 Why don't we go ahead and call the meeting to order at 401 and we do have a quorum so there was going to be a guest that joined us, but I don't see anybody yet. She's not called in yet chair. Okay, so let's go ahead and move on. I'm going to go ahead and move on. Are you going to walk us through our main and only agenda item item three. Yes, yes, I can do that. But I need to do I have a sharing. Yes, I just made you co-host you should be good. All right, and we have a quorum. We do. We're only missing and Madeline and council member Christian. Yeah. So, Ellie Bertow, before you get going, did everybody get their, their evaluations in? Yes. Everybody got the evaluations in and then I. Yeah, then I spent a lot of time. Working on it was quite the interesting challenge. Well, I thank you everybody for getting your evaluations in. And I appreciate that. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. I appreciate that. I think he still feels shame whenever I think of Graham, because he did it timely and early. And I thought about him a lot as I was filling out my own. So you, you are the standard to which we must rise to Graham. All right. Take it away. Hold on. I got to open up the other one. There are three spreadsheets that I'm about to show you. They're all interesting. One second, folks. Just the right one. Yes, this is the right one. Okay. And Karen should be joining us in a second. All right. Which one are you? You start with you. All right, share. This is no, that's the wrong way. Does it say 4.1 on top? Or four dash one. I can't tell which one was sharing. Yep. It says four dash one here. Perfect. That's the first one. Then we're going to have version five and then version six. But let's start with four dash one. This is the one. That this is the original one that I shared after Kate and I. Met and set up the, and I'm going to show you what the allocation formula looks like. And then we'll come back to the matrix. And then I think Karen will join us here in a second. And then we'll come back to that. And then we'll come back to that. And then we'll come back to that on yet. So. Come on. There we go. So again, this is starting. This is starting at 4.5. Nothing changes as far as the. Priority areas and ceilings amount. That's, that's, that's standard across the board. That's what we're going to do. That's what we're going to do. Not that we're going to, not that we're going to delve too much into it, but I wanted to show you Karen and I got together and we looked at the activities and here's how we broke up the. The, you know, that the point system, 10 points that you're in the priority area. And 10 points if you actually did something. So. That is the, what we did. That's nothing. The board is involved in, but I want to show you that. So here, all your scores. And we'll, we'll go. I broke them up into impact area. I'm going to show you one more. When we get done with these, I'm going to show you one more. Of these worksheets. So you can see how we do on. The priority area allocations. Okay. So as you can see. So here's a 2020 award, what they got. That's column D column. He is their request. Here is the score. This is what Karen and I do say. Okay. So this is, and this is what Caitlin and I came up with said 10 points for being in the area and 10 points. So mostly everybody got those original 10 points. I don't think there might have been one that didn't get any, cause we didn't feel like they were, they were really doing, really doing anything that we were, we were doing. So 10 points for getting in the area and then 10 points for. For being. Doing one of the sponsor, the priority activities. And then here's the board averages. That's column G. Here's the staff averages. As I mentioned, typically staffs are lower than boards. The part of that is just because of the equation staff only has seven questions and board has eight to score on. And typically, and because they're different, they, they're a little more technical. Sometimes it's, it's, they're lower because, you know, budget issues or a diversity of spending of, of not spending revenue sources, all that kind of stuff. That's what we look at. Then that's the, then the total score and then we add, you know, the 10 or the 20 they got. And then here in the final is the, the allocation based on this formula. So I don't know if you all, we were going to go through all of them or if, I'm not sure what's the best way chair to move forward. I can scroll down and go through all of them. Or if anybody has any questions. What would you prefer? I do your, and you're muted. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You had mentioned that there were three different sheets. Are they all. The same or yes. The only difference is right here. So this is, that's a good question. So what I did was. On the, on this one. It was really a high expectation. In other words, you had to average of 4.5 to get a hundred percent. And then you got a hundred percent or maybe, maybe a few, let's see. You had to give me some 87.5. That's what that works out to. And if you scroll down. If I've got an 88. Voices for children got an 87.5. That puts them at a hundred percent. And the arrow center got an 88. And that puts them. Ah, and here's a good point. Yeah. So they actually, they actually hit the individual seating limit. Within the priority area. But they were the only. Three, I think it's yeah, one. Two, three, that, that, that hit a hundred percent. So. I've, can you just give us kind of some summaries? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I'm going to start with. Of the money we have available. I see a negative 68,000. Does that mean we're 68,000 over our limit? No. We're 68,000 under. In this because of using this calculation. Using this calculation and because of the high. Level that the, the threshold that I put was really high. It made it that it was hard to get fully funded. And this happened to us in 20. I forget. I think it was 2018. Yes, Caitlin. So I'm looking at the, I think. Column F. I didn't mean to interrupt you. So if you wanted to finish what you were saying. No, that's fine. Okay. And I'm looking at the ones that did that look like they got the zero. Right. Because they didn't hit one of, they didn't hit the area. When I was like, what I'm confused about is focus reentry and why that didn't even get the 10 for safety and justice. That's a good question. I don't. I'm not, I'm not 100% sure it would make a difference, but I'm like, that one stands out to me as like. They're agency. It seems like they fit really well under that, but maybe I'm missing something. Yeah. Yeah. Well, I wouldn't make a difference at 10, even if they got to 10 day or still would be low. But I, I think Karen here. So I think we went off of what the definition is for what fits into safety and justice. And that was, and that is. So we, we, we, we assigned points based on the definition for what is in the safety and justice buckets. And that one was not there. I can look it up right now. So this comes from what we, what we did with the city has done for a while. And we give this definition to the council every year. Ensuring safe and supportive environments for vulnerable children and adults. That's the safety and justice definition that we have now. So I guess my question is why would focus re-entry, not like meet that because they provide services specifically to vulnerable adults who are being released from incarceration. Into the community. So. I mean, I, the definition seems a little like narrow in terms of like what we consider justice. That, but that's the definition that we use it fits with the, um, the definition of justice. Yeah. I guess I'm just not sure why they wouldn't even fit that definition. Cause I mean, like a lot of what they described in their application, for example, was around folks that are vulnerable to, to, I know they are vulnerable and we, we're kind of looking at what is in terms of the, um, the protection for children who are victims of violence. Um, and for, you know, like, when we did the, um, the voices for children program. So, so. One of those fit in the, in the cat. Well, I should be quiet. I don't know if that's exactly true. Um, but we, you know, we really just tried to look at what would fall under that definition and it's, um, and it's, it's usually not re-entry of people who have been in the justice system. It's really about people who more or less have been victimized. It's really been the difference. Yeah. I mean, but a lot of what they do is around ensuring that people, that there's low recidivism, which in turn affects like potential. I understand that's just the interpretation that we, you know, that we made based on that definition. Right. And I'm, I'm suggesting that that interpretation is not one that, um, like fully encompasses what, like what we need to accomplish with that. So Caitlin, if we can, let's put a, I totally understand your point. I want to see if there's agreement or disagreement from other board members on that specific item. And then let's put a pin on it so we can circle back as we consider the, what the other funding impacts are. Um, is there any thoughts on Caitlin's point, uh, regardless regarding focus reentry and in support or, um, you know, different perspective, Karen Phillips. Well, maybe it should be classified under, uh, health and wellbeing or maybe it should be under a different category. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. Um, let's, okay. So if we can, let's just hold that one, uh, we'll make sure to come back to it. I have a note and, uh, we'll first tackle the general structure and then any individual items that appear to be, uh, inconsistent. Does that sound good, Caitlin? Okay. All right. Thank you. So I'm going to, so, so I want to show you the next one. So this is, this was at 4.5 with the average. And so we under spent what we have by $68,008. And then I also want to, before I go to the next spreadsheet, I want to show you the priority allocations. Um, so here is, give it a second. It'll, it'll change. So the red means that, and the meant the red means we overspent in those particular areas. And if they're black, it means that we under spent. That's the color scheme. And this is, and this has been very typical every year in particular around education and skilled building. We always overspend in that area. And that has a lot to do with how many folks apply. Uh, and what they asked for. And again, we don't control that. Um, Okay. This, this is, this is the first spreadsheet we are under spending $68,000. All right. I'm going to stop sharing this one to make sure that we make a clean break. Okay. And then I'm going to share the next one. Find it. Where are you? Ellie Berta. While you find that, I'm surprised that we under spent in housing stability. We always do Brian. Okay. We always do. I don't know why, but we always do. All right. Go ahead. I was just going to say maybe, because a lot of that has actually comes through the block grants, the CB, CBDG or. Yeah. That could be it. That, that could be, that could definitely play a role. Definitely. Um, I think a lot of other piece to again is that we don't, we, you know, the board or a previous board really did not want us to tell people to apply for it or to tell agencies what to apply for. And so, you know, we're not in current supply for more of the providing housing stability. They're going to apply for what they usually apply for or, and so then that's part of it. So, so for example. Yeah. Um, so they only apply for 16,000. Yeah. I have no idea what they could do if they got 32,000, right? Could they help people get into faster? Cause you know, I don't know, but that's what they apply for. Yep. Got it. I have it. And so I'm going to share it. Um, Here we go. All right. So this is the difference here is now I'm going to, can you guys see it? Sorry. Nothing. How about now? Yeah. Okay. So the big difference here is that we went from, so I lowered the threshold. It's a funding, right? I said, okay. So instead of starting at 4.5 to get your 100%, if you average 4.25, you can get a hundred percent. Right. And so what you'll see here is that you're going to see more people. Let's see. We overspend by 27,000. On this one. Um, and a few people get more of the hundred percent on, and I don't remember all who get a hundred percent, but it does, it does open it up to more people getting more money. So for example, I know that in this one, if I remember right, um, where are you, uh, in health and well-being. So I think that the free clinic goes from the, um, same business goes from not being funded to being funded. Um, and a few others go, I don't know exactly which ones, but some of them go from, you know, 50 to 75% and 75 to 100%. Um, Yeah. You know, it, go ahead, Brian. Um, and your, the scores are the same, right? Score should not change if they changed. And then there was a copying issue, but they shouldn't change it. And I do spot check. I mean, I'll audit every single one, but I do spot it and every time I check, it's 100% accurate. Okay. Um, I spot check all the time. So I make sure that, you know, if this was a score, they got in this spreadsheet, the same scores on the other spreadsheet. Yep. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Um, could you, would you mind going to the priority area allocations? Yes. Please. Anybody jump in if you have thoughts, but that one in particular, I find useful. Yeah. So on this one. You know, we, we, we still overspend and on the same, on typically the same place. Well, usually we overspend on self-sufficiency, but we didn't. You can see we're a little bit. We are closer. Um, we do underspend in, in housing stability, but not as much. Uh, it did increase some of the housing stability funding that went up. Um, but it's very typical to overspend on education and skill building. Um, and food and nutrition. Ellie Berto, if you add up the over under, if you just highlight those to get the sum on the bottom, what does that come out to? Oh, you're so good. Okay. So that's our, our negative 27. Got it. We're overspent by 27,000. So yeah, I'm sorry, we allocated about 40,000 in this model that we hadn't in the previous model, right? Right. Because people went up or people went from not being funded to being funded. Okay. Uh, I recommend we now look at model number three and then, oh, Graham, go ahead. Oh, we have a third model to look at. We do have a third model. I call it the Goldilocks model. Uh, or that's what Karen and I called it. Um, because, you know, it's not too hot, not too cold. So it's, it's, it's a 4.3. I experimented. And so like, what if the average was four point, what it looked like if it was 4.3? And so let me show you all what that is. Um, I'm going to stop sharing this and then we come back for conversation. Um, while Ellie Berto is doing that, any questions from board members on what you've seen so far or any clarifying questions? Okay. Your time is up for clarifying questions. Okay. And everybody say this one, this, this should say, this should have a six on top. I can't see it because it's got a green, you are chairing screen. Yeah, this is it. This is the 4.3. Yeah. Version six, version six. That's how many versions I have. Um, so version. So the big difference is that we start, we have 4.3, 3.8. As you go back by point five is the, is the spread. Uh, is what I did in all of them. Um, and numbers don't change a lot. Um, some did go down. Um, but basically we are at 6,000 overspending. On this one. And if you look at the priority area allocations. It's still the same ones, but it's a little, it's a little better. Um, I think we were a little closer on health and wellbeing than we were before. Right. But we did lose a little bit on housing stability because it did go, so yeah, so that's kind of the trade-offs. Okay. Uh, we're there. Do you recall organizations that dropped out or came in. Depending on the model, like, you know, ones that weren't going to get any funding, like we're talking about people that are, are going to get some funding in one of these models. Um, my other screen, when I look at this, let me, let me look at version. The strictest version, which is the 4.1. We can double check, but I think it was primarily st. Benedict's health clinic. Yeah, they got zero and 4.1. I think that was only one that changed from unfunded to funded in these scenarios, but we can double check that. Got it. Thank you. That's largely because they went from, we went basically from funding zero to funding 50% of them because they asked for so much, right? Like they asked for 50,000, had they asked for 20,000, we wouldn't have seen such a big jump there. Exactly. Between zero and 50%, right? Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. So that is one of the reasons, Caitlin, are you saying that's one of the reasons that we're now over in the third in the Goldilocks model? Okay. Got it. Yeah. I guess in my head, I'm thinking a little bit about like, what would it look like if instead of going from zero directly to funding 50%, what if there was some step in between there? Yeah. Which I don't know if that makes sense. Yeah. Going from zero dollars to $25,000 for them because they requested so much make a huge difference. Whereas for, you know, 80% of these requests going from zero to 50% wouldn't have made such a huge jump. Yeah. Okay. Graham, did you want to go with your question? I don't have a question. I guess I would just say, I think the last version, we should go with that one. You know, if the goal is to pick a model that leverages the scoring to fairly distribute, the model, which gets us closer to the zero would be preferable. And then, you know, take the Delta, the 6K overage, and I don't know, lower the individual ceiling limits on those who went out and try and see if we can get closer to zero, right? The goal is to pick a model that's fair and distributes the money, right? So I say model three or, you know, version six. Other thoughts, Caitlin? I have a contrary take. Sorry, Graham. I hear where you're coming from. One thing that concerns me about going with model three is that drop. We're not even hitting the full sort of bucket for housing stability, which we've identified is fairly clearly the highest priority of the