay.

So those are let's explain this.

Go ahead.

Yes.

So the ones in pink, again, these are these are allocated by the um, these are uh top to bottom in the scoring ranking, but the nine in pink, and I should have told what they are.

It's peach orangey here.

Okay, yes.

That the peachy color.

Um, those would all fit into the supportive services, they would all qualify for the supportive services grant.

They're all three.

So they're just all removed, but gave three thousand.

So I gave them a nominal amount.

The mayor recommended a thousand if you recall and hers, I said three thousand.

This is just so that you know it means something to these organizations that they can say I've been funded by Stanford CDBG for the last 10 years.

It's uh, so I didn't want to remove everything.

Um so real quick.

So she did three thousand.

The mayor did a thousand again.

We can change things.

So that was removing it in the orange, then when you see the pink, the yellow, and the blue, these were top scoring, mid-scoring, and low scoring as in buckets, and that's what we started.

Maybe it's just my computer.

I don't see the pink at all.

It's the peach, the top, do you see like the top four or sort of in a peachy color?

It's beige.

Like a page, there's like a few like a hot pink, a yellow, and a blue.

You see those?

I just see yellow and blue, but if it if is it rows 22 through 25, is that peach?

No, it's called the three thousand.

Those are the peach, yep.

That's the what do I change the I can see it when it's highlighted?

Yeah.

Okay, I I that's fine.

Yes, that's a lot more.

That's a lot more clear.

Something I didn't use a little bit.

Green.

It's green.

Not a light.

You see that?

Yes.

It's actually everywhere where you see three thousand dollars.

Got it.

Okay, understood.

Thank you and then and then in I through K, you'll see a pink, a yellow, and a blue.

Over here.

Uh-huh.

Do you see that?

Me QN.

Um my cursor is you see that?

Yes, I see that 26, 27, 28.

Yep.

Okay.

And this is not really feasible to be doing a hundred like again it was four times the amount of what was asked versus what we can allocate now we can absolutely play around and go back and look at what the administration presented tonight to compare would it be possible to paste the mayor's recommendations onto ours so we can see because I actually liked that the administration did a thousand so we just picked three thousand to say that they got something but a thousand works as well and that gives us more money let me on let me understand the logic here so we're funding those ones that we just talked about the peach green ones or whatever those nine because we're all we're funding them minimally but just so we can say that we're funding them.

Yes because they'll they have another large pool of grand money yes on the way which will be fully funding their request from the very happy is that is that pool of brand money secured can you say that again is that pool of brand money secured yes that definite they're getting yes well well they will have to they will have to uh submit all their paperwork the same as they would for this but yes I I can it's it's a it's a pool of money that I am authorized to allocate to allocated to these nine groups if you agree to this by not funding them here.

Does that do we have to approve that right or no that's not no that's not us.

That's a separate yeah essentially Mara found a way to give these people more money and get these other people remaining more money.

So we're just minimally funding them yes okay so what's the logic of doing funding them at three thousand rather than there wasn't we picked a number I like that the administration chose a thousand so this this page here is the the is I plugged in the mayors it doesn't have all the other highlighting but you can see it was three three and three um I could copy this put it into the other for the moment we could just ignore that and talk about all the not three thousand yes well but I mean we should decide if we want that three three thousand one thousand well it kind of depends on the discussion on the other items I think just to understand can we go back to ours?

Yeah we are yeah oh thank you so let's look at this real quick yeah I think Mara was choosing three thousand because also there is you know paperwork and things to do.

Yes but and that's another reason what I earlier said 10,000 because I can lump this with my supportive services grant so it's even though it's less than 1000 here will be significantly more than 1000 there so it's worth their time there's only gonna be doing one set of paperwork.

Yeah reporting required so because this one was a hard yeah one we try to work on it for a while before we came in let's look at it and we base again the pink the yellow and the blue breaking up top medium and lower in that or our rankings that's based on our rankings in those buckets and we try to start off with giving the pink ones more and lower and it was finagling the percentages as we went okay now are are all of these ranked by score I don't see the score this is all ranked by score and as it's ranked by score this is the top like if gold silver and bronze that's what we weighted we just said let's give this bucket a bigger percentage and then we shifted some you'll say like a 52 because it was fully funded.

