Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMIN HSSSC 2022/05/31 2020-2022 Committee on Human Services and Social Services 18 th Session Hawai`i County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai`i May 31, 2022 CALL TO The regular meeting of the Committee on Human Services and Social Services ORDER: was called to order 11:38 a.m. in the Council Chambers, Hilo, by Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair. ROLL CALL: Present: Ms. Susan L. K. Lee Loy, Chair Ms. Ashley L. Kierkiewicz, Vice Chair Ms. Maile Medeiros David, Member (via videoconference from Kona) Mr. Hoeka Goro Inaba, Member Mr. Matt Kaneai`i-Keinfeder, Member Ms. Heather L. Kimball, Member Ms. Rebecca Villegas, Member (via videoconference from Kona) Absent& Excused: Mr. Aaron S. Y. Chung, Member Mr. Herbert M. "Tim" Richards III, Member STATEMENTS The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, FROM THE Statements from the Public on Agenda Items. PUBLIC ON AGENDA ITEMS: The following individuals registered to provide comment regarding Comm. 633, and came forward when called by the Chair: Les Estrella, representing Going Home Hawai`i. Keahi Warfi e d. Cory Causey Page Else, representing Maama `O Puna. Robert Golden. Dane DuP ante. Eileen O'Hara. Fronda Harris. Maj a Graj ski. HSSSC- 8 May 3 ,2022 COMMUNI- The Chair directed the Committee to proceed to the next order of business, CATIONS: Communications. Comm. 633: FORMATION of AN AD HOC COMMITTEE To REVIEW NONPROFIT GRANT-IN-AID APPLICATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 From Human Services and Social Services Committee Chair Susan L. K. Lee Loy, dated February 10, 2022. The ad hoc committee would conduct application reviews and report its findings and recommendations for grant awards to the Human Services and Social Services Committee. Postponed: March 8 and May 8, 2022 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Mr. Richards, to close file on Comm. 633 and all related communications.) ; and Comm. 633.1: From Finance Director Deanna S. Sako, dated February 17, 2022, transmitting the applications from eligible nonprofit organizations. ; and Comm. 633.2: From Finance Director Deanna S. Sako, dated March 10, 2022, transmitting revised list of nonprofit grant applications. ; and Comm. 633.6: From Human Services and Social Services Committee Chair Susan L. K. Lee Loy, dated April 26, 2022, transmitting the Ad Hoc Committee's recommendations for grant funding to nonprofit organizations for inclusion in the County of Hawai`i operating Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023. CHR. LEE LGY: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. With that, we already have motions on the floor. And just to level set everyone again, when it comes to our ad hoc committees, we present our findings, we place it on hold, and then we get to a second committee meeting in which we can have a big open discussion. I also just want to manage everyone's time; if I could begin to address some of the questions that came up at our last meeting, and then walk into and have Mr. Inaba help us explain how we came up with the scoring and where everybody fell, and then have a conversation with this body about the recommendations that we have in front of us, and some input from our Department of Finance on where we stand as far as the funds that are available for us. And then if we could all be mindful; because we are running a little behind, it is my hope to try and get through this in the next maybe 20 minutes. And if we can take a short break right about 12:40 (p.m.) so we can pick up one testimony from another matter, and then come right back to this committee. Page 2 HSSSC- S May 3 ,2022 So with that, if you don't mind members of the Committee, at our last meeting we had heard from a few of our colleagues as to the amounts that were awarded and oolong for a side-by-side as to what the ask was and what we provided. This year, the Waiwai Grant Program asked the applicants to select an amount and build a program around that specific amount. And so contained within Communication 633.6 was exactly what the applicants asked for and what they were awarded. So if they met the eligibility requirements and met various scoring rubrics that four members of our ad hoc committee provided, they fell into a category, and I'll have Mr. Inaba explain that scoring and how we had to really come to a place where So the applicants applied. They had a specific amount in which they created a program around, and we had some scoring around that. And just like every year, the nonprofit grant in aid committee receives requests beyond the funding that is available, and it's always very challenging for this ad hoc committee to kind of come to a decision as to who would receive funding and who would not be able to receive funding. In years past, the committee would receive requests and then kind of award less than the ask. But this year's application was very clear; you ask, build a program around that particular ask, and then we would fund in whole, or there would be other sources of funding in which we could shop your application around to other philanthropical programs or other grants available throughout the State or County. With that being said, I would want to turn that over to Mr. Inaba to explain some of the scoring and how we landed on basically the amount that we could award. MR. INABA: All right. Yeah, and for the record, I joined this ad hoc committee right prior to us beginning the scoring, and together we were able to come up with this rubric by which we were going to score. We each independently scored based on the rubric and the application that was submitted. After that, we did convene as an ad hoc committee and combined scores. And prior to, and I believe I mentioned this last time, prior to messing with the numbers, add on ranking, we did make a decision that we wouldn't accept, or we would not be recommending any application that scored 60 percent or below; being that if you consider that in the sense of a grade for school, you know, it would really on the merits of the application itself, not being a strong application. Not that it's not a good program, but we were going based on what was submitted. So in the end, we did do this ranking. And we went with scores of 101 points or greater out of a base score of 160. Applications could receive a total score of up to Zoo with bonus points, but we went just with the base score points. So that's the list that is provided before you, which is the $2,565,000 recommendation. And again I want to state on the record, for the—I think I'm the only one on the ad hoc committee that had direct conflicts for those—I did recuse myself from voting, so I didn't have any points or any say in those applications. Thank you. Page 3 HSSSC- 8 May 3 ,2022 CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. So for the rest of my colleagues, What's contained in Communication 633.6 is the ad hoc recommendation for all of the applications that scored the amount of points, which took us to exactly $2,565,000. So for the rest of my colleagues, accepting this recommendation would mean working with the Finance Department and the Administration to find $65,000 more to completely fund those that have scored the amount of points that Were available. However, we heard testimony on a number of applicants, which I know personally serve the community, and truly the under-belly of the community, in helping really address very challenging situations. And for the total amount of applications that were eligible, this body could consider looking for additional funding for $875,000 more that would fund the entire list of applicants. I just wanted to put it out there, food for thought for the rest of our colleagues. But with that, I'm open to any more input, any more questions. Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. Director Sako, if you could come forward, please. (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. KIERKIEWICZ: First, I just want to mahao all the nonprofits who came out to testify in support or with comments on what the recommendation of the committee was. It's the second year that I have been sitting on this particular committee, and wouldn't say we're trying something new, I think we're trying to be a bit more transparent in how the committee operates. And there was a lot of deliberation in the committee around, based on our outreach to community folks thinking, "I applied for something, please don't give me 50 percent of what I asked for because I can't do my job in a meaningful way." And so there was this internal decision around if you're going to ask $30,000, we're going to fulfill the entire request that you have because we know how important every single dollar means to you. But we're also hearing from members of our community that said, "Hey,just give me something. Because I'm really resourceful and can make magic happen if you just give me a little bit." That being said, Director, ad hoc committee Chair said there could be funding to support all of the nonprofits that have applied. But I want to dissect it a little bit further; I think what you mean to say is nonprofits that were deemed eligible. Is that correct, Chair? okay. CHR. LEE LOY: Exactly. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Because if not, we're talking about like maybe $6 million? Okay. Director Sako, can we play around with Fund Balance to see if there's roughly $900,000 to support all 133 eligible applicants this cycle? Page 4 HSSSC- S May 3 ,2022 MS. SAKO: So just that I'm clear, that would be including the people that scored less than 60 percent on the application? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Correct. And I think we should have a discussion about that. I think we know a lot of these folks and their community, and their ability to be able to deliver. I think some of the disconnects that was being seen was their ability to articulate that in an application. And so this is maybe something that the ad hoc committee going forward really needs to determine how we really evaluate their ability to communicate on paper versus what we know they're able to do on the ground. MS. SAKO: Yeah. I just wanted to be clear that the $2.565 million was the 60 and above, and so the other applications are everybody that was eligible that passed (inaudible). MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Below the 60 (percent), yes. MS. SAKO: Yeah, okay. So, you know, the administration has turned in the budget, so it's really in the Council's hands. Second reading is on Thursday. So if someone submitted a budget amendment, you know, that is a possibility. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: okay, great. We've already drafted the amendment. So just want to make sure we're okay to dip into the Fund Balance. And hey, you know what, we are at an incredible time of abundance. A lot of different County departments and agencies are really getting a lot of their wishes taken off of their wish list. And these nonprofit organizations are critical partners. They're solving on-the-ground challenges that I think are to our benefit because that is less strain on many of our public health and safety, sort of, functions of County government. So supporting them really lessens the burden on County services MS. SAKO: And I know the Council did,just one point of recommendation, did a lot of training with the nonprofits this year and really made themselves available. I know both your office and Ms. Lee Loy's office really helped out with that. And so I think that helped a little bit, but I think some of them still struggled. So maybe if we did training throughout the year to help them with the applications and getting in the right documents, I think that would help, both in the first phase, when we're just trying to determine if they're eligible. And then, in the write-up that you guys are looking for. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Is that something that your department is going to be able to help facilitate? And the only reason why I ask that MS. SAKO: We could do the first part, yeah. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: okay, making sure that they are submitting the correct, sort of financial eligibility documentation. Page 5 HSSSC- S May 3 ,2022 MS. SAKO: Yes. Yeah, we're happy to help with that part. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: okay, I just want to make sure that we have this song and dance correct because it is a partnership between both branches. MS. SAKO: Because we do understand several of the nonprofits struggle with getting some of the correct information in. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: okay, great. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to yield at this time. You know, do fully support; making sure that we're able to get as much kokua out to our community partners, and do want to make sure that we are reserving time to have a conversation about how this program sort of continues to morph and be administered in future cycles. Thank you, I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Ki erki ewi cz. Anyone else? I'll check in with Kona. MS. DAVID: Chair Lee Loy? CHR. LEE LOY: Go ahead, Ms.—yeah, go ahead. MS. DAVID: Thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to make a note to thank those organizations that came out, and their heartfelt testimony on not receiving any funding this year. Could you share the interview process that was not conducted in your new formation of your ad hoc? What the reasons behind not having the in-person interviews and the personal contact with these people were. I just wanted to know the reasoning behind that. CHR. LEE LGY: Sure. Thank you for that question, Chair David. MS. DAVID: Thanks. CHR. LEE LGY: The rationale behind that actually stemmed from our time when we could not do the interviews during our COVID ad hoc year. A lot of the programs had to demonstrate the need along with their goals and objectives of their mission through written form, and so we decided as a body to continue to adopt that. Because as you know, Chair David, a week of interviews is a lot of time out of our calendars. In addition to that, we were hoping to build capacity in these various nonprofit programs, because oftentimes it's actually very rare that an interview is given if they're seeking funding from larger programs, like federal programs or state programs. And so we were hopeful that this was a way to help them build capacity to create a very strong written application. Page 6 HSSSC- 8 May 3 ,2022 In addition too, we also provided them an opportunity to check up within their application the option to shop their application around to other funding sources and philanthropic donors in which an interview would not be provided. And it Was our hope that as an eligible applicant that had provided the various clearing-house documents to the County, they Were all within good standing and Worthy of consideration for other funding options,through the federal government, through the State, and/or philanthropic donors. MS. DAVID: Thank you for that. And then on the list of organizations, how many did you say were 134. How many applications were not eligible, again? I'm looking at your 633.6, and it says, "eligible"—?. MR. INABA: Council Chair David? It's Hoeka. MS. DAVID: Yes, thank you, Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Communication 633.6, according to the communication, 80 applications were deemed ineligible, and then we had 134 that were deemed eligible. MS. DAVID: Were eligible. MR. INABA: Were, you know, evaluated as part of the process I explained. MS. DAVID: Okay. okay, and is there a list of the ineligible? I'm just kind of remembering it was in prior years we had the amounts or the organizations that were awarded, and then at the very end there was a little section that had a list of the organizations that were not qualified. So we don't have that this time, right? CHR. LEE LOY: Actually it's contained in Communication 633.1, which provides the entire list of eligible applicants and ineligible applicants. MS. DAVID: Right. okay, hand on a second. okay, this is the 60, the following did not meet. okay. Thank you, I found it. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. MS. DAVID: Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: And just to clarify again, as part of this process, the Department of Finance is part of that of that clearing-house, to ensure that they have their 501(c)(3) is in compliance. M S. DAVID: Right. CHR. LEE LOY: And Chair, you know this, right? Page 7 HSSSC- S May 3 ,2022 MS. DAVID: Yeah. CHR. LEE LOY: There are so many documents. Their Articles of Incorporation as a 501(c)(3) matches. M S. DAVID: Right. CHR. LEE LOY: And so that's what's very valuable for us as a nonprofit grant-in-aid committee to deem applicants eligible or ineligible, because it signals to other donors that they are all within good standing. M S. DAVID: Right. CHR. LEE LOY: And all of their documentation is up to date. MS. DAVID: And I really, yeah, I understand that one. Thank you. And I really appreciate the fact that Finance plays a real, real critical role in that part of it. And that when we get that final number from them, I think that is where the starting point will be. So I just wanted to say thank you to the Finance Department also, for their handwork every year in determining eligibility, and whether documents are in order and appropriately submitted. Thank you. Thank you for answering my questions. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Yeah, and thank you, Chair. That's what Ms. Ki erki ewi cz and Ms. Sako were speaking of, is trying to do that training early so that we can ensure that they do have the appropriate documentation as they submit to us. So thank you for bringing up that issue. MS. DAVID: Yeah, and that would be really, really helpful to the organizations because that's what we were facing with such a tight deadline, is that there was not enough time for the organizations to come back and satisfy certain requirements that would have otherwise made them eligible, so timing is everything. And I really appreciate the additional time that Council Member Kierkiewicz and Finance Director were speaking of. So thank you so much. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Chair. Here in Hilo, Mr. Kanea i`i-K einfe der. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I think Mr. Warfied today really, really, really nailed it; and it raised a lot of questions for me. And hearing some of the conversations that have occurred today raised up more questions. So you're pointing out this communication, Ms. Lee Loy, and what I asked for last time was pretty clear, was a side-by-side comparison to see what was what. And I understand that there are disqualified applicants within this Communication 633, but what was interesting and what Mr. Warfied was Page 8 HSSSC- 8 May 3 ,2022 speaking to was of the eligible organizations or applications, hove many were awarded, and that is not what I would say specifically clear unless you would put this side-by-side. And without having that, it's hard to see what was done. And so the question is, of the eligible organizations—I think applications and organizations is an interesting comparison, too. But of the eligible applications that were put in of that 184, how did we get down to the numbers in 633.6? CHR. LEE LOY: Mr. Kanea i`i-K einfe der,just to summarize, your question is the amount that was awarded to the applicants or the difference between who was awarded and who wasn't? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: The question is, we had in your 633 Communication 633, you have a number of applications that were eligible, and then if you go to 633.6, you have five pages of the eligible organizations that were awarded. And again, I would caution between applications and organizations, because if there is what is this, 80 applications that were approved, but there are only 50-something organizations. So in Communication 633.6, we have the awarded applications, but there are a number of groups, like Mr. Warfied's, who were eligible but didn't get. And that's really my question, is—I mean, why did longstanding nonprofits who were eligible not receive any funding at all? And then to come back with a total that's over what was appropriated for this and ask for more funding is very interesting. MR. INABA: I'll try and answer the question. So the question is how did we come up basically with this list of these organizations that did receive, is that right? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yes. And then I'm just going to go back to the last meeting, I ask for a side-by-side, same thing Ms. David asked for. You know, having sat on this committee two years in a row, that side-by-side helps us understand what was done and understand the committee's decisions, and understand the awarding level. And it's very useful for the community to take a look at and to see who was awarded what. You know what, good for those who got, and I'm sorry for those who didn't. But the reality is if we want to make good decisions, we need good data. So side-by-side is extremely useful for everybody. MR. INABA: I'm sorry, Mr. Kanea i`i-K einfe der, I don't recall. The side-by-side was who was eligible versus who received? MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Yeah, it would be like taking 633 and putting it side-by-side with 633.6. MR. INABA: Okay. Page 9 HSSSC- S May 3 ,2022 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: So you can see of the eligible who were awarded, and how much they were awarded from their original ask. MR. INABA: Okay. I don't have that either right now in front of me. But just going back to how these people made it, it was just based on the score. So I want to say yes, we need improvements to the application, to the scoring rubric. I feel, personally that there needs to be room also if the application was better perhaps, we thought it may be better submittals, and it would be you know, people might have scored higher, and we might have had a bigger group that you know, a higher number than $2.565 million. And also, for me, I come from a standpoint that I think the application has to stand on its own feet to a certain extent, but I think there needs to be a component. I don't know how yet, but we need to figure it out, where there is input from the Council for applications that we know or say this is the cut-off, scoring-wise, but we know they're delivering. Because we know that has happened for some of these applications. But I'm hesitant to give that power perhaps to an ad hoc committee. I sit on the ad hoc committee now. I would be hesitant to make a judgment call like that being on the committee, and I would not want an ad hoc committee making those decisions on their own either. So I don't know how best you know, there's another communication coming up on how we can improve the process. But this recommendation before the body right now is just the raw numbers and the independent objective scoring with no, you know, no giving of extra. The bonus points didn't even count. So it is what it is, based on the rubric and the application but not based on how any of us feel an organization does good work. But I think there should be room for that. So I don't have the side-by-side, but that's how this list came to be,just with that idea of the 60 percent, or above. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: okay. Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Just one more time, I'm going to go back to—I know we have different communications in front of us. It's not that confusing, though. The first three pages of 633.1 list out all the people who are eligible. There's $2.5 million of taxpayer funds set aside to help these nonprofits; and of this list of qualified organizations that were eligible, we came down to a very short list. It's concerning. It is concerning that we weren't able to fund these organizations. Even if they just didn't receive the full amount, which is normal, it's concerning to me and I have to say that. And I'm speaking on behalf of some of the nonprofits who came in today to testify, even for the ones who were awarded. We feel good for the guys who were awarded, but hey, what about us? I mean, that's a great comment. I have some hesitations about like, "Hey, we're going to increase this." I love our nonprofits, but $2.5 million is a lot of money; and if we can't figure out how to do what we've always done with $2.5 million and help out the nonprofits who came in this year, something is not right. And that's my thoughts. But I do appreciate the work of the nonprofit, you know, ad hoc committee. Thank you. Page 10 HSSSC- S May 3 ,2022 CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. We've reached the 12:40 (p.m.) mark, and so I'd like to take a moment and put this meeting in recess. MS. KIMBALL: I can be brief. CHR. LEE LOY: I'm going to let Ms. Kimball speak, and then we'll go ahead and put this meeting in recess until 1:00. Go ahead, Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, I'll give you folks something to chew on mentally during the recess. You know, a lot of the purpose of revising the process was to take some of these sorts of subjective judgment out of the process. We all know that all of the people that apply, all of the nonprofits, they do good, important work for our community, stuff that we as the government can't provide. And so ideally yes, we would give everybody the money. But I want to make it clear that the folks that didn't make the cut-off, were at 60 percent, which is like "D" in school, right? No offense to anybody out there, but some of the applications were quite poor in their ability to define their metrics, and how they would measure success. Basically describing to us, as the decision-makers, how would we be sure that we got the most bang for our buck? How could we be sure that the money that we provided was actually going to deliver services in an appropriate way? Is there room for improvement in the application? Absolutely. Is there perhaps a possibility that we should consider expanding who we give to, thinking about what sorts of services are filling gaps that are not filled elsewhere? You know, absolutely. But I think we have to be really careful about fairness as we think about, do we fund them all? What about all the folks that—like through a hiccup didn't qualify? You know, there's one particular nonprofit I'm thinking of, that changed the way they do their fiscal year, and so instead of a two year of fiscal, they did a year and a half. They were shut out of qualifying. They didn't even get a chance to be scored. You know, what about those guys? So we definitely need to think about fairness. Think about whether or not we fund the full ask for some of these. Some of the applications were deficient; because for the amount of money they were asking for, they were not delivering the same level of service. And so rather than just blanket, we're going to give everybody the money, which we would all love to do. Like if there was an endless pot of money, we would do. But let's be judicious. And so as we are on our recess, think about what approach would be most appropriate to perhaps fund some additional programs, but in a way that is fair and equitable to everybody that attempted to get funds from us. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. LEE LGY: Thank you, Ms. Kimball. With that, this meeting is in recess till 1:00 o'clock Page HSSSC- S June 11,2022 Recess: At 12:42 p.m., the Chair called for a short recess. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 1:02 p.m. CHR LEE LOY: Aloha and welcome to the Committee on Human Services and Social Services. We are reconvening at 1:00 o'clock. But with that, I'm going to put this meeting until the end of the day, following Public Works and the Mass Transit Committee. This meeting is in recess. Recess: At 1:04 p.m., the Chair called for a recess until the end of the committees scheduled for the day. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 5:54 p.m. CHR LEE LOY: Aloha and welcome to the Committee on Human Services and Social Services. In light of the hour, I'm going to be making a recommendation that we recess Human Services and reconvene this meeting for tomorrow, June 1 St, at 1:00 o'clock. Again, the Committee on Human Services and Social Services is recessed and will reconvene tomorrow, June 1 St, at 1:00 o'clock. Alright. Thank you everyone. This meeting is in recess. Recess: At 5:55 p.m., the Chair called for a recess until 1:00 p.m. on June 1, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Hilo. Reconvene: The meeting reconvened at 1:02 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Hilo, with Council Members Chung and Richards absent and excused, and all other members present. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, and welcome back. I am going to be taking the Committee on Human Services and Social Services out of recess. Just to level set, I think where we landed was on Communication 633.6 and the recommendations. Any discussion? Mr. Kaneai`i-KIeinfeder, you have the floor. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you, Chair. I thought about it yesterday, that was a little bit dakine yesterday, but really it stemmed from hearing the testifiers coming forward who didn't get; but more so were qualified but didn't get. And real specific to me, you know, dear in my heart it would be folks from Puna. You know, we had our group, `0 Maku`u Ke Kahua Community Center, which is, you know, they're near and dear in my district, but also Lokahi, which works with our at-risk community in Pahoa. And I mean, some of the testifiers spoke to the nature of Pahoa and what's going on and how useful it i s. And then too, Mr. Warfi e d who came in and testified, who was visibly agitated, and rightly so, I think. Page 12 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 So it really does lead me to question the changes that were made this year. And I sat on the committee before, so the changes that were made and I may not even ask any questions, okay? But I mean,just the changes that were made leading to the number of people being qualified who didn't receive, or just disqualified due to whatever reason, and I am concerned. You know, some of these projects are really, really good for our community, so it was disappointing to hear that they didn't get funding. So, I'm just going to speak to that. You know what, maybe this. You know what, I'm going to summarize, and correct me if I'm wrong, in the preceding years, during COVID we still did interviews, I believe. Is that correct? CHR. LEE LOY: We did. Actually, we started the interview process and then suspended it, and then had to award based on their written application. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: okay. Yeah, that's kind of—I was asking different people, "Did you remember doing a testimony or like an interview process," and we tried remembering, and reality is we kind of we did. So it was concerning that here we are, and we didn't. There wasn't really an interview process, as I understand it. And then we also changed a lot of the methodology behind how people applied, what was required, and that led to a lot of folks being disqualified. And then we increased the amount of funding available to the community, from $1.5 million to $2.5 million. It's $1.5 to $2.5 million? okay, we increased by $1.5 million, had less applicants, more disqualifications, and then some folks still didn't get. So that whole picture this as a whole, summarized like that, doesn't sit well with me. So going forward and I don't have a copy of the changes that were made, the paperwork that these folks had to go through—I didn't apply for any of these nonprofit grants in aid, so I don't know what was done. But it's raising a lot of questions in my eyes. Ultimately, these funds are to help the community. These funds come from real property taxes. This is supposed to go to the community to help. And if I could say this, we had one job, we spent $2.5 million supporting nonprofits in our community; we overspent by $65,000. And some folks didn't get, still. So that's my thoughts. That's summarizing what I was feeling yesterday. Put it out to the group. You want to take that and run it to do better next year, that's great. But I'm hoping to hear some discussion from you folks. CHR. LEE LOY: Sure. Thank you for that summary. I want to speak to the eligible and ineligible piece. I'll hand it over to my other colleagues who sat on the committee. Page 13 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 The documentation that's required to be eligible never changed. It never changed from years past and even into this year. Deanna will be down a little later to speak, from the Finance Department, as to what specific documents are required to become eligible. In years past, there definitely was a back-and-forth as to, "This isn't the correct document, how about this other document?" So there was a lot more back and forth. This year, it was clear. These were the documents you needed to provide. Finance said, "This is not the document. You're ineligible." That definitely was a very bitter to swallow for so many applicants who have had a lot of grace over time, and the back and forth; but because we moved from paper submission to an online submission, we encouraged everybody to do it early so that we could and they called our office, making sure everything was uploaded correctly. We did everything we could to support them. If they didn't use their time wisely, I just don't want to speak ill of our nonprofits, if they didn't use their time wisely and didn't get familiar with the system, we cannot solve for that that I think is what I want to say. But we can solve for that in the future with more training, which is what we heard Ms. Sako talked about, Ms. Kierkiewicz, and even Ms. Kimball, about how we get them better prepared. That's something we can solve for in the future. I'll let Ms. Kimball speak specifically to the rigors of the process and her insights. I think I want to pose this question back to my colleague, Mr. Kaneai`i-Keinfeder, which is we all are very disappointed we couldn't give all our nonprofits. The question then becomes, do we want to solve for it or not? Ms. Kimball. MS. KIMBALL: Thank you, Chair. And I think you touched on the key thing that I wanted to comment, which is the distinction between eligible and ineligible, which really had to do with the documentation which again as you mentioned has never changed. It's always been the same required documents like your 501(c)(3), your tax, all that that kind of stuff. With respect to the interviews, so I sat in one year when we did interviews, and then we have this year when we didn't. What did they, five, ten minutes? They were brief. Little brief interviews. And I have to say there was not a hell of a lot meaningful, I think, that came out from the interviews, separate from what was provided to us in documentation, That being said, I think—I just want to make it super clear, like what we're trying to address is sort of the subjective granting of funds that is not that could potentially say, "oh, there's this favoritism going; oh, you just know those guys better," or whatever. The more robust we have our process, the better we can have it be you know, there's this threshold. Like we Page 14 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 don't want to be completely analytical over here, but at the same time we can't be just subjective. We've got to be able to defensively stand by our positions. As an example, all four of us scored independently each of the applications. We looked at them, and then we said, "okay, what is our threshold?" "If you scored below this, what is the threshold?" one of the ways to think about this is, what is your expectation of someone to the County, if they've asked us for $50,000? You think that at the very least they can say, "These are the thing we're going to provide, a, b, and c, and this is what we're going to measure about whether or not we achieve a, b, and c." Some of these requests did not even have that. You know, part of it is the ability to fill out the applications, and there's some capacity building there for sure. And some of it I have to say was probably a little bit of, "oh, the County always gives,"you know. And maybe—I mean, I don't want to name names, but there was one organization that literally copied and pasted every application, and it was a fairly incomplete application for all of their programs, and they were asking us tens of thousands of dollars. You know, this is very gray. We're on the pendulum. Do we want to be between absolutely numeric versus a little bit of subjectivity? And then, where do we want to be in terms of what we ask as a bare minimum from our nonprofits to provide, and where we're willing to have some flexibility? I think asking them to say, "This is what we're going to provide, and this is going how we're going to measure our success," is at a bare minimum, when we're talking about tens of thousands of dollars, a reasonable ask. I will conclude just by saying yes. We always wish we could just fund every program. There were certainly ones that were below that 60 percent threshold that I'd like to see funded, but I also want to be real cognizant about fairness, particularly to those that became ineligible because of documentation. Thank you, Chair. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. And I want to speak to the point you made about $2.5 million, and we went over by $65,000. We had to land on a number, and in this situation, a number of applicants scored that exact number. And so the question became for the ad hoc group, do we take it up and maybe push more people out and not spend the entire $2.5 million, or do we take that number and go ask Finance and the Mayor if he would be willing to help find money to fund all the programs that scored that respective score? And so it wasn't so much it was our intention to go beyond our limits, we were trying our very best to be fair and objective to that point. The other point is, as Ms. Kimball described, there's this pendulum of objectivity and emotion. I am concerned about Lokahi. They didn't score high enough, but they're serving community. And in years past, the ad hoc committee would have Page 15 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 maybe a focus. There was a year when we focused on feeding kids or providing a lot of money to Food Baskets because that was a time that we had to really react to what was actually going on. That was the only thing not afforded to us through this scoring rubric, was to be emotional and react to what was going on in front of us. And so we have a recommendation; if other members feel strongly about finding resources to fund others who may not have scored but are still eligible, they met the documentation, I would love to hear how we solve for that. And maybe Deanna, I'm hoping she's listening or at some point will come down, we can have that conversation. But those are our options, and open to any more conversations. MS. KIMBALL: Chair, can I make yeah, before we go on,just one more point of clarification. You know, the meta-analyses that was provided as additional communications that had to do with the distribution of funding, that went to the various activities within the change framework, we didn't use that to score this time because it was a new thing that we were introducing to the applicant, so we didn't you know, we thought it was unfair to score them on that at this time. However, I think, you know, speaking to this idea that we can focus on what particular areas we need to target, I wanted to highlight this is where we're kind of spending your money, where the asks are right now, so we can think about being a little bit more targeted in oh, we're going to fund substance abuse as a priority this year. In fact, I would suggest that every year we pass a resolution as a body. These are the change framework items that we want to prioritize, as a way to bring something just outside the peer-scoring metric into the process. So, please review those. And one other,just kind of wrench I wanted to throw in into the works, is we did fund a thought of programs related to recommends funding, a lot of programs related to housing and houseessness, and we did pass that Legislation 111 to put some funding towards that. So there might be a mechanism where some of that is shifted from the grant in aid bucket, and actually comes in from that other bucket of money. So that's something to explore, as well. CHR. LEE LOY: Deanna, if you don't mind coming forward, and just building off of Council Member Kimball's kind of idea on how we solve for and this is in relation to Bill 11 1, which was the homeless housing. Is that a possibility for us to identify those applicants and supplement funding that way, which would then provide other funding within the grant-in-aid in which we can begin to touch some of the other qualified applicants? (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) Page 16 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 MS. SAKO: So I think the Bill 111 language, I forget the Act number, is fairly broad. You know, we talked about enforcement, we talked about different things. So, I think it would probably work. As we're sitting here talking, we should probably talk to Administrative Kunz also, because they're also working out a plan. You know, they were going to go out to public comment, I believe,just to get like on grant applications and what people can offer, so I don't know if that would have to be part of that or not. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Sako. I think right now we're currently if this body so chooses to accept the recommendations of the ad hoc, we're $65,000 over. MS. SAKO: Yeah. CHR. LEE LOY: And so we would have to find those resources someway, somehow. MS. SAKO: Yeah. Yeah, so I'm not saying cannot. I think we just want to keep her in the loop so we're not spending double-spending the same amount of money the same money. CHR. LEE LOY: okay. Perfect. Great, thank you. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yeah, thank you. I know there are concerns about those that were ineligible, and I think because those that were deemed ineligible never did get scored. I mean, if there is concern that some of these people who didn't receive and who were eligible, you know, we want to try and help them, I'm not opposed to that. But am opposed to trying to grant money to those who are deemed ineligible because they never were scored and those applications weren't reviewed. So happy to have discussion around granting more. Again, we'd have to find the funds for that. But I think it should be kept to those 137 applications that were eligible and scored. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. I'm going to check over in Kona. Ms. Viegas, any questions? MS. VILLEGAS: I share some of the concerns and discomfort expressed by Council Member Kaneai`i-Keinfeder. Having participated in this process myself, I would while I appreciate how a numerical scoring system provides a data-driven objective means, I myself, as long as the days were doing the interview process, got a much better sense of the people and the work that was being done during those interviews. Page 17 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 Many of the people doing our nonprofit work are not experts in digital technology or application processes. I suppose that's why when I served on the grant-in-aid committee, I saw a value in being able to provide even a portion of what is being asked. And there is a lot of subjectivity in this whole process, period. Because an organization could potentially, you know, write a project for $50,000, and if they're good at that, then that's what they're good at doing and hopefully they'll pull it off. But there are other organizations that a small of$50,000 will get them going to the next step. So I don't—I find myself torn on this because while I respect the attempt to make this more objective, I feel it leaves us vulnerable as a Council for bias. And when it looks at, you know, when we're coming out of a year of a global pandemic, and so many people hurting and so many organizations looking for funding, and that's the year we decide to get super picky about documents not being correct, and then just immediately denied, I question the wisdom of that myself. So I don't know what the protocol and the process are for editing this or making amendments, moving forward to this particular plan, but it doesn't the discrepancies don't sit well with me. And while I can honor and respect the attempt to make it as objective and data driven as possible, the work that many of these organizations do is from the heart, and it's thankless and it's challenging, having worked with and for nonprofits myself; and to leave so many hanging just doesn't sit well with me. And so there's the mind and the heart, and I feel like this grant-in-aid process also, in essence, tied to the heart, and that somehow we no matter the intention, we may have left that portion out, by funding everything for some we're leaving none for others, and that doesn't feel pono to me in this circumstance. So with that, I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Anyone else? Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Chair Lee Loy. Okay, I'm kind of wanting some clarification, as far as the evaluation process. So in this year's application process, were the submittals done electronically? CHR. LEE LOY: Yes. MS. DAVID: Okay, and so let me see, this electronic process which changed from hardcopy submittals, right, they were doing hardcopy submittals, there was a deadline that needed to drop off their envelopes by 4:30 on a certain date. So the electronic submittals, how were the nonprofits informed that their submittals had to be, number one, electronic, from what they had been accustomed to in the past? Page 18 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair if I might? CHR. LEE LOY: Sure. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Ms. Ki erki ewi cz, go ahead. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you. Mahalo nui, Council Chair David, for that question. The ad hoc was very intentional in convening in ori entad on about the shift we were making, from going to hardcopies to digital. And so we convened a Zoom and walked every single participating organization and their team member through this is what the form looks like, this is how to answer a question; hear all the questions in advance. You can type out your answer in Word, copy and paste into the field. We also demonstrated how to upload and name documents. Every single one of our offices, but really Council Member Lee Loy's office, was available to help organizations with the upload. I know that Jess (Jessica Valdez) helps a number of organizations, literally on the phone, Zooming screen share, to ensure that folks knew how to upload. I don't think the issue was folks not knowing how to upload, they were submitting the wrong documentation. One of the things that we found through the Finance Department was related to the conflict disclosure. There's a form that you fill out; and you're familiar with this, there's the form you fill out, And there's also, within your Bylaws, identifying the conflict piece there. And again, we were modeling the same application from year over year, but some folks were confused and they didn't reach out to ask questions and clarification. And so I think there needs to be a little bit of responsibility on the part of the nonprofit, rather than make assumptions call to get clarification. But I feel every single one of our offices and Finance did everything we could to make sure people understood how to utilize the digital form. CHR. LEE LOY: Chair, and if I may follow up? MS. DAVID: Go ahead. CHR. LEE LOY: In addition to the training that we provided, first and foremost, we followed the Code where this program is housed, to the letter. Step by step, it was all provided. In addition to the training that we provided, we recorded it and left the link for people who could not attend to watch and help self-resolve. During that process, during that timeframe, there was a long weekend, and I came in to listen to people calling because I knew they would be filling it out during that long weekend. And my first suggestion to them was to go to the website, view the Page 19 HSSSC- 8 June 11,2022 ink. If after they've watched the link or watched the recording and again, everybody saw the exact same thing. If they couldn't self-resolve, to come back and call me. They didn't call back. These were the tools that we were providing to these nonprofits to ensure we were giving them the best shot to become eligible for the grant in aid program. MS. DAVID: okay. And all hundred and what were the total applications? 8:37:50. Two hundred some-odd applications, and each one of them went through this class? CHR. LEE LOY: Yes. And keep in mind, and you know this, oftentimes it's one program submitting for multiple projects. M S. DAVID: Right. CHR. LEE LOY: So although there may have been 210 applications MS. DAVID: Some applicants have 10 individual programs. Gotcha. CHR. LEE LOY: Exactly. MS. DAVID: And so once changes were done, as far as submittal, I'm just trying to figure out how these changes became effective in the review process, and how that coincides with and maybe Corp. Counsel can answer this. Ms. Strance? (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Good afternoon. Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. MS. DAVID: Thank you, Ms. Strance, for being here. I'm just trying to figure out the process in effecting changes to a procedure that we've been doing for the nonprofit grants, and what was done as far as changing the process, how does interact with the Code that speaks to the Finance Director's role to make rules regarding governing this entire nonprofit process? MS. STRANCE: So the way that the Code is set up is, this program is housed in the Department of Finance. The County Code sets out what the eligibility of requirements are for requesting grants, and then it's handed off to the County Council. And both my impression and my involvement in the process this year was that that handing-off piece to the County Council you folks stood up a new procedure for evaluating eligible organizations. And then under the Code, the Council decides who is going to get the grants, and what amount, and hands the package back to the Department of Finance, who then prepares the contracts for signature, which both you and I looked at a lot. Page 20 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 MS. DAVID: Yeah. MS. STRANCE: And so my impression in watching the process and listening to the discussions in setting up the ad hoc, was to bring more structure to the evaluation process and to begin looking at the process as other funders might, and that has some level of rigor in evaluating. So that's the rubric and everything that got set up, that's part of the County process; and I think there was some transparency in that with the ad hoc and hove they set up. MS. DAVID: Training sessions, and that was described by yeah. MS. STRANCE: Yeah. Yeah, because you folks were telling people what you were looking for and how you were going to disburse the funds that had been appropriated. I'm not sure it's a completely fair observation to say that the Finance Department, you know, on the expiration day if the packets weren't complete, that they said too bad. My understanding is that's not what happened, and that's part of the involvement that I had. I've been asked to look at documents, whether they satisfied the Code. And that information is taken back to nonprofits to try to MS. DAVID: To try to resolve it before the yeah, okay. MS. STRANCE: Yeah. So I think there was maybe less, and Deanna and her group can talk to that, maybe less than what was done in the past. But it wasn't a, you know—I mean if you miss the mail-in deadline, I think they were that's been pretty standard. MS. DAVID: oh yeah, that's an automatic, yeah. MS. STRANCE: But I think, in terms of evaluating the packets, that Finance Department has made some attempts to try to help the organizations comply with the eligibility requirements. So I think there's a distinction between maybe eligibility and qualifications because I think the program, in setting up rubrics and minimum scores, was trying to look at who would qualify for the grants. If my recollection is correct, you folks anticipated that there would be fewer grant awards given because you were going to fund more. So part of the County Code requires organizations to account for the funds that they are given, and if you had discussions well, if they asked for $20 and you give them $10, how does the County go back and evaluate half of what they've asked for. MS. DAVID: And measure, yeah. MS. STRANCE: I think there has been some discussion with that. Page 2 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 MS. DAVID: okay. MS. STRANCE: The rue that there are two very distinct roles. one is the eligibility role. MS. DAVID: Finance, yeah. MS. STRANCE: Which is set out in the Code. And then there's the evaluation process, which is part of the MS. DAVID: Council. MS. STRANCE: Your internal process. MS. DAVID: okay. So that's hove those two processes meld together? MS. STRANCE: Yes. MS. DAVID: Alright. Thank you. And my next question is for Director Sako. (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. DAVID: Hi, Director. MS. SAKO: Hello. MS. DAVID: My question is—I know we've talked about this, because of this new process, there is an access of$65,000 in the $2.5 million that was historically granted. Right now, I think I heard a discussion that we have to try to find money now, for the $65,000. How would that happen, number one; and does it have to be done now? MS. SAKO: So a couple things come to mind. our understanding was that the projects would be ranked or whatever, and then when you hit the $2.5 million you just stop. But I think the amount of the last grant put us over, right? okay, so we could find $65,000. We could not award that last grant. And in terms of your question, like do we have to decide now? The budget is effective July 315 . The Code says we have to contract with the nonprofits by August 31". And so given that, we need to know in time to make sure the contracts go out by August 31". So do we have to know by tomorrow? I'm not sure the Code is quite that clear; you know, tomorrow being the second reading of the budget. Page 22 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 M S. DAVID: Right. MS. SAKO: But right novo, the budget has $2.5 million in that nonprofit section. So if the amendment is not made tomorrow, we would have to come in July I", and it would take two readings, which would make it kind of tight to contract by the end of August. M S. DAVID: To contract it out, right? MS. SAKO: But we could. I mean it's a possibility. MS. DAVID: I see. Okay, so that's the other timeline that we're working with. So my next question for the committee, if we stick for the $2.5 million, is there a way that you could adjust the recommendations so that we end up at the $2.5 million level? MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Chair? MS. DAVID: Oh, I'm sorry. CHR. LEE LOY: Go ahead. MS. DAVID: Go ahead, someone. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Short answer is yes. Putting something forward during budget tomorrow. MS. DAVID: Okay. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: To address the concerns that this body has raised regarding the award. Thank you. MS. DAVID: Okay. All right. And that would be the okay. That was my main concern, because we are so tight on a very tight schedule with our budget, that maybe if we can have an adjustment so that we're in line with the $2.5 million. And then just so that we meet our deadlines, and then we proceed. M S. SAKO: I'm sorry. I reread this. Not it has to contract by August 31", they have to be notified if they're going to get funded or not by August 31 Sorry. I apologize. MS. DAVID: I see. Okay. Okay, so that part we have some time. Okay. All right, yeah, this was a I just needed to get my brains all around this. Thank you, Director Sako, for that. And thank you, I yield. Page 23 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 CHR. LEE LOY: Okay, Ms. Kimball. Go ahead. MS. KIMBALL: Yeah, thank you. I just want to make a quick comment in response to Chair David's question. You know, obviously, anything is still possible at this point. One of the decisions made was to say, "Okay, ask for what you need, and we'll fund you for what you need," and it was intended to solve two problems. First, the nonprofits would have one budget. You know, they would have the budget, and then they would be able to work from that budget. Two, in terms of our end, and the contracting, we would have established what they're going to do with the money, and we could check it off as part of the contract. So that was part of the reason. So just thinking about one of the ways to do that is to walk back from this idea that, "You asked for $25,000, you get $25,000," and say we're going to have some flexibility in that. I know that some of the ones that I scored not as highly as the others were because the budget request was not at all in line with what the program was going to deliver. And so it's something to consider, but I think we have to be really careful. If we roll back on that, "You ask for what you get or you get," or "You get what you asked for," and we risk back on that now, it's going to be harder to continue to enforce in the future. And I think there are valid reasons why we adopted that sort of process. So something to think about as an option to consider, but I would consider it carefully. Thank you. MS. DAVID: Yes, and the only reason I was I'm sorry, could I? The only reason that I'm asking that is that I'm just thinking about the precedence setting. That this year, if we go over the $2.5 million, and then next year we might be going over additional monies during the budget. And that's my only concern. I've never seen this process before, and that's why I'm asking these questions. So okay, I yield. Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Mr. Inaba, go ahead. MR. INABA: Yeah, I think, going back to your question, Chair David, if I'm understanding correctly, that you want to see what adjustments to the recommendation could be made so that we don't go above $2.5 million. Because I think Council Member Kierkiewicz's response was that we do something tomorrow that covers the extra $65, DDD. Not put us down to the $2.5 million flag. So I want to make sure we're on the same page here. MS. DAVID: Yeah, I think that's what I understood her to say, and that's where my concern is. MR. INABA: Okay. MS. DAVID: On increasing it from the $2.5 million. That's all. Page 24 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 MR. INABA: All right. So I mean we have the recommendation before us that has the extra $65,000, and I guess that's why we are- MS. reMS. DAVID: We have to vote on it. MR. INABA: We have to vote on. Do we accept as is or modify the recommendation to cut off$65,000 today? Because if you we don't do that tomorrow, tomorrow is find $65,000 to cover this whole thing. MS. DAVID: Tomorrow is $65,000, yes. That's my whole thought, yes. MR. INABA: So I'm fine either way on breaking it down to $2.5 million flat. In the way the scores have played out, it's not an easy Like, you know, one organization took us to $65,000 more than we had. MS. DAVID: Right, I understand that. MR. INABA: It's like four applications. MS. DAVID: Yeah. MR. INABA: So I guess for myself, unless we have further if there are clear things we want to do to this recommendation, let's take care of that; if not, maybe we just move forward with accepting as is and find $65,000 tomorrow. But happy to work to bring it down to $2.5 million if that's what this body wants as a whole. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. And just to kind of broaden out that discussion, that would mean, if we wanted to stick to the $2.5 (million) and stay within the $2.5 (million), three more eligible applicants would not get funding because they scored exactly the same, and we had to pick a number. I'm so glad we're all here because that was this was the challenge of the ad hoc. MS. VILLEGAS: Chair? CHR. LEE LOY: In addition too- MS. ooMS. VILLEGAS: Chair? CHR. LEE LGY: People, as Ms. Kimball described, may have asked for $50,000, but we also had request for $5,000 So they could have picked any amount to match their program. Again, I don't want to feel like we're defending our work. We tried really hard to create a boutique suite of options for all of our nonprofits, no matter what their capacity was, to get$5,000 or $50,000. We were laser focused on ensuring that the contract piece would fit the deliverable of that Page 25 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 nonprofit. So I think what we have on the table right novo is to accept the recommendations or modify. MR. BROWN: Sorry, Chair,just to kind of lay on the table, explain what is on the table right, there is a motion to close file on Communication 633. If the body wanted to accept the recommendations of the ad hoc, a new motion would be made just to accept the recommendations, and then you folks on that motion. So right now, the motion on the floor is to close file on Communication 633. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Any other questions? Ms. Vi l l egas? MS. VILLEGAS: Yes, please. CHR. LEE LOY: Go ahead. MS. VILLEGAS: Thank you. I will express my desire for maybe there's a middle-ground for—I have and Judge Strance, can you come forward for a second? I have a question about this setting precedence for future years of passing something that comes in above budget and then amending things tomorrow. That doesn't—I have concerns with that. Is that a precedent setting? (Note: At this time, Corporation Counsel Elizabeth Strance came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. STRANCE: Elizabeth Strance, Corporation Counsel. Precedence in the legal? Well no because this isn't a court of law, so there's not that. In terms of whether or not this body wants to engage in a process where it awards more than is budgeted, I think it's really you folks have to determine whether or not it's a slippery slope, I think, more than precedent. MS. VILLEGAS: So it may not be a precedent, but ill-advised. MS. STRANCE: I think it's a policy matter that you folks have to decide whether, you know, hold tight to a number, or whether you're going to change the number. So it really is a policy consideration. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Thank you, Judge Strance. Deanna, could I ask you the same question? MS. STRANCE: Wait, one more thing. MS. VILLEGAS: Oh, sorry. Page 26 HSSSC- 8 June 11,2022 IVIS. STRANCE: It's a policy so long as there's money to fund it, so I just want to add that. Thanks. MS. VILLEGAS: Great. Thank you. Deanna? (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SAKG: Hello. M S. VILLEGAS: Hi. MS. SAKG: Hi. MS. VILLEGAS: Can I ask you the same question? MS. SAKG: About setting precedent? MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. MS. SAKG: Was that the question? MS. VILLEGAS: Yeah. MS. SAKG: You know, like anything, people refer back to previous years. You know, somebody will come up with, "Oh, I remember in 2022 they did this, so can we do it like that again?" So I mean that will happen no matter what, yeah. It will always get referred back too, yeah. MS. VILLEGAS: Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. So I have real concerns about that, and the slippery slope that we may find ourselves on. I also wondered, if I understood correctly, Council Woman Lee Loy and Councilman Inaba, when you said in order to go by the numerical system Oh, I guess, point blank I'm not comfortable with passing at $2.65 (million) or over the $2.5 (million) amount. I'm wondering if it's possible to instead of them eliminating a number of organizations, if all the organizations take a, you know, I'd have to do the math on it, but they take a couple of thousand-dollar reduction in the amount that they get, and we as a Council say, "Hey, we're improving on this process. We wanted the best effort to give you all, everything that you asked for; but in lieu of the circumstances and the total amount that ended up coming to you, based on the numbers and the grading that surpasses the amount that's been budgeted for this program." And I can't imagine one of them being like, "No, well we were then going to have $48,000 instead of$50,000." Page 27 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 But I remember, once again from my time in participating in this process, that there was opportunity to finesse the numbers for equitable distribution as well as equitable and when we did the numbers, it ended up being, you know, all of the organizations got a fairly equitable percentage of what they asked for. And so if—I think, perhaps there's some opportunity for finding a solution in that capacity. But I, myself, won't be supporting passing this over the budgeted amount. I just don't—I think we have some other this is a lot of money already, and as much as I want everybody to get as much as possible, that's where I kind of stand on this. So, thank you. I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Ms. Ki erki ewi cz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Yeah, I'm supportive of the recommendations that are being put forward by the ad hoc. You know, my reading of the Code is, the Administration position's $2.5 million at least every year in the annual budget; similar to Bill 160, which says $5 million every year for Housing. If we go over, I think it's okay; I really do. And we've laid out a very clear methodology for how we arrived at our decision. I don't feel comfortable flipping a coin and saying, "okay, because we only have $2.5, because that's what the Code says, you guys can't get any." I don't feel comfortable with the percentage awarding piece either, because that didn't make sense to me in years past. Some organizations were getting 100 percent of their ask fulfilled, others were getting 17 or 30. I don't understand how that was arrived at, and that's okay. This was our attempt to provide a little bit more clarity and transparency around everything. Doesn't have to be this way going forward. You know, we are going to be convening another ad hoc to talk about how we might want to move forward with this program. But I'm good with this here. I don't think that the Code says we can only spend $2.5 million. It says we must spend at least $2.5 (million. And in this situation, there are certain organizations that tied for that score, and I want to make sure that they are funded their project because I don't feel comfortable saying, "You're only going to get a little bit because we said only $2.5 (million) for this program. I'm good with finding extra money to cover everyone. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Anyone else? Ms. David. MS. DAVID: Really quick. Director, is there the funds somewhere, for this, to cover this? MS. SAKO: So the Administration did the budget, turned it over to the County Council, and so the Council can amend tomorrow at second reading. Page 28 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 MS. DAVID: okay. So whatever the Council decides to take that $65,000 from? Okay. MS. SAKO: Yeah. MS. DAVID: All right, and we'll find out if we have enough. okay, thank you for actually qualifying this. I think we need to proceed because of our timeframe and our budget, and hopefully we can find someplace that we can get these funds from. All right, I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. David. I'm going to go to Mr. Kanea i`i then Mr. Inaba, but I do want to get to the vote. We have a motion to close file, but we also have to work on the recommendation and one more matter. Mr. Kaneai`i. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: Thank you. Just a word of caution. I mean, given the past and the way that it was done, I cannot speak more than pass the years I sat on, but if organizations were aware that multiple programs equaled more funding, and increased budgets due to the County having limited funding to fund everyone, so they knew they'd get a portion of what they budgeted. Most likely this full award may have been over what they ever expected or actually budgeted. Not that they can't use the funding, but I would just put that word of caution out there that fully funding some of these programs and was under the assumption that they would get less than could lead to some issues that this was a change again, depending on how they budget. I don't know how the budget. I didn't review these documents. That's my word of caution. Deanna, I have just one question about process-wise. I just want to hear it from you regarding how you folks, over the process Ms. Strance spoke on your behalf earlier. I'd just like to hear it directly from your department. And again, this is coming from a lot of testifiers and folks who are just upset they didn't get funding. So just wanted to make this real clear for everybody, all the nonprofits. (Note: At this time, Finance Director Deanna Sako came forward to address the members of the Committee.) MS. SAKO: So we do have to comply with the County Code, as it's spelled out right now, you know, and all the different pieces that they have to comply with. And so the instructions and application are set up to comply with that. It basically comes down to the fact that I think people do not read the instructions well. Whether it's electronic or hardcopy, we continue to have similar problems. And so initially only 17 of the applications came in with everything. And then we had to work with Judge Strance and others to make sure that everything was documented accordingly, until we finally were able to transmit the applications that we were. Page 29 HSSSC- 8 June 11,2022 MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: I like what you're saying right novo because you're saying the Department of Finance actually worked with the organizations. It wasn't just, "You weren't in on time; or you're missing documents, too bad." You actually went back. I mean, how much time was there in that kind of in-between period between it was submitted and due. MS. SAKO: There was—a few weeks, yeah. Because we didn't transmit everything until-you know, I'm not sure when the final things it was transmuted later in February, so we took time to go through it all. We had a lot of back and forth, especially with Corporation Counsel. MR. KANEALI`I-KLEINFELDER: okay. okay, thank you for saying that. Lastly, if we say we're going to put$2.5 million towards nonprofits, that's what we do. That was your j ob. You know what, tome that's one hardline you follow. We did in previous years. If I knew it was at least, so we just go fund everybody. Let's go for it. But it's not responsible on our behalf. We budget accordingly. We budget for the next year. We say we're going to spend x-amount of dollars; that's how much we spend, period. It's not that we think of it as our money; it's taxpayer's money, so we're responsible on that end. And ultimately, this committee is responsible. So in my eyes, what I think should be done, is $2.5 million, done. If you want to increase it next year, increase it next year. If we decrease it next year, we decrease it. Whatever we want to do. But the job was to spend $2.5 million. I'm just broadcasting that, so you know. But again I really want to thank you guys for your work. It's not easy. It is not easy to go through all the applications. It is not easy for the Department of Finance. It's difficult all the way around. I'm not saying it's life-changing, but it's definitely a lot of work to take on, especially with the staff in your office. I remember what my staff was saying at those times about hating me, for having picked to be on the committee. But it's a lot. So appreciate what you went through, and I appreciate you listening to the concerns being raised by this body. That is why this process exists. So mahao for your time. Thank you. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. Mr. Inaba. MR. INABA: Yeah, thank you. Just want to state on the record too, that if there, you know, this desire well, it sounds like the desire seems to be to keep at $2.5 (million). I know we need to make the motion. So we could even figure out those numbers. But just for the record, $875,000 is the total amount that was not able to be funded. So I just want you folks to the body and the public to know that that's $875,000 more than we had is what was requested. Page 30 HSSSC- S June 11,2022 CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Mr. Inaba. Ms. David, I'm going to let you go, and we can get to the vote. MS. DAVID: Yes, this is it already. But I just really needed to make a note, to get it on the record, that the Code does say, "No less than $2.5 million." And so in that respect, it might have been in the past that was an amount that just stuck in our minds, that it's $2.5 million, right? So I think what you folks have done is raise an awareness that at least I had clarification on today, that the Administration is required to put no less than $2.5 (million). And any amendments are going to follow the same process as we do if we wanted when we're going to address Mayor Kim's budget tomorrow. MS. LEE LOY: Roth. MS. DAVID: oh, who did I say? COUNCIL MEMBERS: Kim. MS. DAVID: You could have just let me go, and I wouldn't have I'm sorry, Mayor Roth. MS. DAVID: I think, for me, it's really procedurally, I think we're operating along the lines that we need to be as a body. There's also a means of addressing any concerns of going over the amount. So based on that, I yield. I thank you guys for being creative in addressing this process which happens every year. So thank you, ladies and gent. And I yield. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. David. You know, it was tough. Saying no is tough. And to listen to my colleague's feedback as to how we have to be hard and fast, it was tough to listen to. Just like some of our applicants were disappointed. We're working hard to do better. So with that, I need a motion to accept the recommendation of the ad hoc committee. Page 3 HSSSC- 8 June 11,2022 Vote on Motion Mr. Inaba moved to accept the recommendations to Accept accept the recommendations of the ad hoc committee. Recommendations: as delineated in Comm. 633.6. Seconded by (Approved) Ms. Kierkiewicz and carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Inaba, Kanea i`i-K einfe der, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy —7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards —2. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you. We have a few more things to get to. MR. BROWN: If you don't mind, we could take the vote to close file on Communication 633? CHR. LEE LOY: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Motion to close file on Communication 633, all those in favor? Vote on Comm. 633: The motion to close file on Comm. 633 Was carried (Filed) by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Inaba, Kaneai`i-Keinfeder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy —7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards —2. Excused: None. CHR. LEE LOY: Moving on. We have one more item, Mr. Clerk. Comm. 785: REQUESTS FORMATION OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP A REFINED APPLICATION PROCESS AND CONTRACT MONITORING PROTOCOLS FOR THE COUNTY'S ANNUAL NONPROFIT GRANT-IN-AID PROGRAM From Council Member Susan L. K. Lee Loy, dated May 2, 2022. Postponed: May 17, 2022 (Note: There is a motion by Mr. Inaba, seconded by Mr. David, to close file on Comm. 785.) Page 32 HSSSC- 8 June 11,2022 CHR. LEE LOY: Since we already have a motion, I want to just start us off. I think last time we started off was with, "No good deed goes unpunished," and this is the area where I think my other colleagues are touching upon as to, how will we refine the application. You know, I am open. I put this forward as a communication to stand up another ad hoc. I'm at the will and looking for any input. I don't mind taking it on myself and advancing legislation based on the feedback that we've heard over time. Any members, discussion? Ms. Kierkiewicz. MS. KIERKIEWICZ: Thank you, Chair. I'm going to actually request that we postpone establishing the ad hoc until the July 5th meeting. I want to sit with this. I also would like to be able to transmit a communication with some prompts for not just my colleagues but for the community to consider, that can help us to further refine the goals and objectives of the next ad hoc committee. And so that's my proposal. Like you say, we're constantly striving to do better. We want to make sure that this is a process that really works for our community partners. And the program can be administered in a way that is transparent and equitable. So let's put a pin in it. I don't think we need to rush. We do have time. Happy to hear from my other colleagues and provide the motion when you're ready. Thank you, Chair. CHR. LEE LOY: Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. Any other discussion. Ms. David. MS. DAVID: I love that idea. I yield. Thank you, Ms. Kierkiewicz. CHR. LEE LOY: Anyone else? Seeing none. Ms. Kierkiewicz, a motion? Vote on Motion Ms. Kierkiewicz moved to postpone Comm. 785 to to Postpone: to July 5, 2022. Seconded by Mr. Inaba and carried (Approved) by the following voice vote: Ayes: Committee Members David, Inaba, Kaneai`i-Keinfeder, Kierkiewicz, Kimball, Villegas, and Chair Lee Loy —7. Noes: None. Absent: Committee Members Chung and Richards —2. Excused: None. Page 33