city. So the fact that we're not even spending all of the money in model three for housing stability that we have is really concerning to me. Like I would like us to see, like, how do we essentially fill in that top, like spend the money for that top priority first before we even like go over in one of the like third and fourth priorities? Is that what happened in the first model? Did we we spend that priority? I think in the second one, we came really came a lot closer. Yeah, and yeah, because the second one was was was that 4.25? Yes, it would it would have, I think, for example, in that 4.25, what you guys are seeing, I think attention homes of all of those 7500s go to full, go to the full 10,000. So that adds, right? So somebody's get fully funded. I think it's way to me, Caitlin. I'm on I'm on version two now. So let me point out version two. Hold on. I'm going to I'm going to stop sharing version three and go to version two. And while you're doing that, do you want me to get the chips? I know it gives us more like that we have to work with to get back to like zero. But I think that that priority area being a priority area, like we want to make sure that we're actually and none of those are. I mean, I'll we could look and see if anyone's hitting like individual limits there, whereas like with some of the others, we do have folks hitting individual limits. All right, so here we go. Here's now we're in version five here and you can see it's 43. And that's primarily because when you go back to the matrix. Yeah, see, all these go to 10,000. Yeah. So yeah, so it just it just we just fund. And this goes to 65. I think it was a 48 in the other version because it was at 75 versus 100 percent. OK, so so yeah, so that's that's the difference. That's what makes a difference. OK, so let me get comments from Diana and Karen Phillips real quick on just kind of reactions. So I think I agree with Caitlin. I'm looking at the numbers here for the housing stability. And if you look at if we were only giving them seventy five hundred, then we would be giving them less than am I right? The column D is what they got last year. Am I correct? Yeah, but I wanted to to that point. I remember last year, Karen, didn't we have extra funding from somewhere that we were allowed to and we pushed up folks? That just is in my mind that I think like, for example, I think we've been pushed up that sixty three hundred. I think we pushed up a few others. So I don't. So, yes, I think we need to consider last year. And there was some extra funding last year that we weren't anticipating that the board decided, well, let's just push up certain. This the different priority areas, I think that's what happened last year. OK, so does that mean then that I should not be super concerned about the fact that maybe last year was a one off and we were able to give some extra money to those organizations? Right, right. So I think, for example, Recovery Cafe last year. I'm not aware of Recovery Cafe because I remember this. So Recovery Cafe only got five was only awarded five thousand last year, technically, that's what they scored. But because health and being was a higher priority and we had this extra, we gave them thirteen hundred, thirteen hundred. So that put them to sixty three hundred. And I think that happened with housing as well last year. But again, we, you know, this does give this does give full full amounts to the housing folks. And then the only question would be, how do we make up this twenty seven thousand? That's twenty seven thousand left in the in the total pool. Correct. No, that's twenty seven thousand. We need to remove from funding somewhere else. Wait, is that right? Oh, yes. Sorry. Karen, Ronnie. Did you hear from all the other board members? And then and then you can call on me. OK, thank you. Karen Phillips, do you have any feedback that you'd like to share? No, I'm kind of confused. I'm just listening trying to figure this out. So OK, I don't know. Shakita, I know we're going through a very visual exercise that you can't see. But do you have any thoughts or anything that you wanted to add? Um, yes, it is a very visual exercise, what you all are going through. And I can't see it. But I do agree with the second model, but how can we? I mean, how often do you have to take away from other areas? Ellie Bartow, to leverage it to where we're not overspending that much. That's a great question. In my time, and I haven't been here a whole lot, we've never had to do that as far as I remember. We typically under spent or it was so small that Karen would find the dollars somewhere. We could not be caring to find the dollars. So about this discovering money thing. It doesn't vary as it really happened. So, you know, I think so I. You know, this year we might have talked about it when we were deciding what kind of scoring and waiting method we were going to use. So this year we took away from the waiting based on, you know, in what area they were applying for money. And so and so in the past, we just we just spent. We just overspent. We just allocated more money to lesser priority areas. And I think this year, if indeed what we said, we're not going to do an additional waiting area in which the agencies are applying because we're using we're applying that waiting to the entire bucket of money that's available that it would end up with seem like because what Ellie Burke done and I were talking about is that if indeed, if you wanted to go with the 4.4.25 and we're $27,000 over, then how to balance that would be to take it from those lower priority areas that we have overfunded. So in education and skill building, you say we have an extra 85,000 that's over what we said was the priority amount to put in that bucket. So that and food and nutrition. So we just chatted briefly before we came onto this meeting is about if we wanted to look at how to make up that $27,000 that we remove that from some of those lower priority areas that we have overfunded. Thank you. Graham, you had a comment. Yeah, Ellie, Bertram, could you share this same tab for version one, the priority allocation version one? I'm wondering if that one was like 60, 65 grand underspent and I'm wondering if we started with extra money and then filled the housing buckets if we could quickly see what that might look like. Here you go. And I haven't done the, I didn't do the auto somebody will. Oh, 41. So what if we just gave 41 distributed evenly among housing stability? If we went with one, yeah, we could do that. I mean, if that's what the board wants. So go ahead, Caitlin. Yeah, I mean, I think that still puts us with like, I mean, obviously we're at 50,000 over and 40,000 over in two of the things and then like only 50% of the very last one, which I guess that makes more sense to me than like underfunding housing. So are we saying, so just to be clear, we were talking about going with the 4.5, the higher restrictions. So I think Graham's proposal is to go with the first model, which is 4.1. It's, if I understand correctly, Ellie, Bertram, it's the only model where we're actually under spending in total. Is that correct? Yeah, it says 68,000 here. So I'm not sure why that is happening. Yeah, okay, but we'll go with what we have on the second sheet because it's safer. Well, no, I mean, this is the correct, right? Cause this is, we have 877455 to spend. And so I subtract, you know, 809, this is what we're spending. That's the same on both, right? So it's 809, 448, which it should be. And that's 809, 448. So this is the amount we have. That's the correct amount, 68, oh wait, you know, 68, 8. Yeah, okay. So real quick, before we make a decision, I just wanted to, for the benefit of Karen Phillips and Shakira who can't see what we're doing. You know, the process we're going through, we've basically built a machine that has three different dials. And if you change these dials, the, you know, the sausage comes out slightly different each time, you know, depending on how it's made. So what we're really just talking about is how to optimize the functionality of the machine without having to do special things to it to result in the funding outcomes we want. We want the formula to do most of the work. So the question is, which formula is working most efficiently? I do like the idea of working with the first version where we have a surplus because I think it's easier to make decisions about who will get more funding than it is about who will get less funding. Graham, what is your thought? Yeah, that's where I'm leaning. I think, you know, we have extra money in this model. And so we know housing stability is a top priority based on our data. So let's distribute, figure out a way to distribute that 68K amongst those organizations. Karen and Oly Berto, does that seem, is that okay? I mean, does that feel right or does it feel arbitrary? I have a question before they answer that. So they could answer my question as well. So I remember, I think I heard correctly in the first model that there were organizations that won't be receiving anything. Is that correct? Was that the first model? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So if we're taking the surplus and putting it into housing in the housing budget, so those organizations would still not receive anything. Is that correct? Correct. But in the second model with those saying one, I don't know, I'm just trying to figure out at least in the other, I think in the other two models, everybody received something. No. But I think to clarify, Shakita, there's only one scenario where an agency that was not funded would receive funding. All the rest of them that are receiving zero, they receive zero in all of the scenarios. So the only difference is, I think the final, I don't know, there's one scenario where St. Benedict's Health Clinic goes from zero to be funded. All the rest of them remain non-funded. Okay. Is that your question or? And Shakita, I think in large part, with some exceptions, I'm sure, that's probably indicates that the model is working well because there's some kind of base threshold of performance that organizations need to meet in order to really be funded. And some of the organizations just don't meet that threshold and need to do a little more work. So I'm comfortable with that outcome. But we can still explore exceptions, like focus re-entry was brought up. And then also, of course, just kind of massaging with, I don't want to say individual numbers, like, oh, well, let's give these guys 20,000 more. I do like them, but kind of an organized approach to distributing funds that haven't been allocated. So how do, as a board, how do we feel about taking the approach of moving the majority of the surplus into our first priority housing stability? Thumbs up, yeah? Kind of took an informal survey that looked like a few thumbs went up and some nothing happened. So because what we want to do is arrive at an organized way, if we're going to go with model one with the surplus, we want to arrive at an organized way to distribute those funds that has some kind of rule, like housing is our first priority, so we should fund it, that's a rule. And then we can figure out an equal way to do that for pro rat or something. So if you fund, if we were to just fund housing at 100% for all of the housing ones, you are left, it's 46, 250, it's a difference, and you're left with 21, 75, eight to work with. Okay, so let's hold that. Are there any agencies, we have focus reentry on the list, are there any other agencies that somebody just feels like there's no way they can't get funded? Elevator, can you scroll up again just so I can eyeball who hasn't been funded on the top of the list? Sure, let's start. So Calvary does not get funded at this one. El Paso doesn't get funded at this one, Growing Gardens, Olin Farms, Uproot Colorado, The Free Clinic, and Focus Reentry, and Generations, and Volunteer Connection. Okay, Karen, did you have something you wanted to add? So I think, Brian, I'm cringing a little bit at that question, because that kind of starts to sound like, hey, what do you want? Versus, I think what Caitlyn questioned is, did we apply the appropriate definition of vulnerable adults, if you will? So I think that kind of question makes some sense, versus hey, is there any other agency that you want to have funded? I think we need to stick with the criteria. So did we, is there something in terms of applying the points to the activity or to the priority area, that there's a question whether we apply those correctly? Yeah. That seems totally appropriate to have that discussion. And that was my intention. You might want to just then rephrase it. So the question is asked in the spirit of, if something seems out of whack, let us know, and then let's talk about why it seems out of whack and why it has the score it has, like does it have the wrong categorization? Are there things we simply don't know about the agency that we've assumed? But I just want to make sure that board members are comfortable that this process does work. So Deanna and then Caitlyn. I was just going to say the reason I wanted to see the organizations that got here was to assess whether anything seemed like it might be out of whack with the model. Not so much to say, like I want a cherry pick and find some organizations that I like that aren't getting cash. So I'm sensitive to what Karen was saying. And I didn't mean to look at them to imply that I was doing otherwise, but I was just trying to make an assessment whether it was out of whack as well. Okay. Thank you. And that wasn't about Deanna. I just was, when Brian asked the question, thank you for clarifying that you really meant to say something different. It was like, oh my gosh. So can you ask that question a little differently? I meant to say exactly what I said. I just hadn't gotten to parts B and C yet. So we're good. All right, Caitlyn. Yeah. So this isn't quite answering the question you were looking at, Brian, but on the same note, Ellie Berto, could you scroll back up again to see like that first half? I was just looking at what the breakdown of those weighted ones to see the only other one to me that sticks out on the weighted scores is potentially Salud. Got 20, suggesting that they hit one of the priority areas, like one of the, not just one of the like buckets, but one of the priority areas. Activities, you mean? Yeah, sorry, the activities. Yeah, sorry. Thank you, Ellie Berto. And I think the thing that stands up to me is that they're, as an agency, they do that, but the activity they applied for, I am not sure that I agree that it would do things like increase access to suicide prevention care or behavior health care, or even increasing access to physical health care in Spanish, like the two programs they had were very, very targeted on what like childhood obesity and one other thing that I wasn't sure fit within those activity areas. So that's my only, those are the two where I'm like looking at that weighted matrix and seeing like those, from what I saw, I'm not sure that those necessarily match what I would have expected. And so I don't know if there's others that stand out to people, but. Okay, so let's put that on the list. In the clarified interest of the question, does aside from focus and the salute, are there any, you know, any agencies that feel like they may have been misconstrued or rated improperly? All right, we'll go with a no on that. So Ellie Berto, I like what you did with the allocating back into housing and housing stability. Can I get a straw poll with thumbs clearly raised? Well, you're gonna need Chiquita to speak. For up or just say yes or. Graham, do you have a thumb up? Oh, look at you with your digital phone. All right. Chiquita, I'll take that as a thumbs up. Karen, you're gonna turn Phillips. What are we thumbs up and about? The question is Ellie Berto redistributed some of the surplus into housing stability. Okay. Which is one of our high priorities. Okay, good. So that leaves 27,000 to distribute. Not 21,000. 21,000, thank you. And so before we move forward with that in a more organized way, I do wanna make sure we finish the conversation on focus reentry. Is there any other feedback? Go ahead, Deanna. I didn't pop on or contribute my thoughts initially on this because I was sort of thinking it through still. But, and for a practical matter, it may not make a huge difference if adding those bonus points doesn't change the funding allocation. But I do think it merits discussion for future awards. I have to agree. I think that maybe the definition is too narrow. Kids who are in justice programs are stuck and protecting them from doing the justice system to me is a pretty big function of protecting those kids. So I'm a little concerned about maybe too narrow of a definition for that. But practically speaking, maybe it really doesn't matter if they don't hit the threshold anyway. Thank you. Any other feedback on focus reentry and their definition? All right. I'll just add that I happen to like their program and it felt like it had real value in the community because of the way I looked at it as well. And this isn't in the waiting. I don't think this would affect the waiting. Just the saved expense of keeping people out of the justice system and the saved heartbreak that happens when they go back in, I think is a real value. So I think for the next time, we do go through the awards discussion of making sure that we're really clear on how those criteria are going to be interpreted. Caitlin? Yeah, I was gonna add, we spent a good bit of time this summer talking through some of the various ways that race and racism show up in things like the justice system. And I think that what focus reentry does, there obviously their assistance is not based on that, but the way that they are supporting folks coming out of incarceration is very much aligned with concepts around addressing sort of the historical inequity in our justice system, which I think goes to the safety of communities and the safety of children and families and adults who are vulnerable to the justice system. And that is one way to sort of mitigate those harms when you don't necessarily have levers to pull in terms of like what cases are brought and so forth, mitigating that by making sure that people can