I see that those buckets are based on taking out the ones yes that were minimally all the green ones are taken out and then this is the top three middle three and lower three.

And then we didn't want to Mara didn't want to do 10 thousand dollars or below because of the amount of work that goes into it.

Right.

So that's why you'll see some with a little higher percentage, but that was our baseline.

Right.

And we try to work on that four.

But so they would be doing a lot of paperwork for the three thousand to one thousand.

But they're getting quite all their money elsewhere.

Right.

They're getting all their money somewhere else.

Yes and and it would be the same paperwork.

Yeah.

So they're they're gonna have to fill it out anyways for the larger grant.

Correct.

So it's not everybody in the grade smaller right?

It's literally, they will fill it out one time.

And everybody in the green, you could kind of ignore them because they're so happy they're getting more money.

Right.

The percentages we see are amount funded as of now.

The percentage, so the column J, is it is if we did it as representative pollux mentioned with three thousand apiece, column M is the mayor's recommendations.

Okay, column K is the percentage funded based on column J right now.

Yes, okay.

And the reason for the discrepancy with the funding is because we don't want them to drop a limited house.

Correct.

Okay.

Correct.

So and it was a that was you know, these two are these two area are lower, but they're close in in.

So that was the logic, happy to change anything, but try to work through it a form.

Well, okay.

I mean, do we want to give three thousand or do we want to give one thousand to the other organizations?

Mara, do you have a strong feeling of this difference between three thousand and one?

When we picked three, I remember it was it was it was just I mean, after we talked, I thought we really should have done 2500, but I don't want to do that go there now.

Um I just thought three thousand when if anybody comes to them and says, Well, how much did you get CDBG over those years?

It's like it's not like one thousand, which is sort of almost an insult.

And I'm not saying the mayor is insulting them because they are getting much, they are getting fully funded, um, but it just looks less good.

Why does it look less good?

It's the same reason why in an inheritance when somebody gets a dollar, it's a perfect point sometimes for people.

Like I gave you something, but I don't want to give you something, I just think I I can definitely appreciate the optics there.

Maybe maybe less attractive when trying to get out there and do fundraising or otherwise, you know, kind of you know, put out there that that Stanford has supported them.

That being said, I think two things come to mind.

One, the organization is well positioned to be able to explain why this happened.

Um that you know, in this particular year, we were fully funded in other capacities.

Um, so you know the city did what was best to spread the love again as as far as it could.

Um, and and to Emile's point more pragmatically, um, I think we're we're in a time where social services are of a critical need.

Um, and if the motivation here is posturing, I'd argue that we do more good getting the money in the hands of people that need it who are not fully funded than we are, you know, painting a better story.

Yeah, I agree with that.

So let's then look to see how we can do the same type of buckets.

Do we have anybody here who has an idea for if we drop them all down to three thousand down to one thousand?

What that money is left over, it sounds like you have an idea, but then we're gonna allocate them in the pink, yellow, and blue.

Yeah, and and I would say we allocate the remaining money proportionately according based on what you have here, okay.

If that works, the numbers are are we're talking about basically nine and nine, so all the green ones are nine thousand.

So if we were to reduce those down to two thousand, taking a thousand off of each, that gives us nine thousand that we're that we're then gonna distribute among the other nine, right?

So it's not actually uh changing, it's not actually increasing the other nine by very much at all.

Right, it's a difference.

We if we made a different we went from three thousand to one thousand, that's two thousand obviously.

It's so it's giving the other ones an average of two thousand dollars a piece, it's not a huge, it's not gonna take those percentages significantly, it's still not fully funding anybody.

Right, right.

So you're saying doing the percentages are more work it's worth to to just allocate that.

Um, let me make sure I have the number two.

So uh the the it's not a matter of the work, it's the matter of it doesn't really change what we're thinking.

So, but it's pretty easy to just add two thousand dollars to each one, but it will change their percentage, but it doesn't matter because we started off in this point.

Yeah, to make those a thousand, we have eighteen thousand remaining to distribute two thousand eight.

Over nine over nine.

Over there's eighteen total.

It would be eighteen, eighteen thousand dollars total if we remove two, and then get then give an extra two thousand, two thousand organizations.

Right.

So if we if we did the thousand, like the mayor recommended.

Yeah, I think that's I'm fine doing that.

And then two thousand to each.

Yeah, because we already put them in order.

