CCMIN110601 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Campbell referred to page 4 of the staffreport and the three examples of funding denials. He asked for further clarification. Ms. Morley answered that Kottinger Place is a city-based project and the funding request was referred to the Housing Commission as the more appropriate agency to handle it. The request will be approved, but from a different source. Mayor Pico declared the public hearing open. William Abrams, 439 "A" Street, Hayward, thanked the Human Service Commission for considering reopening the grant process. He did not think the remaining funds could just stay on the table. There was discussion that this is a mini-grant process and $I0,000 would not mean a lot to the relative size of a budget for an organization. Using CRIL as an example, he said his organization is at capacity at its facilities. They are considering converting storage space into office space for additional personnel. A new staffperson has been hired to serve the Tri-Valley area and they are looking for space to expand their offices. This money is critical for his organization. He realized the process is very important, however when you weigh process against the needs of the community, he believed one should err on the side of meeting the needs of the community. If that means making an exception one time, that should be done. Bob Scurria, 8087 Arroyo Drive #3, Human Services Commissioner, stated that the recommendation to reopen the grant process was not unanimous. He strongly supported the staff recommendation that there not be a secondary process. The Commission has a fiscal responsibility to Council and to the taxpayers to see that the funding allocated through these grants are distributed fairly and equitably. There is also a responsibility to monitor how the funds are utilized. There is a long, labor-intensive process to award the grants which involves much of the Commissioners' and staWs time. It is not fair and equitable to change the rules in the middle of the game especially in light of the fact that in the past funding has been denied to organizations that did not meet the criteria or submitted paperwork in a timely manner. If the Commission panders to individual organizations, than there may as well not be a process at all. He referred to a statement in the staffreport that said reopening the process may or may not have a minimal fiscal impact on the budget. He disagreed with that. Staff's time is not infinite. If staffmust take time for the secondary grant process, it will take away time from monitoring the use of funds previously awarded. Some problems have already started to develop in the grant disbursements, but staffhas immediately taken corrective measures. Without the time to do that, he was concerned there would be possible misuse of funds. He strongly encouraged Council to oppose the secondary grant process. He agreed the human services needs of the city are great, but he urged Council not to let its good intentions get in the way of good sense. Ms. Ayala referred to the minutes of the April meeting, and it sounded like CRIL was not present at the final hearing and Commissioners were concerned about the funding not being awarded to CRIL. There was then discussion about a mid-year grant process. The next month, there was still concern about a mini-grant program and discussions that it would occur. When did the parting of the ways occur? Pleasanton City Council 20 11/06/01 Minutes