show up for their court cases, which is one of the things that they talked about doing is that giving people phones so that they can actually show up to their court date is a huge aspect of community safety and addressing some of that inequity that can come from being poor and not being able to access the justice system adequately. Yeah. So when I think of safety and justice, that definition that Karen read is fairly narrow, but I also think that like when we think about what constitutes vulnerability, like thinking about it in terms of that historical inequity seems like something that we really need to include in that. And I think to Deanna's point, like maybe it doesn't functionally change what happens for their funding this year, but thinking about that definition and how we approach those, I think is pretty important in the longer term. Great, thank you. And they did rate highly just to note amongst board members, their agency score was relatively low, which is I think what ultimately caused them not to meet that threshold. Cause to everybody's point, even adding the 10 points into the weight wouldn't push them up high enough to get them into the funding pool. Okay, so let's table that for a moment just to say that it doesn't look like any decision to change the weighting based on this conversation will actually move the needle in a direction, beyond where they are now. So I don't think it's worth visiting that at this time, but certainly making sure that in the future we're aware of these kinds of dynamics. The other one that came up was Salud and that just being a question about do they in fact meet the activity that the activity areas that have been identified? And Karen or Ellie Berto, do you recall kind of how you interpreted that one just so we have it for education purposes? But I think basically we weighted that based on what that agency, do they provide these activities? So, right, Ellie Berto, so we didn't necessarily go to what they were asking for, you know, specifically. Okay. But in terms of what they do, they have a behavioral health program, which also is would address suicide and their physical health and they provide dental health. So we basically looked at that agency provides addresses, you know, certainly addresses that activity more than one of those activities. And Karen, is that a common approach for all the agencies? That's how we did it for all of them. Okay, all right. Go ahead, Caitlin. Yeah, I was just gonna say again, like I don't necessarily think we need to change it for this one. My thought is that maybe in, you know, future years we think about whether like that first 10 points is whether the, you know, it fits within one of those bucket areas, but then actually looking at the program they're trying to fund because they could see an organization looking at this and being like, cool, my agency as a whole does this thing, but I want the city of Longmont to fund this thing that has zero to do with the city of Longmont's priorities. And I don't think that like we should say, well, because your agency does this other thing that we like, we're gonna find this program that doesn't actually meet Longmont city priorities. Anybody else have thoughts on that? I agree. So this waiting, this activity waiting is new this year, correct? Okay. Yeah. So this way of waiting. We can say that they applied it with all of the agencies and if you wanted to go into a differentiation to lining that up with the activities that they're requesting funding, which totally makes sense. We could do that, but we did apply this across to all of them this year. Okay, so I think it's good. You know, the most important thing is that whatever the criteria one of the most important things is that it's applied consistently and fairly comfortable that that's been done. So I think the area to think about is when we go through this process, the process again, next year of reviewing the model talking about priority areas, et cetera that we're clear on that activity area and what the expectation is of how it will act as a filter for these applications. The, I'm comfortable with the outcome was salute. I, you know, I mean, it's always so hard, but I think it's a reasonable outcome given the way the criteria was applied. So I suggest we stick with it and make notes on how we're gonna improve this process because that's really where the win is. Katelyn, are you comfortable with that? Yeah, and I think, you know, with the needs assessment, I know Ellie Berto and I talked a little bit about this. It would be great if, you know, in our next funding round if we actually pointed applicants to that needs assessment and encourage them to think about what programming they have that meets the, like clearly identified. Right now I don't think we sort of like tie that together and tell folks like, hey, think about what, like we just have them put those like big bucket areas but really directing them to say like, we're really trying to address the things that are identified in this needs assessment. The better you can do it telling us how your program addresses the like these core needs that have been identified that we, you know, the city paid a lot to have this needs assessment done, did a lot of work to do it. And I think really encouraging agencies to like, at least do some due diligence on that and try to match what programs they want the city to fund to their, like to our needs would be really beneficial in the long-term for us and encouraging them to think through that. He, I agree as a matter of process, I think one of the challenges we had is that the needs assessment this round, the language was very different from the last round. It was more like tactical versus strategic or, you know, not outcome-based. And maybe that's something that we just kind of need that the city can bake into with its consultants is here's how these needs need to be framed so that we can consistently apply them to, for fund, for agencies. Okay, so Eliberto, would you mind on this spreadsheet going back to the allocation, priority allocations? So we've pretty much made housing stability whole in terms of what was asked for and using some of that surplus funding to increase the words. So I'm going to throw something out there that I threw with Karen too and the board can completely reject it. That's totally fine. You know, one of the things that I've asked the board before to think about was, if we are serious about that these are our priority areas, what are we ever considering? What we ever consider providing more funding to these more than what they asked for, right? So we still have $21,000. You know, we could go down to health and well-being because they're under spent, they're under spent as well. And so is safety and justice. They're understood by a lot, we could do that. You know, I don't think, I mean, that's the efficiency and education and still bidding, as you can see are very much overspent. Yeah, that's not too much. But why couldn't we just say, we will spend that $21,000, I will add it up here and it would be, and ask during the scope of work process, ask FA, if we gave you an extra $6,000, what could you do with it? What would you add to your scope of work with it? You know, I'm just throwing that out there as a suggestion to the board. Thoughts? Graham? I think that's a great idea, Ellie Berto. I guess I wonder if instead we should say, look one of the models, the one of them that we didn't select funded a program that's not getting funded by the model we did select. And so we should fund that in accordance with the model we didn't select, with the 21,000, which I think is a health and safety. So you know, those underfunded buckets. Right, it would be the free clinic one. Any thoughts on what Ellie Berto said or Graham? Well, I'll just say it's complicated. This is the Facebook status, it's complicated because there's, you know, in one way we have to leave it to the agencies to know what they need and what they're asking for. On the other hand, if they can actually create more benefit, not more comfort or more, you know, whatever, but actually more beneficial outcomes. And we're in a priority area like housing where we need lots of beneficial outcomes, then I think that can make sense. In the absence of that, I think Graham's solution suggestion is a reasonable one as well, Caitlin. Yeah, I was gonna also ask. So we have that one organization that would have been funded under a different model. I'm also, I can't see because I don't have the different ones in front of me. I'm also curious whether there are any, so obviously we have like, I think health and well-being and safety and justice that were both quote unquote underfunded for their areas. I'm wondering if there are any that are in like health and well-being that also address, for example, some of the race issues that we had identified earlier this year. Like if there's something in one of these that is not fully funded to what they asked for, but that addresses some of that, sort of in a different area that might be worth bumping up specifically for some of that. It's hard to know who's not like, who's at like 