And you're gonna see their percentages change, but it's okay.

Some might go up there.

I mean, it it's convenient that they're nine and nine.

Yeah, cool.

That really helped.

Um just mathematically.

Right.

That's that wouldn't fully fund any number bring them close.

Is that really?

It was four.

Look at the numbers of how much was asked.

As much as we want to pull it out.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah, they're not even close.

Unless we wanted to say like, nope.

Unless we wanted to take more of the money at the bottom and fully funds some of the top programs.

I guess yes, that's what I'm even added to.

So we're smart, like that.

Yeah, I think I think everyone will appreciate the.

We already did that, yeah.

That's it.

Okay.

I'm more than happy.

Uh is everybody here happy to do the one thousand.

I should have asked, but I think we're all on the same page.

I'm fine with one thousand.

Okay.

And then allocating the two thousand to each one.

And I'm still pondering if there might be more.

I mean, I think that's a fair way to distribute it, but I'm just thinking through whether or not there's any worth in and considering alternatives based on mission.

Right.

Like, I was uh saying like if we if we wanted to, we could in theory take the six thousand from like the bottom ones, for instance, and allocate that towards the top if we wanted.

Okay.

We could.

Or you could take a thousand off of the bottom ones and put it on the top ones.

Because we did two thousand, two thousand, two thousand.

Right.

For the bottom one, you take the thousand off and put it up, so it'll be right three and two and one.

Three, two, one.

That would end, I mean that would be for it.

It does.

It makes sense.

That would work.

Okay, you got that hard.

Do you think we should does everyone think we should do that?

That's just checking a thousand and the blue, yeah.

Yeah.

So the top, the pink ones are gonna get three thousand each, the yellow ones are gonna get two thousand each, and the blue ones are gonna get a thousand.

That adds up to the eighteen thousand.

Oh, by six hundred dollars.

What is that fell out of the dollar amount?

But then I do want.

There you go.

Two six.

Oh there is one three adding a thousand yes, to the top three.

Add a thousand top three removed from the bottom because this was already twelve before so it should be in total you're adding three thousand to the pink column gets three thousand three thousand over what right by a thousand where did it where did we lose it yeah that should be three thousand three thousand this should be twenty seven three four three thank you there we go thank you so adding three thousand year and two thousand here and one thousand there and those were based on the percentages that you assigned uh we're pretty close to where the mayor we're different because we're not because we color code or you did some she did I don't know how but yeah differently she did because all the thousands that yellow and then you remember that so that's pretty consistent our scores brings similar it's pretty cool okay and that's allocating all the money it's all good are we good more I think we're good all right guys well is that believe it or not wait no you're not done though we're with this one with this one we're done believe it or not this section uh previous years I yes it's very long thank you Moira for getting the extra grants and allocating it elsewhere this made it so much easier thank you okay to the next section right wait is everybody okay with this um our committee okay uh yes okay say no if you're not we'll go back but I think we're good all right next section Moira so this was item four on the agenda no we're still on we're still on item four because that was public improvement right marmer that was public approved I don't have the agenda in front of me but yes okay and we also need to we'll go through what else is where four high uh we have the uh administrative costs yes we're still on item four because we're reviewing and finalizing so that is the 189124 we don't vote on it so no no we're not just reviewing it we'll go on to the next one we're done with the administrative costs correct all right administrative costs go ahead my uh that's uh for HUD regulations that's a 20% of the total grant is a total of 189 124 and you just need to report that okay so we don't have that though then hold on that's here on the bottom yes on this one but we don't have that as an action item well it's part of the total review it's the total or the review we will be we're not we're saying we're approving it but we're gonna do all of it together.

We approve it all together is not part of the budget but it had to be reviewed so right now we review this so we all see it we are okay and then we're gonna move on because we're closing out item four which is review and finalize so we finalize the three sections.

