Topeka Council Social Service Grants Committee July 16 2019

good morning everyone my name is Jeff Cohen and good morning good morning but Topeka City Councilman and this is the social service grants committee Tuesday July the 16th at 9 a.m. at the Law Enforcement Center I'll call this meeting to order and the first item up is to approve the minutes from the June 5th meeting entertaining emotion and move to approve all second those in approval yes yes thank you next item up is to review the 2020 recommendations and Councilman Padilla the floor is yours Thank You mr. chairman firstly we want to thank everybody for coming to this meeting and listening to what we have to say but we want to also want to hear what you have to say so anybody in attendance right now at this meeting I've asked the chair if we can entertain that opportunity for people to make comment before we move forward in the body of the meeting so if there's anyone that we just come forward and speak on this topic just raise your hand or what hasn't started to come up this is Christina you come up to the podium please the way we have your microphone I didn't know that there was going to be a possibility of speaking but I'm thankful for that opportunity I'm Cristina Bolivia Alcala and I am from district 2 I just as I'm looking this over I see that there have been some what appears to be adjustments from other another spreadsheets that I was looking at before but I just want to say this I think that no matter what kind of problems there were with filling out these grants or whatever the appeal process was like or challenges that came through with that I think it is unconscionable that we were looking at several weeks ago the funding possibly being cut by the city for these social services I think that when we talk quality of life we mean quality of life for everyone and not cutting out the knees from underneath senior citizens and there was a lot of posturing going on at City Council about how hard it was for these decisions to be made it was so painful it was the most painful thing – to cut services but you know what the most painful people that the most pain that people are feeling are the senior citizens the senior citizens that need transportation to get to these senior centers the part-time employees that may be impacted I'm surprised this did not make the media I mean it just really makes you wonder what you're talking about as a city when we are talking about quality of life and that senior centers in specific districts would attempt to be cut like this I appreciate everything that you've done Mike I really do because I think without you being on here we wouldn't have seen any changes and not being an expert I admit in reading spreadsheets you know I'm assuming that there's going to be some funding done it probably is not enough but I just I really think that we have to get some priorities straight when we're talking about quality of life because quality of life means for all people and I also wonder how many of the I think councilman lesser is missing how many people have been to visit these particular senior centers and talked with the seniors and seeing how much they have done during the course of the years that they have been in existence and how much of their funding has been cut over time but you want to nickel and dime them for not having particular forms filled out when what we should be doing is working together as a community both city officials and both the community organizations that we are talking about I appreciate you giving me the time to speak good morning I appreciate your time I come to you as a private citizen I'm sorry for protocol just identify you I'm sorry Michele Stubblefield Michele Kova Stubblefield I am part of district 1 I come to you today as a private citizen I also come to you today as a lifelong to beacon one thing I have always been very proud of and this community is how we take care of our youngest and our seniors I think that's truly a reflection the type of community that we are when we acknowledge that we have people in the community that need to be cared for ok when one thing I can tell you about as we had a Public Citizen and being heavily involved in the community is that this is has and has always been a very private and public partnership and that needs to be maintained I also served as a state director for LULAC and I can tell you in and LULAC seniors citizens case this is a one of a kind for the u.s. there is no other LULAC Senior Center that has received the acknowledgment because of the services that they provide in a manner that's efficient that is open to the entire community yes it started as the neighborhood community in Oakland been since that time it has been been supported by two primary organizations who have continued to this day to raise funds now obviously as any nonprofit the funds aren't enough okay and that's where that public-private partnership comes into play we need you as a organization as a government to come in and and continue to provide those services it's a quality of life issue it's a quality of place issue when people come into this community and decide where they want to live they're going to look and see how we treat our our most vulnerable I would ask that in a day where seniors are living longer we need to provide them a quality of life this is also an economic issue if our we are all living longer and adult day care if that's what you want to call it is more readily needed it caught it's costly but it's extremely valuable so I would ask you please consider the monies that you provide are extremely important I think we've seen the most senior centers that are also used wisely and the partnerships that are created is just simply a representation of the kind of community that we are and we should be and money unfortunately is a reflection of that commitment I appreciate your time thank you anywhere else – who wishes to address the committee yeah mr. belman name is Norbert gommi everybody call me blue but I just want to party with case for example senior citizen that I'm a senior citizen now but you know it's said that we keep on cutting only senior citizens like me especially low-income and you keep on cutting programs in that we worked all our live we pay our taxes and everything like that you have to keep on cutting and I think that's really really