75% or something like that. But I'm wondering if there's anyone that's sort of like, on the cusp of being 100% funded, but they're at 75%, but be, maybe they specifically deal with immigrants or language or things around that that might fit into our concepts of race. You know, I think like El Paso, one of the El Paso groups was expanding their program, for example, to I think Somali immigrants and not just Spanish language. I don't know if that's a criteria that we might wanna use for that additional 21,000. Can I say something? If you're done, Caitlyn, if you're not, I'm sorry. Yes, please, please, go ahead. First of all, I just wanna say, Caitlyn, you on fire, everything you've been saying tonight has just been awesome. I do agree with Graham about, I don't know, it's just something about Ellie Bertie. I get what you're saying, but I feel like the mother that wanna give more for people who's not asking for more or my kids who's not asking for none, but no, no, take it all, and then my other kids is not eating. So, that's the way I feel when you was giving us that scenario. I don't know if I'm making sense right now, but I do agree more with Graham. And also, Caitlyn, I agree with people with El Paso because they are, I believe they're accepting, teaching refugees, and I think that's a really cool idea as well. It's just, since we are now doing this new system, 2020, we all feel like, man, everybody should get something and hopefully next year, we will be better with the criteria and everything. I do agree with, I love the ones who started off with the needs, who talked about the needs assessment and talking about the gaps and all of those things because that helped me to go through those quicker. I think that should be a part of the process for next year as well, especially this year was my first year, so I was a little confused a little bit, but so I guess I know I'm just rambling, but I do agree with what Graham said and basically pretty much everything Caitlyn was saying tonight. Yeah, so I don't know what else I'm trying to say, but it is difficult, it's difficult. Yeah. Thank you, Shakita. I'm glad you weighed in. Okay, so we gotta make some decisions. Karen, Rony, did you have something to add? Well, can you, Eli Bartek, can you go back to the priority allocation? Did you see that? Uh-huh, I can. Okay. So basically out of that, we still have, we still are underfunded in housing stability. Well, I haven't added the 42,000 though. I can go back and add that. Right, but even adding that and looking at, but 42,000 off of that, I can see that we're still under, but if we add to that, what are we gonna get? What additional housing resource might we get? I don't know. Right, so it might not be anything. Right, that's true. Down that way, but it might not yield more housing opportunities for folks. Correct. So then it's like, do we wanna pick up like the next highest priority is health and well-being? Right. So is there something that we can do with those dollars that the bumps that up or do we try to bump up all of the, you know, basically that and safety and justice? You know, is there is a way to, Yeah. Get that out. So Karen and I and board members, I would suggest that we either identify safety and justice or health and well-being to allocate those remaining funds of 21,000 and whether it involves grant, a grants process of looking at the next model and, you know, what would have happened if we adjusted the criteria a little bit or just simply doing a pro-rata distribution of those awards that have already happened. I, because there are some agencies for sure that I would have liked to have seen funded and weren't, but I do support that we need to be as objective as possible in the way that we do this so that it's fair to all applicants that at least we followed the process. Graham. So I say we put all the 21 excess in health and well-being and then I will satirically say we request 43,000 from the police department to shore up the safety and justice since that is their whole department's purview. Great, thank you. So let's start with part A of Graham's suggestion and that is reallocating the 21,000 into health and well-being. Any is, let's just say is there anybody who's would like something else to happen? If there's a vote for safety and justice, then we'll just put it to a vote and I'm okay with putting it to a vote that was not to discourage anybody because I, this is a hard decision because safety and justice is a big area right now. It's something that needs to be addressed and health and well-being is like one of those critical needs that go ahead, Caitlin. Ellie Baird, could you switch back to the matrix and filter to show us just the agency, just the health and well-being and the safety and justice so we can see that like those two categories? I can't filter because it's not a table, but I can show you. So here's the help I can highlight. This is all the health and well-being. Well, it goes up a little more, right? Yeah, right here, hold on. So this is all right here. So there's one agency there that's not funded. Right. Free clinic. Right. Okay. And then could you do the same for safety and justice? Well, before you go, so just, you know, so County Boulder County AIDS project is being, not that it matters, but just a year where Boulder County AIDS project is losing some money and so is mental health partners. They're not losing a lot and so is dental aid. Okay. So just to be aware of that, and I'm going to go to safety and justice and there's a lot of loss there. So, British justice, but British is actually not losing that 3,800 again was part because they got that 1,300 extra. We're kind of the same situation. We had extra funding. So we had extra there, but the total was still only 788 last year. Yeah. That was given and we have what? 890 something this year? 877455. Yeah. So we're still like up, you know, $100,000, but some of these are getting less than they did last year. Right. So one thing we could do is when looking at these, okay, so here's how I would do it in a non-organized way. I would say take the 21,000, split it between the two areas and make sure that I would give focus re-entry some money because they got zero and I would give the other one in health and wellbeing who got zero some money because I think meeting people on the streets is an important aspect. And I would also be kind of reticent to suggest that because they did get low scores and there's a reason they get low scores. And, you know, so that may not be the wisest use of the city's money to follow that kind of rationale. Karen Roney, I saw your mouth open. So the pre-clinic is the organization that gets funded under a different model, right? It's the one organization. Yeah, so. I think that's the thing that causes me heartburn, Brian, is that then we're going back to a different model. So it seemed like if you want to, if you want to distribute those dollars between the two areas, either, you know, then have Eliberto kind of run it and do it, like I said, a pro-rata share or based on what their score is. So to really apply the math to that based on what their scoring is so that we can have fidelity to the model. If we start to pick something from another model, then I think it gets away from, you know, what we're trying to do. Okay. A lot or not, but I think if what the board is saying is that we want to take the two areas that we have underfunded and we want to, you know, allocate those dollars based on the pro-rata share, then let us do that and still have fidelity to the model. Okay. Caitlin? I like that idea. I do think that if we're going to go back and do that, then I think we should look at adjusting the weighted points for focus reentry to see if that, how that makes a difference in keeping with the model, but like reweighting them so that to see where they fall in sort of the stack ranking of those so that then we can use sort of a numerical basis versus saying like, let's make up a number that we give to them. Like I think it would be more helpful to have like, okay, well, if they come in, if they got 20 points to that, then, you know, maybe they come close to that bottom tier, maybe it makes sense then to fund them. If they got 20 points, they would be funded at 50%. Yeah. If they got 10 points, they would not be funded. Right. But if we are going to adjust it to a model, then making sure that we actually have the right number in there, I think would make sense for that one. Okay. Karen? I think it would, in terms of the 10 points for the buckets, probably makes sense when we look at the activities. I don't think the activities, I don't think they meet the activities that we have listed here, but I think they would meet a broader interpretation of the definition for the bucket. Okay. So following the same logic you used for the other agencies. Okay. So let's see if we can put a pin in it. So we're agreed to allocate the majority of the surplus to housing and housing stability as Ellie Berto has already done, bringing those agencies up to their full ask. We are agreed to take the remaining 21,000 and split it between safety and justice and health