Just to be clear the uh this final the administrative commander that's part of the requirements that's yes yes yeah that gives us 20% of the grant towards the administrative loss which is not nearly the administrative costs right okay so we've reviewed review that we're done with item four all right so do I have a motion for chess 32.017 which is an approval of the CDBG program year 52 budget so I will get in there I um I think I heard representative silvestre and representative make a motion and I heard a second somewhere over there and the Q and seconded uh discussion we already had or no we didn't have anybody would like to say anything okay and I think we could take this to a voice vote all in favor of approving chess 32.017 say aye uh sorry what's the word no oppose thank you oppose okay abstentions all right that passes excellent and then we have that was unanimous we thank you all for your time and then thank you oh it's a Lara thank you very much Moira there's one there's one more item we do have one where I'm saying thank you to my butt for setting that oh you are I am you are presenting it so I have to go back to sharing my screen okay I'm gonna look for a motion to take on chess 32.018 a resolution authorizing the mayor to submit the year 52 annual action plan for the community development program for the city of Stamford Connecticut and there's an R missing uh just for reference so second we have a motion and a second moira welcome to our committee thank you have the floor so this is the uh this was all emailed this was emailed to all of you earlier today this is the resolution authorizing the mayor to submit our program year 52 annual action plan to HUD uh we've had a draft of the action plan up on our website for about a month uh we're ending our 30 day comment period um uh we received one actually no on this we received no comments um the only comment we received was on the presentation of last month which was the mail to all of you uh so the annual action plan encompasses what we just did the last hour uh we need to submit this to HUD uh within the next few weeks so it has to go to the full board to get approved and then we can submit it to the to and then if HUD accepts it then we will get a funding approved from that what is I mean what's this home investment so that is another that's the other grant that I manage so that oh right that's so that's the other grade that's gonna fully focus on the project that you're saying that's a different home grant that's the home ARPA grant which is another one which has already been allocated previous years right so this is this is so I get two grants from HUD every year the home investment partnerships which was uh I forget my dollar amounts for this year it's it's roughly half it's probably about I think it's a little under 500.

That's not for the public service uh that's a yes correct it is not it's a different so we're not what we're authorizing here is this year's allocation from HUD to us we put that in our annual action plan and then we submit it back to HUD and it says all the money they're giving us this year is that all the money from HUD that we're getting it's in this resolution this year's money the money that we're moving our public service grants from that we just discussed is a different grant that was allocated this to the city in previous years.

So that we have to spend and this is a good way to spend it that's already that's already that's already been approved a couple years ago.

Yes.

This is separate.

And we're not allocating that that.

That's just the committee doesn't allocate it, but the committee is part of our annual action plan.

So you have to approve that you need to authorize the mayor to submit the annual action plan.

Okay.

Do we have any other discussion or questions on this resolution?

No.

Okay.

Um all in favor or is it anything?

Yes.

Do you have a question?

Yeah.

Comment?

So could you just say explain briefly what the homework school money is going towards?

It's uh it we have not allocated it to anything yet.

It's just has to go into the office.

We haven't allocated to anything specifically.

It is to prevent homelessness.

It is it have it is directed for hunt regulations to home um permanent housing.

So one of the things we usually do with it is um or we often do with it is uh hold down payment loans to first time home buyers.

We give $20,000, 20 30 year no interest loans to individuals, to individuals, yes.

Yeah, which you'll share more with us, right?

When it starts coming around, we'll be yeah, so that's not that you'll more than happy to discuss it with you.

Yes, but that's not something that the committee will be in the note is um has to approve.

Can you let us know when you have home items coming on?

Just we'd love to hear about it.

Sure, thank you.

So and that's one that's what the down payment loans just kind of come in.

That's managed by home development fund, yeah.

Um, that just comes in periodically, it's hard to spend because pricing in Stanford is so expensive.

Yeah, and the decision provider, you're that we're gonna get that money.

Is that the 466?

That's how much they allocated to us, and then once we give them the paperwork part of part of which is this, then we should get a funding agreement from them.

Okay, it's cool stuff, huh?

It's my favorite committee for a reason.

Uh, we do do the things.

So I don't see any other hands crapped.

Um, we'll take it to a vote now.

So for chess 32.018 resolution.

Um, all in favor, say aye.

I opposed abstentions.

Do I have uh that passes unanimously?

Do I have another motion?

I don't think we need one, but a motion to adjourn.

So second, thank you everyone.

We did it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Marvin.

Andy and Janine, thank you both again.

All of your help.

I don't know if you can see him, his name says Anita, that's my colleague Arnold.

He is a huge part of our team.

Oh, couldn't do this without him.

Thank you.

Shout out to Arnold and Andrew and Janine as well.

Big time.

Thank you, everyone.

Good night, good night.

10