 and I'll pull up the hearing notice. Oh, goodness. Yeah, sometimes when they update stuff, it's nice. Nate, I like your home office. Oh, yeah, you like that? That's my bedroom. How do you get away from the kids and everybody? It's the only place. We have like a kind of an open house. So it's like, if I'm in the living room, it would be pretty tough. I thought if we bored you, you would just take a nap. It's perfect. I can just lay down and there I go. Make sure it's neat in there, though. Gosh, you know what? Yeah, I know I upgraded just a minute ago and I've lost all my controls. Oh, 39 participants. Wow. Yeah. Okay, let me make you a co-host. Okay. Hey, co-host. Yeah, we have a number of 30 attendees, including and then 39 total with the committee and myself. And sorry, I'm looking around. This is just... There was no agenda sent out for this. There was, you know, it's just the, it's the public hearing and the recommendation. So I was trying to share my screen and my, I don't know, I was forced to upgrade today. Hope that was a zoom issue. It was. And now anyways, I'll share a screen there right now. I can see it. Perfect. I'll paint on this all. Yep. Thanks, everyone. Here's the public hearing notice. As I was saying, there was no new proposals. I'm gonna describe a little bit for everyone who's an attendee, you know, this is structured as a webinar. So the committee is considered panelists and they can see each other and myself from staff liaison to the committee. And then the attendees, you can hear and hopefully see the screen, but you might not be able to see each other. So there's about 30 of 30 attendees. And the, we can go down the list of proposals again and ask for any brief comments or updates. And, you know, as Gail, I done last time, we can ask people to raise their hand and zoom. There's a, I think if you hover over your name, you can click raise hand and we can allow you to speak. And so as proposals are being presented, we promote representatives from the agency to a panelist so then they can speak freely with the committee and there can be discussion back and forth. The, this hearing is being recorded and ends up being put on the town's YouTube channel as was the previous one. The, I think that's it. Gail, do you have anything you'd like to add or Gail, you're muted. I know. Hi, can you hear me now? I think for the sake of time and given the fact that we had a lot of letters of support, we've heard already from all these organizations, if people have the desire and would like to make comments that they limit it to three to five minutes. So that we, I mean, unless there's any really salient new information that's different than what we've read in our reports that we heard last week. So we ask that everyone limit their comments to three to five minutes, preferably way under five. Sure, should we just go down the list again and see if there's any new comments? Sure. And can everyone see the screen, the list of proposals in the table? Great. Yes. So for Valley CDC, if you want to raise your hand, if you would like to speak, I see Joanne, I can promote you to panelists. And is anyone else here from Valley CDC? Hi, Joanne. Hi, how are you all? So I just want to again promote the proposal that the town and Valley are hoping to get funded to support the small business community and how dire the need is for all our small businesses in the whole region. And so we're hoping that we can keep the budget at 200 or even more potentially to help small businesses in the Amherst region. Thanks. Thank you, Joanne. Yeah, I was going to just say that, we, Joanne and I and Valley have talked over email and we said, it was discussed at the last hearing if Valley would accept 250,000. And I think there's the need for that. So it's really the committee's discretion, but I think there's a need for more. It all depends on how the financial recommendations work out given the maximum of $400,000. So that was a question. And just to say that, there is a need for that if it needs to be more money put to this activity. Looks like someone is raising their hand. It's like Dave's on Max raising his hand. Gail, I'll let him speak. Hi, Dave, you're welcome to speak. We don't see you though. No, it was in attendance though. It is. Can you all hear me? Yes, we can. Thank you. Thank you so much. I'll be very brief. I know you have a big agenda. Yeah, I just wanted to echo what Joanne mentioned about the micro business proposal that Valley and the town collaborated on. Just the importance of the program. All of us recognize the need for other funding or to be shared with the city and the whole business community. But I just wanted to kind of make that link that if we can help businesses stay open to reopen, to get people back to work, all of that has a trickle down effect and helps families stay afloat and stay prosperous and get back to work. So we're excited to collaborate with Valley and we hope that the committee sees value in this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you for being brief. I'm not sure there's any other comments right now for Valley's proposal. Joanne, if you're all set, I'll make you an attendee again. And I think that's it right now. Are there any other questions from the committee? Okay, I guess what we should do is let's do a roll call attendance just to make sure everyone knows who's here. From the CDBG committee. Yes, yeah, just so people listening can hear. Gail Lansky, I'm here. Okay. Nat Clarkson, Andrew Grant Thomas. Thanks, Andrew. Paul, Paul, can you unmute yourself? Paul Goulston. Great, Keith? Keith Nesbeth. Great, thanks, everyone. Just so we have a name of Hawaii staff liaison just so everyone knows. All right. Should we continue down the list? Sure. All right, Family Outreach of Amherst. All right. Laura, I'm promoting you to panelists. Laura, I think you're all set to speak. Okay. Hi, everyone. All I really wanna say is that I talked to Francine Rodriguez, a program manager yesterday. And as of the end of the day yesterday, we had seven new calls, all seeking help with housing. And none of them we knew. They were all new people. So we're getting, I just wanted to reiterate that we're getting a lot of calls and we're getting the majority of calls are for people we have never met before, which is very significant, I think. Great, thanks, Laura. Y'all also say that before the committee, you know, there was probably half a dozen support letters as well that describe your program and that people support for your proposal. Great. Does the committee have any more questions? I actually do, on an average day, how many calls would you be getting for housing? Before all this? Yes. I would say we get three to five a week. Okay. So. Thank you. Anybody else from the committee have a question for Laura? I think I'll just mention too that I had asked, you know, there was a three proposals for, you know, some housing assistance. And I asked if, for instance, family outreach would be willing to help, you know, individuals as well. Laura indicated they'd help anyone seeking housing support. So although it's, you know, family outreach of Amherst, they'd help, you know, individuals or those at risk of homelessness. So it's, you know, it wasn't, it wouldn't be just families, just so that's clear. Yeah. Anybody who calls and asks us for help, we're going to help. Absolutely. Great. Yep. Anybody else have a question for Laura? Okay. Thank you, Laura. Bye. See you. Are there any attendees who would like to speak on behalf of family outreach? You can raise your hand. I'm not sure, I'm not sure there are any. No, I didn't tell people to. No, that's fine. All right, great. I don't see any raised hands right now. Thanks, Laura. I'm going to make you an attendee again. Okay. All right, this is Andrew. I am sorry, sorry to be doing this. I realized I actually did have a question for Valley CDC. Sure, I can, I'll let me pull Joanne back in. Oh, all right. Joanne is back with us. Yeah, sorry. Thank you, Joanne. I think, yeah, so as I remember, in your, in the proposal, there was reference to a previous $125,000 grant, right? Where you've done some similar work in Northampton. And as a, I think the, you know, the grant amount was, you know, $5,400 was the average grant amount that you did under that previous award. And you mentioned a $1,087 sort of administrative fee per grant and 23 grants. So by my math, that came up to about $149,000. But you had a $125,000 grant to do that work. We actually, we had a $25,000 contract with the city for our administrative expenses. I see. And 125 that was direct grant money. I see, Sophie, right? So the $25,000 paid for all the administrative side of things. Wonderful, but that explains it. Thanks. Thank you. I appreciate it. All right. Gail, should we go down the list and... Yep, Amherst Community Connections would be next. Sure. I'm sorry, just move my computer. Sorry, my computer is, there we are. All right, Wailing, you're promoted to the analyst. Wailing, if you unmute yourself, can you be able to speak to the committee? Got it. Hi, thank you so much for having me here again. And the new information I'd like to add is that the raft has been such a hot cake. Everybody is applying for raft. So because of the funding is available and the town of Amherst emergency funds also was very available. We got an email from the administrator of the town of Amherst emergency fund. So they had a deadline of June 4th, which is today. So we had quite a bit of referrals, activities there. So we are very happy to say that because the funding is available, so we are able to get people linked up to move into their housing or to prevent their utility being shut off. So it's wonderful to see funding available that way it make our work just much more meaningful. So I want to say that keep the money coming. That way we are able to produce results without struggling just to patch together funding for those who are struggling. So with that said, I don't have any new information to add other than saying we can see the depth of the needs in the community is so much deeper than it has been before the COVID-19 and the need to secure employment because of unemployment rate. So people are getting very nervous to find out where their next rent is going to be coming from after the July 30th, the extra $600 that they are going to get if they are unemployed. So all these add to the stress in addition to the current, you know, racial inequality. And we have some participants, they are people of color and they are really, really very stressed out. So I want to emphasize the political climate has added to this economic stress. So if you have any question, I'm happy to answer. I was gonna just say one thing too as I did with Family Outreach, I asked Amherst Community Connections if they would help families and individuals and Wailing Responda that they'd help anyone looking for housing support. So it's not one or the other, it's really both or anyone really. Correct, correct. And I have a question. You called it a RAFT, RAFT grant? So those are, again, sorry, I'll, you know, a rapid rehousing program. So it's administered by regional authorities. So wayfinders, it administers it for this area. And so it's, you know, some of the money that went to DHCB went to the RAAs, the regional administrators. And so they have money to give out and, you know, RAFT typically has their own set of guidelines. So, but it is funding for housing costs. Thank you. Anybody else from the committee have a question for Wailing? I do. Okay, Paul, go ahead. So I have two questions on the budget. There is income from the United Way and income from the Community Foundation of Western Mass. Is that still, are you still getting that funding? I wish we were getting it because of the COVID-19. We had received a wonderful review and both entities, they were very positive about our proposal because they knew that we had gotten some money from the town. So they were, you know, really considering us. But unfortunately, when COVID-19 hit, they both had to reallocate their funding to other sources. So therefore, this year, they have suspend their funding of current proposals. So therefore we are being pushed up until next year. So right now we have a whole of $47,000 as a result of neither of them is able to evaluate, review any proposals that came to them this year. So I am sorry to inform you that that's why we were so happy when we saw the COVID-19 CARES Act CDPG grant. We thought we would jump in to ask you for help. Okay, so on the budget, it shows a $459 surplus. And actually it's a $47,000 deficit. It would be about $47,000, $46,500 deficit. Yeah. Yeah. And we are doing extra fundraising. So right now we have put together a GoFundMe. If you go to our Amherst Community Connections website, you will see some real stories of real people, their needs and how we were able to help them on our website. And we are doing something called COVID-19 fundraising right on our website. And so far we have had wonderful responses. People are really trying to share their blessings, their good fortune with those in need of assistance. So we are really making money every place we can to sustain our work. And how does RAF to work? Is that money given like two year agency or is it directly applied by the participant? Well, this is how RAF to work because it's a program administered by wayfinders and has its own set of rules and regulations. It's very cumbersome. So for the past six months we have had wayfinders come to our office before COVID-19 to have a representative, Ms. Judith Cardona. She is the RAF administrator. So she came to our office every Wednesday morning from 8.30 to 12.30. And we refer our participants directly to her. So we have a list of people who wanna see her. So we schedule the appointment. So instead of people going to Springfield to Northampton from Amherst, looking for RAF to representative to apply for funding, we take out the transportation barrier. So therefore they are meeting with the RAF administrator, Ms. Judith Cardona. So therefore the funding process has been streamlined and people who are behind on rent or utility, they can get the support right away without going through the Springfield or the other towns but they have to get a bus which is very cumbersome, challenging for them. So the money doesn't come to us but rather the money is administered by wayfinders and they can pay for utility arrears. They can pay for moving costs such as the first month, last month and security deposit. And they can also pay for mortgage arrears as well. So their range of financial support is much greater than any source that I know of. So it's very wonderful to have the agency stationed right at our office and we had to rent a separate office space for them to allow them to do their work. And that was at our own expense when we had the representative came here. So are they still coming the last couple of months have they been coming? No, they have their policies that their workers have been working remotely. So this is what we do. We do tele-support to all our participants. So instead of them coming to see us that we fail the form for them for a raft application we would do the telephone support do phone conferencing. So through this technology Zoom meeting we are able to help them fill out the assessment online