Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes - Minutes - Community Development Advisory Commission - Meeting Date: 7/19/2012 MINUTES CITY OF GLENDALE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE RETREAT GLENDALE MAIN LIBRARY 5959 WEST BROWN STREET, LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM GLENDALE,AZ Thursday,July 19,2012 6:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Arthur Swander, Jr., Acting Chair Gina Schmitz Pattie Johnston Randy Miller Sharon Wixon Chris Flippen Cherie Hudson MEMBERS ABSENT: John B. Torres Shirley Wong STAFF PRESENT: Gilbert Lopez, Revitalization Administrator Mona Francis, Revitalization Supervisor Elizabeth Garcia, Revitalization Coordinator Mary Beth Lawler, Valley of the Sun United Way Beth Coughenour, Senior Secretary GUEST: Richard Schwartz I. Call to Order Acting Chair Swander called the meeting to order at 6:37 p.m. Acting Chair Swander noted that Richard Schwartz, CDAC Committee Chair was present, but had not been re- appointed to the committee by Council prior to summer break. II. Roll Call Acting Chair Swander conducted roll call and welcomed everyone to the meeting. III. Approval of Meeting Minutes—May 17, 2012 Committee-member Miller motioned to approve the May 17, 2012 meeting minutes as written. Committee-member Hudson made the second. The motion passed 7—0. IV. Business from the Floor None. Minutes of the Community Development Advisory Committee July 19,2012 Page 2 of 6 V. Valley of the Sun United Way—Funding Application Review Ms. Mary Beth Lawler, IT Analyst, United Way, provided a presentation on various federal funding applications from the City of Tempe, City of Peoria, City of Chandler, Diamondbacks Foundation, Dignity Health, and Cox Charities for the committee member's review. Ms. Lawler went through the current City of Glendale application explaining the aspects of the budget/revenue section, the logic form, and the additional resources form. Committee-member Miller remarked that the application needs to be adjusted for easier viewing, and budget and additional resource information at the front the application. He also suggested that the information provided by the non-profit agencies not just be copied and pasted from their website; would like the information to be specific to their application. Mr. Lopez, Revitalization Administrator, clarified that Committee-member Miller's comment was to move the budget and revenue information questions from the back to the front of the application. Committee-member Miller stated that the first page shows the activity overview with a question of whether or not the City of Glendale's funding would be the sole funding source for the requested activity. Question number seven requests the cost per person to fund the program and he believes there is not enough detail on the answers, such as costs per person for what part of the activity, and how do they know the client they are serving is actually a City of Glendale resident. Ms. Lawler remarked that Dignity Health places the cost per person to fund their program into their logic model, which has a limit of the number of characters that can be placed in that logic model section. Committee-member Schmitz stated the current Glendale logic model has different questions that tie back into prior sections. Committee-member Miller stated that on Page Five, the activity description needs to be specific to their current request. He noted that the majority of the non-profit agencies seem to cut and paste the website description into this area. Committee-member Miller stated he would like the description to be more concise. All he wants to know is what the agency is going to do with the funding. Ms. Lawler suggested the activity description could be limited to a specific number of characters that would not allow the cut and paste of the website description into it. She referred the committee members to review the City of Peoria handout and notice the sequence of questions and sections within their funding application. Ms. Lawler stated she can make any field required and can place limitations on the number of characters allowed in the fields. Minutes of the Community Development Advisory Committee July 19,2012 Page 3 of 6 Acting Chair Swander stated the overall budget for the organization helps as it shows how they are doing and what type of funding they are using to accomplish their activity. Ms. Lawler stated the City of Tempe application has six of eighteen questions dealing with the agency budget and also requires a narrative. Ms. Johnston remarked the City of Tempe application is great, very informative and easy to follow the questions especially the budget/revenue area. Ms. Lawler noted the logic model in that application is actually part of the quarterly report that the City of Tempe requires from each approved agency. Tempe staff gets the quarterly report for their review and files. Mr. Lopez stated the City of Glendale staff prepares an information cover sheet for each funding application which can be changed to better assist the committee review of the applications. Committee-member Miller noted that on Page Eight, the information the agencies provide is cut and paste information from their website and he would like to see a character limit in this section. Committee member Miller stated that he assumes the staff requests the demographic/ethnicity information from the agencies as it is a federal requirement. Ms. Lawler remarked that demographic information probably does not mean a lot to the committee; however, it is used more for federal requirements. Committee-member Miller stated that he does not even look at the demographic information. Ms. Lawler clarified that the demographic information is used more by the funders and any media issues. Mr. Lopez remarked that the demographic information mirrors the make-up of the city as a whole, and is a federal requirement for the funding of the grants. Chair Swander stated that since the committee members do not use the demographic information, to eliminate it from the information they receive. Committee-member Flippen stated that he is in agreement on the premise; however, to be careful about restricting information, as what may not be relevant to one person, may be to another person. The information is good to have as the applications deal with several faith-based agencies. Mr. Lopez