it's unfair that we work our live paid taxes and all that and yet to keep on cutting on our funds for senior citizens you like in our land but I just want to say I hope you guys get together and start looking into this about think about senior citizens and that you know that's power I could say but just just please think about the senior citizens and rule and everybody but we need 10 programs and two people Inc I don't transportation stuff like that so please think about it okay thank you thank you sir anyone else wish to address the committee yes ma'am I'm Kate gray and I represent the board for patents landing Senior Center and I hadn't planned on speaking but I appreciate the opportunity to ask for support for Poppins landing Senior Center it has been in existence and we hope it will be able to continue the questions came up at the council meeting how much of the budget will you be missing if you get no funding from the city and in Papen's case they would get about over 12% would be cut so we would be cutting personnel and activities and in addition to that the center is now in the hands of Papen's Landing Senior Center but if it closes because I'm not enough funding it will revert back to the city it is kind of a strange deal but that building wouldn't revert back to the city and we are spending money on maintenance we have to replace a furnace and air conditioner several thousand dollars for that and other repairs so we are taking care of a building that the city will get if we closed and we hope we don't close so we're hoping the city will continue to fund all the senior centers because they're all very important for the city and the seniors depend on those centers for their activities and their communication with each other instead of staying in their homes and not being able to be out in the public and this is a safe place for them to go so please consider funding all the senior centers in Topeka they're very important and thank you very much thank you anyone else care to address the committee okay well thank you for your comments I appreciate that visiting a little bit with the with director Han I wanted to ask if she would describe for us in layman's terms for me to be able to understand every little bit of it what the role of the review volunteer committee plays and what they look at and what is their responsibility in assigning scores to the applicants sure and so maybe two years ago in our social service grant committee process the committee adopted a policy to recruit volunteers from the community to sit on a review committee of the applications and they actually score a bulk of the applications the city staff does have a few of the areas on the score sheet that we are responsible for scoring and that's the portions about past performance related to timely reports we provided the score for the board composition and whether or not it meets the the 65% I'm sorry the committee does that one that outcomes is the other area that staff scores and the rest of the application is actually scored by this committee we developed a not a Job Description really but just kind of a guideline that the committee set forth last year I believe to describe what we're looking for and the folks that we recruit each year for this process are folks that are involved in grant making that have been professionally involved in grant making throughout their careers so there this year there was a committee of three volunteers and that's about what we average because we're asking folks to give us approximately forty hours of their time to review all of the applications and score them and they score them individually and then come together and create a cumulative score and so of all of the questions on the application that are scored staff has to that we provide the scores for and that again that is based on the history of their reporting and the outcomes that they tell us that they're going to achieve and then how they were report on their accomplishments so in a nutshell that's how that works okay I want to refer back to a document that I have in front of me that it's the city of Topeka social services funding priorities for year 2020 and the mission statement is quality cost-effective social services to handle our vulnerable citizens with care minimize the victimization and crying minimize turnovers in neighborhood and optimize success all things that I would agree with it obviously and the very top bullet point is senior citizen neighborhood based programming to include meals activities and transportation if in fact that is a priority for our city I would assume that's shared with those volunteer the RFP this sheet that you're reading is included in the RFP and they are given that RFP as part of the process each year so yes sir they are they are familiar with the priorities that set forth by the city of Topeka so when it came to city of Topeka from the volunteers their review and cumulative scores okay those programs that they were reviewing had they come to a ranking already as to somebody had 10% 20% 30% I mean did they have a list of prior of ranking already before the staff then looked at the outcomes and report submissions so if I understand your question you're asking if we provide the scoring that staff does to them along with the applications and turn them loose or do we not tell them our scores until after they provide their scores is that your question latter huh yes know that they're provided our scores on the front side yes we received the applications we score our two questions and then we provide them with all of that information Corinne can I ask a question is there a process that involves a meeting I guess with those reviewers to get a explanation as to how they came to those numbers yes there is a few meetings back we had the appeal process where we went over why everybody lost points so at the end of the scoring process the reviewers come to a consensus on why somebody lost points and I do have those with me today for each of each of the different categories okay so and they the agent if I may the on the priority sheet all of the applicants met the priorities so that's kind of the threshold guidelines so they are not on one of the priorities then we wouldn't be scoring them but all of these agencies met the priorities for the city okay and as I understand it the minimum score to receive