application form and submit it to raft and then we would email raft to ask them to set up a meeting. So along the way we are able to help streamline the process and make the result come faster rather than later. So this is a collaboration that we are able to build and homeless healthcare for the homeless is something similar. People who don't have physicians we also bring a physician in before COVID-19 and Dr. Basi comes on Tuesdays from 8 30 to 12 30 and she also works with our participants who have no medical healthcare. And because of her work we are able to help people apply for priority emergency housing for those who are homeless. So just to bring the service providers on site we are able to help people achieve their housing stability and self-sufficiency economically in a very seamless way rather than going from one agency to another. So this is truly a one-stop resource center collaborating with resources that people will benefit from. Good, thanks. Yeah, thank you for the question Paul. Anybody else from the committee have a question for Wei-Ling? I just want to reiterate what Wei-Ling had said though about rafts. So the money doesn't the agent the administering agency wayfinders won't give money out to other agencies that an individual or household has to apply to them and then they work with the tenant or the homeowner and make payments to them. So it's not as if these agencies have money and they give them out to other agencies and individual communities. It's, you have to funnel applicants to them. Thank you. Okay, Wei-Ling. I was going to say, are there any public attendees who want to speak? I did not ask anybody to come. Oh sure, well, thanks Wei-Ling. Thank you. Okay, everyone still see the screen so it looks like we're now down to the literacy project and Judith, I'll promote you to panelists. Hey Judith, if you unmute yourself you'll be able to speak. Okay. Good afternoon everyone. Can you hear me? Okay. I just wanted to say that thank you for the opportunity to apply for funding and I literacy project applied for our online, we're unable to meet in-person classes because of the pandemic. And so we applied for some support for our online learning and also many of our students are out of work and need access to what we traditionally call the GED. We now call it the High Set Diploma in order to enter into the job training programs, especially the programs that have jobs now available relative to pandemic nursing aids, jobs and EMTs, et cetera that are important jobs to be filled and our students are available but need to have the high school equivalency diploma first. That's why we're here. And I also wanted to say that the literacy project partners with the Career Center, Franklin-Hampson Career Center, Holyoke Community College and Greenfield Community College and we transition our students into programs, job training programs at those locations. We also partner with the Amherst Survival Center, the Family Outreach Center and Domestic Violence Prevention of the PVPC program that are listed right here. So we're all working together to support the vulnerable. Thank you. Thank you, Judith. Does anybody have a question from the panel for Judith? No, okay. And Nate, you wanna see if there's anybody else out there on behalf of the literacy project that we'd like to speak? Sure, if you're an attendee, you can raise your hand. I'm not sure if there is any. Okay, I didn't invite anyone today. And thanks, Judith. I just, just for the committee, just so everyone's aware, right? The literacy project updated their funding requests. So, you guys would like on the table. I also made a typo in my updated funding request on page three, instead of writing the Amherst Adult Learning Center I wrote where. I'm sorry. Thank you for clarifying that. All right, thanks, Judith. Thank you. I'll move Judith to attendee again. It looks like we're moving down to Amherst Survival Center. And Lev, I'm gonna make you a panelist. And you can let me know who else you'd like to speak. I appreciate you having us back. I was able to speak at the hearing last week about the Amherst Survival Center's request for $100,000 in CDBG coronavirus funds to ensure the food security of 3,000 Amherst residents. And I spoke at that point about the record on employment and just the compounding needs that we're really seeing families facing as they're navigating food insecurity and unemployment and this health crisis that we have. So I won't reiterate all of that, but I just wanted to take a minute or two today to share an additional comment as I urge the committee to consider our application in full. And I wanna specifically highlight the criteria for social services that is set out for DHCD for this COVID specific round of funding. According to their Notice of Funding Award, they're evaluating these applications according to community needs, scale and impact, budget and value and capacity to deliver. And what I really see here is a tremendous match between what the Amherst Survival Center is proposing to do, what we know the community needs and what we're seeing in this particular award that DHCD is looking to support towns and cities across the state to deliver. So first, when it comes to community need, food security was a critical public health crisis prior to COVID and that has been exacerbated. I shared last week that we continue to see three to four times the number of new families registering for a food pantry for the very first time. As far as scale and impact with the funding proposed, the Amherst Survival Center is going to be able to dramatically scale our food pantry programs. We're proposing to double the amount of food that we provide to every family and to increase the number of Amherst residents served by 50% to 3,000 Amherst residents. As far as budget and value, this proposal really offers an incredible value that we hope will strengthen the town's proposal as a whole. Our proposed expanded pantry services cost only $91 per Amherst resident per year. That's less than $8 a month for up to two weeks of groceries, either picked up or delivered to someone's door. And only half of that is CDBJ funds. We're leveraging volunteers and who continue to show up amidst this crisis and donated food and other funding sources and the resources of the Food Bank of Western Massachusetts. And so we're looking to the committee to help secure the federal funds that are really needed to take this project to the last mile and provide that funding needed to fully execute. And lastly, the capacity deliver. I believe that the Amherst Survival Center has demonstrated this capacity over many years, but surely over the last three months, the incredible staff and volunteers here have demonstrated the capacity of the organization to respond in real time to the new needs that we're seeing. In a matter of weeks, we were made operations. We've now doubled lunch service. We have added pantry delivery, whereas pre-COVID, we delivered to around 50 Amherst seniors. Last month, we delivered to more than 250 Amherst residents, 550 residents across our service area. We have launched online registration. We built new partnerships. We found new vendors to purchase food from. So in May of 2020, our food pantry distributed 45,000 meals worth of groceries compared with 26,000 meals in May of 2019. We're ready to do this. We're ready to double the food provided from pre-COVID levels. We're ready to serve more people. We're really ready to address the barriers that people are facing, to improve access through delivery, to expand our onsite hours for evenings and weekends to support residents who are returning to work. And our staff and volunteers are ready and able to see this through. And so we're really looking to the committee for your support to secure the federal funds that are needed to get us there. Thanks, Lev. I also wanted to say that I forwarded a sample of letters that were sent to the town manager and noted that there's been many letters of support sent on behalf of the survival center and food pantry to the town and the committee. So they've seen some of those. Thank you. Thank you. And while I believe there may be some supporters in the immerse survival centers proposal on the call and respect to the committee's time, we asked people to submit their comments in writing in advance of the meeting. So those were the letters that you've received. So there aren't any other representatives from the center planning to speak. All right, thanks. Thank you. Thank you for those letters that we got. Absolutely. Thank you very much for your consideration. Any panelists have a question for Lev? Okay. And no one from the community. All right, thanks, Lev. I'll make you an attendee again. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Craig's Doors. Let's see, Kevin, let's see. Hi, Kevin, I'm promoting you to panelists. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay, thank you. We appreciate the opportunity to speak with you again. And we can't emphasize enough the need to reduce it. I think he's still muted. Oh, am I? No. I'm hearing him, certainly. Okay. Is everybody else? Yeah, maybe if you turn up your microphone a little bit, though, it sounded a little distant or something. Yeah, okay. How's that? That sounds good. Is that better? Yeah, that's great. Okay. Well, again, because of COVID-19, we want to re-emphasize the importance of reducing the shelter population and getting them into some sort of housing arrangement, probably a shared arrangement since they have little to no income. We want to make sure that we have enough to accommodate people through the winter months and the size of the facility that we worked with last year, the First Baptist Church, isn't going to be able to be expanded. So we need to make sure that there are fewer people coming in or probably talking about reducing it almost by half during the winter months. So our job this summer is to try and get as many people housed as possible. That's why we were asking for money for a case manager and a housing search worker. There are things like raft, as Wei Ling mentioned, and also there's, we're trying to find out creative ways to get people into doubled up or tripled up situations so that they can not need shelter services. And that was basically the basis of our application. And Kevin, to clarify, as you mentioned, I had asked you said you'd be working with homeless individuals or those facing homelessness and not necessarily- Well, primarily, that is our primary focus, but as you had sent me an email this morning, just I think, yeah, just this morning, indicating we're families and we are always open to working with anyone. So it wouldn't matter to us whether there are families who are homeless or people who are single individuals. We work with everyone. You still there? Yeah, no, great. I'm just, I'm sorry, I'm taking notes too. Okay, yeah. Did you get my email? I did, yeah, no, thanks. I just wanted to see your question. Okay, yeah. Thank you. You know, the governor's moratorium is going to end on the predictions. At some point soon, we assume, and that's going to result in more people looking for homes. The Salvation Army, which used to have a congregate shelter in Greenfield, that closed and consolidated with Well Street in Greenfield. So now there's only 20 beds available there. The Northampton High School had, I believe it was 70 people that they could house. That closed. And as far as I know, the cop shelter has not yet reopened. And I don't know if it's going to open till the fall. And only Grove Street is going to be open. And that has about 18 to 20. So there's already a shortage of places for people to go. And of course, we closed on May 3rd for the season. There's already a shortage of places to go. So this is a problem. Whereas unemployment rises as more and more evictions take place when the moratorium is lifted. This is going to create a chaotic situation that's going to result in even more people over the homeless. And people who are homeless now for the first time. Thanks, sis. Sorry? Yeah, great. Does the committee have any questions? Gail, I think I can hear you. It looks like some people are muted. I don't have any questions. Anybody else? No, I don't. OK. And is there anybody? Well, thank you. Thanks, Kevin. Thank you, Kevin. Is there anybody? Yeah, are there any attendees? If you'd like to speak? I didn't, no, I didn't ask anyone to. I don't see any hands being raised. Well, thanks again, Kevin. And yeah, I'm glad we were able to get your proposal. Sorry, I went to my spam folder before. Yeah. Yeah, I'm glad to be out of your spam folder. I don't like spam anyway. I can notice that since that happened, I was looking through my folder and I noticed there's some other emails that went there. And it may just be maybe stricter COVID. I don't know why. Maybe just more emails. So now some are getting flagged as. Yeah, well, the strange part for me was I was responding to you. So you were the original sender. So that's why it's funny to see that it's spamful. Anyway, thank you. And thank you to the committee. Thank you. Thanks, Kevin. I'll make you an attendee. Thank you. So I'm losing where I'm at. Here we are. It looks like PVPC. I'm not sure if anyone is here from PVPC. If you are, can you raise your hand? It doesn't appear to be. I don't think anyone is here from PVPC, although they gave a clear presentation last time. All right, I'm going to show there. I think the committee members sent me individual rankings. And I'll say that there wasn't really an agreement. So I think there was some. It wasn't really a clear one, two, three, or four. It seemed like there were rankings. I have a pull-up on a spreadsheet, but I'll share that. It doesn't seem like there was a clear number one, number two, and number three. I think it varies. For the committee, I'll just say that the town has $400,000 that we can apply for. There's no number limiting the number of social services or what we're applying for. It does have to be to serve a majority-low or moderate income participants. And for instance, PVPC is a regional application, so that budget would come from Amherst, but we would be used by the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission for their domestic violence program. So it wouldn't be something. It would serve Amherst residents, but it would also be part of a regional application just so the committee's clear on that. They're trying to pool together. I think it's over two dozen communities now to have this program. So it would be Amherst funding that's part of a regional application. And just for everyone to see, here's a sample of, I don't know if everyone can see that, a sample of the rankings. So I guess I was unclear on how to do the rankings, or if we were going to do rankings based on these proposals that didn't fit previous criteria. So I haven't submitted anything. And did we get notices as something that said we should be doing that? There's an email asking, it's to help with the conversation like we have. So we have more dollar requests of funding than we can support. So it was just to try to decide what applications to recommend to the town manager. So you know. I'm sorry, I must have missed that email too. Sorry, what's that? I must have missed that email too. I didn't understand that we were to submit rankings