►
From YouTube: City Council ARPA Work Session – April 25, 2022
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
C
Monday
morning
so
good
good
morning,
and
thank
you
all
for
just
all
the
hard
work,
both
the
applicants
as
well
as
city
council.
This
has
been
a
long
process
and
I
want
to
thank
staff
for
for
all
their
their
work
today,
we're
going
to
have
a
fairly
lengthy
conversation
with
you
about
where
we
are,
what
the
staff
recommendations
are,
which
is
a
result
of
a
lot
of
conversations
that
we've
had
with
you
all.
So
with
that,
I
will
turn
it
over
to.
C
D
Thank
you
all
mayor
and
council
members
for
being
here,
I'm
jamie
matthews
I
serve
as
the
assistant
to
the
city
manager.
Is
everybody
good
got
what
they
need
on
their
screens
or
okay?
Okay,
so
I
want
to
start
off
on
also
what
debra
said
and
thank
the
team
that
has
been
working
on
this.
D
So,
to
start
with
some
key
takeaways,
the
funding
requests
you
know
exceeded
the
amount
allocated
to
the
city.
The
arpa
guidelines
are
continuously
being
updated
and
interpreted.
D
D
So
timeline
it's
about
a
year
ago
that
the
interim
guidance
for
arpa
was
released
also
at
yale's
retreat.
Last
april,
you
named
arpa
as
one
of
your
council
priorities
for
this
fiscal
year
and
throughout
the
rest
of
that
summer,
staff
work
to
understand
that
interim
role
and
provide
information
to
you
all
at
several
work
sessions.
D
D
So
in
in
january
of
this
year,
the
treasury
released
their
final
rule
on
arpa
funding.
But,
as
we
said
again,
there's
been
amendments
since
then,
and
changes
that
we've
kept
track
of
on
in
february.
You
all
heard
from
all
the
applicants
in
two
council
work
sessions
and
then,
following
that
staff
met
with
city
council
members
to
gather
information
and
feedback
from
you
all
prior
to
where
we
are
here
today.
D
D
D
E
Jamie
question
those
those
categories
that
was
on
page
eight,
I
think
federal
allowable
uses
that
hasn't
changed,
that
those
were
the
original
guidance
and
okay.
So
the
general
category.
A
Good
morning,
everyone,
as
jamie
said,
I'm
kim
marmon
sacks,
I'm
the
arpa
project
manager.
I
took
over
from
patricia
rosenberg,
who
was
the
interim
project
manager,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
work
done
on
the
rfp
process
before
I
actually
got
here,
and
I
have
just
been
able
to
pick
up
with
that.
The
work
that
was
done
before
actually
set
us
up
in
really
good
stead
for
the
rfp
process
and
then
the
evaluation.
A
I
know
everybody
wants
us
to
get
to
the
recommendations,
so
I'm
going
to
try
and
make
the
next
part
brief,
but
I
think
it
is
important
to
understand
the
process
that
we've
gone
through,
because
it
has
been
thorough
and
it
has
been
detailed-
and
I
know
it's
taken
a
while,
but
I
think
that
that's
time
well
spent
and
the
structure
it
was
pretty
good.
So,
as
jamie
said,
we
went
through
a
process
at
the
beginning
to
go
through
an
rfp
process.
A
There
was
particular
principles
that
we
wanted
to
follow,
so
I
know
the
city
manager,
city
manager
and
the
council
went
through
the
process
of
deciding
what
our
guiding
principles
were
and
we
built
the
rfp
to
follow
those
guiding
principles.
A
So
once
the
rfp
was
issued,
we
had
to
then
go
through
process
to
evaluation
in
the
first
phase,
when
we
were
doing
the
whole
categories
working
through
that
process.
A
A
When
you
were
selecting
categories,
you
could
score
badly
on
the
equity
process,
but
well
on
the
project
management
process,
and
then
that
meant
that
the
scores
were
skewed.
So,
as
we
went
through
the
rfp
process,
we
were
trying
to
build
questions
that
would
delve
deeply
into
what
was
required
and
what
the
organizations
could
do.
But
we
also
had
equity
running
throughout
the
whole
process,
which
was
also
something
that
was
deemed
by
the
feds
to
be
important.