consideration for funding is 90 it was 90 yes what was it in the previous year leave last year was 88 wasn't it yeah yeah okay it's 88 but what we do is we the score that's four changes from year to year because it depends on when we run out of money and so if we run out at 88 we run out of 88 this year it happened to be a score of 90 okay all right can is there a way to I don't know explain or at least get some idea of why the senior centers and I'm not excluding the Latino Family Development Program but primarily the senior centers because that seems like a clot on the group of social services how they seem to be most affected by this current round of applications there's really no explanation it just ended up that the scores felt that way so it wasn't we weren't looking solely at the senior centers and targeting the senior centers by any means it was just the scores fell that way and it happened to be the all four were not that situation and I don't mean to imply that that occurred at all but it just seems to me to be more than coincidental maybe it's as a matter of the process itself that somehow those groups struggled with meeting the required outcomes score then put them in a position not to receive funds so I'm not implying at all that but I just it seems to be a commonality that is shared with them that would occur that to happen just with those senior centers is there something then so I'm looking at I'm looking at the spreadsheet which we have comments on and I'm not seeing a common theme each agency miss points in kind of different areas it wasn't one particular area that they all lost points in is that kind of whatever kind of June okay so yeah I don't see a common theme I mean some of them lost points on their outputs being clear some on organizational leadership but nothing nothing consistently with all four of them and the four how often I mean if 90 because being the threshold how many of them fell out of that threshold within say two to three points well they all they received an 88 so they they were too shy two points shy of the funding so four of those were two points shy of that 90 yes and would it be fair to say that those loss of points came in positions where they are administrative with regards to the reporting piece or what you know the the one she just mentioned being the outputs were clear that's scored by the committee and that is that's referencing the outputs that they include on their application okay so now there's they're not all losing points in the two areas that staff scores if that's what you're asking well it sounds like that but what I'm trying to get into is again the commonality that they all share in getting no funding seems maybe indicative of the process itself maybe an understanding of how to report what their what they are doing in a way that's effective for their organizations because from first hand I know that the senior centers already pretty much run on a shoestring as it is and the and directors wear many hats and don't have the luxury most of them that I understand I would say all of them to have somebody on staff who's good at writing their grant application because I look at somebody like the Boys and Girls Club and believe me I'm totally supportive of that but they're very efficient obviously in writing their grants they have somebody that is doing a very good job of presenting their case so that they can receive the requests that they've submitted there but they're not the only ones but I know these senior centers are pressed for doing a lot with very few staff if any and so I wonder how much of the process is difficult for them and if the process excuse me somebody Lake Mary Florida I'm just wondering if the process has overtaken the purpose of this whole grants committee so just to give you an idea of some of the things that we do to help support the agencies in their applications because definitely you could go through the list of folks that apply and find agencies not just senior centers other agencies as well that are very small staffed and in some cases volunteers are a bulk of their staff but maybe it would be helpful if we just quickly go over the areas where the four agencies that you're talking about lost points something that that maybe will answer your question so Latino Family Community Action Latino Family Development lost they received a 15 on outcomes from prior grants there's 20 points possible for that that is one area that it's task force and for organizational leadership they received three points there are five points possible there and that speaks to the percentage of the board that is represented by minorities and for past grant administration they lost five points they received five points and there are ten points total that is an area where staff scores and those are that has to deal with their timeliness and accuracy of their reports and so between ten and five there's no different number that you can choose like six seven eight if they timing this is one time or two times does it increase in penalty as it work but it just goes from ten to five at five to zero Corey yes yes there you go okay sorry really should have my readers on Easter pika council of aging they received eight out of ten four outputs being clear eight out of ten possible for outcomes being clear outcomes identified in their plan they received three of five and passed granted miss administration they received five of ten blublack senior center four outputs being clear they received eight out of ten points possible for outcomes from prior grants they received 15 out of 20 possible and four past grant administration they received 5 out of 10 possible patents landing Senior Center received 10 out of a total possible 24 outcomes from prior grants they received 3 of 5 possible for organizational leadership I don't know that's it and those are the four that year and those are areas that staff on the outcomes piece would have scored or is that committee yeah so the outcomes from prior grants is scored by staff however what staff does with that particular question is take their final report who may compare it to what they said they were going to do and so it's really if they did it or they didn't do it and then they got their score based off of that and if they did which is say that we were going to serve a hundred and fifty people that we served 145 