Minutes 03-07-05MINUTES OF THE CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP HELD IN THE LIBRARY
PROGRAM ROOM, BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, ON MONDAY,
MARCH 7, 2005 AT 6:30 P.M.
Present:
Jerry Taylor, Mayor
Mack McCray, Vice Mayor
Bob Ensler, Commissioner
Carl McKoy, Commissioner
Absent:
Mike Ferguson, Commissioner
Kurt Bressner, City Manager
James Cherof-City Attorney
Janet Prainito, City Clerk
I. Call to Order
Mayor Taylor called the Workshop to order at 6:36 p.m. He announced the purpose of
the meeting was to workshop the Resolution that establishes grant funding policies.
There was an ordinance that came before the Commission. Concerns were raised and
the workshop was set up to hear any suggested changes. The City Manager indicated
there is a deadline of March 15th for grants to be processed.
A brief introduction by all those present was given.
Vice Mayor McCray indicated there is already a policy in place and questioned why it
was necessary to redo what was already done.
Attorney Cherof replied there was not a general policy covering all grant funding
opportunities. The objective was to try and draft something that was user friendly for
individuals who wanted to participate in the grant process. Also, to have something the
tax payers could see where their money is spent. There was no document, to cover the
procedures.
Vice Mayor McCray pointed out there were county, state and federal laws and asked for
assurance any new procedures would not overlap what is already in place that has to
be followed. Attorney Cherof indicated there are many levels of funding available and
other organizations have their own rules and regulations. The ordinance would not
replace any of those, particularly as it relates to CDBG (Community Development Block
Grant) funding. The federal guidelines for CDBG will still have to be followed.
Mr. Bressner further explained that another source of City based funding is the
Neighborhood Improvement Program and the Neighborhood Grant Programs. There
are some regulations, but there is no consolidated process to govern those programs.
He indicated this resolution is an attempt to establish windows of funding depending on
the grant program being used and then the Commission can establish a budget and
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
approve the overall programs in the beginning of the fiscal year and let staff process the
requests.
Vice Mayor McCray asked if the resolution related to discretionary funding. Attorney
Cherof stated the grant funding resolution specifically states the discretionary funding is
covered by a separate resolution.
Commissioner McKoy requested assurances from staff that the Commission would
retain the right and responsibility to make sure the guidelines used for grant funding fall
within the guidelines of all state and federal regulations.
Attorney Cherof agreed and referred to the Proposed Resolution page two, line 22,
indicating the resolution would be supplemental and if a conflict arises, the state and
federal rules and regulations control. Not following those regulations would jeopardize
receipt of the funding.
Vice Mayor McCray expressed his concern that after the resolution passes someone
could come back and say I did not get funding because this wasn't in place and asked
whether there was a window of opportunity for this to take effect. Mayor Taylor stated
the effective date would be when the Commission passes the Resolution.
Mr. Bressner added if the resolution passes the next window of opportunity would be
the Grant Block program in terms of the calendar cycle and the next set of dollars
impacted by any changes.
Vice Mayor McCray asked Mr. Bressner if he was aware how much money would be
received. Mr. Bressner supplied the Commission with a handout of his calculations.
He summarized the information stating the City was scheduled to receive, effective
October 1st , $602,622 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. The
federal law states 20% of the funds can be used for planning and administration.
Historically, the City had used the 20% for program administration, administering the
housing rehab program and other activities related to the Community Development
Block Grant program and Housing Rehab program, which are funded partially under
state funds. Staff's recommendations in the budget are an allocation of the 20%,
$200,000 to the Housing Rehab Program, and the balance of the $602,622 or $282,098
for the Heart of Boynton land purchase program. HUD allows up to 15% or $90,393 of
a communities entitlement for public service programs. Staff recommended the 15%
not be funded this year, which is a policy issue for the Commission and not a staff
decision. The money would be allocated to the Heart of Boynton project.
Mr. Bressner forewarned the Commission the Administration has proposed reducing the
Community Development Block Grant Program or eliminating it totally or moving the
program from HUD to the Department of Commerce. If the Program is moved to the
Department of Commerce it would be redefined to more economic and business
development oriented. Mr. Bressner speculated on three possible futures for the
CDBG; one, it remains intact, two, sharply reduced by 40%-60% but left in HUD or
farmed out to another department. The CDBG will fade away with time or clone into
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
another type program. This could be the last year for public service programs and then
everyone will experience a budget crisis.
Mayor Taylor asked for an example of a program that falls under the public service
category. All of the previously funded programs would be included such as the
Workforce Development activities, Community Caring, the two CBG programs.
Octavia Sherrod, Community Improvement Manager stated the public service programs
include After School Mentoring programs, Community Caring, Mad Dads, and Crime
Prevention. Fair Housing is an administrative program.
Stephanie McKoy, President, Juvenile Transition Center, Inc. added that Section 5305,
Federal Regulations, Activities Eligible for Assistance, Section 105 would apply. Vice
Mayor McCray asked if that was for federally funded Community Block Grants. Ms
McKoy replied yes.
Commissioner McKoy asked what percentage of last year's funding had been used for
public service programs. Ms. Sherrod stated it never exceeds 15% and was much less
than 15%, but she did not have a specific figure. Commissioner McKoy requested that
figure be provided.
Vice Mayor McCray stated the $90,000 we are given is an avenue for these programs to
receive more money. Ms. Sherrod added the public service agencies that received
funding this year were the Community Caring Center and Citizens Concerned About
Our Children. Commissioner McKoy inquired how much each received. The
Community Caring Center received $25,000 and the Citizens Concerned About Our
Children received $5,000 according to Ms. Sherrod. Mayor Taylor commented those
monies would amount to about 5%
Commissioner McKoy asked if the Commission can decide the actual percentage to be
allocated as long as it does not exceed 15%. Mr. Bressner stated that was the
maximum and he had allocated the maximum of $90,000.
Mayor Taylor stated that staff is recommending the monies go to the Heart of Boynton
land purchase and the Commission has the option to take out a percentage to fund
public service programs.
II. Discussion
Mayor Taylor stated he had reviewed the proposed Resolution and felt it was all
encompassing and covered a multitude of items, but there had been suggestions
submitted by others. He suggested starting with Sherry Johnson from the Community
Caring Center and going over the items she submitted in writing, then address Ms.
McKoy's suggestions from the Juvenile Transition Center and then open the discussion
to any others.
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
Sherry Johnson from the Community Caring Center started with the first 'l/Vhereas"
clause in the proposed Resolution and was unclear if the paragraph pertained to all
grant applications or specific to CDBG funding. She was aware that many were specific
to social service programs or did this pertain to applications for the overall programs.
Mayor Taylor indicated Ms. Johnson's program would come under the public service
option and would affect her. Attorney Cherof added the funding policy is much broader
and the first two whereas clauses cover that issue with the exception of the
discretionary Community Investment Funds.
Ms. Johnson requested clarification of what gatekeeper meant on page 4.a.3. She felt
staff should provide technical assistance to all applicants, not just facilitate the process.
Did the words gatekeeper need to be there?
Mr. Bressner felt it would be helpful to leave in, "role of facilitator of the application
process" and strike out, "not as a gatekeeper". The language was included so staff
would not wait until the last minute toindicate ineligibility. The perception of the
gatekeeper is someone who would only allow people through the portal. The intent of
the resolution was to indicate this would be a facilitated process.
Mayor Taylor inquired if any one was opposed to eliminating the words, "not as a
gatekeeper". Hearing no response, the words should be stricken.
Ms. Johnson next addressed the issue of technical assistance and referred to Page 4,
section a.4. To make it more user friendly she suggested whatever forms are needed
should be made available on disc. Mr. Bressner indicated that would be easy and
suggested making it available on the web.
In paragraph five Ms. Johnson wanted to know what was meant by the words "special
steps are required". Did that mean something unusual had to be done or extra steps
had to be taken? Attorney Cherof indicated the intent was to provide a broad
description under general policies; nothing specific. Staff should take into consideration
the items listed in the Resolution and take any additional steps necessary to be fair and
equal.
Commissioner Ensler suggested it might be easier to leave the phrase out so that it
would read, "City staff should ensure...". It was agreed the words, "consider whether
special steps are required to" should be deleted.
Ms Johnson also questioned why the reference to geographical or ethnic or racial, or
disadvantaged needed to be included. She stated their should be an assessment of
need to justify the funds being distributed, not a designated area or group and is tied to
the Comprehensive Plan.
Mayor Taylor pointed out that the CDBG funds are not restricted to any particular area
in the City. Mr. Bressner agreed and stated as long as it benefited the City and Iow
income people it qualified for funds. Ms. Sherrod interjected that it had to benefit
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
moderate to Iow income. If 51% in that population are within that range, the process is
satisfied.
Ms. Johnson asked if there was a process in place to determine the needs to use the
money and prioritize the disbursement of funds. Ms. Sherrod answered since the
implementation of CDBG, the target area has been tied to census information. At the
time of program implementation in 1997 the most recent census information was the
1990 census. It has been updated with the 2000 information and it is tied to poverty
levels in certain areas. North of City Hall is an area identified as having the majority of
the people below poverty level. Ms. Sherrod informed the participants that HUD allows
distribution of funding by using a target area which is the current criteria being used. It
had been determined a large number of people used more than 30% of their income for
housing. The City became an entitlement community based on the population and
poverty levels in the community and specifically in the target area. The target area has
been the preference area, but funds have been used outside of the area if income levels
and needs are met.
Mr. Bressner asked if this was adopted as a policy by the City Commission back in 1997
when the program was implemented. Ms. Sherrod stated the required public meetings
were held and agencies providing services to the citizens provided input also. Mr.