A
We
had
a
parallel
set
of
evaluation
questions
designed
for
objective
scoring,
and
then
we
tried
to
make
the
scoring
as
objective
as
we
could,
given
that
there
was
city
and
community
groups
and
not-for-profits
that
were
applying
for
these
funds.
So
we
had
to
try
and
make
the
process
as
equitable
as
we
could
so
in
the
process
going
to
the
evaluation.
A
We
structured
questions
in
the
rfp,
but
a
lot
of
them
were
things
like.
You
know
how
many
people
would
this
serve,
etc,
and
that
was
hard
to
score.
So
we
had
to
get
some
evaluation
questions
that
allowed
us
to
score
objectively
against
the
questions
that
were
in
the
rfp,
the
rubrics
and
the
scoring
system
was
designed
with
intentionality,
so
that
we
could
do
that
objective
scoring
and
make
sure
that
equity
was
scored.
A
So
this
was
the
the
scoring
criteria
we
did.
40
of
the
council,
approved
categories
were
scored
on
equitable
community
impact,
40
on
the
project
plan
and
evaluation
and
then
20
on
the
organizational
qualified
qualifications.
A
There
was
13
applications
from
the
city
originally,
so
in
this
71
there
was
13
applications
from
the
city.
On
the
evaluation
team.
There
was
27
members
from
different
departments
within
the
city
at
all
different
levels,
and
it
was
a
very
committed
team.
Each
evaluator
had
five
projects
to
analyze.
In
fact,
actually
each
project
was
analyzed
five
times
the
evaluators
had
many
more
than
that.
A
A
The
quality
of
the
submissions
was
actually
very
high,
which
I'll
just
move
on
to
here,
so
we
applied
the
principles
of
rba,
so
we
were
trying
to
begin
with
the
end
in
mind.
We
were
trying
to
look
at
those
applications
based
on
a
successful
outcome
and
I'll
talk
more
about
that
in
a
moment.
But
the
quality
of
the
submissions
overall
was
very
high.
A
A
There
was
no
significant
drop-off
and
we
had
a
lot
of
people
who
scored
a
lot
of
organizations,
a
lot
of
applications
that
scored
over
70
points
or
more,
which
is
very
unusual.
So
I
think
we're
congratulating
ourselves
on
the
quality
of
the
the
quality
and
the
objectivity
of
the
process
that
we
went
through,
but
also
that
the
applications
actually
came
in
were
very
high
and
sustained.
A
lot
of
good
results.
A
So
as
far
as
the
next
steps
are
concerned,
this
is
a
this
is
a
key
point
as
we
go
through
the
city
of
asheville
and
the
treasury.
Keep
emphasizing
this
when
we
go
on
the
school
of
government
trainings
every
week.
Everything
is
changing
a
lot,
but
one
of
the
things
that
is
emphasized
all
the
time
is
that
the
city
of
asheville
are
the
sub-recipients
of
this
money.
A
So
whoever
we
give
the
money
to
is
a
sub-recipient
of
the
sub-recipient,
so
we're
in
a
situation
where
actually
we,
the
onus
is
on
us
to
make
sure
that
the
reporting
to
the
treasury
and
everything
going
forward
is
through
us.
So
this
is
a
partnership
with
the
people
that
we're
giving
the
money
to
ultimately,
because
it's
not
a
situation
exactly
the
same
as
other
grants
that
we've
done
through
cbdg
cdbg.
A
It
is
it's
much
more,
a
partnership
that
we
have
to
develop
because
the
scoring
the
metrics
the
analysis,
the
reporting
that
we
have
to
do
is
is
very
fairly
intense
and
whoever
we
give
the
money
to
they
have
to
follow
that
route.
So
we
are
going
to
have
to
have
a
very
robust
process
going
forward
for
monitoring.
I
think
it's
great,
because
it
gives
us
an
opportunity
to
build
capacity
in
the
community
and
work
with
federal
funds
in
a
different
way,
but
it
is
a
very
unique
situation
and
we
have
to
be
aware
of
that.
A
A
I
think
jamie
mentioned
it
when
she
was
talking
originally,
we
we
have
to
follow
treasury
rules,
but
there
is
treasury
rules
and
there
is
north
carolina.
State
rules
and
brad
and
aaron
will
also
know
what
we've
been
going
through
recently
because
they
butt
heads
against
each
other.