mm-hmm they fall short of that outcome correct and and so then there's a reduction to the point yes okay and one one point of clarification on that part of the process so once the grants are awarded and the agencies know the total dollar amount because that in my experience they've never gotten as much as they asked for because we don't have enough then they have the opportunity at the contract phase of the grant process to adjust their outcomes that they say that they will provide to the city so if their funding was reduced from what they anticipated they can at that point make an adjustment to be mindful of that fact that Corey just pointed out that at the end we're gonna measure again and if you missed it you will lose points so we there's a safety mechanism so to speak in them and step of the process and they fully understand that safety that opportunity for them to make the adjustment so then and is there a timeline that they have to meet to get that correction made in word to may be affect the outcome Rachelle sends out the contract and at that time in the emails she allows them to revise their outputs and outcomes according to the dollar amount that they received that particular year and if there are errors and they're even in their readjustment the desert shall help them or point that out to them at that time yeah sure is that done in what what time of the year first quarter court have any quarter every quarter I'm actually sorry Rochelle just pointed out one other little piece of information that will be useful to you she's saying that in that fort first quarter they're given the opportunity to adjust it so when they turn in their numbers the end of the first quarter they're given the opportunity to adjust those outcome totals one last time before it's locked okay so there yeah this is mr. chair yeah councilman Padilla do you think the system's flawed I think the first meeting that we had an observation was made by myself and shared by that councilman Lissa at that time that there were points in the process that could be reviewed to see if they would be necessary changes and he think he felt they stated I want to misquote that some waiting may need to be looked at so I think the system may not be totally flawed but I do think the system bares review and I don't want it to appear that that I'm criticizing the system that's been put in place but I don't think that we've gotten to the point where we've got it perfect yeah and I know that there are other groups that do it in the city took it back to take on this responsibility so I think it's it was important for us to discuss this at a level beyond just a consent agenda item so that we could actually look at making some changes and I and again not to over speak councilman lesser he's probably watching at home right now saying I should have showed up but I think he did suggest that some were down later on in the year we would ask you as chair to bring the committee together with parties that are involved to review the process to make suggestions and then go from there but he didn't want to change the process for this year so that was his expression to me anyway and if I can make the statement that I know what it appears that my advocacy is for just these four groups in the beginning my advocacy was that if we have a pot of money in this case four hundred and thirty four thousand dollars that there should be the ability for everyone if we if we all say that these all these met our priorities our social services funding priorities if they all met that threshold initially that they should have some consideration in the sharing of that total pot of money it just seems to me to be unequal to give as much as we are has been recommended to some groups at the expense of others and I asked director Han to on a supposition if the four groups that I had asked to be funded at a level of a minimum ten thousand dollars which I know is the minimum threshold how it would adjust and how it would play out and she submitted what that would look like and for me it looks like even making an adjustment to be able to fit in at a minimum of $10,000 for the four that I've requested that those other grantees while they would be reduced in their funding would still be getting more than they did in 2019 is that correct 2019 allocation that says would have been let's say let me look at one the Big Brothers Big Sisters of mentoring in 2019 the allocation was eighteen thousand two hundred dollars is that correct yes the very next one is an example of so and the request for next year is 25 thousand dollars then at my request the could well not have I request the committee recommended 20 to 5 that was the route based on their score yes yes correct and that at my request you looked at which one could be shared and revised the award to 20,000 $48 which is a difference of $2,400 yes so still at $22,500 the recommended would still be more than they got in 2019 which was 18,200 so the revised total is 20 thousand 48 which would be more yes than their 819 allocation of eighteen thousand two hundred but if you go to the very next agency on the spreadsheet you'll see where that it doesn't play out that way so in 2019 boys and girls club comprehensive youth development was awarded 23 to 50 mm-hmm the recommendation from your committee for 2020 funding was 20 to 750 the adjusted total with the 40,000 needles have taken out is 20,000 to 71 that is a 2,400 $79 difference reduction Friday the 19th funding yeah there's still so it doesn't do you see what I'm saying some of the agencies that plays out that way that yes they still will receive more than what they were awarded for this current funding year for 2019 but it doesn't play that way for all of them third the court just added a 13 of the recommended agencies that would have a reduction from their 2019 totals of 29 of 19 yeah totally in our conversation you mentioned that there were two words there still to that so the original recommendation there were six that didn't meet the the 90% threshold the four agencies that we've been discussing sole reason and Midland care hospice services both you pointed out correctly that both Midland care hospice services and sole reason those are new programs for the 2020 funding cycle there these are new applications for new programs but those two still remain in an unfunded recommendation status