or? Yeah, it was a recommendation. I don't think it's a requirement. It was just to help with the process. And so I mean, I'm not, you know, Gail, you can have, you know, see how we want to go. I think, like we said, there's a number of proposals and not enough dollars for funding. And so, you know, some members, you know, there's different ways we've done this in the past. So I think we just need to have a discussion about that. I mean, would the discussion begin with a straw poll to see if we want to fund all seven? Because I hear on column D, someone only submitted five and left two off. So how do we feel about just taking a straw poll about funding all seven, which would obviously be that they'd all have to be somewhat reduced or some somewhat reduced? I'm not sure. But for many members, it makes sense to take three minutes each and summarize where we are. For those that didn't submit, no. Sure, or even the ones that did submit what their thought process was. Sure. Nate, what do you think? No, I think that's good. I mean, I think the committee has to make that discussion. I do think that the, you know, there's, I think that there's a little bit more funding requested than we're able to apply for. So I think there are some, you know, I think some of the committee has to discuss. I guess I think starting with a discussion, if you want to fund everybody partially or fund some fully and then some get knocked off the list, it seems to me the two equations or fund a number of them not to the maximum because we probably don't have that capacity with the dollars we have and the number of asks. So where do we begin? Yeah, I don't think we should just try to fund all seven. I think there's a couple of places in there that I think don't meet the criteria. Do you want to see who those are, Paul? I think that the, oh, there's, I've got a couple of different questions, but are we going to go into that or do we want to answer that first question? I'm confused. Which first question? Well, you raised the question of whether or not we should fund all seven and try to divide it or not. So I just voiced my opinion. Oh, to see if we should fund. I mean, I think we'll go down the panel and see should we fund, I guess, I'm having never gone through this before because we're always so limited because of CDBG funds. Now we have the capacity to partially fund all of these or not fund a few and fully fund some. So I think that's the equation. So should we take a straw poll and talk about that and just go down? Anybody, Andrew, Keith, you want to weigh in? Matt, about whether this is a good place to begin? Sure, I'm happy to. My view is that because there are seven, but there are really five issues or concerns that are being addressed. Three of them are homelessness and prevention. And I was persuaded by this very clear memo from John Horick, the municipal affordable housing trust, how important it is for them to have a partner that will work with them in allocating their money and also in serving families and individuals to avoid homelessness. And he strongly recommends fully funding one experienced service. And I think that's the best way to go. So I would say one agency for each of the five different issues that these proposals address. Okay, Max, Andrew? Yeah, I think I agree with that. Yeah, I agree with that for the same reason. I mean, it turns out that, you know, I think by my count, if we factor on the, I'm sorry, I'm forgetting, was it family outreach that had the right, there's a part time possibility or full time? Yes. Right, so if we count, if we put in the part time amount, then I have $464,000 being requested. So, yeah, I agree with what Matt just said and with the logic of it. And it turns out that, so if we agree with that and we think, you know, it makes sense to fund one agency anyway, I think that actually brings us a long way toward at least reconciling what's asked with what we have to give, if indeed we choose to fund just one of those. Yeah, so just on the math, if we're only funding one of the homelessness service groups, if the family outreach is the full amount for the full time, then we're able to fully fund all of the others, including the Domestic Abuse Program at 10,700, which is in the range requested. So that all ends up to 400,000 with the full time. And I'll just one more thought or maybe two that are related. So, yeah, so only three of us submitted rankings. It's true, they look like they're all over the place except for the survival center. It looks like across those three, they were ranked first or second across all of three. So it may be that we're able to say, presumptively we're inclined to fund them fully. The other thing I go to is Nate's point about Valley CDC, they asked for 203, he said and they said, certainly there's a larger, we can go to 250, there's greater need. That's a significant chunk given how much we have to allocate, that might be a decision we want to make as well, fairly up front in this process. Okay, Keith, thank you, Andrew, Keith. I think we should fully fund the ones that we choose. And I think those that are social service focused should be the ones that we choose to fund. Partial funding, our experiences showed us causes, certain issues and hardships for even those that receive dollars. And I think just to make this as easy as possible for everyone involved, you recognize direct assistance is what individuals and households need right now with the basic necessities of life. The programs that target those outcomes should receive full funding based on their current request. So did you, of the three that were submitted where you did not submit your rankings? I did. Okay. I mean, I don't think, I was just saying, I don't think you have to say which committee members submitted rankings was just like we've done. It's kind of a basis for discussion. I think, is there a trend that's seen? I think Andrew pointed out that, or Melissa pointed out that, My better half for sure. That the food pantry is highly ranked. And so I mean, I think what the committee's done before, I think if that's in a consensus and we're saying full funding, then that's one, that's a starting point and we can go from there. Can you, Nate, can you just go back to that, the Excel sheet instead of this, just for one quick second, can you see it please? I mean, can people see the Excel spreadsheet now? Yes, thank you. Okay. I just wanna give a plug for the literacy project because as I was thinking of the asks that are being made, yes, people need to eat and people need to have a place to live, but enabling them, enabling folks to go out and earn income and be, take care of themselves feels really important to me. And I don't think that the literacy projects budget is bloated. I think $20,000 is not a lot of money and you're helping people become self-sustaining going forward. And I think in this economy where everything feels so difficult, I am an advocate for funding the literacy project because I think we need to get people trained and in jobs as quickly as we can given what's going on. And I'm not saying that handouts are wrong, that's not what I'm saying at all, but I think giving people a chance to be educated and secure a weekly paycheck will keep them away from these other services. So I'm a big fan of the literacy project. Anybody wanna weigh in on that? I agree, I think that's one of the five areas that we should fully fund. Okay, so are we, okay, so as we go forward, I'm taking notes. So we've kind of agreed that Amherst Survival Center feels like because it showed up in the top rankings that it should be fully funded and literacy project is another social service agency that should be fully funded. Are we going that route? And then we can, is this a good way to go and then kind of talk about the others? Oh, you're muted. I'll do that again, I think quite well. So I won't call you, you're muted again. That we're kind of working down the lists and because of the rankings that have appeared and the discussions, we feel that Amherst Survival Center should be fully funded and I got the feeling from my statement that literacy project be another organization that's fully funded and we could keep going down the list. I am gonna buck the trend. I disagree with Keith and I think even partially funding some of these other organizations is better than no funding at all. I mean, the need is super great and if everybody could benefit somewhat from this $400,000, they can wake up tomorrow morning, well, after the recommendations are made to the town manager, but it de-stresses the employees of the organization, these nonprofits and helps unburden them from the need to fundraise so stringently considering what we've got going on. So I'm an advocate, having worked at a nonprofit written grants that a partial funding feels less a smack in the face than no funding at all. So I would like to see everybody partially funded or not everybody, I would like to see everybody, all of these applicants receive some funds even if not all to the full amount which I know obviously we can't. I will say that they should be, I said they'd like to see proposals that necessarily aren't, that are addressing a unique need. So right now we do have some that are somewhat overlapping. And so my thought is, for instance, the family outreach and Amherst Community Connections and Craig's Doors are doing something similar maybe with a different population or maybe some slight differences, but they're similar in terms of case management and housing support. So I think we, I would just want the committee to, if you're recommending those three or two or the three, to explain the difference because I think what we'll have to do with DHTD is really say how those are different. So I can see DHTD saying now that they would like to, could the town combine that into one? They're really hoping to stretch dollars and see different areas of need and impact. And so I do think that they are, it could be addressing slightly different populations but at the same time, they're very similar. So. Can we, Nate, can we put that in a parking lot for a minute and then use, go to those three last and talk about town of Amherst and Valley CDC because that's another big chunk of money. And so if we agree to fully fund survival center and literacy project, that's 120. So that leaves us to 80. And so we can kind of pair, work our way down with considering town of Amherst and Valley CDC as a gigantic ass. The, just a quick, Ted Parker's raised his hand a few times if you want me to recognize him to speak. Sure, in the three to five minute rule. Okay. All right, Ted, I'm going to allow you to speak now. You have to unmute yourself. Thank you. I lowered my hand after I decided that I didn't want to speak. So, but thank you for recognizing me. Oh, okay. Yep. All right. Let me lower your hand then. I think that's very good. Yeah. So just a couple thoughts. One is, I think we should, yeah, I think survival center, I don't think we should yet put literacy project in a to be funded. Gail, I think you've made a strong argument for that. And as I look at the rankings, I see that one of them has it has literacy project last and one of them doesn't have it at all. So at least we should sort of canvas the committee and see if in fact you've been persuasive or people agree or whatever, whatever we put it. And I think they put it differently just judging from what we see there in a somewhat different category than the survival center, right? Which shows very, very strongly across the three that were submitted. I do agree that, you know, I think it makes sense to think about Valley CDC and mostly, and this is in keeping with what Nate said. I actually want to endorse again, that's recommendation about these five categories. We may not want to fund all five categories, but again, you know, Nate points out that, you know, the funder has emphasized, you know, non duplicative funding. So the idea of, you know, thinking about in terms of these five categories of needs that people are proposing to me and I think makes all the sense. Okay, I hear you. Do you want to jump to Amherst, Town of Amherst and Valley CDC because they are the biggest, they're making the largest request. Anybody want to comment? I really want to support what they're doing. I think that, you know, these are kind of micro business loans and they are really for, you know, low income, small operations that really kind of fall through a lot of the other support programs that are out there. And, you know, I, you know, they're maybe well more than $203,000 of need out there. And so I don't know, you know, what the right number is, but I think, you know, because this state program, you know, Federal State Program is really focused on kind of these two areas, kind of the micro enterprise assistance as well as the social services, you know, roughly half the money going to micro enterprise, you know, low income, small business owners who are struggling to survive. I think that balance roughly half the total you know, makes sense to me. So I think that's, you know, a good number. To fully fund them at the 203,000 level. Yeah. Anybody else want to comment? I do. Keith or me? Yeah, go ahead, Paul. Okay, so yeah, I mean, that's a lot of money. And I think that that is going to be really a great use of this money because the need for these businesses, I mean, we're going to be struggling for a while trying to get our businesses, our economy back up in the Amherst. And I think that that's, you know, a targeted group that certainly could use at least that much money. So I'd really support it too. Anybody else want to comment? The only thing is the obvious point really that if we fund them at 203 and survival center fully, let's say, which seems possible given how highly they're ranked, that's obviously 330, which leaves 97 across, you know, all these other areas. So I guess the only thing I would say is that we shouldn't fund them at more than that if we want to try to support some of these other groups. I agree. Anybody else? I think we can still fully fund five of these areas. I just don't have a good feeling of what the impact of the town and CDC funds would be. And if using Northampton as an example, where the average funding was less than $6,000, that's not going to save a small business. That's a real hole in the presentation. And we have other funding resources available through the Chamber of Commerce and the bid and the Amherst Downtown Foundation where these small business owners can directly apply for an amount of money that they determined based on what their needs are. I don't know. I think immediacy of the impact matters with these dollars and that proposal just doesn't get me there. Because of the amount that each individual business would actually be getting. Because of the ambiguity of number of businesses, the amount each business would get and immediacy of impact. Yeah, can I say, I hadn't thought of that, but that's a very good point. I think their statistics or what they've been doing is related to small businesses that are trying to get off the ground and they were adding, they were trying to help them with whatever. And that's where that money went for, wasn't in this environment. So, I agree that I'm not sure what that amount of money is going to do as it's dropping the bucket, I