remarked the federal government wants to see the demographic information as it is a requirement for accessing the funds and the information is used in several different reports the city is required to accomplish goals and objectives of the Annual Action Plan. Mr. Lopez noted that staff reviews every agency application and if the application does not meet federal requirements, it gets kicked out before the Committee ever sees the Minutes of the Community Development Advisory Committee July 19,2012 Page 4 of 6 application. Staff reviews all the reimbursement requests back to the application and federal requirements being met by the agency for assurance and monitoring practices. Committee-member Flippen said that the information is invaluable to meet federal guidelines in case an individual or agency holds a grudge or negativity about the city and protects the Committee and city staff with the provided information. Committee-member Miller suggested it could be taken off the application information the Committee receives and provided for staff purposes only. Committee-member Flippen suggested a one-page summary of the important facts and essential questions in the application. He stated the summary should be a concise report of the facts with maybe two to three sentences. Committee-member Miller agreed and said the committee and staff have to apply due diligence. Ms. Lawler stated after the agency submits the application, a summary could be created and the questions/answers be condensed into the summary. Committee-member Miller said the presentations have a short time period and it sometimes takes awhile for the agency to summarize their application. He stated an executive summary of the pertinent facts and questions would be great. Chair Swander added that would be a great idea and also leave space for notes on the executive summary for the committee-members, so you're not going back and forth in the entire application during the presentations. Ms. Lawler replied that there are ways to do an executive summary. City of Tempe committee members can log into the applications and ask questions directly to a specific agency on their application. Ms. Lawler stated the system could summarize the questions and answers into an executive summary that could be printed out. Committee-member Miller commented that during the presentations, other committee- members ask questions that may trigger additional questions that have not been asked. Ms. Lawler asked for any additional comments and/or questions. She detailed the online application method of the agencies being able to reply to questions from the Committee members and the system preparing an executive summary of the questions/answers into a printable format. Ms. Francis asked if the questions and answers executive summary would be before the presentation and after the application is finalized in the system. Ms. Lawler replied there are several different ways to do this and would prepare information on this for staff and CDAC. Chair Swander stated the committee would require the print out before any presentations were heard and give the committee time to review it. Minutes of the Community Development Advisory Committee July 19,2012 Page 5 of 6 Mr. Lopez suggested a timeline of three weeks prior to the presentations for the executive summary to be provided to the committee and they can work on the timeline for this to satisfy the committee's needs. He stated that the questions/answers method was done before with CDAC; however, some members are not that astute with computers and get frustrated. Chair Swander suggested that he could get with the CDAC members if they have problems accessing the computer program and assist them with it. Mr. Lopez suggested that the CDAC members could use the web email address that is used for public comments for the Annual Action Plan and Consolidated plan which is Con-plan@glendaleaz.com. Committee-member Miller suggested getting with IT and use an email for CDAC with a title and it could be filtered just for CDAC member's use. Mr. Lopez noted that any public comments by CDAC are considered a public forum and the members would need to be careful with verbiage. Ms. Lawler stated she, or city staff, could follow up with the City of Tempe as they use a similar system and visit their application process and see how it works. Ms. Francis remarked it would be nice to do away with the four-inch binders. Ms. Lawler replied that the Diamondback Foundation and Cox Charities use the online system and can click and pull it up anytime even in a meeting. She stated she would be willing to assist with this process. After much discussion, the committee members requested the following changes to the Glendale federal funding application: 1. specify if sole funding source or what other organizations fund the agency under Activity Overview; 2. require more detail in the answer to Question No. 7 regarding cost per person/units; 3. limit the number of characters allowed in a field, and specify a "brief" activity description so that the agency does not copy and paste the website information; 4. have an agency level budget for the specific program including any additional funding from other organizations; and 5. use pages 6, 7, 11, and 12 from the City of Tempe's application for Glendale's budget portion of the application. The committee members were interested in the process and requested additional information at a future meeting. Minutes of the Community Development Advisory Committee July 19,2012 Page 6 of 6 VI. Overview of Activities and Projects that can be Federally-Funded Mr. Lopez provided a brief PowerPoint presentation on the eligible projects allowed under the different Grant sources per federal requirements. VII. Review of Mayor and Council Funding Priorities Mr. Lopez provided a brief PowerPoint presentation on the Mayor and City Council priorities process. VIII. Public Hearing/Meeting Calendaring and Grant Process Mr. Lopez requested that the Committee members review the FY 2013-14 calendar and advise staff if any member had problems with the meeting/hearing dates as soon as possible. IX. Adjournment Committee-member Miller motioned to adjourn the meeting at 7:49 p.m. Committee-member Wixon made the second. The motion passed 7-0. Respectfully submitted, C:35?0 CA ftiV jp0 1(/ Recording Secretary Beth Coughenour CAP-OM Senior Secretary