even based on this conversation would their applications have fallen in that 88 percent whatever threshold yes one who had earlier those two application were the the lowest scoring applications so they would have been outside of 80 yeah well again I know the focus has has come to the fore organizations that I have brought up and I go back to my original intent and that is that if there's a certain part of money that we have and limited resources is understood that there needs to be in my opinion a way through the process or by counsel recommendation or that everybody gets a share of that total resource and the minimum share that that has been recommended previously has been ten thousand dollars and that's what the $10,000 I have asked for for the three senior centers and the Latino Family Development now if if if you're saying that that still leaves Midland care and sole reason out dead according okay so the again that the dollars ran out at ninety percent this year there were six originally so the for that you're kind of setting on the side here that leaves those two sole reason and Midland Care Hospice sole reason received forty nine of seventy points total for a 70 percent and Midland hospice care received fifty nine out of 70 points possible for an 84 hmm so those those are the there below the 88 for that are currently being discussed as I see it is that probably because there are new applicant or is there some other reason that they were so low we know history no because because they have no history their score is weighted and so instead of a hundred points possible there have 70 points incredible because we don't we're not count against them for history that they don't have okay well I am still the hope that we can come to a point where the requests that I have asked for in the amount of $40,000 for the support programs could be made a part of a recommendation to this to the committee as a whole and I guess I'm not sure mr. chair if that's a direction that we can give or if that's so essentially what we need to do is we need to increase the budget $40,000 somehow well yes and no what I haven't seen is that we take what we have not increased the 40,000 and share and split the share of what we have already increasing the budget might seem even more of a daunting task and and and so on if I don't I'd like to be able to stay within that 434 but but the sharing of that amount to be able to give those four agencies a minimum of $10,000 as participants I'd say that if we're changing the rules I think I'd like to advocate for the two that didn't get any money and if that's you know if we all have to share it then we all have to share it and the thing is though that's not the way the process was that's not work this is why we're not why we're doing what we're doing is we have a process so that we trust whatever comes out of the end the committee has the ability to change the policy that was established for this RFP for this year but you have to vote and it has to be in today would have to be 2-0 mm-hmm you can't you can't move forward with anything new other than the prior recommendation from this committee which was to take the original recommendation based on their scores into the full body to the governing body so those are your options you you can change your process the staff won't recommend that I think that that's I think that does not send clear messages to the community and to the the applicants that are involved in this process and at the mercy of this process but you have the ability to make that change absolutely but you'll have to have two votes for it that today or if you had a full body you would have to have two of the three before that in the option another option then as you said is that that we vote today on the original recommendation to be sent back so the only way to change the original recommendation basically is to override it with the vote for something different so you have to because there are only two of you here today you will have to vote together to make any changes to this original recommendation because that was the last time you had a vote on action on this mr. city managers that make sense yeah explaining it well yeah that's that's correct I don't know if I'm doing the best job for a while I think that's accurate are you following this conversation sir I'm I'm sure very intently about how it would come back to the council as as a voting item on either the consent agenda or would it be what would be an action item an action item but as it was before so it would go back as an action item above reference the decisions regarding voting yes you needed a 2-0 if you want to do something different you both have to agree what it would be so if you want to fund the other organizations and change the process of basically what you're doing is you're lowering the threshold of what do we accept mean through the process of funding ran out of 90 percent so then that was 90 percent was where we established the guideline as to who would be funded and that's what staff brought forward as a recommendation based on where the money came out and so you would be saying really you're lowering your threshold to 88 as being the amount and that that would force everyone else to have a reduction in what they would receive from what was originally proposed for based on the spreadsheet that she provided so and as the chair asked failing that because I don't know that that wouldn't occur today that it could come to the council as an amendment to the budget well it could well in this case if you were to approve the additional four that wouldn't be an amendment of of and it would include the other four agencies and change the whole table reference what everyone would receive it wouldn't change the number that we set aside for social service grants in the budget but it would change the it would be an amendment to what was originally proposed because those four would be included and so you would have a basically a new amendment that includes funding of those four organizations but not an amendment to the budget in that sense mr. chair I think I think if we if we change the rules we should be fair to everybody and I if this you know if we were changing the rules and what I would recommend is that the two organizations that we grandfather and we don't we don't change that we had to add everybody