guess. Anybody else want to comment on 10 of the Amherst and Valley CDC? Well, I mean, only that, I think, yeah, for me that I zero in on, I think part of what Keith was saying, which is, I guess to frame it a slightly different way, we know even on the good circumstances, we know that a lot of small businesses fail, right? And these obviously are not good circumstances. So, even apart from how much money, I do find myself, right? So, if you give someone meals or if you help them, it's really clear that at least for a time, you're staving off disaster, right? The benefit is very clear. You have success if you feed people, if you home them, you know, house them, et cetera. Here, arguably, you have success if you keep a business afloat for a time, but if the business goes down in two months, so it's very hard to assess, right? We're often in this position, it's very hard to assess the value of providing that service when the service you provide in this case doesn't necessarily mean that the business succeeds in the end. I just don't know how to assess that, the value of doing this thing over here versus that thing. And I should say, I know that we all feel this way and I suspect we always feel this way. You know, it's just very hard to talk about, like these proposals I thought were really very strong. It's odd even to see the rankings here, as if folks that are ranked at the end weren't strong, they were strong. It's in fact, it's a reflection of how strong they were in my view. Yeah, I'll just say that for the micro business, it is a priority for the state. And so I agree, even with housing, even though there's a housing moratorium, we don't know if, for instance, the town's doing a rental program, if that will keep people housed in the long term. So we're asking landlords to work with the town. With the businesses, for this funding, they have to show a loss of business equal to the amount of money they're requesting. So DHCD is trying to have them show that there is an impact because of COVID and that they need funding. I think that most of these are less than five employees and I think that Nat was right that they weren't the business that received some of the foundation funding from the town and for the type of business that doesn't have the capacity sometimes to apply for the SBA or other programs. It takes a lot of effort and paperwork. So I think DHCD heard from a number of communities that the micro enterprises were the ones that kind of missed out on some of the other programs just because of the ability to act fast and actually then have the numbers and the capacity to fill out all the paperwork. I think even some of the other health that other businesses receive don't know if they'll make it longterm. And just a point of clarity, we're probably offering these as essentially grants not loans to the businesses. So DHCD is allowing them to be grants about the $10,000. So we're not necessarily asking for a repayment. We're just asking for some certifications on how it's spent, but we're not asking for a repayment. I mean, I have to say out of the three lists of priorities submitted, Valley CDC came in in the top three in column B and C. It did come in as number five in column D. So people did rank it in the two of us ranked it in the higher. In the top three, just throwing that out there. Okay, not making much progress, but interesting discussion. So we've lumped together the family outreach, Craig's Doors, and Amherst Community Connections. And because they do similar work, and then we've talked about Town of Amherst, we've talked about Survival Center. So how about if we talk about the PVPC Regional Application for Domestic Violence Victim Safety Enhancement, and that's an up to $10,000. So how does it work to meet with the amount when they say up to? I think they were trying to fund a position or position. So they're saying if they had so many communities and each community provided enough and that could fund, whether it's like one and a half position. So the 10 to 12,000 dollars a range, I think if it needs to be a little less, I think they would accept it. They were seeing pretty flexible. But just to be clear, the range that they're asking for is 10 to 12,000, right? Yes. Right. And their proposal last time discussed, you know, having working with the behavioral health network and having clinicians on call for, you know, a number of communities that then people could call in and then they would, it's actually for the perpetrator. So they could try to DS, you know, these people on the phone could try to de-escalate the situation. So it's something that they're trying to work on as a regional application. I think a relatively small amount, but it could have a huge impact for people who can be helped. And it's great that we're part of a regional program. We can pool resources with other communities in the area. So I thought it was pretty strong proposal. How do people feel about fully funding PVPC, the regional application for 10 to fully fund? I would fully support that. I think this is a hugely important issue. That's that we know it's been, it's a, it's a problem that obviously pre-existed COVID, but has been greatly exacerbated by it. Yeah. That's a very modest amount of money. Yeah. I would, I would absolutely fully support it. Anybody else want to weigh in? Yeah. I think the idea behind this hotline for basically perpetrators is I would totally support it, but I don't think that we're going to see much of an impact in relation to the COVID sort of issues. And it'll be a long time before we see any impact from it. If even we're able to get it, if we're able to get anybody to even call this hotline, because perpetrators tend not to be particularly cooperative and people aren't meeting with people and talking with people or doing things that might encourage this. I'm not, I think it's a great idea, but I think it needs a lot of work and it's a long-term. Issue. I don't have to disagree with Paul because I'm no expert, but I've been hearing so much in the media about, you know, during this COVID quarantine era that there are so many people at risk because of close quarters and the quarantine at risk of domestic violence. And so I think, I think this is definitely a relevant immediate. And I think it will have, I'm no expert. I can't help it. I think, you know, putting a small amount of money to invest in that type of program, I think it makes a lot of sense. I agree with you, Nat. And in the proposal overview, it says it will reduce, this project will reduce harm to domestic violence victims by helping perpetrators make safer choices and by supporting victims connected to perpetrators served by this project. So I think that this is a, I mean, if you're saving a life for $10,000, it's definitely a good investment. Anybody else? Keith, you want to weigh in on this? I'm supportive as well, fully funding. Okay. Can I say another thing? Sure. So this isn't going to protect anybody. It's going to work with perpetrators. And if there's, doesn't indicate any funding to work with victims, although there's that little comment you've made, but I've worked with domestic violence for the last 40 years. And by funding a hotline for the perpetrator isn't going to provide safeties in the short run. That's all, you know, I just wanted to say that again. It's not going to provide safety in the short run. That's what you're saying. Right. But the proposal comp component says a free confidential helpline will provide support to anyone at risk of being violent within the grant region. So it's just not serving perpetrators according to. The writing grant proposal. No, that's what it says is the grant is to, to create a hotline for perpetrators specifically. So the victim wouldn't be calling that hotline. It says right here. I think they could. I mean, I think it's a difficult. Paul to assess sometimes, you know, in terms of the harm reduction, I do think, you know, there's, you know, other hotlines, you know, like a suicide hotline. You know, I think it's, you know, I think it's important to see if, if this program is up and running, it can be advertised to other social service agencies and others. So it becomes something that, you know, it is an available resource. So if someone needs, needs help, they could call, you know, whether or not they're going to make that call. That's kind of, I can't say that, you know, a percentage, but at least it becomes something that's available that isn't there now. I think it's hard to say, I thought PVP seeded a good job explaining that they have the ability to get it up and running. And broadcast it widely. So that people will know it's there. What kind of help do you think somebody would get when they call? I think it could be some, you know, some de-escalation. So I'm just allowing someone to. Talk through. What they're thinking. I mean, you know, it's. I, you know. I agree. Is it going to, you know, is it going to create like a. In terms of protection, you know, it's not, you know, there's not like a physical barrier all, you know, all of a sudden in the space they're in, but. It's some communication. If a person, if a victim is living with a perpetrator, they're not able to make a phone call. To align to a hotline like this. If they get out of the house, just sit in the car. They can. I don't want to get into the weeds with this. I mean, That's the problem. It doesn't make any sense that this would. Actually do anything. Well, have you looked at the proposal? Yeah. Yeah. You know, can I just say this? So. I think they're as a non expert too, as most of us are, I think, I think there's, to me, it's clear that there was a possible mechanism where this could work. Whether it will work or not. Right. I mean, you know, I think none of us except possibly you, Paul have probably had, I certainly don't. And that said, he didn't have the expertise to assess as an expert, whether or not, right? This, it actually makes sense. And, you know, there's a, you know, I mean, people have assembled coalitions that do things that don't work. So the fact that there's a coalition of people trying to do this doesn't mean that it's going to work. But. Again, I think it's a very small amount of money. It's addressing an issue that we all agree is very important. It's addressing it in a somewhat at least innovative way. And I am supportive of. Granting them the money to join the coalition to see if it works. The fact that there is a coalition of people who presumably do have expertise and think it's worth trying. Persuades me that is at least worth trying. If it doesn't work, then if someone comes back to us again and ask for more money to do the same thing that didn't work the first time, perhaps we say no. But the truth is, yeah, we're not into position to argue. I don't think. No, I think what's being presented is, I agree with everything you said. I just don't think that. With the trying to get started is something that I believe doesn't exist anywhere. And it is a great idea. It's something that can be useful. But I don't think this is the model to fund it with. I would like to see it funded, but not. I don't see how this is going to, you know, I actually accomplish it. Okay. So. Nate, you want to give us some direction. Yeah. Yeah. So I, what I've heard is the. You know, it's like, I mean, I think people have reiterated Nats point that there's, you know, some different areas that are being. Addressed with the proposals. I think we could, we could walk down the list. Before that. Yeah. I don't know if you just want to ask if there's any public comment. I saw Kevin Newton had raised his hand. Yeah. And then I went away, Kevin. If anyone wants to raise their hand. I don't know. If anyone wants to raise their hand. So Ted, I'll allow you to speak here. You should be all set. Thank you. I just like to point out that unlike the normal round of CDBG funding, this is this money is not guaranteed, right? This is an application for this money. And if I'm not mistaken, kind of Amherst is in competition. Even with non entitlement communities for this money. Is that right? Yeah. Yeah. So I think that's 9.65 million. That they will be awarding to up to, you know, 300. We're considered to say non entitlement, 300 non entitlement communities, or however many applications there are. Right. So there's a lot of communities who aren't normally eligible for CDBG funding who may very well be applying for this money and competition with Amherst for this money. So the $400,000 is far from guaranteed. That's a lot of money. So they might decide other communities are more worthy or they might decide that Amherst should only be funded for some portion of this money. And so. In that competition, it seems to me. The application by Amherst should be tightly focused on. The criteria. It's not going to be written in the same way. It's not going to be written in the same way. It's not going to be written in the same way. Which is COVID response. And organizations that have proven capacity, et cetera. This I think was. Even described in its application as a pilot program. And I think that normal CDBG funding. Round might be appropriate for this. Kind of program. In looking at piles of applications for municipalities for this round, that municipalities that don't have a tightly focused application may be set to the side while towns large and small who have tightly focused applications on very specific COVID related issues may be fully funded first. Just like you guys have ranked things in an order of priority, so too may those who are making the decision about this money. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I'll just say, Ted reminded me there was a conference called the other other week with the HDD and a program like this was brought up. You know, in DHCD asked for more information so they didn't say it was ineligible, but you know again they would you know they would ask how does it address COVID and what are the impacts the And so I think you know I thought the proposal by PVPC was was very explanatory question is would DHCD. If we're asking how what are the impacts with DHCD asked the same and say okay is there a way to address is there going to be an immediate addressable impacts by this so I just, you know to make that apparent. It looks like there's a few other hands raised chaos will be. Sure. Joanne. Joanne. Can you hear me. Yes. So I just wanted the committee know and others on the phone sort of what the what our neighbors are doing. And as Nate said, you know there is a priority for the micro businesses and so the city of Greenfield is going in with a regional All of Franklin County are putting in a proposal because each community can apply for $400,000 of course there's nowhere near enough money for every community to do that, but Greenfield and its region are going in for $500,000 for this micro grant program up to $10,000 per business and they are not doing any social services and I'm not saying anything about social service I'm just giving you information. Who we are in competition. Hilltown CDC, which is also putting in a regional application. We are putting in for at least $500,000 with probably about $75,000 of request for supplemental food for the hill towns. I just want to call yesterday with the city of these Hamptons public meeting, and they're going they're the lead agency for a regional application that includes Hadley hat feel South Hadley was Hampton South Hampton I'm probably missing somebody. They're probably going in somewhere between $1.2 and $1.5 million, all from micro business so I don't know as much as Nate about where DATD is looking since we all have to be competitive. But this is where a lot of CDBG and the communities are looking at the small business model so I'm just letting you know what my immediate neighbors are planning to apply for. Thanks to and I think you know they had the two categories micro enterprise assistance and then social services and they listed, you know, it was food security, housing and job training and then they said other others that may need to be explained. And, you know, I will say that DCD put out a survey to communities asking what they think priorities would be. I think for this round and possibly a second round of funding. And so I think, you know, I would say that it is, you know, micro enterprise and social services now. So for instance, micro enterprise is less than five. And people have been saying well what about businesses that are less than 10 which is just considered a small business so I think, you know, DHD is anticipating that if there's a future round of funding there may be other categories that become priorities but for now. You know they listed micro enterprise assistance and then those few social services and possibly other social services they didn't they didn't try to create an exhaustive list of social services but I think you know those two generally social services and micro enterprise are priorities now. It looks like Laura from family outreach would like to speak Laura I'm going to allow you to speak. I think I did a lot of talk maybe I hit some wrong button. I think I hold on a minute Laura you keep moving around on my screen. Okay, can you hear me. Yeah, Alan Frank somehow I hit you I'm sorry let me. All right, Laura I think you're available. Okay, I, I just wanted to comment that in my proposal I did just give a list of the different services we do serve, and we do provide services for domestic violence and have been. We always do and we certainly have been responding to families and women over these past few months we have been helping people with emergency protective orders and orders renewal renew orders and helping women develop paperwork that they need to do to keep everything in order so it is something that family outreach does and we will absolutely continue to do so I know I understand what Paul's problem is I mean. It is it's a little bit it's not direct service it's not boots on the ground as as much as I think some people feel comfortable with, although, over time, certainly getting perpetrators help isn't as important so I'm not trying to say that. But in terms of absolute direct service of helping somebody is in a situation. That's one of the things family outreach does all the time. Thank you. Okay. Does that help everyone. Thanks I know this is a difficult decision so just a reminder, the committee's making recommendations to the town manager, and the town needs to apply. I think the agency is going to submit it on Friday. And Ted Parker was right that it is a competitive application there's no, you know, as a mini entitlement we're not applying through that mini entitlement status. It's as a, you know, a COVID proposal. And I think that I think, you know, asking them to submit brief proposals and budgets will really help the town. So, you know, with the committee's recommendations. I think that the town has, you know, we have a good start on the application of DHCD. So if that gale do I just want maybe want to run down the measure what are we seeing here let me make sure we see the. I'm just going to share that table again and maybe we go down the list of proposals. So is I just want to reiterate what we discussed previously that the thinking is that between family outreach, Craig's doors and Amherst community connections we would select one amongst the three to fund. Is that what we're thinking about CDBG members. Well, it's certainly a possibility and I think, yeah, it's obviously a possibility that's been promoted and I think we should. So here's just a process suggestion, you know, if we talk about that, just air whatever is on our mind about that, and then submit rankings. Again, all of us. I wonder if that night might not be a good way to at least get a sense of the committee. Right when it comes to actually making choices about whom to support and perhaps even the amount, because that was one of the things that was helpful about doing it before right again was a starting point, especially if there was some amount of consensus around, you know, ones that we thought were very strong and ones that we thought right and then we could focus on the middle. But if we have the kind of we do it in reverse order we have the conversation, then submit right and sort of we can get a quicker sense of the committee assuming that there's some degree of consensus. It's just a possibility. It sounds reasonable. Anybody want to challenge Andrew or sounds like a good idea. Okay, and I see Kevin Newton has his hand raised. Sure. Yeah, can you get them. Yeah. Yeah. Hi. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. You know, we're all three of the agencies that are focused on services to people who are homeless do great work. And to tell us that we're very small agency some agencies are bigger, but to tell us that no money is is preferable to some money. Isn't really helpful. We do our best with what we have. And CDBG funding. This is a similar thing that we applied for in 2018. My predecessor applied for. You know, at that point, CDBG has that built in the name of no more than five agencies can do social services. I mean, so we're free of that is this round. So I would recommend it when it comes to the services for people who are homeless, who, which is a priority in this round of funding. That would just divide up to whatever is left, whatever you decide is left, divided equally among the three agencies, if that's possible. Just because a little helps a lot. Thank you. Thank you. Two other participants have raised their hand. Kevin is sort of echoing what I said. Can, can I ask what is the process here? Are we going to continue to have everyone raise their hand and not be able to discuss until all the hands are down? Or is there a time limit or how's this going to work? It's on the, it's 435 right now. So I don't, you know, it's, I think it's at the committee. We can. We want to recognize wayling gale. She was. Yes. Yes. And I think that we should cut off public comment and do our work. Hey, wayling, you're unmuted now are allowed to speak. You have to unmute yourself. Okay. And do I need to unmute my screen or you can see me. We can hear you if that's, if that's sufficient. Okay, great. Thank you so much. And it's, has always been our philosophy. We want to attach housing support housing to the support service in order to make a support service more tangible. And we have been very, you know, good at getting people into permanent housing. If they have support service, along with the someone unstable housing they are struggling with, but the goal is getting into permanent housing. So, I want to say that we have applied to be one of the four bidders for the emergency rental assistance program. Our idea when I apply for this particular CDBG cares. My thinking was that if we can put the housing that we are trying to preserve through the other part of the money as one of the bidders, we will be able to help people provide to preserve their housing. And if we can provide in tandem of the support service from you, if you can give us money. Otherwise, if we don't have the support service, and we happen to be one of the bidders chosen to provide the be to be administrator to administer the rental assistance, then it really make the effectiveness of the program less tangible. And that means we will have to do, you know, referral to other agencies. So I am really hoping that we can have a full package of housing preservation plus support service to achieve the long term housing stability and economic self sufficiency. So I want to echo what Kevin said. A little bit of something for all of us who are in it together. It means a lot. So, given this is one of the times you don't have a maximum five agency that you can only fund. So if you have the freedom to fund as many agencies as possible. For us, it's really a very, you know, wonderful confirmation affirmation for the work we all do and do it so diligently. So I know that you are struggling as who to fund, but look at we are together. Our agency Craig stores family outreach of Amherst, we have a network of support for the people who are struggling. So I want to say, please give us some affirmation of the work we do by giving us even a little bit of funding. Otherwise, I will feel walking away feeling. Well, if I get a whole thing, I don't feel good. If I get nothing, I really feel terrible feel my work. Our work here is not being validated. Thank you. Thank you. So, I just want to ask the committee, while you've been listening to people's comments and mulling over the proposals in front of us has anybody been doing any back of the envelope calculations to kind of see what the potential of what this could possibly look like. I mean, I know I have and just wondering if anybody else has this you have so can can I ask Nat to throw out what you've come up with. Right. So if we if we fully fund the micro enterprise fully fund the survival center fully fund literacy project and have 10,000 for the domestic abuse program. Then we are able to fully fund a full time case worker at family outreach and have $700 to spare, which we could increase survival center or a greater prize or but basically, we can fully fund, you know, five of these areas of need. Gail, can we hear your fault. My calculation is fully fund the survival center. I'm just looking at the sheet I have in two places for 100,000 fully fund the literacy project that one at 20. So that brings us to 120. And then town of Amherst fun at 175. That brings us to 295. And then that leaves us 110 left. And then I thought we could take family outreach, Craig stores and Amherst community connections and find a percentage of what they've asked and divide that among the 110 because I feel like funding. Everybody needs a little bit to make them move forward. I'm not a big fan of not not funding anybody. Except maybe the domestic violence victim safety enhancement, which I'm feeling more on the fence about and not funding the town fully at the 203 level but at 175 which free up 28 to go towards family outreach Craig stores and Amherst community connections. Comments. Questions. Yeah. I think that the first sort of comments about funding comes up, I think makes some sense. I think that Craig's door is reaching for some money to do something they've never really done before it's a new aspect and and I'm not sure they've delivery on that and what kind of staffing they have the family outreach with family outreach I mean the community connections is that their proposals inaccurate the budget is deficit of $44,000. And it's not it's just replacing money that they thought they were getting it's not doing anything to the current priorities. So, and that would leave everybody else other than the literacy which the one with the the domestic violence one so if we if we didn't find those three, then everybody else could be funded fully. And she didn't send fun which three the PVP see regional application Craig's doors and Amherst community connections. So then there would be an family outreach of Amherst has the component to pick those things up. And I think that they've got the most experience with delivery in in that kind of in the situation they can cover a real wide variety of services for people. So that's my thoughts. So along those lines just really sort of picking up on that I'm trying to look at the you know if if there are if given the conversation given what I think I'm hearing if we are circling in on some consensus strength right and I feel like consensus proposal we want to sell so I think from the very beginning and risk survival center. And my guess is that we are happy to fund that fully at 100 K. Obviously we can talk about that if not it. There's a real question. We do have some question about Valley CDC. So I have I'm personally inclined certainly to fund it but would be inclined for many reasons and in light of some of the doubts to support it a bit less than what they've asked for so along the lines that Gail you suggested but by and large I'm hearing that we do want to fund that so that would be in there and now I'm agreed with with Paul on family outreach. That seemed strong. I have, you know, a lot of confidence in what they can do. And I would be inclined to fund the full time position. You know so that's 65 nine. If we add those three up and Paul I think I'm probably just echoing you really. So I think I'm just endorsing what you said but, you know 100 plus let's say 170 Sorry. No, I'm sorry. My husband's talking to me. Okay. So anyway 100 plus 175 let's say obviously that can shift plus 66 essentially 65 nine. That gets us up to 341 You know with 59 to go. And then And then we are supposing I mean this may be an obvious point but I think we are supposing that. Anyway, I'll just I'll just leave it there. But what would you recommend for the remaining 59. Well, you know this is where Think we were probably still fragmented. I mean I continue to, you know, I would support The pbc pbc regional at the 10 And you know the I don't know we can talk about Amherst community connection and Craig's doors and I don't have a strong take on that. But tell me if this might be helpful or not. You know, if Nate, if you're able to put up so we've had, you know, if you're able to put up so we've had, you know, Essentially three two or three different proposals in a way for allocation. Right, I wonder if we could see those side by side right so in all of them survival center gets funded probably fully in all of them. CDC gets funded large, you know from 175 to 203 or something like that. And if what I've said makes sense if we agree on family outreach, certainly being funded and maybe even being funded at the full, you know, for a full time person. And then, you know, then it's about, you know, we could do some different allocations right so Matt had one Gail you had a different one. We could actually have something concrete to look at. And but we're talking about $59,000 or so. I mean, it was your project for 10 instead of 20. I mean, they initially asked for 10. And then they increased it to 20 but I like Andrew I really like your proposal like yes I think it would be helpful to see the numbers. Maybe you can plug them in on the on the Excel sheet. I'm doing I'm doing that right now. Great. And the fourth option, let's fully fund all the social services except PV, PC, and let's only give whatever is remaining to CDC. So keep said that again Keith, fully fund all the social services. PV PC. And whatever is remaining goes to see. Yep. And. Yeah, that's it. So that would, you know, cut down significantly on. CDC. But they've got something. So 65. I'm just trying the math. All right, how does that sound Keith's proposal. Yeah, I don't think that we should be spreading the money around just to, you know, make people feel better. You know, there, there were, you know, those, those three that were thinking about not funding. There are good arguments why they're not going to be the most effective use of the dollars and I think the town of Amherst the Valley CDC that's probably a big deal as far as the state's concerned and I think that money going to these businesses. You know, it's a grant. It's not alone. So that's helpful. And it just makes sense to be to fund them and looking at each proposal with a yes or no, or maybe. But rather than just, you know, sort of blanket, you know, to everybody gets a little bit means that everybody doesn't do quite as much as they could. And maybe fail in some ways. So that's my thought. I think the, yeah, here's just a quick table. Can everyone see that to make it a little bigger. It's good. The. Yeah, I mean, I might, I'm a little, you know, it's interesting. You know, in terms of what I'm thinking the state would look for. You know, my thought would be if, if we fund, you know, family outreach crags doors and Amherst community connections, I think we'd have to make the case that that's an efficient way to to disperse funds as opposed to funding a one full time position. I just want to make sure that you know the state doesn't see it as being redundant. And so, you know, I don't want to make sure that we can explain that it's addressing COVID related impacts and that it is, you know, you know, that it's a good use, you know, for Amherst. Quickly, so this is Nats idea, sorry for the abbreviations everyone there's, you know, Valley Community Development, the food pantry literacy project, PVPC and then family outreach and that gets to, you know, 400,000. Gail, this was your idea. Food pantry literacy project Valley CDC and then split. Yeah, I said Valley CDC at like 175. 