Those
rules
sometimes
and
also
the
rules,
change
all
the
time.
A
So
there
is
feedback
going
back
to
the
treasury
from
all
the
recipients
and
then
they
adjust
it.
So
every
time
I've
been
going
on
school
or
government
training
every
week
for
the
last
n
number
of
weeks
and
every
time
we
go,
there
is
another
change
to
the
rules
or
an
adaptation,
and
things
like
that.
So
when
we
get
to
the
recommendations,
you
will
see
that
some
of
the
things
have
changed
slightly
because
of
that
adjustment
to
the
rules
and
I'll,
try
and
update
you
as
much
as
I
can.
A
So
we
had
the
interim
final
rule
which
we
were
following
through
2021,
so
the
rfp,
the
evaluation,
the
eligibility
that
we
went
through
at
that
point,
followed
those
rules.
Then
we
got
the
intro,
the
final
rule
on
the
6th
of
january
and
okay,
that
that
made
things
easier,
clarified
some
things
lifted.
Some
restrictions
added
some
restrictions
in,
but
at
least
we
had,
you
know
a
400
page
document
that
kind
of
gave
us
more
guidelines.
A
But
since
that
point
yeah
there
is
amendment
after
amendment
after
amendment
the
last
one
which
came
in
on
the
first
of
april
april
fool's
day
very
aptly,
and
then
we
were
taught
about
it.
Aaron
was
on
the
same
course
as
I
was
with
the
school
of
government
on
the
fifth
of
april,
and
it
changed
a
lot
from
some
of
the
conversations
that
we
had
already
had
with
yourselves
and
the
staff
and
the
evaluators
it
changed
a
lot
again.
A
So
we've
had
to
adjust
some
of
the
things,
and
I
can
answer
any
questions
on
that
and
hopefully
brad.
Can
I
help
with
that
too.
The
risk.
B
Can
I
have
a
question
on
that?
You
know
the
county
has
already
made
a
lot
of
their
funding.
What
happens
if
you've
made
the
funding,
you
know
decision
and
then
the
rule
changes,
and
maybe
that
funding
is
no
longer
I
mean
do.
Does
there
a
clawback
or
is
it
like
your
grandfathered?
How
does
that
work.
A
Buncombe
county
are
finding
this
a
challenge:
they
are
having
to
rewrite
their
original
contracts
that
they
wrote
for
the
first
batch
that
they
did
so
we're
already
on.
I
think
we're
on
the
third
batch
and
a
new
rfp
for
buncombe
county.
We
meet
with
them
regularly
and
yeah.
They
are.
There
is
two
things
that
they
are
concerned
about.
A
One
is
the
time
from
giving
the
funds
to
getting
the
contracts
out
seems
to
be
lengthy,
because
there's
so
many
things
to
go
through
as
they
went
through
it
because
they
were
still
in
the
interim
final
rule
and
all
sorts
of
things
so
we're
having
to
look
at
it
because
they're
changing
the
rules
and
treasury.
No-
and
you
know
I
think
it's
getting
very
frustrating
for
everybody.
A
But
yes,
yes,
there
is
some
provisions
that
we
can
either
claw
back
or
we
have
to
look
at
renegotiating
the
contract,
which
is
what
buncombe
county
are
doing,
which
we're
going
to
try
and
avoid.
But
hopefully
now
the
final
rule
has
come
out
and
we've
had
the
adjustments
to
the
final
rule.
Things
will
keep
changing,
but
I
don't
think
there
will
be
any
major
changes,
but
we'll
keep
track
of
it
as
much
as
we
can.
E
Yeah,
that's
my
question,
I
mean:
are
we
on
the
scale
of
one
to
a
hundred?
Are
we
98
sure
that
they're
not
going
to
change
it
again
or
are
we
still
at
risk.
A
Brad,
you
have
a
view
on
that.
I
mean,
I
think
about,
I
would
say,
85.
F
I
was
going
to
be
optimistic
and
say
90..
I
do
think
that
there
is
a
high
likelihood.
We
will
get
some
additional
amendments,
but
the
range
is
is
tightening
a
little
bit.
I
think
that
the
big
hurdle
to
get
over
was
going
from
the
interim
rule
to
the
final
rule,
which
we
received
that
a
few
months
ago,
and
now
we
are
refining
the
rule
more
than
drastically
changing
it,
and
I
think
some
of
those
amendments
are
well
reasoned,
but
now
we're
reaching
the
point
where
a
lot
of
that
has
been
worked
out.
