CCMIN110601 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Scurria did not think there was a parting of the ways. The Commissioners were genuinely concerned about a worthwhile organization that wasn't receiving its funding, however they failed to meet all the criteria of the process, including the requirement for an oral presentation. His personal opinion was that the Commission could not start making exceptions for organizations, especially in light of the fact that denials had been made in the past for the same reason. You can't change the rules in the middle of the game. If you want to change them, do it before the process starts next year. He believed there was some confusion about what the mini-grant process would be. Would it be reusing funds already allocated to an organization for a different purpose or using funds from another organization to assist CRIL? Julie Testa, 3494 Toflano, Human Service Commissioner, wanted to make it clear that by not supporting the staff recommendation, it was in no way a lack of support for staff. She said Eileen Morley was one of the most compassionate and knowledgeable persons she had met with regard to human service needs. She does a wonderful job and has worked well with Dublin and Livermore. However, she disagreed completely with the comment that this is the first time there have been funds remaining. She believed that three to four years ago there was $20,000 left over. Ms. Morley said that was not correct. Ms. Testa believed that the staff and the Commissioners should balance each other. The Commissioners see the human perspective and balance the staffrecommendations. With regard to the past minutes, she said there was a unanimous vote at one point to support the mini-grant process. There was concem that there were funds remaining and Mr. Wolfe assured the Commission the funds would not go back to the general fund and he offered several options, one of which was the mini-grant process. That is what raised the enthusiasm of the Commissioners and why there was a unanimous vote for the mini-grant process. There was concern that several months passed and then staff came back saying it no longer recommended that process. She felt the Commission had made a commitment to the people in the community for the mini-grant process. She believed the emphasis should be on the work of the non-profit organizations and less on the process. Pat Lane, 444 Amaral Circle, Human Services Commissioner, said she was one of the minority voters on this issue. She felt a secondary grant process would create chaos. It is just three months fi.om starting the next fiscal year grant process and she felt the two procedures would overlap. The rules have been established and should be adhered to. She agreed with the comments of Mr. Scurria. She felt one of the reasons $40,000 was left, is that there was a lot of funding available for non-profits last year and many groups did not need to apply to the City for funding. Next year she did not believe that would be the same situation. The Commission will need money and if Council votes not to have a secondary funding process, then she asked that the $40,000 be carded over. She asked Council to approve the staffrecommendation. Barbara Hempill, 4508 Eull Court, Human Services Commissioner, said she has had a working relationship with CRIL for almost fifteen years. It and other agencies that have applied for CDBG and Pleasanton grants all provide valuable human services to the community. They all have similar grant application deadlines and budgetary constraints. Grant requirements, Pleasanton City Council 21 11/06/01 Minutes