Bressner asked if the Commission adopted a Resolution. Ms. Sherrod indicated the
Commission adopted the program, but he wasn't aware if it was done by resolution.
She did know that the required meetings were held by public forum. She further stated
that housing rehabilitation has been done outside of the target area to prevent slum and
blight spreading. Based on the 2000 census, Mr. Bressner asked if there had been any
shift in the target area or additional areas identified for allocation of funds. Specially,
Mr. Bressner asked about west of Seacrest and immediately south of Woolbright,
across from the hospital.
Ms. Sherrod stated since inception of the program a large segment of housing
deterioration was identified west of 1-95, behind Wendy's and the 7/11 and funding has
been allocatedfor that area. She further pointed out before the City became an
entitlement community, a drive-by study was done house by house to identify
substandard housing.
Vice Mayor McCray stated paragraph a.5 on page 4 required rewording to eliminate the
ethnic and religious statements. According to Ms. Sherrod, HUD regulations clearly
define no discrimination is to be used.
Mr. Bressner reminded everyone this is an overall policy keeping in mind the
preambles state any rules are subservient to any federal rules or regulations.
Subparagraph 5 becomes less important to some programs.
Ms. Sherrod added there is a regulation requiring within a three year period the
aggregate of at least 70% of the people should meet the income qualification.
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
Attorney Cherof stated on page four, line 30, 31 should read, "ensure fair and equal
access to information and funding consistent with applicable county, state and federal
regulations. Those regulations set the target area.
Ms. Johnson continued by asking if there was any way in the timing of the grant,
connecting it to the City so the City has input into the needs so there would be a
comprehensive plan and the funds are designated for specific programs. Ms. Sherrod
indicated the funds are stipulated already according to the census and need. Mayor
Taylor added that is true with CBDG funds that are locked in, but Ms. Johnson is
referring to all grants no matter what the City considers. He felt flexibility was necessary
because there can be uncertainty as to what funds are needed. If grant monies are
locked into specific programs and a need arises, there would be no grant monies
available to assist those in need.
Vice Mayor McCray reverted back to paragraph five and asked that it include, "The City
Manager/staff should establish oversight procedures to monitor the effectiveness of this
approach." He also inquired if we were establishing an oversight procedure now with
the Resolution. Attorney Cherof answered no. The intent was to be flexible and done
on a grant by grant basis. Vice Mayor McCray pointed out we have federal, state and
county laws which we have to adhere. Mayor Taylor stated you cannot take anything
away, but you can make additions. Attorney Cherof added the Manager would oversee
staff and make sure procedures are in place. In essence, Mayor Taylor said, the
sentence says the buck stops at the City Manager.
Ms. Johnson indicated the county has the same procedure of receiving and scoring
grant applications, and time is given for people to resubmit an application if there is a
problem. She suggested there needs to be a point of clarification and adequate time
given for an applicant to respond. A new grant recipient could go to an advisory board
made up of peers and make a presentation, ask how it works and ask questions. The
advisory board does their work and makes a final determination based on staff
recommendations. She indicated this is the one step the City does not have.
Commissioner McKoy asked what exactly Ms Johnson meant by an advisory board of
peers. Ms. Johnson related her experience with the county process involved a board
consisting of Adopt-a-Family, Sheriff's Office, Domestic Violence, and a board of her
peers. The board understood social services and the process and determined her
capacity to succeed. Mayor Taylor pointed out the City does not have the resoUrces of
the County. He felt the City staff looks at performance, effectiveness, management and
evaluate those prior to submitting the grants to the Commission. The staff has to justify
their choices and denials. Those not considered are given the opportunity to address
the Commission before a final decision is made. Ms. Johnson's suggestions would put
another level of bureaucracy in the process.
Vince Larkin from the Fair Housing Center stated he recalled a couple years ago a
committee of concerned citizens was put together to address the funding process. Mr.
Bressner agreed there was a blend of citizens and staff that acted as a review
committee and it still functions. Ms. Sherrod stated Beverly Agee served on the
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
committee. Staff involved was Dan DeCarlo, and Ms Sherrod, Ron Washam and Mr.
Woodrow Hay.
Mayor Taylor noted people on the committee could have no association with people
requesting a grant which could be a problem if they didn't get the grant.
Beverly Agee,a Boynton resident, stated she had been doing work with fair housing for
three years and indicated she could review grants but she couldn't do both and no
relationship can exist. She also added on correcting deficiency it could not be open
ended. If the application is stamped in, it could not be corrected. At that point the
process is ended.
Mayor Taylor agreed that a deadline is a deadline and perhaps the application should
state the paperwork should be submitted enough in advance that deficiencies can be
corrected and resubmitted before the deadline. Mr. Bressner suggested a two deadline
system. A deadline for submittal so deficiencies can be pointed out and corrected
before the final deadline. He felt an extra step may help the process.
Commissioner McKoy stated the Commission also needs a window of opportunity to
review the grant applications and request clarifications if needed before the deadline for
award of funds. Mr. Bressner indicated he had instructed staff to have their
recommendations to the Board by the second Commission meeting in June and the
deadline for decision would be August 15th. Ms. Sherrod stated a schedule had been
developed for submittal to the Commission by June 7th.
Vice Mayor McCray asked Ms. Sherrod if there was currently a procedure in place that
she met with the recipients as a group or one on one. She stated there is a requirement
to hold a public meeting for participation and input from the public, CDBG does an
advertisement in the Palm Beach Post and there is a database including all area
churches across racial boundaries that are notified. The purpose is to allow citizens
other than the sub grantees to have input in the process. Mr. Bressner stated there was
nothing structured that requires meeting with staff before submitting. Ms. Sherrod state
there is an annual workshop, but that is for existing applicants not potential applicants.
Mr. Bressner felt anyone who expressed interest should be invited to the workshop.
Call-ins are put on a list and sent information as it becomes available according to Ms.
Sherrod.
Ms. Sherrod clarified the discussion was for a technical assistance meeting for potential
applicants. Mr. Bressner agreed it should be a meeting for any potential grant
applicants to come to the workshop for clarity.
Stephanie McKoy interjected normally during technical assistance everyone is given an
opportunity to ask questions and staff answers those questions. The questions and
answers are then posted on a web site to give everyone a level playing field. There
would be a time frame for the questions and answers and then a deadline and there
could not be any question of staff after the deadline.
7
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
Commissioner Ensler asked if all the questions had to be in writing. Ms. McKoy said all
questions should be in writing or asked at the technical workshop. Ms. Johnson
indicated staff is available now until the deadline for the grant application to answer any
questions. Ms. McKoy stated all questions then should be posted, not just having one
group getting answers to their questions. By doing it this way, all organizations would
have the same information. Vice Mayor McCray indicated with the grant deadline, if it is
done that way, it is still a level playing field.
Peggy Deal of the Palm Beach County Resource Center stated as a CDBG recipient,
most applicants feel the application is explicit. The first time the application is
completed she thought assistance may be required, but the application states what is
required. She described the process as tedious and stated organizations are
continually online or looking in newspapers for funding programs. Ms. Deal stated there
is never a level playing field when seeking funds. She felt it was the efficiency of the
application and the program that leveled the playing field and making the process easier
may create conflicts on who gets the funding if there is an insufficient paper trail.
Overall the City's application is very explicit according to Ms. Deal.
Commissioner McKoy agreed and stated there has been a lack of information and
structure to get information. It should be black and white and it has not been. Attorney
Cherof stated the intent was not to make it easier, but more accessible to individuals or
entities not experienced in the process.
Mr. Bryant of Mad Dads indicated he was baffled with the process. He got notice late
and he was not part of any of the process. Mayor Taylor explained the Resolution came
before the Commission and Ms. Johnson came forward with suggestions on the grant
funding process and Ms. McKoy had questions. It was decided that a workshop was
needed to discuss the policy. Ms. Johnson did submit some things in writing as did Ms.
McKoy. Staff had been instructed to call everybody to attend for their input. Mayor
Taylor stated there was a deadline of March 15th.
Commissioner McKoy inquired of Mr. Bryant if he received notices sent out in January
to individuals who had an interest to come to a January Commission meeting. Mr.
Bryant indicated Mad Dads frequently did not get notices. Commissioner McKoy asked
staff to determine the thirteen organizations or individuals who were contacted about the
January meeting and the disposition of the contact. Ms. Sherrod indicated her staff sent
letters to all their sub grantees. Quintals Greene, Director of Development stated a
letter and a copy of the proposed guidelines were sent out. Ms. Sherrod clarified there
were original guidelines and revised guidelines
Attorney Cherof stated a Resolution was used versus an Ordinance knowing this would
be a work in progress. Issues would arise and changes could be made by Resolution.
Sherry Johnson continued with her list of suggestions referring to page 5 (b) 3 stating
she disagreed with the language because it was unfair to those applicants who did
submit on time and were scored and ranked on their completeness and accuracy. If
there was a question about the application, she felt the question should be in writing
8
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
with a definite deadline for a response. Attorney Cherof responded it was envisioned to
be a less formal approach and the City's process would be more users friendly.
Commissioner Ensler stated he could not understand why such a hard rule would be
necessary and, in fact, penalize somebody for a clerical mistake or omission.
Mayor Taylor stated to be more user friendly for the applicants, the predate was being
considered. Mr. Bressner clarified there would be a final deadline, but also a pre-
application deadline. A checklist would be used by staff to review the application and
inform the applicant of any deficiencies before the final deadline. The checklist would
suffice as a record.
Attorney Cherof read to line 13 that stated the deadline for the application is fixed,
however, the process would allow corrections and supplementation before the deadline.