and wellbeing. With the addition that focus reentry will get a reweighted, the re-scored on their weight in or, and Ellie Berto, you will take a crack at allocating those funds within those areas in a way that is true to the model's intention. And Caitlin, you had a question or comment? Yeah, I think kind of going back to Graham's point about like putting in health and wellbeing and we've got the free clinic that's at zero. I'm sort of looking at that one. And obviously going from zero, one of the reasons we ended up with this model was because they went from zero to 25,000, which is a huge jump in terms of the amount of money. We don't have anything sort of below that 50% threshold. I'm wondering if it makes sense to think about whether there's a sort of a 25% threshold. It's not a ton of money necessarily, but that might be one way to like think about how we distribute between them. I don't know if that makes sense. I would just be reluctant because that's changing. That's really changing up the methodology. And so I... I mean, we kind of changed it up for all of the housing stability though by funding everybody at a hundred percent. I understand and we can make a different change about that. I think to go down to a 25%, I just think that starts to really change that. My concern with doing that is the impact may be much larger than we would expect. So we'd kind of be back at round zero in terms of evaluating. But... So this is in fact a very imprecise process despite all of our procedural elements to it. Well, I wouldn't say very. I mean, there are imprecise elements or imperfect elements, but... So we're gonna go with the idea that if nobody's happy that we've arrived at the right conclusion. And so I think we are probably overall, I think the model's working well. I think agencies are gonna get funded that are gonna give outcomes that benefit the city of Longmont that they're gonna do so efficiently. There are some areas, we have some opportunities for funding that can fill in where there is a, there's some underfunding. So that's primarily that 21,000 because I don't, I have trouble saying safety and justice is more important than health and wellbeing or vice versa right now. My suggestion is we split it and let Elie Berto divide it in a way that seems to make sense given all the considerations. How's everybody feel with that? Karen Phillips is okay, Deanna, go ahead. Well, I just wanna circle back to this, the free clinic versus Salud. And just, I have two thoughts on this and I don't wanna belabor this point too much, but it's just strikes me and looking at it. And I know we're not supposed to think of this from like a prioritizing programs but basing it just off of criteria. So I have two thoughts on this. The first one is that it just seems to me logically that a free clinic that gives homeless people healthcare certainly fits the definition of certain needs more or priorities more than a program that helps address concerns for obese children. And based on our priorities that the city has conducted. That said, I'm also really cognizant of the fact that the problem for the free health clinic is frankly the staff scores. And I don't wanna undercut staff's analysis by trying to do something different. And I would feel offended if you guys came in and said the board's analysis on this should be gutted because we don't agree with it. So I guess I'm just saying I have two minds of this but I am trying to give credibility to the fact that the free clinic was ranked very low by staff and there's a reason for that. So maybe it's fine that they don't get funded. Even though in my heart it sort of hits be wrong. Right, any thoughts Karen? I mean, I think I tend to feel the same way. It seems like the free clinic and particularly in the time we're in now serves a really critical need that's been unfilled. But I don't know the reasons why it did score low. So basically what the staff is looking at is we aren't looking at the programs we're looking at their agency operations and their financials and how they are managed and that's why they scored low. So and that happens. So you might have a really good program or a good idea but if your operations and your management is not, doesn't score high. That basically happens. I don't mean that to sound like it just did. But so the other thing just to let you know that we haven't funded in the last couple of years is really the Hope Light Clinic and the Hope Light Clinic that's on Collier that had some funding from us and then they stopped applying, we don't know why. They also provide services to individuals experiencing homelessness. So there are services that are out there or that particular for folks that need the service and they do not have to pay for that. So Hope Light Clinic also fits that particular healthcare need. Okay, okay. That's helpful, thank you. So we put a pin in it earlier. I'd like to put a nail in it now because I think it's gonna just start getting circular. We just have to make some difficult decisions. Why don't, this doesn't require formal vote. I don't think, does it Karen how we settle out on the final? Well, I think the final. You know, so there's a couple of things. So one, yes, we would want a final decision because that's what gets rolled into the council recommendations. Right. And we could, and we have another meeting in January, probably before we were able to bring this back to the city council, you know, so either, because we haven't worked all the rest of the number so we could bring this back to the January meeting and you could do a formal vote on that or you could vote on this direction. But we do need a formal vote, yes. Okay, all right. Is there a motion? And remember, I'm unable to offer one myself. So I can make a motion. I'm just trying to make sure I'm comprehensive about what we're trying to accomplish here. So is the motion to adopt the 100% funding for housing and allocate the additional funds that are available between health and wellbeing and safety and justice and ask staff to allocate those funds and come back to us? Yes, so I would, that's very close the way I'm seeing it. So the motion is to approve 42,000 of the surplus to go to housing stability. The other 21,000 to be shared between health and wellbeing, safety and justice with staff discretion on how those funds will be distributed. And then we do have to give the entire thing a final approval, is that right, Karen? Yes, and we would distribute that based on a pro-rata share based on their scores. So it wouldn't just be how we wanna do that. So we would have, yeah. Caitlin? I think there's a motion on the floor, so I don't have. I will second the motion, I guess. Nicely done, all right. And any discussion? So there is our comments, Graham. If this motion passes, that means that the free clinic and focus reentry will remain unfunded, is that true? If staff decides to allocate those funds based on a pro-rata allocation and score, then the answer is yes. Okay. Caitlin? I seconded the motion. I think Diana, what you said about feeling like there was something off here in terms of funding like childhood obesity screenings versus a free clinic just feels wrong in terms of the city priorities and then leaving focus reentry unfunded also feels wrong in light of the city priority funding priorities, I think the same thing as you said of like those staff scores and how the agency operates are important. It's like giving $14,000 to childhood obesity when we have people who don't have health care in our community just feels like a very like, it just doesn't, it doesn't sit right with me. And so. Okay, thank you. That's my main concern. Any other discussion on the motion that's on the floor, Diana? I mean, I was just gonna say to, I, yes, I agree with all of that. Even though I made the motion, I have some concerns about how we're allocating those two agencies, but I am also trying to be mindful of staff's experience and analysis of the agency's weaknesses. So I don't know if it's possible to take some stuff back to these organizations and say that we really struggled with funding for these because we believe in your mission and we believe that it fits within the priorities, but we have concerns about your agency and certain weaknesses. And this is what you need to do to fix it and get funding in the future might be helpful if it's possible, I don't know. We certainly have done that. So if you give it that direction, we can reach out to them. Oftentimes it's entities that come to us and then we provide them with input. If you would like us to reach out, we certainly could. Okay, thank you. Karen Phillips is giving a thumbs up to that. So if there is, so what we should do is just vote on this motion. And if there's an inclination to, if this vote is a down vote and the motion does not pass, there will be the opportunity to make another motion that will perhaps address some of the nuances that have come up in discussion. I find that to be a little easier than amending the motion, but I am open to those of you who are more Robert's rules familiar on that. Caitlin, you had a comment? No, I thought I did, I'm