F
A
So,
and
just
one
final
thing
I
just
want
to
talk
about-
is
the
risk
assessment.
There
is
a
mandated
treasury
risk
assessment
that
we
have
to
do
with
all
the
organizations.
A
It
is
fairly
intensive
and
we
also
have
developed
our
own
internal
risk
assessment
that
we're
going
to
be
working
with
going
forward
as
far
as
monitoring
and
reporting
is
concerned,
but
it
has
restricted
our
ability
on
some
of
the
applications.
At
this
juncture,
we
think
some
of
the
applicants
would
not
get
past
the
risk
assessment,
but
we
are
just
still
reviewing
it,
but
that
that
is
one
of
the
issues
that
we
have
to
be
aware
of.
A
That
is,
is
come
front
and
center
recently,
with
with
the
changes
that
the
treasury
are
making
okay.
So
I
can't
come
to
the
questions,
but
I
know
people
have
been
asking
questions
along
the
way.
I'm.
E
A
Yeah,
it's
it's
an
it's
an
audit,
the
treasury
one
is
an
audit
more
on
on
fiscal
and
organizational
capability.
At
this
juncture,
we
want
to
encourage
people
to
carry
on
applying
for
these
kinds
of
funds,
so
we
want
to
do
some
capacity
building
and
and
things
going
forward,
but
if
they
can't
pass
the
origin,
the
initial
treasury
assessment,
which
is
mostly
fiscal
and
organizational
structure,
so
new
organizations
that
haven't
got
any
audit
trail
or
anything
like
that
fiscal
audit
trail
then
yeah.
A
It
becomes
they're,
deeming
it
to
be
a
financial
risk,
but
we
are
hoping
to
work
with
our
applicants
to
shore
them
up
and
make
sure
that
they
are
able
to
do
the
reporting,
because,
obviously
they're
a
partner
of
ours
now
and
they're
a
sub-recipient
of
the
sub-recipient.
A
E
So
reviewing
so
where
the
city's
looking
at
options
like
maybe
a
financial
agent,
or
something
like
that,
so
that
some
of
the
maybe
newer
organizations
can
still
qualify.
Yes,
we're
trying
to
be
yeah.
A
And
there
is
also
the
revenue
replacement
bucket,
which
I
don't
want
to
kind
of
get
in
the
weeds
on
that,
but
there
is
also
the
revenue
replacement
that
would
keep
us
a
la
keeping
everybody
monitored
the
same
way,
but
not
have
the
same
onerous
requirement
to
match
that
treasury
audit
and
risk
assessment.
A
G
I
have
a
follow-up
to
that
yeah.
If
we
only
fund
those
who,
maybe
historically
have
had
the
most
access
and
process
experience
that
maybe
seen
the
least
risk
will
we
get
to
the
equitable
outcomes
that
we
need
and
that
kind
of
goes
with.
What
I've
been
curious
about
myself
is:
am
I
confident
in
the
equity
scoring
and
the
tool
that
we
used
so
I
went
and
looked
through
analyzing
my
own.
G
A
Have
the
rubrics
and
the
scoring
and
evaluation
already
out
there,
the
more
specific
detail
about
what
fit
into
the
the
rules
and
who
did
and
did
not
look
like
they
would
get
past
a
risk
assessment?
Yes,
we
can
once
the
decision
is
made,
I
think,
to
go
forward
for
the
recommendations
we
can
make
that
public.
A
But
in
answer
to
your
first
part
of
the
question
kim,
I
think
we
are
in
a
situation
where
we
have
because
of
the
process
with
the
rubrics
and
the
scoring
metrics
and
the
evaluation
we
had.
A
significant
proportion
of
the
projects
came
out
in
the
top
40
percentile,
as
I
mentioned,
without
this
drop-off,
but
we
also
had
a
good
mix
of
people
who
you
know
were
kind
of
experienced
people
that
we've
used
before
in
with
projects
and
grant
money.
A
But
there
was
also
a
lot
of
there's
a
lot
of
people
in
the
final
list
that
are
smaller
organizations
and
that
just
didn't
discount
them,
because
even
the
smaller
and
the
grassroots
organizations
do
have
some
audit
history
and
some
financial
history
and
some
setup
it
was
just
you
know
there
was.