Mr. Bressner stated it was a pre-application deadline creating a window of opportunity
for the staff to do the checklist and get back to the applicant before the deadline. Ms.
Sherrod indicated for purposes of CDBG there is a checklist inside the application. Ms.
McKoy commented the suggestion would make double work for staff.
Attorney Cherof cautioned the participants the Resolution is about the process and
generalizing the policies for all grants, not just CDBG. There are many types of funding
available that are not as technical and not supplemented by federal regulations. Ms.
McKoy stated there is no federal, state or local entity that allows for something like that.
She reminded the Commission that it is a competitive bid process. Ms. Sherrod stated
an application had never been thrown out because it did not have everything that was
required; it was reflected in the score.
Attorney Cherof suggested the language, "Except for CDBG grants" be added to the
beginning of the last sentence in paragraph (b) 3. Peggy Deal of the Palm Beach
County Resource Center commented that Palm Beach County is very strict and the first
review board checks for completeness and accuracy only. If something were missing
the application is discarded at that point. The federal program did permit clarification or
submission of additional information.
Mayor Taylor stated under the City's program, if the application is not complete five
points are lost in the scoring. Vince Larkin of the Fair Housing Center commended the
Commission for trying to make the process better, but reminded the Commission it is a
competitive bid process. There is always reom for improvement. Ms. Sherrod added
Palm Beach County has an $8 million budget for CDBG and $1.2 million goes to public
services increasing the number of applications to process.
Ms. Johnson returned to her list and indicated although the applications should be
trilingual, she felt the applications should be submitted in English only, thereby reducing
translation costs for the City. Mayor Taylor stated the information would be available in
other languages, but the application would be required to be in English. Ms. Sherrod
requested clarification on the time line for implementation of the trilingual applications
being posted in light of a public CDBG meeting for March 29th. Mayor Taylor did not
feel there was sufficient time for the current application process. Mr. Bressner
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
requested the opportunity to attempt to get the application professionally translated for
the next application process. Vice Mayor McCray suggested when the advertisement is
published it should include language that the applications are available in Spanish and
Creole, depending when it is available. It was determined the advertising had been set
for March 17th which did not allow sufficient time for translation of the current application
process.
Ms. Johnson's next comment related to setting a value for volunteer time and staff time
devoted to a program at $5 an hour. She thought this would level the playing field for
small and large organizations since the larger organizations can afford to pay salaries
while small organization depend on volunteers and the dollar figure is not there to
support the need. Mr. Bressner asked staff if there was an issue with assigning a value
for volunteer time or how is it factored into the application. The ability to provide the
service and the impact of not getting funding, has been the focus in the past, according
to Ms. Sherrod. Ms. McKoy stated the IRS does not allow a value on volunteering. Ms.
Johnson indicated auditors do check her staff hours and volunteer hours and she
provides a match figure.
Mayor Taylor stated the Resolution does state the economic value of volunteering will
be considered, but does not set an amount. Ms. McKoy suggested researching the
federal regulations.
Ms. Johnson requested an explanation of the purpose for Section (e) 3 relating to
advance payment. Mr. Bressner commented it would not change the block grant
program. Commissioner McKoy asked if payments in advance had happened in the
past. Ms. Sherrod answered no. Smaller agencies that do not have cancelled checks
for reimbursement, but can prove the check has been negotiated have received funds.
When their actual statement is received they are required to produce the cancelled
check. It was agreed the entire Section (e) 3 be deleted.
Lastly, Ms. Johnson questioned Section (f) 3 and stated the City does require monthly
narrative reports regarding any change in an organization's framework or budget. She
suggested the information be contained in the narrative sent to the City on a monthly
basis that would alert staff if assistance is needed. Ms. Sherrod stated monitoring has
been addressed in their contract. Mr. Bressner felt the issue was if the language should
be taken from the CDBG procedures regarding monthly reporting and import it into the
Resolution. Vice Mayor McCray asked what happened if a monthly report is not made
and Ms Sherrod answered payment is not made.
Ms. McKoy addressed her issues with the Resolution starting with the language,
"provide a level playing field for grant applicants" and inquired what that meant. Staff
stated all applicants would receive equal information and equal opportunity to be
eligible. Mayor Taylor stated there is not a level playing field, it is a competition. It was
suggested it be defined as equal access made available to applicants, submittal of
application and add other language. Ms. McKoy inquired about personality conflicts that
would prohibit a level playing field and how would that be compensated for in the
application process to create a level playing field. Mayor Taylor thought the wording;
]0
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
"provide consistent information to all eligible grant applicants" would assist. Ms. McKoy
thought it was still subjective and it should be written if all information is provided, the
application will proceed. Mr. Bressner suggested rewording sub section (c) to "provide
consistent information, application materials need to be provided to eligible grant
applicants." Would eliminate the level playing field since it cannot be defined.
Next Ms. McKoy asked if the City had an established grant grievance procedure to
resolve any issues that may arise. Mr. Bressner pointed out the City Commission is the
final arbitrator. Commissioner McKoy asked if the individual would then come before
the Commission and voice their concern. Ms. McKoy felt that need to be written into the
resolution. Commissioner Ensler indicated the grievance should be sent to the City
some time prior to the meeting so staff and the Commission would have time to
evaluate the information. He agreed something should be added.
Ms McKoy referred to Section (d) and asked if that was a time line of RFP events.
Attorney Cherof responded yes, it was. Ms McKoy requested an explanation of Section
(e). Attorney Cherof stated the concept of transparency involves records to substantiate
all decisions and reviews and staff members document their decision, and show the
scores to the applicant. Ms McKoy felt it was redundant. Mayor Taylor indicated it was
simply setting up the procedure. Attorney Cherof pointed out the language was in the
intent section of the resolution.
Ms. McKoy questioned Section (g) and asked how she could be assured the direction of
the City Commission was being carried out. Mr. Bressner stated with the CDGB funds it
should be a policy direction from the Commission. The Commission has not provided
that level of direction and has left the direction to the staff. Ms. McKoy asked if an
agency would get a second opportunity to question the direction of staff. Mr. Bressner
said not upfront if it was not an allowed activity. The use of the money would be stated
in the application and even if the award was a lesser amount than requested, the money
is still being used for an allowed activity. Ms. McKoy stated a lesser amount than
requested can change the entire dynamics of a program. Attorney Cherof stated the
consideration would be after the grant was awarded, but prior to the grant agreement
being signed, the agreement can be tweaked and, if necessary, the agreement could be
returned to the Commission.
Commissioner Ensler added there are many kinds of grievances, but any grievance
should come before the Commission. Ms. McKoy stated by the same token, the City
has rules and regulations they are governed by and the statement of work is one of
those. An agency cannot operate without a statement of work which is a federal
guideline.
Commissioner McKoy asked if the statement work include the award dollars or the pool
of dollars to be awarded. Mr. Larkin added many times he has not received what he
has requested and further information had to be provided. Ms. Johnson stated she
always asks for more and then once she knows what is being awarded she revises the
scope of services and the use of the specific funds to be part of the contract. Mr.
Bressner summarized that once the funding amount has been determined, time should
]!
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
be given to the applicant to provide input on the use of the awarded dollars. Historically
a small amount of administrative services has been allowed for grant funding. Sub
grantees should be notified if that is not going to be continued.
Commissioner McKoy stated his research revealed that several recipients paid a high
percent of salaries out of grant funding monies and he did not believe that was an
allowed use of funds. Mr. Larkin added the hardest thing for an organization to do is to
find monies to pay for lights or rent. Administrative services have to be paid to do the
work of the program. In his opinion it would be a step backwards not to fund any
administrative services.
Commissioner McKoy stated the CDBG dollars the organizations are getting from the
City should also be received from other entities or organization. It may be difficult, but
the organization should not rely on the City to provide money for administrative services
as the sole provider.
Mayor Taylor asked if there was currently a percentage set that could be used for those
services. Ms. Sherrod indicated there was no mandate as far as CDBG funds. Mr.
Larkin felt that a criteria needs to be set to be assured the services are being provided
by the organization. Monitoring the organization can accomplish that goal.
Ms. Johnson stated Boynton Beach is an entitlement city and if she has no staff to get
the funds to the people in need, her program is not being successful. The cost
effectiveness of the use of the monies must be considered. She stated the City is one
of only two that allow the use of grant funds for administrative services.
Mr. Larkin asked for an example of what would be considered administrative services as
opposed to provided services for the residents. Commissioner Ensler agreed there was
a fine line distinction between delivery of services and administrative costs.
Vice Mayor McCray asked staff if the City is currently paying administrative costs. Ms.
Sherrod indicated the City does pay salaries. Vice Mayor McCray asked for the
percentage of funding that pays salaries. Ms. Sherrod stated it varies depending on the
organization. Mr. Bressner stated he could provide this data. He confirmed it varies
with organization and the City's application is more liberal. It has been difficult to
determine what is being delivered with the City's monies since there are many funding
sou rces.
Vice Mayor McCray inquired if the City pays for insurance or cell phones. Mr. Bressner
indicated if the cell phone was for a recipient it would be funded. If it was for staff, it
would be an administrative expense. Ms. McKoy disagreed. She recommended that
20% of the total award to each agency attributed to administrative costs would not be
over the top. Ms. Sherrod felt it should be based on individual needs. She emphasized
the services must be provided as a continuium of care requirement. Ms. McKoy stated
salaries are not administrative if it is a direct service provided to the individual.
]2
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
Mr. Bressner stated the Commission should be aware it is the totality of the application
that must be considered. Ms. McKoy pointed out the OVM circular states definitively
what is administrative and what is not.
Mayor Taylor indicated he was in favor of leaving the language as it is. Commissioner
McKoy was not comfortable with the current wording. Commissioner Ensler suggested
leaving the language as is and revisit the issue later. Commissioner McKoy indicated
he would be agreeable with Commissioner Ensler's suggestion. Mr. Bressner
suggested a one year window would be beneficial so the pertinent data could be
gathered and evaluated on all funding. Ms. Sherred stated in the CDBG contract the
applicants are required to give the sources of all funding, plus monthly and year end
reports on achievements.
Ms. McKoy suggested monitoring be done by looking at all funding contracts and
reviewing the itemized budgets.
The next issue presented by Ms. McKoy was to establish accountability by individuals
involved in grant funding, including the sub grantees being held to the same exact
standard, such as submitting payroll checks. Commissioner McKoy asked how the City
has handled this in the past. Ms. Sherrod indicated everyone has been required to give
copies of checks or direct deposit vouchers or bank statements.
Commissioner McKoy inquired regarding staffs' past practices for monitoring. Ms.
Sherred responded each grant applicant is monitored annually. Since the inception of
the grant programs, the efficiency of monitoring has improved. Commissioner McKoy
asked if there was anything established specifically defining the level of monitoring.
HUD, for CDBG funding, requires monitoring but does not supply the tool according to
Ms. Sherrod. She stated HUD has seen and evaluated the monitoring being done.
Ms. McKoy asked how many applicants or recipients have there been for CDBG and
SHIP funding, Ms. Sherrod pointed out SHIP is for individual households and she could
not supply an estimate of recipients at the time.
Ms. McKoy suggested the wording under General Policies (a)(1) should be more
definitive and replace the word "should" with "shall" or "will, "...City staff shall announce
and publish all funding opportunities. "Attorney Cherof stated it is a mandatory
requirement. Commissioner McKoy felt "should" left room for options rather than "shall"
or "will" meaning it is mandatory so the language is more defined. Attorney Cherof
agreed the word "will" would be substituted.
Next Ms. McKoy addressed the issue of the workshops. Vice Mayor McCray inquired if
there was a limit to the number of workshops allowed each year. Ms. McKoy answered
there was no limit, but they needed to br timely. She suggested that questions and
answers at the workshops be posted on the City's web site for all applicants. She also
requested that once the technical assistance workshop had been completed, staff
should be discouraged from any other communication with the applicants. Mr. Larkin
felt that would work in the reverse for the applicants, if there was no communication
]3
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
allowed between staff and the applicants. Ms. McKoy commented it would encourage
participation in the workshop and establish a forum for any questions. Mr. Larkin stated
he has attended workshops where he was the only one present.
Mayor Taylor interjected it had already been established a technical meeting would be
held, then applications submitted and staff could review and call for corrections before
the deadline period. Mr. Bressner stated for the CDBG funding a check list is used so
the review time is not required. Mayor Taylor wanted it clarified that once the technical
meeting is held, the line of communication remains open until the deadline. Vice Mayor
McCray felt the questions and answers should be posted somewhere for everyone to
access. Mr. Bressner agreed the questions should be documented and the answers
posted, assuming everyone has access to the web. He indicated it may not be possible
to achieve before the current deadline, but it would be done. Commissioner McKoy
stated it would further the level playing field concept.
Ms. McKoy's next suggestion pertained to page 4, line 19 and 20. She recommended
all apPlicants have the proper insurance endorsing the City as an additional insured,
such as general liability insurance, workers' comp to protect the City as well. Attorney
Cherof stated he would review the wording because the type of language suggested
may attract litigation rather than repel litigation.
Ms. McKoy stated the scoring sheet submitted by staff would be helpful if it were
included with the application. Although staff indicated the sheet had been included, the
Commission and staff agreed it would be included in all applications going forward.
The next area of Ms. McKoy's concern dealt with number 5, special circumstances and
she felt it would be a contradiction of the purpose of the workshop to level the playing
field. She felt one set of guidelines should be established and maintain that position to
impede the possibility of disparity. Federal regulations state the funds must benefit a
minimum of 51% of the disadvantaged. Mayor Taylor stated it was agreed earlier to
eliminate that section.
Ms. McKoy questioned how financial competency would be documented and verified as
indicated on Page 5 section (b)(2). Vice Mayor McCray asked if CDBG funds required
an independent financial report. Mrs. Sherrod stated she believed the auditor wanted
some financial proof of what had been done. The contract requires financial proof, but
not necessarily a full audit. She also reiterated the Resolution relates to all grants not
just CDBG. Mr. Bressner asked if sub-grantees were required to submit financial
statements that were signed off by a CPA. Ms. Sherrod indicated it had been required
in the past. However, she did state leverage has been allowed for new groups who do
not have financial statements. Ms. McKoy asked how those groups are evaluated for
stability if financial statements are not submitted. Mr. Larkin stated most foundations or
funding allow submission after a year.
Payment procedures on page 7 was Ms. McKoy's next area of concern. She indicated
the payment procedures are in accordance with HUD regulations, Section 570.509
there is a close out procedure. She thought it would be beneficial to incorporate a close
]4
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
out procedure so everybody is on the same page as far as the dollars and finality of the
contract. Mr. Bressner suggested it be included in the sub-grantee agreement rather
than in the Resolution for all grant funding.
Ms. McKoy stated under Monitoring & Evaluation, (2). The City has an administrative
responsibility and fiduciary responsibility to be sure federal funding is all reviewed at a
minimum yearly, but on site monitoring twice within a contract period regardless of the
funding amount. Vice Mayor McCray inquired of staff what the current practice has
been.
Ms. Sherrod stated formal monitoring is done, on site, once a year. She stated there
are agencies she visits sporadically and unannounced. For CDBG purposes, HUD
does not require formal monitoring twice a year, just that it had been done. She
commented monitoring also involves looking at reports and if any agency has difficulties
more visit may be necessary. On the other hand, if an Agency is doing well, the visits
are not necessary and are not cost effective for staff.
Mayor Taylor pointed out the section specifically says it should not be an excessive
burden, should be appropriate to the type of funding, nature of service, and the need to
ensure proper accountability. Attorney Cherof referred to Page 3, subsection (b) that
states it does require staff to monitor and report to the Commission of the status of all
funding. Ms. McKoy stated staff cannot report on the funding if they had not been out
monitoring. Commissioner McKoy pointed out checks and balances are not in place if
staff "feels" an agency is doing okay. There should be documentation.
Mr. Larkin stated when an organization has attended workshops and supplied all the
reports and documentation, the monitoring would be an excess burden on staff. The
contracts state the City has the right to come in unexpectedly to evaluate.
Commissioner Ensler asked if staff visits were followed up with a written trip report. Ms.
Sherrod indicated not for unofficial visits. She explained official visits are when the
recipient is notified that a full monitoring would take place.
Mr. Bressner asked what was filed in response to an official visit. Ms. Sherrod stated
her monitoring report included several pages after a site visit. Mr. Bressner
summarized the question to be ,if two full formal monitorings should be required for all
recipients including sub grantees. Unofficial visits may also be done.
Mayor Taylor disagreed and felt the language would attempt to fix something that was
not broken. He stated if reports are not being submitted, it would be obvious something
was wrong. The language states, not an excessive burden on staff. Commissioner
Ensler emphasized staff does write reports. Mayor Taylor stated the recommendation
was for two required visits for each grantee or sub-grantee and he felt it was
unnecessary.
Ms. McKoy stated her organization has been a recipient of grant funds and never seen
a monitor in a contract period. She stated if staff said it was being done it is false.
]5
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
March 7, 2005
Vice Mayor McCray did not see a need to change the process. Commissioner McKoy
stated his research revealed the process is not working and monitoring should be put in
place to assure it is being done. Monitoring may be required, but it was not done
according to Commissioner McKoy.
Ms. Sherrod admitted she had been lax in monitoring in the past, but it is now in place.
Ms. McKoy referred to section (4) and asked if this required each agency to have an
independent CPA audit. Attorney Cherof confirmed that was the intent.
Ben Bryant from MAD DADS indicated his organization had been cut off from funding
and he would like to be given the chance to participate again. He would like to be part
of the process since the last time they applied it was his mistake that eliminated MAD
DADS from an award. Ms. Sherrod recommended MAD DADS needs to submit an
application for consideration. Mr. Bryant indicated he needed technical support to
apply. Mayor Taylor stated that was the purpose of holding a workshop to assist people
in need.
Mr. Larkin inquired if correspondence had been sent to Congressional representatives
regarding the transfer of CDBG funding. Mayor Taylor stated correspondence had
already been sent including hiring a lobbyist in Washington to pursue the issue.
Ms. Johnson encouraged collaboration of organizations to reach out to all segements of
the population who need assistance so several organization are not fighting for funding
for similar programs.
Vice Mayor McCray stated once funding is available, the City is bombarded with
requests and there has to be a cut off. If the Commission is aware of existing programs
they direct organizations to existing programs.
Ms. McKoy stressed that it is part of the grant application and points are awarded for
collaboration.
Vice Mayor McCray thanked all the recipients for attending the meeting and providing
their input. The suggestions and comments given will assist the Commission when
voting on the Resolution. Mayor Taylor also thanked those in attendance.
The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Meeting Minutes
City Commission Workshop
Boynton Beach, Florida
ATTEST:
~/Clerk '
(031105)
" ~,March
~n~,o~ ....... ~q? -~.
/Commissioner '
c~missioner
17
/i0~ ////{//- /{/t/~ /f/;!/7;e
A/\'//.J /f'7h0# /70/2/ . fF ~AY4
v;m/E5 {~7ef7r ~;-y /17/Y
~J> C'i ill ,-J 2, ~ -e+ e 0 ~'/"\ -t 0-.--, ;; -~ C-. cl r~; /-'0 ;5::, ~ (/ cI C DC
I}nn arA I ilil1. lee t..;"mv,;,1zt, ~II- fu,
~1k~..'1 .. '~4VS6A) ~t1IVP/~. &,<t~1 !1~/~~ _.
~#rtp'4~ ~ 1~1or<;~/~.
G II ( Irj fO Y /lC I d<; tl~ ( m I ~ u'. l t,"J 'Ij-<,~ C "'Ie ex:::
r/J~v f:::/: ~~.~Io;~%o~r::~/Z;~ru (tr
Lc. jE !JJ) 1 u e;-t. ~ P 4-- J) ~ {-{ A I K- F-{ .rr d
>t ;;;A~€- L~'~ ;:q//-!/uvJ'(; C-4b
.Jd..neT (}/Y/;itiTle. AJ 71J )ljL-/;/N Ilb,mPs~c j)6iJk (tVNJ-)
1?:vvv;;6; YJ Uv:..-0f. c;J:i;;.,,vr7 1 6 ~ ~<<A
):d-6 0 /Zc"eA~ 6' /;iw /~T &~
YQ.~ b-u,p...ti- jVll/Dbff~ cF G~-Ier ~'1Y).t.",.;~c~
j).J'Jop,RCJt:V L d,4Jr' ~Hl'>1:i7rel) (1T'J:.i?:.E,1(5 0/'kc.:-RpP> //pci.i' (3.~ U~I~N
c. ~o.b.Jt.~ t--{ADAD5 of GtreQ-t-e.r b6'1r'\-+Orl ~
rdu I U57 G~ flttyor WYAl'KllJ p(:,('t/
5heilLfl ~J Q/z-loct.LUjl-N2 ~L_"v~~l/.,~:.c T (((1 /^-~"( 11(Y,- CQ1\.{q-1 I;,t.
~ ;PAlt/'//it11 7/;t/l4'v/l .6'Ad. f/.~ ?VLVC lJEpr
\!iG v \ VI) \l-\...! V\,-. \ \ \ \ \\--~) 1\ r\ l)\ C" 1 11_ ,::' t+ \2: I '- r) \)
City of Boynton Beach-Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Prograll
Staff Recommended 2005 Program Per Budget
Total 2005 CDBG Allocation $ 602,622
Planning and Administration (20%) $ 120,524
Housing Rehab Program $ 200,000
HOB Land Purchase $ 282,098
Total 2005 Program $ 602,622
Note: This program option eliminates the past practice of allocating up to
15% of the CDBG funds for Public Service programs. This amounts to:
$ 90,393
If the Commission opts to retain the Public Service Program at the 15% level
an alternate program program would look like this. Note HUD caps the Public
Service Program at 15% of the total CDBG allocation.
Alternative COBG Program retaining Public Service Program
Total 2005 CDBG Allocation $ 602,622
Planning and Administration (20%) $ 120,524
Public Service Program (15%) $ 90,393
Housing Rehab Program $ 200,000
HOB Land Purchase $ 191,704
Total 2005 Program $ 602,622
KB: 03/07/05
;:j~~
Comments regarding the Resolution on grant funding policies
Page lIst Whereas, is this for all grant applications or specific to CDBTG fiI nding?
Page 4 a 3 - What does gate keeper mean? Staff should provide technical assistance to all
applicants not just facilitate the process.
Page 4 a 4 - Applications should be made available on disc.
Page 4 a 5 - What is meant by special steps? Shouldn't, with respect to CDBG, funding
be prioritized according to the needs identified in the City's Comp Plan? And be used
specifically to address the needs identified from the community to which the~;e funds are
specifically obtained, the city's CDBG area identified to the Federal government. The
current process in the application requires a justification for the use of these jimds. The
Comp plan is the City's was of determining that funds are spend on program:; this
cottununity had identified as a priority to address needs that are critical and unique to this
community being served. Consideration should also be made in the cost effeetiveness of
the use of these funds and the number of organizations providing duplicate services or
services provided countywide or specific to the CDBG community. In otherwords, why
would you provide a grant to an organization in WPB to pay utility bills where 10% of
their client base is Boynton Beach residents located in the CDBG geographic. areas, or
why would you provide a $20,000 grant to an organization serving 12 people and only
give a $5,000 grant to an organization service 1200 people when they are both providing
the same service. City already has in its grant application a provision for the prioritization
of the need, cost effectiveness of the service and justification of the use of funds.
Has anyone reviewed the grant application or looked at the ranking and scoring process?
The city's format is identical to PB County. The only difference is
Page 4 a 6 - applications and forms should be made available in trilingual for non-
English speaking applicants. However, I do feel that applications should be submitted in
English. The city cost burden would be a one time translation fee, and a periodic update
for changes that would be relative insignificant. The cost burden to the City to translate
each Non..English application would be enormous each year if applications were done in
any language other than English.
Page 5 b 3 - No short period of time should be allowed for deficiencies. This is very
unfair to other applicants that are ranked and scored on completeness and accuracy. Then;:
should be if needed an opportunity to clarify information provided in the application. The
question should be placed to the applicant in 'writing, and a deadline for response be
given to the applicant allowing for sufficient time to respond.
Page 5 b 5 Again, this comes back to technical assistance being provided to applicants to
an extent that they can become a success grant applicant. All applicants should be
allowed to review staff scoring, ranking and comments, not only on their application but
also be able to review any other grant application submitted as part of Public Records.
I'm sure the City has a request for a public record and could obtain a fee to cover the cost
of any request or copies.
Page 5 c 1 - The City has clear written criteria specifically for the use of CDBG funding.
This should be established as a guideline for any other grant applications.
In this section, the only thing that the county does is set up an advisory board. Staff
checks for accuracy, completeness, scores and provides comments. The application
approval then is reviewed by an advisory board of PEERS, any new applicants are invited
to make a presentation on their organization to the advisory group. The advisory group
then reviews staff comments, scoring, recommendations, and verifies the reputation of
the organization by calling on references, past performances, and does a site visit. Every
effort is made to fund everyone who applies. I guess you could do that TOO if you have
SSM.
Page 6 d section - because of limited funds, most grant funders are asking to see
collaborative efforts with organizations.
Page 6 d 2 - The CDBG funding does require a "match" and In-kind contributions are
allowable. There should be a set value on volunteering - the county allows us to keep
track of all our volunteer time, and staff time devoted to the program and give a value of
$5/hr to it in order to level the playing field between big and small organizations that can
afford to pay a program director a large salary and a small organization that hire part-time
staff and depends on volunteer to accomplish the organizations success.
Page 7e 3 - advance payments, problems - I'm not sure about advance payments. I'm on
a small social service scale and would really love the idea. However, for larger projects
where the financial ability for the contractor to proceed needs to be established to
guarantee the success of the project, this seems a little shakey. I know the City wants to
help small grantees, but can you make an exception is such general terms without this
concept being expanded to everyone or can this be narrowed and more specific as to who
might be eligible for advance payments.
The City required reimbursement on the submission of both the front and back of a
cancelled check. The county only requires the front of the check and at the year end
monitoring and random verification is made of cancelled checks. This allows for a little
cash flow for small organizations
Page 7 f 4 - the CnBG grant application does spell out the level of financial information
by requiring a C 123 audit for grants over $100,000 (?$)
Page 9 - Core funding, project funding and service funding _ I'm not sure about this
Page 7 f3 - The City DOES require monthly narrative reports where request for
technical assistance and any change in an organizations framework or budget is requested
- Perhaps you should like at the narrative and use it as a standardization for all grant
applicants.
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES FOR SCORING AND POINTS
Cateaories
Points
1. Benefit to Low/Moderate Income Persons .................................. + 5
2. Benefit to Target Areas .............................:..............................+ 10
3. Activity/Need Justification
a) Need.................................................................................... + 15
b) Consolidated Plan Priority...................................................... + 5
4. Cost Reasonableness and Effectiveness .................................+ 10
5. Activity Management and Implementation ................................ + 20
6. Experience and Past Performance
a) Experience...... ..................................... ................................ + 10
b) Past Performance ..... ........... ................................................ + 10
7. Matching Contributions...................... ....... ........... ................. .... + 20
8. Self Sufficiency..... ............................. ........ ......................... .........- 5
9. Application Completeness .......................................................... + 5
Maximum Possible Points ........................................................... 105
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES FOR SCORING AND POINTS
DESCRIPTION OF THE CATEGORIES
1. Benefit to Low/Moderate-Income Persons..................................... Maximum Points: 5
(National Objectives Preference)
Five (5) points will be given to activities that benefit at least 51 % low- and moderate-
income persons.
Zero (0) points will be given to activities that meet either of the other two National
Objectives.
2. Benefit to Target Areas................................. ...... ......................... Maximum Points: 10
3. Activity Need and Justification .................................... Maximum Combined Points: 20
a) Need: (Maximum Points: 15)
The activity will be evaluated in terms of the documentation and justification of
the need for the activity. Activities with excellent documentation and justification
will be awarded the maximum of 15 points; good = 10 points; average = 5 points;
and poor = 0 points.
b) Consolidated Plan Priority: (Maximum Additional Points: 5)
Activities addressing high priorities, as identified in the Consolidated Plan will be
awarded 5 points.
4. Cost Reasonableness and Effectiveness .................................... Maximum Points: 10
Up to a maximum of 10 points will be awarded to applicants. The activity will be
evaluated in terms of: 1] its impact on the identified need, 2] its implementation costs
and funding request relative to the financial and human resources. Evaluation will
include the cost incurred per person or per unit and the justification for a particular
level of funding.
5. Activity Management and Implementation................................... Maximum Points: 20
Up to a maximum of 20 points will be awarded to applicants based on
documentation of information provided, showing that the resources needed to
implement the proposed activity are available and ready, and that the commitment
for operation and maintenance, where applicable, has been certified. This criteria
takes into consideration factors that may accelerate or slow down the ability to
implement the activity in a timely manner. In addition, for applicants that have
received CDBG funds in the past, their record of maintenance for the funded activity
will be evaluated.
SUMMARY OF GUIDELINES FOR SCORING AND POINTS
6. Experience and Past Performance .............................................. Maximum Points: 20
a) Experience: (Maximum Points: 10)
The experience of the applicant, including the length of time in business and
experience in undertaking projects of similar complexity as the one for which
funds are being requested, will be evaluated.
b) Past Performance: (Maximum Points: 10)
The applicant will be evaluated in terms of its past performance in relation to any
local, state or federal funding program. The past performance will refer to
attainment of objectives (70% threshold for individual or aggregated contracts) in
a timely manner and expenditure of funds at a reasonable rate in compliance
with contract. Compliance with the contract will include but not be limited to
submission of reports and adherence to the scope of services. Applicants with
good performance will receive 10 points; average performance, 5 points; and no
prior or poor performance, 0 points.
7. Matching Contribution............................... ................................... Maximum Points: 20
Maximum points of 20 will be given to applicants that match the amount of CDBG
funds requested on a "1" (local) to "1" (CDBG) basis. Fifteen (15) points will be given
to applicants that match the amount of CDBG funds requested on a ".75 to 1."
(CDBG) basis. Ten (10) points will be given to applicants that match the amount of
CDBG funds requested on a "50 to 1." (CDBG) basis. Five (5) points will be given to
applicants that match the amount of CDBG funds requested on a ".25 or under
(local) to 1." (CDBG) basis. Zero (0) points will be given to applicants that do not
provide a matching contribution.
8. Self Sufficiency: ............................................................................ Maximum Points:- 5
Five (5) points will be subtracted for ability to be self sufficient to maximize the use of
CDBG funds. CDBG regulations require that the City ensures that CDBG funds are
used where they are most needed.
9. Application Completeness: ............................................................ Maximum Points: 5
Applications will receive "0" to the maximum of "5" points, based on completeness.
Applications that have not been signed by the appropriate person will not be
considered.
S:\Gr.;r.;mlJnif)f Iml'rr.;\fr:mr:nl\GIJr:GIf:r.;rm~\CIJr:G_GlJidr:lin"!; fer /'<1'1' Sr;err:.dec
~ Yno-~
RECOMMENDATION
Proposal Score Sheet
I.
Organizational Description (Max. 8 points)
~ Mission & Vision, Organizational Capacity
~ Administration & Management Background
~ Organizational & Staff Stability (5 years +)
(2 points)
(2 points)
(4 points)
II. System Experience and Development (Max. 20 points)
)- Past Experience (with City) and outcomes (2 points)
)- Administrative Experience (2 points)
~ Contract Management Experience (2 point)
~ Staff Qualifications to deliver proposed design (4 points)
~ Staff Development (4 points)
~ Record of Performance/Accountability (6 points)
III. Financial Information (Max. 10 points)
~ Audited Financial Statements (past 3 years)
~ Cost Per Customer (10% of total award or less)
)- Reasonableness of Costs
(3 points)
(2 points)
(5 points)
IV. Program Implementation (Max. 50 points)
~ Meeting Identified Community Needs
~ Program Design
~ Performance Outcomes
(10 points)
(30 points)
(10 points)
V. Collaborations (Max. 12 points)
~ Leveraged Funding
(50%=2 pts., 100%=4 pts., 150%= 6pts., 200% + = 1 Opts.)
~ Developed Program Partnerships
(10 points)
(2 points)
TOTAL POSSIBLE POINTS
100 POINTS
The CitlJ ol BoljDtoD Beach
Citlj Clerk's OHice
100 E BOYNTON BEACH BLVD
BOYNTON BEACH FL3343~
(~61) 742-6060
FAX: (~61)742-6090
e-mail: prainitoj@ci.holjnton-heach1l.us
www.boynton-beach.org
NOTICE OF CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP
MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2005 AT 6:30 P.M.
LIBRARY PROGRAM ROOM
208 S. Seacrest Blvd.
BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
In accordance with Section 22 of the City Charter of the City of Boynton Beach, you are hereby
notified of a City Commission Workshop on Monday, March 7, 2005 at 6:30 p.m. for the
purpose of discussing:
GRANT FUNDING POLICIES
Jerry Taylor, Mayor
Mack McCray, Vice Mayor
Bob Ensler, Commissioner
Mike Ferguson, Commissioner
Carl McKoy, Commissioner
NOTICE
IF A PERSON DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE BY THE CITY COMMISSION WITH RESPECf TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS MEETING, HE/SHE
WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND, FOR SUCH PURPOSE, HE/SHE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDING IS
MADE, WHICH RECORD INClUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. (F.S. 286.0105)
The city shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to afford an individual with a disability an equal
opportunity to participate in and enjoy the benefits of a service, program, or activity conducted by the city. please contact
Joyce Costello, (561) 742-6013 at least twenty-four hours prior to the program or activity in order for the city to reasonably
accommodate your request.
c: City Manager, City Attorney, City Commission, Information Officer, Chambers, Facilities, Central Files
13/3/2005 5:50 PM
S:\CC\WP\SPEOAL MEETINGS\Workshops\Year 2005\Grant Funding Policies Workshop - 03-07-05.doc
America's Gateway to the Gulfstream
Boynton Beach
City Manager's Office
Memorandum
TO:
Honorable Mayor & City commiSV
William Bingham ~ ~ '
Fire Chief
FROM:
DATE:
March 3, 2005
SUBJECT:
Grant Funding Workshop
Listed below is a list of organizations that were contacted and forwarded a copy of
the proposed grant funding policy back in January when the policy first appeared on
the City Commission Agenda. The Community Improvement Department did not
receive comments from any of them. These same organizations have again been
contacted via a telephone call to advise them of the workshop taking place on
Monday evening, March 7th @ 6:30 p.m. in the Library Program Room.
Pam O'Brien @ A VDA
David Zimet @ BBFBCDC
Anne Wright @ RM Lee CDC
Vince Larkins @ Fair Housing
Sherry Johnson @ Community Caring Center
Kris Lidinsky @ Healthy Mothers/Health Babies
Paul Skyers @ PBC Resource Center
Teresa Johnson @ Urban League
Chris Noel @ Vetsville
Garfield Hamilton @ Committed Citizens Concerned about our Children
Dieugrand Jacques @ Christian Movement for Freedom & Development
Sherlene Davis @ Ena's Needy Foundation
Ben Bryant @ Mad Dads
jc
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH
AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORlV.l
VI.-CONSENT AGENDA
ITEM C.l
Requested City Commission Date Final Form Must be Turned
Meetinlz Dates in to City Clerk's Office
Requested City Commission
Meetine: Dates
Date Final Form Must be Turned
in to City Clerk's Office
0 December 7, 2004
0 December 21,2004
[J Janumy 4, 2005
g Janumy 18, 2005
November 15, 2004 (Noon)
o Februmy I, 2005
o Februmy 15, 2005
o
o
January 17, 2005 (Noon)
December 6, 2004 (Noon)
January 31,2005 (Noon)
December 20, 2004 (Noon)
NATURE OF
AGENDA ITEM
o Administrative
~ Consent Agenda
o Public Hearing
o Bids
o Announcement
o City Manager's Report
March 1,2005 February 14, 2005 (Noo~ \J
_J n:::j
-<- ::j-<
March 15,2005 February 28, 2005 (N~ -<0
CJ (J ""'l
N j-m
;710
0 0 ;:;':1 ___
Development Plans :~:Z
~ U)-~
0 New Business :2 00
....... Legal <2 ,,:z:
u -., co
a -r:,
0 Unfinished Business 0 .ql>
. n
0 Presentation ::r
January 3, 2005 (Noon)
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval ofan Resolution creating Grant Funding Policies governing all grants awarded
by the City to outside individuals and organizations.
EXPLANATION:
Currently, the procedures followed by staff and required of grant fund applicants is not
well documented. Lack of documentation has the potential to create lDlcertainty and
confusion as to how the process works. The draft policies are intended to clarify the role
of applicants, reviewing staff, City Manager, City Attorney and City ComT'1ission.
PROGRAM IMPACT:
None
FISCAL IMPACT:
None
"
'\'
ALTERNA TIVES:
None
~~~ature
~ .4A...
City M=s Signature
City Attorney
Department Name
~omey / Hllanoo / Human Resll=es
S:\BULLETIN\FORMS\AGENDA ITEM REQUEST FORM. DOC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
RESOLUTION NO. os-Ola
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING
AND ADOPTING GRANT FUNDING POLICIES;
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
-- -
WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach desires to create
policies governing all grants which are awarded by the City to outside individuals and
organizations; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission intends for the following policies to cover all
instances when the City Commission approves distribution of public funds to individuals or other
legal entities, with the exception of distribution of Community mvestment Funds by the City
Commission which are regulated by the procedures set forth in Resolution R03-137.
WHEREAS, the grant funding policies adopted by the City should clearly indicate that
they are intended to be supplemental and subordinate to federal regulations as they pertain to the
CDBG program.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT:
Section 1.
The foregoing whereas clauses are true and correct and are now ratified and
27 confirmed by the City Commission.
28
Section 2.
The City Commission of the City of Boynton Beach, Florida hereby
29 approves and adopts the"foUowing Grant Funding Policies:
30 GRANT FUNDING POLICIES
31 Intent
32 It is the intent of the City Commission by adopting the following polices that the City
33 implement grant application, evaluation, letting, and monitoring procedures that:
S:\CA SO\Grants\Re~d Grant Funding Procedures.doc
1/28/2 5 Page 1 of9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(h)
18
(i)
(j)
(k)
19
20
21
(a)
Establish a process for announcing the availability of grant funds, the purposes for
which they can be used, and the procedures for making application for those
funds. . ~tb ~ k
Encourage eligible individuals and ~rg~ek a~funding from
the City. . . ~
Provide ~ w.:g;ant applicants.
Require full documentation of the process from time of announcement to time of
.completion of the project funded by a City grant.
Require transparency of the grant decision making process so that it is clear why
some applicants are successful in obtaining grant funding and why others are not.
~equire objective decision making on the part of City staff involved in the grant
application evaluation process.
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Describe the role of the City Commission in authorizing project or social service
funding with public funds.
Insure that limitations or conditions on the use of public funds obtained by
applicants through the City's grant letting process are consistent with state and
federal rules and regulations.
. Establish accountability by all individuals involved in grant funding.
Describe the responsibilities of the City staff in monitoring the use of grant funds.
Require the City staff to maintain accurate grant records and provide for reports to
the City Commission the use and availability of funds.
22 The foregoing objectives, and the following policies should be viewed as supplemental
23 and subordinate to state and/or federal regulations pertaining to CDBG funds. In the event
24 of a conflict between what is required by state or federal regulation and what is required
25 by theses policies, state and federal regulations control.
26 Roles and Responsibilities
27 City Commission- The City Commission shall be responsible for:
28
29
(a)
30
31
(b)
Establishing by resolution general policies to ensure accountability for the use of
public dollars obtained through grant programs regardless of the source of funds.
Appropriate funds in the City's annual budget to provide funds or matching funds
for proje{;ts or services which benefit the community.
S:\CA SO\Grants\Revi*d Grant Funding Procedures. doc
1/28/2 Page 2 of 9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
1
2
(c)
Appropriate funds in the City's annual budget for administrative costs necessary
to manage the City's grant programs.
3
4
(d)
Review and act on recommendation from the City's professional staff on issues
regarding grant administration and distribution.
Staff- The City's staffis responsible for:
(a) Gathering information of the availability of County, State, Federal, or private
grant opporturlities and report that information to the--City Manager and the City
Commission.
(b) Day to day administration of the City's grant.programs, including, but not limited
to, promoting grant programs, education regarding the grant application process,
application assistance, evaluation of applicants, recommendation of funding
,!wards, management of grant funds consistent with state and federal rules and
regulations, monitoring of grant contracts, preparation of reporting documents,
interfacing with regulatory personnel from other agencies, and periodically
reporting to the City Commission the status of programs funded through the
City's grant program.
( c) Maintaining and report the availability of funds.
(d) Maintaining accurate and current information on the expenditure of all grant
, .dollars, the status of pending grants, and grant monitoring.
( e) Processing requests for public records in cooperation with the City Clerk.
(f) Providing, through the City Manager, information requested by City
Commissioners.
City Manager- The City manager is responsible for:
(a) Oversight of the City staff
(b) Designating or appointing City staff to administer the City's grant programs.
(c) Requesting, in his/her annual budget, funds to provide grant opportunities and for
grant administration.
(d) Coordinating his/her staff's periodic reports to the City Commission.
City Attorney-The City Attorney is responsible for:
(a) Reviewing and approving all forms used in the grant application process.
(b) Preparing agreements with grant recipients.
S:\CA SO\Grants\Revised Grant Funding Procedures.doc
f!'f"
1/28/2 5 Page 3 of 9
1
2
(c)
3 General policies
4
(a)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
(4)
~
(5)
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Advising the City Manger, City staff and City Commission on issues of law that
impact the City's grant program or grant agreements.
Access to funding
(1)
W\ \\
The City staff s~d announce and publish all funding opportunities,
through public announcements, postings, explanatory leaflets, targeted
mailing to local organizations, press releases to- the media, and other
means that might expand the base of applicants who desire to serve the
community through the use of public funds. This is particularly important
where a funding opportunity is available for the first time, during annual
renewal, or where the terms of funding are revised.
(2)
Interested parties should be able to find out easily what the ftmds are
available and what those funds will and will not support; key conditions of
funding; exclusions; the likely scale of competition for funds; any upper or
lower limits on grant size; how to apply for a grant; how the applications
will be handled; and how long it wiII take to reach a decision. Each
enquirer should be provided with a clear funding timetable that sets out the
City's calendar of key deadlines in the funding process.
Information should be disseminated early enough to allow time for
applications to be prepared, taking into account the circumstances of
potential applicants. City staff should act in the role of facilitator of the
application process, 110t as a gatel(e~~ Each enquirer should be treated as
an equal in the application process.
Funding application forms and accompanying instructions should be clear
and user-friendly and any additional documentation required should be
specified. Where application forms are not used, guidance notes or a
simple information checklist should be provided. Examples of previous
forms which resulting in fimding should. be provided to interested ~arties
to iIIustrnte the content of a successful application~ _ / r 4-{1.)
City staff should cOflsideT 'Nh~er sp~i~J. st~~~8 te ensure fair
and equal access to information and fimding ~(':rogg gsegrnplHsaf 8feftB; toF
- ctlmie M r&c;;ai uuuvl;l.r g8apS; fer groups Hem differeDt roligiou& dUd
.-CnlhlralbaGkgreands; for digad'.~8fttagea groups; 8fia fer tHOSG. ~itH Sfls~W
nep.r1~ 'l.'flOffl 18e City parhs1:lIftf'l) Mshes te nlleh. The City Manager
should establish ovetsight procedures to monitor the effectiveness of this
approach.
(3)
S:\CA SO\Grants\Revised Grant Funding Procedures.doc
eo"
1/28/2 5 Page 4 of 9
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
(b)
(6)
The City Commission, following a recommendation from City staff,
should consider whether they can produce bilingual information and forms
and be prepared to assist non-English speaking applicants to complete the
City's applications
The City staff should maintain a list of the name, address and telephone
number of all individuals who make inquiry regarding funding
opportunities and a procedure for follow up with those individuals should
be developed as a means of measuring the success of City's procedures.
The success of the City's funding procedures Should be measure not only
by those who are successful in the funding process, but also by
understanding why those who sought funding and were not able to obtain
funding failed.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
~ ) Cl>~
~
(7)
Processing grant applications
(1)
Timetables and procedures for processing applications should be set and
publicized, with particular emphasis on deadlines and the reason for them.
The City staff should identify clearly the information that they wish to
collect and how that information will be used in the decision-making
process. Information concerning the applicant's objectives; experience of
related work; the purpose and expected outcome of the work to be funded;
fmaneial competence; and current financial position should be completely
documented and verified. Documentation of this information is critical to
evaluating and verifying the effectiveness of the decision-making process.
(2)
(3) Completed grant applications should be acknowledged on receipt. When a
grant applicant is reviewed and it is determined that necessary information
is lacking, the applicant shall be contacted personally and advised of the
---- deficiencies/ The deadlines for applications should be set to allow one
short period of time for correction or supplementation.
(4) Applicants should be made aware of suitable sources of advice and help
with their applications.
(5) The City should maintain a list of the name, address and telephone number
of all applicants as well as the time and date of filing. The City staff
should develop a procedure for follow up with those individuals should be
developed as a means of measuring the success of City's procedures. The
success of the City's funding procedures should be measure not only by
those who are successful in the funding process, but also by understanding
why those who sought funding and were not able to obtain funding failed.
<' <
,
S:\CA SO\Grants\Revised Grant Funding Procedures. doc
1/28/2 @!l Page 5 of 9
( c) Decision-making
2 (1) The City staff should have clear written criteria for making grant decisions.
3 The City Commission should be advised of the proposed criteria prior to it
4 being announced to the public or incorporated in application documents or
5 grant agreements.
6 (2) The criteria for approving or rejecting an applicant should be objective and not
7 subjective. These should cover the extent of any delegated authority, the
8 timetable, the criteria for approval, and any training or special expertise
9 required for the decision-making process.
10 (3) Staff evaluators and their supervisors shall consider whether arrangements
11 should be made to avoid any appearance of improper conflict of interest
12 arising for those involved in decision- making.
13 (4) Applicants should be notified of decisions as soon as possible.
14 (5) For successful applications, where funding is requested for a specific period
15 (eg a financial year), it may be helpful to give a provisional indication of the
16 grant as far in advance of the start of the period as possible, but a definite
17 figure should be confirmed not later than the start ofthe period.
18 (6) City staff shall write to all unsuccessful applicants to give the principal
19 reasons for a refusal to make a grant.
20
21
(d)
Selecting whom to fund
(1) Applications should be judged on substance rather than presentation,
except to the extent that presentation is material.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
. (2) City staff should consider whether voluntary organizations should be
encouraged to seek funding from a range of sources, recognizing that such
encouragement may in different circumstances constitute a reasonable
challenge or an unreasonable burden. Where matching funding is required,
staff should consider the economic value of volunteering and of
community activity and self-help. The City staff and City Commission
should be careful to avoid.'double funding
(3) The City staff should require evidence of a voluntary organization's
commitment to equal opportunities in terms of their own personnel
policies and the delivery of services to their clients.
(4) The City st3ff should consider the extent and nature of the contribution
31
32
33
34
.'! .
<,
S:\CA SO\Grants\Revised Grant Funding Procedures.doc
1/28/2 5 e." Page 6 of 9
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
(f)
that volunteers and users might make to the proposed activity where this is
consonant with wider policy objectives.