175. 175. That yeah, that so I guess it's just about the application amount. And then the other one also just one correction of family outreach FOA their request is for 65 nine or make it 66 per full time. Yeah. Nice and typos there. The, and then you know, Paul had mentioned, you know, funding. These, you know, these organizations Valley CDC, the food pantry literacy project and family outreach and not funding three. And so that's nice. And then Keith was suggesting funding them all and the remainder to Valley CDC, which would be 100 K. Oh, okay. So yeah, my fingers couldn't type as fast as his statement was so simple, but it took a lot of work. But I think it amounts to, by my calculator, $100,100 would be left over for Valley CDC and the rest to get funded as they've asked. It's a money associated with it. The If that's if we find it everyone fully I mean so it's Yeah. And neat and that wouldn't if we fully funded the family outreach, Craig's throws an amorous community connections with that reduce our chances of being funded through the state because of the redundancy issue or are we better off just funneling the money just to one of those three to increase our chances. I think we apply that way we'd have to make the case that you know it's not. It's funding that's necessary to address COVID impacts is not you know to fill budget holes or it's not reaching for. You know it's not. You know something that some of the agency could do and that they're targeting somewhat different populations and you know. But did you could say that it seems like it's they're all it's it's going to the same thing right it's kind of the same category under housing or housing support. You know I'm not sure how they would view that so I was just running trying to run some quick numbers on Keith scenario. Well the way you just stated it to pledge budget holes that's exactly what Amherst Community Connections is looking for. Because you didn't get the two those. Yeah but also that there is a need I mean so they clearly said there's a you know there's a much greater need for referrals and for housing work and assistance so I think you know I think all the proposals are addressing a COVID need it's a you know some of it is how are some addressing it. And if we funding was lost because of COVID impacting another funder then there's a COVID impact. Right. I do think that yeah so Andrew is right so if we fully fund. Let me do a new share. Let me show this table we fund the social services as Keith suggested at full. There'd be 100,000 left roughly for for the town and Valley CDC's proposal. I kind of like that because I took into consideration Andrew's comment about you know small businesses struggling and it is it is going to give them money to pivot but you know who knows the longevity of that what's the return on the investment is going to be. Again that's not our priority but I like the way that Keith has laid this out. Well so and so I think there are three, right so then there are three clusters of issues we still need to work through. One is just about Valley CDC and yes, how do we feel about that right so there's some real questions there but we agree this very important. The second is again this trade off. If there's a trade off, you know family outreach Craig's doors. And the community connections. And then the third one is really that we just are inclined to feel differently about the domestic violence issue and the literacy project. Right but those are also smaller amounts of money. And I feel like we should that middle one about Craig's doors and this community connections family outreach and it's both about, you know, substantively how do we feel about them and the trade off and about how, you know, if we fund them all that's likely be received. That feels like a significant one we just need to come to grips with. And finally, if I mean I there seemed to be agreement with what I was suggesting with, you know, if we do say family we want to fund family outreach for a full time position. That certainly gives us a significant start right. If we say that makes sense then what does that mean. What are the implications for what Craig stores proposed to do and what ACC proposes to do and what we should give them them. I think that would go to Craig stores or Amherst Community Connections are kind of, are they their image are changeable, you know, if you have need you could go to Craig stores, or you could go to Amherst Community Connections you wouldn't be turned away at either. Also family outreach. Right. Especially given the fact that me questioned everybody as to whether it mattered whether you were an individual or filming Nate I see Alyssa Brewer has her hand raised. I think it's nice. Alyssa you're, you're allowed to talk you just have to unmute yourself. Hi everybody Alyssa Brewer I'm sorry this is super awkward because I'm not representing the town council, I used to be on select board, and I'm now on the town council but back when I and select board days Nate remembers me from coming to block advisory committee meetings, and I just want to put in the plug I understand the town council has no role in this we have been copied on the many letters for many different agencies and that's great and we super appreciate all the work you guys are delving into on this and we're also still trying to recruit you another member. On the other side, I really feel like you guys are focused on the things that you're comfortable with, which are the kinds of agencies that you always fund which is terrific. I'm not hearing a comfort level and in fact I think it was directly expressed that there wasn't a comfort level with the micro business grants he specifically said I don't think that's enough money to make a difference to anybody. If, if you think that's a bad program then funded at a small amount but I would argue that this is one of the very limited times we get the opportunity to help the business community in a different way. I think it's a huge missed opportunity if you say well we have to maximize all the social service agencies that happen to have applied during this round, which in fact are incredibly similar to what they do every year when we have to pick and choose between the five agencies so I understand the appeal of saying wow, we don't have to be limited to five, but at the same time I reflect back to the earlier part of your conversation where you were saying you know this is a competitive grant. This is a different thing we don't know what lens CHCD is going to look at through this and if they say you know what they put a very small amount into this micro enterprise thing that we think is important at the state level. I just not really sure these people are getting that they can do their block grant stuff again another year. So I would just really caution you to question. Perhaps the town manager, the assistant town manager more about how that program supposed to work you know maybe they didn't explain it effectively enough and of course it is new so you don't have any track history the way you do with other things. But I'm really nervous about the competitiveness of our grant just because of all we've been through in the past so thanks so much for listening. And again, not an official position of the town council just based on my history. Thanks. Thank you. Well said. Well, let's just point someone related to the DC said they're going to try to make this easy for communities in streamline you know environmental review and income certifications and everything and actually caused more confusion on a conference at the conference call last week everyone saying it sounds like going to make it easy but now we have so many questions because it's different than what we've always done. And, and then you know DC kind of laughed because you know it's you take our pretty rigid program and now they're trying to, I want to say be somewhat flexible and change priorities and it's just not what we're used to so I agree the state has not promoted micro enterprise assistance necessarily the way it has other social services or housing in the last five to 10 years and now suddenly pivoted because of COVID and they realize that it is a priority. And so, you know, Valley's probably quite busy and same with Hilltown CDC and others that Joanne mentioned it's something that is, you know, it's there, there are a lot of new programs developing because of the, the emergency and the you know the funding is now available. Also, when you think about it, all of these nonprofits can do fundraising on their own, and small businesses in town don't have the capacity unless someone sends up sets up a go fund me for them. They do have the bid in the chamber but typically retail businesses don't do their own fundraising because they're for profits, and these nonprofits can have mailing lists and they have other areas where they can go look for grants so I do. And also I'm again advocating for helping a small business who is already existing and who can help itself the same way I feel about the literacy project where you're helping people help themselves. So, Nick, can we see that. Yeah, can we see the error. Yeah, I was just about to this one right here. Sorry, I can't, you know, maybe just screens way cluttered. Let me see if I can make it a little bigger work on that. So if we found what was just said first place of right then we're back to sort of the ones in column C. It's a little too much. Here we go. Thanks, Nate. Right, we're back to column C, where you have Valley CDC survival center and FOA are fully supported. And we have $31,000 left. All right, so yeah, let me just, okay, keep them. Sorry, Andrew, let me just take what you said. All these typing. I think we can make the case that family outreach, Amherst community connections and Craig's doors do in fact serve different populations. One is homeless transitioning to shelter. One is household operations. And the other is ongoing survival needs for people on the edge. I think those are very clear lines and a presentation outlining those would be relatively easy to make if we were asked to do that. And as far as lowering the funds for Valley CDC. Again, we don't know number of businesses possibly supported we don't know to what level of support, and I will tell you that what a small business owner would have to do with any funds is either let it sit in the checking account just to have reserves, or use these funds to meet their survival needs. I don't know that immediacy of impact. Due to COVID. We're basically giving individuals assistance, not small businesses assistance. And if we're going to support individuals. I think we have organizations in town that have the demonstrated capacity to do that. And there's just a lot of ambiguity around who would benefit and how they would benefit from this EDC program. I hear what I hear what Keith is saying. And, you know, I think that's a relevant viewpoint. I think what troubles me is that, you know, the state and the town have already come out and said this is a priority for this type of a program. And I guess I feel less comfortable about, you know, substituting my judgment about the importance of that. You know, when the state and the town have already said, this is a high priority and they've created this program. You know, roughly half of the program around micro enterprise. And the idea about the who and the how. You know, I am living a life right now where politicians say a lot of buzzwords around small business a defined small business. And I think there's a lot of well intended proposals and well intended programs, but there's such vagueness and ambiguity as to the execution that the execution never has the desired impact. But we have organizations that have a proven track record of impact, ones that we felt comfortable with in the past, and ones that we have no qualms of whether or not they can continue to deliver that impact. Setting aside $100,000 for the micro enterprise program, I think is a good enough number. I think that by fully funding the social services that can have impacts. The day we cut these checks is what these these funds should be used for. But I think if I understand the situation and I and I may not and I understand certainly what Matt what you said which I'm very much inclined to agree with. The issue isn't so much. You know, are there legitimate questions about the efficacy of the micro enterprise program. There are questions. I think the issue is the issue I think we're grappling with is, would we actually prejudice, you know, our application. If we don't support the micro enterprise program in a significant way. And look at, you know, if we suggested $100,000, would they say these folks don't get it we're not going to support that. And is that the question. But that's not something we can answer. We don't know who's making that judgment. And we don't know what their criteria will be for judging the applications from the municipalities. What we should try to do is put forth a presentation based on the needs of our community and the ability to respond to the needs that have arisen out of this, this virus. I'm going to say, say something here. Go ahead, Paul. The issue for me. You know, I'm feeling that it is vague. There are some things about how the Valley CDC in the town is going to do this project. But my bigger concern is that basically that Craig's door. We don't know