your four and the extra to split it all up evenly with the rest of the what the rest of the everybody gets the same amount of pie in other words I'm agreeable to that because he has been that has that change the this we turn this away and instead of it being based on scores if I understood what you said correctly we would take the total number of applicants and divide the money available by that number and everybody would get that dollar amount so your your RFP and your process leading up to that just really by doing that you're taking it from being a competitive process where those that are high performers get recognized for being high performers and basically making a participatory application so if you have a program that meets the funding guidelines as to what will fund everybody gets money if they apply and I think that's honestly a dangerous step for you to go down to because you'll have another 15 applications next year everybody expecting to be funded if that's what you determine when you go into next year as being your funding mechanism and so I'd be very careful with making that decision I understand lowering the threshold to the 88 because that's where it was before I understand the mentality of that if these are good programs why aren't we funding them and and that is understandable and I'll explain that's you and our conversations that is changing the focus a bit as we go forward with how we use this money so well based on your comments you said something there that and I agree with you that I don't necessarily want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and go down a road that it could be a slippery road yeah but your comment was that if maybe we changed that threshold from night at 88 that would that accomplish the same thing and still keep the the process in place well yes it would be the same process what you end up doing though is lowering the threshold is instead of saying that those based on the recommendations for amounts get down to 90 you're out of money you're saying we're going to lower that amount 88 to include those other organizations and at a minimum funding level of 10,000 even though they asked for more and then we did basically what would be that's represented by the chart that you were provided so is that essentially doing the same thing is kind of going don't the process opening it completely but it's kind of like opening the cannon yeah we'll let these four sneak in and because we've lowered the threshold to 88 and then it's hard from the standpoint of the 88 threshold is just this much off of the 90 threshold but also I think we've got to be careful too is that sometimes you know with the money that we provide it's an allotment of money that allows those organizations that we are funding to have the funds they need to operate they'll all typically if we change this formula I would think that all those that were receiving a certain amount of money prior will probably need to change their outcomes so we're going to dilute the outcomes that could be received by our achieved by those organizations that are received additional money now it's not a given but it is a possibility that they'll have less money to be able to do what they said they were going to do and they may need to look at adjusting their outcomes if we were to give this additional 40,000 to the other four organizations now it obviously you have the reverse impact on those four organizations that don't receive any funding it's going to make it very difficult for them to meet their typical outcomes that they have for their organization and that's why they're wanting to see the additional funding received thank you that is helpful I don't want to go through an exercise of futility and make a motion that I know probably won't won't fly which is the two of us here it probably wouldn't why otherwise anyway and and go to what I believe maybe is another way of offering them an amendment as other council have done or intend to do during this budget process and dependent upon the number of amendments we have hope that through those gazer nays we're able to find an additional amount of money that could be shared by these organizations right yeah I think that in a lot of ways that's potentially our best option because it represents and continues to represent the fact that those that met the threshold that was established and more successful in their application are still recognized and receiving the funding that was available based on the scoring system so so for today's vote as the director Sean was pointing that would be to the vote to submit the original and send it to the council yes and and then for my part to if not just for the four that I've advocated for put the other two as well and ask for an amendment to the in the budget process in hopes that dependent on public amendments are approved or disapproved we may find some funding there to allow some sharing of that resource for these programs right and and also even if you did not do another motion today and it's really not necessary from the standpoint if there was not a motion to change the original motion as rector on was saying the original motion would go back and report from the committee chair would be that no other motion was approved to change what was originally recommended so I'm back here to present our original recommendation for consideration so it's really not necessary that you take a vote now if there's not a vote to change it you would simply report back that our original recommendation is what we're asking you to consider Thank You mr. chair how would you like to proceed I think is as as the city managers explained that if we don't make a vote today then it goes back as the original recommendation and then my efforts will be along the lines of making an amendment to the budget process in hopes that we'll be able to find the money's there and be able to fund the programs through either up or down votes on other amendments that may be come before the body as a whole so that's the chair I think that recommendation by the city manager to report back that no change was recommended would probably be the most practical way to move forward so are you making a motion to adjourn the meeting to send the item back I'll make a motion to adjourn I'll second meetings adjourned you

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *