CCMIN110601 - Laserfiche WebLink

including timelines for submittal and public heatings, are well publicized ahead of time when agency representatives attend a training session. It is clear the Commission will hold a public hearing, which the agencies must attend, at its regular April meeting. Regulations were established to provide a level playing field for all agencies competing for grants. She believed the agencies had an obligation to comply with the regulations. She also believed that in all fairness to other agencies which met the grant requirements, there should be no exceptions. To do so would set an undesirable precedent for waiving the rules whenever they are challenged. To make an exception now and hold a second round of grant funding means opening the whole process to questions and criticism. Having worked for the controller of a large corporation, she was acutely aware of the costs involved in administering programs. Time is money. The expense to the City required for a second funding round could very well exceed the amount of the grant in question. This is not good use of City staff funds or time and could leave the Council open to criticism from the public. Unfortunately, this is not the first time CRIL has missed this type of deadline. This is of concern to her because it may indicate some agency procedural changes are needed so that deadlines for grants from sources other than the City can be met in the future. She recommended that a second grant process not be initiated. Howard Neely, 448 Amador Court, Park and Recreation Commissioner, indicated that on April 4 a CRIL paid representative was not present at the funding process. However, a CRIL board member was present, but no one asked him any questions. That board member was Alternate Commissioner Joe Jones. In hindsight, he could have taken a seat in the audience and represented CRIL. On the final night, Commissioners usually don't have any questions of applicants because all the required paperwork has been done and information supplied. He was very impressed by the CRIL organization at the previous meeting, but the representative was not present on the final night. He was sorry that apparently due to a problem with the mail and moving to another facility caused them not to be there on the final night. However, the Commission knew all about the agency and had all the paperwork. In the past, some agencies have been forced to cancel their requests and not show up at the meeting. That was not the issue with CRIL. Since all the allotted funds for fiscal year 2001/02 were not used, he would like to give the requested $8,000 directly to CRIL without the mini-grant process. He felt the real reason for discussing this was a quandary. In May, staff suggested there could be a subsequent grant process. Now mixed information is coming from staff. Chris Bourg, 4512 Second Street, Human Services Commissioner, believed there was money left over because this is the first time a $10,000 cap was placed on the amount of money the agencies could ask for. It is unfortunate that CRIL is being labeled as the bad guy. There is money left over and it could happen again. She supported the second round of funding. There was a unanimous vote for it. She felt the Commission usually got along well and did not think there was acrimony among the Commissioners. She said Mr. Scurda recommended that CRIL reapply at the May meeting. Commissioner Lane agreed with that and felt the mid-year mini- grant program would be an excellent time for CRIL to resubmit its funding request. The Commission were excited about this and did not want money to go back to the general fund. Time passed and staff came back with a different opinion and now more time is passed and the excuse is being given that there is not enough time because it is too close to the next funding cycle. If you say we have to follow the process all the time, Human Services would not be able to do a lot of things. It is like the father who says money is set aside for the roof on the house, Pleasanton City Council 22 11/06/01 Minutes