that they've, that how they'll do with this because they've never done this. So, you know, this time of the year for one thing. And it's, it would be a new thing that they're trying to step into Amherst community connections was funded based on you know, a budget that was presented at the last round of funding. And $44,000 of that didn't wasn't real. 47. Yeah, 47 and the and the money that's being requested is just to replace that's nothing new. So, and it. You know, I don't know that we should use that money and it'll be obvious. Also, the review at the state level that that's happening, which I think would have an impact on the whole grant. And that it would look as if you know, the money was being doled out in a way that was filling a gap that existed prior to the public issues. Does it, does it make sense to flush out the spreadsheet here, you know, kind of different approaches and then see how many of us, you know, support each one and other. And do they start narrowing the That's what I was going to say, Nat, to explore each of these four possibilities and see either massage one of them to make it fit or massage, or look at look at all of them and adjust each of them accordingly. So do we want to go through and with the others, Joanne candle as our hand raised and Gabrielle assuming from the bed has our hand raised if you'd like to recognize them. Are we still taking comments or do we want to just know I yeah it's still the hearing I think we could join us is going to speak to the program. Okay. Joanne I'll allow you to talk. I just wanted to explain that we have brand a program like this and so I just want to briefly, briefly say that when the city of North Hampton was using some of its own entitlement CDBG money that it had gotten through cares that My staff and I worked on this proposal to get this application for the businesses and we turned that around in about two weeks. We had the applications online for small businesses to apply to and upload their documents by April 15. We had 80 applications by May 1 and all the money was awarded by April 28 and then the city did grant agreements, and then they had to of course process the checks through the city. And people will the businesses will have to submit receipts invoices of the products or services that they've purchased in order for them in the case of North Hampton was sort of a pivot so if a restaurant was closed. They were doing curbside pickup they what did they need in order to do that were people ordering different kinds of things. If if a shoe store was now putting everything online they needed better website development so it's a it can be done very quickly and we have spent quite a few number of weeks in thinking through all these kinds of things and I know it's probably not relevant now but we left the application up on our website Valley CDC calm under the business, because a lot of organizations who are doing micro business programming, Greenfield, Fitchburg, we have all been talking to each other and sharing information Greenfield used a lot of our information in order to put their information together they're running a micro business program now with reprogram CDBG money but of course they're going in as well there is this, you know which is not typically what you see in in CDBG because they have not focused on micro enterprise for probably more than 10 years, but there is a community out here who work with businesses constantly mostly counseling and some loans but this is a grant program and so we also took a look at was the what was what the business asking for was it reasonable that they were still going to be around now we that's not 100% of course but we do have our small business counselor she's been in business herself for 25 years before she's sort of working for we do besides doing the income eligibility on on a small business we are also doing a business review on what they're asking for and what they expect that money will do for their business. I'm happy to answer any questions or but I can direct people to our website. It's very clear we have a bunch of questions so but this would be slightly different because North Hampton was doing 100 is doing a 10 or less simple. Please. Thank you. Well, it says our hands up Nate. Gabrielle Gabrielle, I'm gonna allow you to speak now you can. Thank you can everybody hear me. Hi, thank you and I know that this is running over your time I just want to reiterate the unprecedented unprecedented nature of these micro this micro grant being part of these funds and how important that is based on just the the unbelievable trauma that 2019 has created for our small businesses are small businesses that would be eligible for this meet the percentage of the average median income as business owners. They are the businesses here who support them so regularly. They're employees. They are entrepreneurs. If we do not support them in some way shape or form and keep them running. They are sadly going to end up most likely being on the lines of the social services that you guys are supporting so regularly and so wonderfully. They are enough to keep them to sustain them through this period they're enough to help get their rents paid and their backlog employment paid and it is the hope that will keep them fighting to stay open and this this is the gap this can close the gap for them. These funds are so important and we've seen it because we've raised money to do this for these businesses we've given it to them and $2,500 $5,000 $10,000. These are the gap funds they need and nobody else is coming to give these to them. They have no grant opportunities. They are not 501 C threes. They cannot go after the bar foundation. The PPP is way too complicated and it's too scary for many, especially of our non English speaking business owners and our minority business owners. It's too much. So I just really this is the first time I've spoken at these meetings and I really wanted to put in a plug for this again unprecedented micro grant fund from these funding sources and how important it is that we take advantage of this is I hope is a once in a lifetime thing that small businesses are having to come and look for funds like this. Thank you very much. Thank you. Who else has their hands up. Wayling and Kevin Newton. Let's see. Wayling, you can unmute yourself. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I'll be very brief. I really appreciate the insight that Keith shared with all of us. I think Kevin Newton would agree with me that Craig stores working with people. They are homeless. They need help just to stay alive by having a shelter for them. And yet they are hoping that with the resource center they will be able to help people not have to come to the shelter next winter. And us embers community connections. We are helping people who are out of the shelter and they have a glimpse of hope to gain to stable housing through our housing first program through our rental subsidy program. And this program is housing based without a support service, their chance of not going back to the shelter will be slim. And the family are rich of embers helping families who have already a roof over their head, but they have challenges unable to meet their rent utility obligations. So we have different populations we serve depending on their housing only continuum. So I want to suggest that the world now if you are homeless on the street you are very different from the people who have a roof over their head, and yet you are not able to pay your rent. So they are different. So in terms of plugging our whole budget whole money is fun to go and we provide support service to the community at a tune of 800 unique individual every year. So we will continue to help and now we are expecting the number might go up, but we are expecting the needs will be much deeper. And with that 800 people we serve and we ask for $37,000 in the previous grant that you were so kind to give it to us. But because the funding world is such they change their priority. So we are impacted. And the impact on us means that we will have to serve less of the people, we are unable to do the deep diving into their needs to help them get out of the hole. So whether you agree or not, we are just struggling like the Craig store that family are rich and like every single not proclamation, we need a lifelong and we don't have the business, you know, administration that we can go apply for funding you are our only source of funding here when it comes to COVID-19 special funding. I can't think of any other entity I could go ask to apply for a small grant. I don't. And you are my lifeline, you are the lifeline of the people we work with. So I'm going to ask you really sincerely. Please think about the dollar impact you have will be 10 times of the benefit they are going to reap in our agency's perspective. Thank you. Who will thank you willing to two more people Kevin. Kevin, you're allowed to speak. Can you hear me. Yes. Okay, thank you. I just want to clarify a couple of points. One is family outreach has submitted a grant with two options for you. They said they would accept a part-time case manager as well as a full-time case manager. So that seems to be relevant that the agency itself is willing to accept either or and still consider themselves to be effective. That should be a good point, I think. So you're not obliged to fund only one agency at a full-time position if they're asking you to do either. And then secondly, if it's, you know, we're small businesses too, particularly ACC and Craig Storch. So $6,000 is something that is helpful to a small business in Amherst. Well, certainly whatever's left, if you can be divided equally among the three agencies with social services, it's going to be significant to us. We do have the ability to fundraise, but competition for that, especially in COVID-19, is very, very hard. And then finally, it's not something that I've never done. I've been doing this for 30 years. So I don't know, maybe Paul and I should sit and have coffee, but it's not like we don't have capacity to do this. We certainly do. It's not rocket science. We have people who are homeless. We want to get them out so that they don't end up populating shelters and spreading COVID. That's the primary reason we're doing this. So again, I know you guys have a lot to do and be brief, so I'll stop here. But it just seems fair to, you know, it's pretty obvious that the town manager in the town, given their presence of the assistant town manager and Melissa Brewer, they want you to fund the micro-enterprise thing. You're pretty much already decided to fund the spirals that are at their full amount. Just look at the rest and be fair. That's all we're asking. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Are we all through with comments for the moment? Sorry, I think so. So it sort of feels to me like we're being tugged in all these different directions and I think our overarching concern is what the state will look at as a well thought out proposal from us. So can I go back one more time and just question from you, Nate, about if we fund family outreach, community connections and Craig's Doors, is that going to jeopardize us? Or can we establish that each organization meets different needs of the population during this crisis? I think, you know, Keith said that you could explain that they serve different populations. I do agree. At the same time, I could see the state saying, well, why are we paying three overhead and admins administrative costs? When could there be one agency that could just do this all right now in this emergency? So, you know, I don't know. I don't know why, how the state will look at it. You know, we would do our best to explain, you know, why the three, why it's effective to use the three organizations and how they're leveraging donations and, you know, are not, you know, as you said, you know, they're not necessarily voted budget. So, you know, I think we would make it work for the town. I just, you know, I'm not sure. I think that this isn't a typical block grant round. So they're not asking for the committee or towns to say, well, let's fund all social services because we can. What they're saying is, if usually there's a dollar cap or a number of activities, right, that are capped in a grant, so this is being amended to our 19 grant. So we already funded five social services. So any agency we fund beyond that is already over the cap. You know, I think what they're really looking at is what are the programs that address impacts from COVID and, you know, can we say that the proposals recommended do that? I think that's really the focus. Not necessarily, you know, do we need to fund all of them? It's just are the ones that are being recommended? You know, can they deliver? Can they make an impact? Can they help? So I just, you know, we're already, in terms of this is, so this is being amended for everyone listening to, this is being amended to our 2019 grant under which we've already funded five social service agencies. So if we add just one more or more dollars, we're already over our, what is our typical cap? So DHCD just said for this COVID funding, there's no cap. That way communities don't have to be worried about, you know, are we more than a certain percentage or more than a number of activities? So yeah, I don't, I mean, I think we would, you know, I would, you know, the town would make it work the best we could. I do think they are similar. I do think we could say they serve different populations. I, you know, I, they are addressing a priority that DHCD isn't, hasn't, you know, has identified. So I don't, it's probably not as helpful as you're looking for. Thank you. Can I, can I make a suggestion to the committee that if we take model one or model two with Valley CDC, the Survival Center, the Literacy Project, actually I'm on the model two, the second one down, it's that total is $389. What if we funded Valley CDC at $200? And then that left us 11, that leaves us $12,000, $14,000 extra, and then gave $7,000 to Craig Stores and $7,000 to Amherst Community Connections. So it's something, but it's fully funding Friends Family Outreach. I guess I'm not clear why $100,000 is not sufficient to fund the micro-enterprise program. Well, we know live at the number of businesses that would get funding, but we don't know the number of businesses that are going to request funding. I think in the, in the proposal, they had provided an estimate of the It says 22 micro-businesses would be served with $200,000. Right. And they, but they also estimated 20 to 30 businesses would beat the eligibility. In other words, the low income as well as the, you know, no more than four or whatever employees. So I think they've looked at this and I think they, you know, they made a reasonable assumption. Right, Keith. I think the one thing that did change from when that, the original application is DCD has allowed a town to design their program guideline so that income eligibility could be based on a three month, a three month calculation, say starting April one to July one. So it's not based on a prior year tax return. So that actually opens up more businesses to being income eligible. So to me, that makes me think that probably any micro enterprise in Amherst would be eligible. So it's no longer based solely on tax returns. So I think that that opens it up to a lot more businesses being able to apply for funding. I don't know the number, but I just, I just know that it'll, it can open up the possibility of more. Can I say something? So the comments about the CDC is actually sort of swung me even more towards funding them in full, because being grant money and the size of the businesses and the income eligibility for the last three months would make quite a few eligible. And everybody is going to have to learn how to use the technology for offline business. And the small businesses are the most likely ones not to have the technology, the equipment that they need to really do that, right? And this could be a perfect grant for them to go get the, what they need to access the world to sell their products as well as walk-ins when the doors open. So that would, that is just my thought. Also, you have to take into consideration the impact of whether the university is going to be populated in the fall or not. And that's, you know, four months from now, but we don't, three months from now, two and a half, whatever, we don't really know what's going to happen come Labor Day weekend if students are coming back. So these micro enterprises really need this boost. We need somebody to make a proposal here. We've been on the phone for two and a half hours. I think we're all getting phone fatigue. So does it make sense? I'm really energized right now. Does it, does it make sense to, you know, flesh out, say, I don't know, three of these three proposals and then see how many people support each one and start eliminating and see where that leaves us. See if we can get, you know, a large enough majority to support. Well, we get the first time just go down the list and raise our hands and see what, see what that looks like. See how close we are. Well, do we want to eliminate any before we, we have one, two, five scenarios? Do we want to, are there any that we know off the bat that we want to eliminate? Bring us back to Excel, please. Sure. The last scenario, budgetary scenario wasn't, you know, it was just, yeah, so the last one in C. This one. No, no, the, the, yeah, that one that your cursor's on now, right? So that's supposed, yeah, well, the three things you see, which would, and then the, again, obviously we have 31,000 left. The, you know, I, I wonder so, Gail, you had mentioned, okay, so you've put a strong plug in for the literacy project. And of course, it's, it's, it's one of the smaller ones. There's a domestic violence project. I'm not sure if we heard from everybody on that. I'm not saying we should go the way of convenience, but it occurs to me that those two together are $30,000, right? And we have $31,000 left. It does, you know, we've heard people argue to for, and Gail, you've done it and so for splitting, you know, it feels odd to me to give $7,000 to a program that asks for 57, you know, $7,000 to a program that asks for 47. You know, if there isn't a strong feeling about supporting one or the other, I'd feel better about supporting the ones that ask, you know, giving, you know, giving $10,000 to the one that asks for 10, 20 to the one that asks for 20, so they can at least do what they asked for, as opposed to giving, you know, what feels like a very small amount to groups that ask for much more, but that may, that may not be right. But, but I guess, you know, if we want to make this Nate into a proposal, the one that you have highlighted there, you know, I would throw in, yeah, 24 literacy project, 10 or 11 for the domestic violence program, in which case we're obviously putting all our, you know, eggs into the FOA basket. Isn't that, isn't that the same as the top proposal there? It is. Woohoo. It is the same. But yeah, I think, I think that, you know, yeah, obviously we could divide that extra 31 in, in different ways. I could live with that. But of the ones proposed, that's, that's the one that I would vote for if we were to vote on it right now. That's the allocation I would support. Andrew, if you just said, I move. What I just said, I could get either a second or it would be, it wouldn't go anywhere, but at least it's something to then have a discussion on. Move, Andrew, move. Okay, no, I will, I will move. I will move. And then we'll see if anyone seconds me. I move. Now it's that top left corner there that I think Andrew described. Yes. And I would second that. Technically, it's $1,000 short, but TLP is actually $20,400. Yeah, that was a rough, I mean, we will just, we can, I guess that's the full some rounding there. We need to take a vote beyond the second. Yeah. I know. Usually we do a vote via roll call on zoom, but so I, you know, just want to make sure that we've exhausted the discussion. If people have questions, we can, it doesn't need to go to a vote unless there's people want to. I think it would be good to go to a vote. I mean, to take it, to ask people, yay or nay. All right. Yeah. If you want to call it, then you could. So all in, do we have to do it individually by person? Okay. Paul, are you amenable to the motion that's on the table right now? Can I note one thing? Sure. That actually all of these, they're really only two, we have five things written out there, but they're actually only two choices. The one we've highlighted and the one that Keith suggested. The others are actually all pretty much the same, right? Yes. Very similar. So we haven't, for example, produced one where, yeah, Craig's doors and Amherst Community Connection, right, get, yeah, that we really do split money across those three. This one had that. That was mine. That was mine. That's okay. No, I'm just saying that's the only other, we only really have two budgets up there, two allocations up there. So, you know, I'm wondering, does anyone want to propose a third allocation that is, you know, meaningfully different than these? And if not, then should we, yes, we could just vote on these two, if we're satisfied with these being the essential alternatives. But we do have a motion. So can we first take the roll call on the motion? In a second. So, yeah. Are you taking notes by hand, Nate? Yeah. Usually I type, but it's hard to type and then do everything else. Yeah, I need an extra set of hands. Zoom does a transcript. I might actually see if I can use it from this meeting. There you go. It's a long one. Okay. So, tell me when you're ready. I'm all set. So, okay. So, Paul, there's a motion on the table on the floor to accept or reject the proposed budget that we see up on the top left corner. That totals, it's the only one on the Excel sheet that totals 399. Yay or nay? Okay. So, just to be clear, that's the Valley CDC, the Amherst Survival Center, the Learning Literacy Project, and PVPC and Family Outreach. Correct. Yeah. I would go with that. Thank you. Julie noted. Nat proposed it. Andrew's seconded. I have the order. So, Keith, you're a next person. Well, we still want to have Nat and Andrew take a vote. Oh, okay. Even though they made the motion. Maybe they changed their mind. Sometimes you second just to further their discussion. Okay. I'm going down the line. Andrew? I'm supportive of that. Yes. Thank you. Nat? Yes. Keith? No. Okay. Do you want to discuss? I just do not feel devoting half of these funds to an ambiguous microenterprise program that I think is very well-intentioned, but the immediacy of impact is just undefined. The level of support per applicant is unknown. The use of funds per applicant, we don't know, and there's no feedback mechanism to know that those funds are being used for the desired purposes. But we know that there are households and individuals that have been suffering and have been overwhelmingly impacted by this virus. And we have the capacity and expertise in our social service community to meet their needs. And I think we should set aside some funding. I definitely think some money toward that microenterprise program, whatever it is going to be, is fine. But I think the ask made of each organization is based on their understanding of their need. It's not a fictitious number. And to not fully fund those applications at the levels requested, because of concern about how the judges at the state panel may view the application, I think is not what we should do. Okay. But again, I emphasize that the state could look at the Craig Store's family outreach and Amherst Community Connections as duplication of efforts. And that's not the basis for my decision at all. I don't know if it is for everybody else, but it is nothing to do with my decision. Okay. Gail, you haven't voted. I'm always the last one to go. I always vote one way, and then I go home and don't sleep at night because I feel it. I can live with this proposal with the 399. I mean, there's so much need in the community. And again, I think my reasoning and not that it really matters is I think that nonprofits, again, have the capacity to go out and fundraise and do a letter writing campaign or go fund me. And businesses don't raise money. Businesses make money because they're not nonprofits. So I vote yay on the total of 399. All right. Thanks, everyone. That wasn't really an easy decision. There's still a number of attendees. I have one quick question. What micro business is truly making money if the owners still qualify for assistance? All of them because none of them have been open. So they're income eligible. But are we going to... Well, that just answered my question. Like, how is this being executed? If I say that I started a business less than a year ago, but I have nothing that looks like a business, but I say I'm my only employee, I apply for funds, I get funds. Okay. I don't know. It's Yeah. I think we're in the point of guessing on what their needs are. We have to have some faith in this group that has done it for 20 years. Right. We wouldn't, like Valley said, you know, you do screen applicants. So there is some parameter. So it's not like you could have a business that just started, you know, at the meeting this year, asking for funding necessarily. So, you know, there are some unknowns with this program. I was going to say to this, I was going to thank everyone for sitting through this and, you know, there is a vote. So it seems like, you know, that's, that's those are the recommendations. I can transmit that to the town manager's office and work with the town manager's office on submitting an application to the state. The, you know, I think that it was a really thorough discussion. And I, you know, I do thank the committee. I don't, I think it's a difficult decision to, you know, to decide who gets funded and who doesn't when, you know, like Andrew said, all the proposals were strong. So I thank everyone for that, for the, your, your, you know, your thoughtful consideration. Okay. And I don't know, Gail, you know, is everyone comfortable with that? I guess we, if so, we can ask for one more round of public comment, if you'd like, and then close the meeting. Nate, can I just, so when you write it up, there will actually will be 700 left over, I believe. I think the, I mean, we'll, you know, we'll make the budget work. There is some admin money we could put in there. There's, you know, if we need to put 700 toward one proposal, we can do that. Not to me, that's not, you know, if there are a few thousand left over, I would ask the committee to help with that. But, you know, the town manager could make a recommendation on that 700. Okay. Yeah. And I have to just ask, is there a chance that the town manager would disagree with our recommendation? And then what happens? Let's say he doesn't like the fact that, you know, we didn't fund two, two agencies helping with homeless issues. Would it come back to us? Or would he just, you know, reconfigure them out? And it would just, I think given the timeframe and this type of money would just be the town manager's decision in the town's decision. I mean, you know, we, I think the committee goes through a really thoughtful process so that, you know, we're, you know, staff are well aware of this decision-making process. So, you know, he respects that. But, you know, there wouldn't be, you know, DCD is not asking for, you know, another public hearing and then, you know, there isn't time to do that kind of iterative process. So, Nate, you just asked now about comments during this meeting currently or another one? Well, right now, I mean, there's still a lot of people in attendance. I just wasn't sure if we want to have any more public comment, Gail, or if you think I could leave it, I don't know. I think two hours and three quarters. I mean, we really have heard from everybody and everybody had an adequate chance to speak. We asked for new information. We got a little bit of new information. And I think we, this was a very thorough and thoughtful process and it's never easy. It's not easy. But I think we look, I think we draw our eyes and cross our cheeks pretty thoroughly. At the risk of painting you, at the considerable risk of painting you, I'm going to just ask one last question. The 66 says, I'm forgetting who it was. Family average. Spoke up. No, no, but as someone noted, of course, they did ask for a full time, you know, they offered the full-time, part-time possibility. We were sufficiently impressed, I think, certainly I was that I said, oh, I'd love them to have a full time because I think they'll do very good work and they can cover all kinds of areas. We could, you know, we could fund them at the half, at the part-time position, which would free up, you know, 30-something thousand dollars that we could reallocate. I don't think we've expressly talked about that issue once we thought, yes, ideally we would fund them at the full-time. So I at least want to raise that. Is that something worth considering? I think, no, I think the strongest argument comes from the municipal affordable housing trust chair, John Hornick, who, for the $250,000 that they have to provide, they need a social service agency to work with and they really want one, right, that can handle this. So the more resources we can give to family outreach to have a full-time person to really allow them by the partner with the, you know, affordable housing trust seems to me like I think he has a really, really good point. Thank you, Nat. I'm getting hungry. Are we ready to call this or do we have to address raised hands? Committee, I guess it's up to you, Gail. You already said there was no more comment. It's almost six. You know, we'd have to have a motion to adjourn and then... I'll make a motion to adjourn. Seconded. And then I guess a roll call to adjourn if you want to do it that way. Touch your nose if you want to adjourn, then we know you're listening. Keith, we don't know what you're doing. Okay, we're done. Keith must be tired right now. He's probably holding the baby. That's why he doesn't have his video up. All right, so we'll say that the vote was to adjourn. And thanks, everyone. Thank you for listening. I'm going to end the meeting in a minute. So thanks, everyone, for hanging in there for almost three hours. And yeah, thanks, committee. Thank you, Nate. This is where the hard work begins for you. All right, yeah, this is fine. It gives me something to do for a week. I hope you get out of the bedroom once in a while. I don't need my room, no. Thank you. Bye. Bye, everyone. Thank you, everyone.