(5)
Following evaluation of applicants by the City staff, the City staff shall
forward a recommendation to the City Commission through the City
Manager. The recommendation shall contain sufficient justification for the
rejection of any application.
Final approval of funding is reserved to the City Commission.
23
24
25
26
(6)
(e)
Payment procedures
(1)
There should be written confirmation of the grant offer and any conditions
before any payment is made. It may also be appropriate to confirm the
applicant's acceptance of these conditions. The City Attorney shall review
and approve all contracts between the City and an applicant.
Grant conditions should clearly state the amount, purpose and duration of
the grant; the arrangements for payment; the monitoring and evaluation
arrangements which apply; the limitation on the use of the funds, if any,
and the circumstances in which funding might be terminated.
The City 51 should recogni that some 0 anizations c ot :funCti~
without recei '. payments in dvance, an should m.ak suitabl
angements whe possible. The . staff shoul Iso be aw f the
pro ems for grant r . ients that may e caused by d e from y
agreed edule of paym
(2)
(3)
Monitoring & evaluation
(1) Appropriate measures of performance (ie monitoring) and outcome/output
(ie evaluation) should be agreed at the outset with all organizations
receiving funding. These should conform to clear policy objectives for the
overall grant scheme.
(2) Monitoring should not become an excessive burden on either the City staff
or the grant recipient funded, but should be appropriate to the level and
type of funding provided, the nature of service required, and the need to
ensure proper accountability for the expenditure of public dollarS.
(3) The City staff should evaluate grant fund expenditure in accordance with
these policies, the grant contract documents and applicable county, state,
or federal laws and regulations. City grant agreements should require grant
recipients to use self- evaluation and periodically report to the City staff
the use of funds and level of services provided with those funds. Where
S:\CA SO\Gran~\Revised Grant Funding Procedures.doc
1/28/2 5. IJ!<. Page 7 of9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
(g)
11
12
13
(1)
14
15
(2)
16
(h)
Changes to funding
appropriate, the City, through inter-local agreement or informal
understanding, should act in consort with any other private or public
entities supporting a grantees activities.
(4)
The City staff shall request appropriate levels of financial information and
should require independent verification of accounts, through audit & or
independent examination.
(5)
The City Attorney shall ensure that all grant agreements contain provisions
for terminating funding in the event of unsatisfactory performance or
breach of grant conditions.
Dissemination
The City shall require all grant recipients to disseminate the results of
projects or services funded and if necessary should make provision in the
grant agreement for dissemination.
The City staff should disseminate to the public at least once annually the
results ofproject or services funded with public dollars.
17 (1) The City staff should give as much notice as possible of any changes in
18 grant scheme policy or management arrangements.
19 (2) Voluntary organizations should be consulted prior to any changes in their
20 funding position, which arise from evaluations of individual grants.
21 (3) The City staff should ensure that decisions on funding are taken well
22 before arrangements have to be made to terminate a service.
23
24 Section 3. Should any section or provision of this Resolution or portion hereof, any
25 paragraph, sentence or word be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such
26 decision shall not affeCt the remainder of this Resolution.
27
28
29
Section 4.
30
This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon passage.
S:\CA SO\Grants\Revised Grant FWlding Procedures. doc
1/28/2 5 eo Page 8 of 9
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
15 dayof FebnUlrt ,2005.
CITY OF BOYNTON BEACH, FLORIDA
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 TTEST:
24
25
26
27 City Clerk
28
29 (CORPORATE SEAL)
30
31
32
33
Mayor
Vice Mayor
Commissioner
Commissioner
Commissioner
S:\CA SO\Grants\Revised Grant Funding Procedmes.doc
1/28/2 5 @Y Page 9 of 9
General Policies:
L4i /J) J)lcf -- (l/ ~
'.If: ;J I {(J4;, IIfP
{t .Jl. f I. 5t-
GrantFUndlngPolicie. tat#1c (
:ftt1. .? 1-1#&;'/.. j~
~/6r'
t~ttJ)
fflfd(/oI J;
Questions:
Pg. 4 Access to funding
(a) 3. What is the difference between a facilitator and a "gatekeeper"?
This seems to invoke negativity. Is it necessary?
5. The third paragraph of the resolution indicates that the grant funding
policics are intended to be supplemental and subordinate to federal regulations
as they pertain to the CDBG progratl1. Are these policies for all grants) or
specifically for the CDBG program? (If the answer to this is yes, the
following question should bc asked)
# 5 pg. 4 indicates that staff should consider whether special efforts should be
made to eusure fair and equal access to infonnation and funding across
geographical areas, for ethnic or racial minority groups, for groups from
different religious and cultural backgrounds"" Are CDBG funds used for all
geographical arcas'? Are they specificaJly for any particular group?
7 pg. 5 indicates that staff should maintain datc on individUals who inquire of
funding opportunities available, and that we should follow up as a means of
measuring the SUCCess of the procedures. It is my feeling that the success of
thc procedure should be measured by the services delivered.
*This is also repeated in section (B) Processing grant applications. Is it
necessary?
Pg. 5 Processing Grant Applications
#3 Tndicates that deadlines for applications should be set to allow more time
for correction or supplementation.
What is the notion of a deadline'? Is it fair to applicants that do what is
requested? There is nothing wrong with asking pertinent questions of an
applicant in rcgards to the service that they are providing, but applications
should be complete upon submission.
#4 Indicates that applicants should be made aware of suitable sources of
advice and help wi th their applications.
Are you speaking of external sources? How intensive is the heJp to be, or is
this to become a burden of staff?
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Meeting
Boynton Beach, Florida
February 15~ 2005
to be performed. It also appeared at the end of the study, the City would have the option
to purchase a maintenance plan for the job evaluation tool software. The backup also
noted that MGT of America has the ability to provide staff with a four-year
implementation plan. Mr. Edwards felt this type of wording meant that the City would
have to bear additional unknown costs at the end of the study for the purchase of the
software beyond the original costs of $66,000. Mr. Edwards also inql:Jired how this
would benefit the City's hiring process.
Amy Brown, from MGT of America, explained that the maintenance plan for the job
evaluation tool is very easy to use once staff is trained and merely- provides basic .
assistance and maintenance of the tool. The cost for this is much less than the contract
itself. Also Ms. Brown pointed out that it is at the City's discretion whether they want to
purchase the maintenance tool or not.
,
Motion
Vice Mayor McCray moved to award the contract. Motion seconded by Commissioner
McKoy and unanimously carried.
C.1. Proposed Resolution No. R05-012 Re: Approving
and adopting grant funding policies (TABLED TO FEBRUARY 15,
2005)
Motion
Vice Mayor McCray moved to remove the item from the table. Motion seconded by
Commissioner Ferguson and unanimously carried.
Vice Mayor McCray pulled this item at the request of a citizen.
-
Sherri Johnson, of the Community Caring Center, had several questions regarding
the City's grant funding process and provided the Clerk with her comments, which are
on file in the City Clerk's Office. Ms. Johnson did not think the Resolution was clear as
to whether this applied only to the CDSG funding or if the City gave out other kinds of
grants. However, she pointed out, that the comments she provided were made as if the
Resolution only applied to CDBG funding.
Ms. Johnson recommended adding language to "Access to Funding" under "General
Policies" to be tied to the City's priorities contained in the Comprehensive Plan. She
also felt the priorities should be rated, high, medium or low to address the needs in the
City.
Secondly, Ms. Johnson recommended that the application be in other languages
besides English, but when the actual grants are submitted - they would. be-- in English.
Before scoring the application~ they should be reviewed for completeness and<scoring
of the applicatiol}s should be done on completeness. She did not think that additional
time should be given applicants that provide missing documentation.
~
13
Meeting Minutes
Regular City Commission Mee.~ng
Boynton Beach, Florida
February is, 2005
Ms. Johnson recommended the City establish an advisory board to assist with
evaluating grant applications. Ms. Johnson brought forth many other recommendations
regarding the grant process.
Mayor Taylor suggested that staff review Ms. Johnson's recommendations, but he
would like to move the item forward.< After staff reviews _ Ms. Johnson's
recommendations, if they feel there is a need for additional amendments to the
Resolution, they could bring them back to the Commission.
Vice Mayor McCray had concerns about the Resolution and thei~sues Ms. Johnson
raised. He also had some of his own questions and felt that the Resolution needed
clarification on several points. He questioned if this only applied to the CDSG program
or were there other grant programs in the City. Vice Mayor McCray inquired what the
difference was between a 'facilitator" and "gatekeeper" on page 4. He also noted that
the Resolution was not clear on whether the policies applied to all grants or specifically
to the CDBG program. Vice Mayor McCray had other comments. Mayor Taylor
recommended tabling the item to allow staff to re-work the Resolution and bring it back.
Motion
Vice Mayor McCray moved to re-table. Motion seconded by Commissioner Ferguson
and unanimously carried.
Mayor Taylor recommended setting up a Commission workshop with the committee and
then bringing it back to the Commission.
C.3. Proposed Resolution No. R05-022 Re: Authorizing
the execution of a Task Order with Kim/ey-Horn and Associates,
Inc. for final design and construction services for the Wilson Center
Building, pool and park project in the not-to-exceed amount of
$519,400 -
Commissioner Ensler inquired what the costs would be for a spray pool and asked Mr.
Majors to address this.
Wally Majors, Recreation and Parks Directors, reported that he contacted the County
and did some further research. As a result, he has determined that a spray ground
would cost between $300,000 to $350,000. The costs for an interactive splash pool
would cost $1.1 million.
Commissioner Ensler noted the funds for a spray ground have not been budgeted. but if
possible, when Kimley-Horn does the final design, he would like. the infrastructure for
this facility included that would include, water, drainage, electricity, etc.
~
14