done. Sorry, I've been talking a lot, fine. Okay, all right, let's take a vote on the motion that's on the floor. And then like I said, if it doesn't pass, we will have to come up with a different motion that feels like it can get enough favorable support. So all in favor of the motion to fund housing to put 42,000 of surplus into housing, take the remaining 21,000 and divide it between health and wellbeing and safety and justice to be distributed based on scores as a pro-rata distribution. Please, those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Karen, any opposed, please say nay. Nay. Graham, Caitlin, Shakita, what's your vote? A, yay or nay? I say yay. Yay? Yes. Okay. I am a nay because I like the idea of going back to the funder and seeing if some of the shortcomings can be addressed so they can deliver on those services. However, that leaves us at a split vote because we have six voting members. Well, if you can go back and have those agencies redo it and they still can get funding, but you can't do that, right? No, I don't think that would be, because then you have to do it with- It'd be for next year. It'd be for next year to have them- Oh, I thought you- Oh, next year. Next year. Couldn't happen now. Okay, then I'm a yay. Thank you for the clarification. So with my affirmative vote, the motion passes. Caitlin? I have a question for staff. It's somewhat related to this. I know last year when the recommendation went to city council from this board, they didn't approve it exactly as it was presented from the board. Is my recollection correct on that? Or they sort of approved it, but then they actually allocated some additional funds to El Comite, maybe? And maybe one other organization. Is that, is my recollection correct, Senator? Yeah, I don't remember exact, so yeah. So they did put more money in for, I think, El Comite. I think that was the only one last year. Last year it was the only one. The year before that it was two, but this year it was only one. But they appelled the recommendations that they added money in for El Comite, because they thought El Comite, well. So the reason I ask is because obviously we're making a recommendation, we're using this funding formula that we're presenting to them. I'm wondering if it's something, if our recommendation can come with some additional sort of thoughts on how this broke down, particularly with a few of these agencies. I don't know if that makes sense, or if it just muddies the water too much for council. But it sort of feels like council are the ones who are in the position to stamp it, say yes, or make decisions that the board got something wrong a little bit here. More into the specifics. That would not be my recommendation. Okay. So I think if the board wants to figure this out again, I mean, that's really, I think you're, to go with what you recommended, but I don't think that's something that you want to go to council and say, hey, do you think you should do something? I think that's really the board's decision to make. That's what I was trying to get at. So I appreciate that. Okay. So not an ideal outcome. I think there's a fair amount of concern about the value of the free clinic and the disappointment that it didn't make the cut. But to Karen's point, I think where the process was developed specifically to make sure that it's fair and as objective as possible. And in a large part, it certainly has met that objective. I think Elise, in terms of the consistency and where, you know, we're sticking with that framework and certainly we can reach out, you know, to St. Benedict's and I really talk about how to strengthen their application or, you know, certainly we can, we absolutely can do that within that many times. Yeah. I think there's certainly a lot of will on the board to do that. Deanna. Am I correct that this was the first year they applied to us too for funding? I think it's, they have a, they applied, I think, one other time before. They were in the system. Yeah, so I think because they are one of the medical providers that's with the R Center. And again, I think what they talked about is it because the R Center was not, because of COVID, they were trying to figure something else out. But yes, so I think they applied one other time. It's been a few years ago and yeah. So I guess my thought on that is that since it's their first or it's been a while since they've applied that they might be more receptive to the, I mean, who wouldn't want positive, or, you know, feedback that would help them succeed in funding applications in the future. But yes, because my heart feels heavy with this decision that I really would appreciate. I know staff, I know you guys are so busy and I really, really appreciate everything you do. But if we could give some feedback to them and some information so they understand, I would appreciate it a lot. We can do that. Agreed. Agreed. And just for new board members in my limited experience, it's not unusual for agencies who did not receive funding or the funding that they had requested to come and make a personal appeal to council during when this agenda item is on the agenda. So, you know, that has, that can carry weight. I've seen it move council in one direction or another. All right. Graham, did you have anything you wanted to add? No. Okay. I mean, I guess I have a lot of disorganized thoughts around the role of models versus subjective input. And I think that there's a place for the humanity part to have more power, I think, overall in the deliberative process, but we can pin that for another topic. Yeah. It's an important one. You know, running an agency that works with 230 small independent businesses, I've realized the value of having a system that can be referenced so we can check our assumptions and whether the guiding, the guardrails are the wrong ones in terms of outcomes aren't being met. And in particular on the Housing and Human Services Advisory Board, and we're addressing people with need. And it doesn't feel good to say no to anybody with need. And so it can be difficult. I think what I value in the process is that it doesn't feel, it's easy to say to the person who got the funding, where we're happy to fund you, it's much harder to the person who didn't get it to justify why they didn't in light of the person who did. But I think we can certainly, yeah. I mean, the intention is not to have it be mechanical. So that's certainly a point I think we should discuss and make sure that we're dialing in as closely as possible and definitely don't want it to be inhumane. And in the meantime, if we bump into any philanthropists who want to fund the free clinic, then we can always direct them that way. Okay, you have what you need, Ella Berto and Karen and any other business. I just wanna say thank you all for your insight in your patience with me by this VMI first year and trying to understand everything. Thank you, Ella Berto for having patience with me as well. And Karen, I know you have to have patience with us, especially me. So I just wanna say thank you for all that you do. And I know there's probably quite a few organizations that the staff would like to see receive money too, that's probably heart wrenching for you when you see that they're not receiving it as well. So I understand that this process hopefully that is as equitable as we hope it to be as well, but we do know that systems need to be in place. So I appreciate the process and us learning as we go and hopefully we all make equitable decisions for these organizations because I know it's heavy on my heart too, you know. So anyway, I just wanted to make sure that you all know that I appreciate you and your time during this holiday season, so thank you. Thank you, Shakita. We appreciate you too. And it's really, it has been a challenge putting up with you this year, but we've really tried to step up to it. I do not concur. Shakita knows I don't mean that. I did owe what Shakita says too. So I'm in the same boat she is and thanks for everybody. And I wish everybody could have money, but I guess that just can't happen. And I think it is important to note that one of the largest problems we run into is there's just not enough money. So that's where the hard decisions need to be made. Thank you all. Have a wonderful, wonderful holiday. I hope everybody gets at least one or two days off during this next period. And this is a wonderful board. I really appreciate that you're outspoken, thoughtful, you know, really are willing to discuss these issues and put it out there because it results in better decisions and that's why you're on the board is because your voices are invaluable and I'm really glad that you're willing to let them weigh in. So have a wonderful holiday and we'll reconvene afterwards. And I'm sure we'll get an email from Nicole. That's what I'm good for, email. Well, there's so many other things, but your emails are very important. I look forward to it. Chair, don't forget to adjourn. And the meeting is now, well, is there a motion to adjourn? And a second. So moved by Caitlin, seconded by Deanna and we are now adjourned. Bye. Happy holiday. Thank you. Happy holiday. Bye.