I
think
there
was
a
couple
which
we
can
talk
about
as
we
go
through
that
were
really
new
organizations,
and
you
know
looking
at
it
with
with
brad
and
aaron.
A
So
I
think
we
have
got
a
a
decent
mix
and
there
is
still
some
options
going
forward
because
you'll
see
once
we
get
there,
there
is
still
an
amount
of
money
that
is
is
not
allocated
based
on
the
the
place
we've
gotten
to
at
the
moment,
and
you
know
with,
though,
with
that
money
we
could
also
find
another
way
to
support
some
of
those
newer
groups.
A
You
know
that's
the
issue
is,
is
without
any
history
of
you
know,
kind
of
financial
risk,
then
we
couldn't
get
them
past
the
treasury
assessment.
But
you
know
there
is
some
other
options.
G
So
there
were
a
couple
questions
that
I
asked
back
in
february.
I
just
thought
we
I
would
check
to
see
if
there
were
updates
today.
One
is:
what
are
we
doing
right
now
to
bind
arpa
funding
to
staffing
contracts
so
that
we
can
follow
up
and
when
we'll
follow
up,
if
we
have
an
issue
where
services
that
were
contracted
aren't
being
provided
because
of
limitations
with
staffing,
so
we
can
redirect
those
funds
and
get
them
back
into
the
community.
A
Yeah
and
I
think,
and
again
that's
a
that's
a
point
well
made
and
I
the
process
going
forward
with
the
monitoring
and
the
reporting
is
going
to
be
a
lot
more
intense.
A
You
know
and
part
of
my
job
going
forward
is
to
manage
that
process
because
we're
going
to
be
doing
on-site
reviews
with
people
all
the
time
and
also
learning
with
them.
So
you
know
if
something
is
not
working,
we
are
focusing
everything
on
an
rba
results-based
accountability.
So
you
know
it's
going
to
be.
What
do
you
need
to
achieve
success?
This
is
what
you
put
in
your
application.
This
is
what
the
contract
says.
A
What
do
you
need
to
achieve
success
and
we
will
work
with
them
on
that,
so
that
it's
not
a
case
of
like
you
know
at
the
end
of
the
quarter,
you're
not
doing
what
you
said
you
were
going
to
do
and
it's
not
working.
We
hope
to
be
much
more
reactive,
proactive
and
reactive,
proactive
working
with
the
groups
to
make
sure
that
we're,
hopefully
we'll
get
to
the
point
where
we're
not
going
to
get
to
that
right.
A
But
yes,
I
think
that
that's
that's
a
point
well
made
that
you
know
it's
a
difficult
process
with
grants
to
make
sure
people
are
doing
what
they
said.
They're
going
to
do
because
a
lot
of
the
time
it's
like
here's,
the
money
go,
do
what
you
need
to
do
and
then
we'll
assess
it
after
time,
and
I
don't
want
to
be
in
that
situation
because
of
the
reporting
that
we
have
to
do.
A
Then
I
think
we
need
to
be
much
more
on
top
of
that
and
work
with
the
organizations
to
make
sure
that
they're
achieving
what
we
want
them
to
do.
Thank.
G
You
and
then
another
one
was
for
applicants
or
applications
that
were
providing
services
around
homelessness.
G
Can
we
get
an
update
on
where
we're
at
with
the
clause
similar
to
working
with
the
county
around
inclusivity,
for
example,
if
the
application
we
know
comes
from
an
organization
that
provides
services
for
men
and
women,
can
we
include
a
clause
that
ensures
all
individuals
in
need
are
served
regardless
of
gender
identity,
yeah.
A
And
I
think
I've
been
working
with
aaron
on
this
as
far
as
how
we're
building
the
contracts-
and
there
is
again
a
lot
of
processes
that
we
have
to
go
through
to
build
the
contract.
There
is
a
lot
including
there
in
there
and
on
the
from
the
treasury
about
equity
and
inclusion.
So,
yes,
I
am
an
answer
to
your
question.
I
am
working
with
aaron
on
that
and
we
are
trying
to
be
as
robust
as
we
can
within
the
contract
to
make
sure
that
yeah.
A
You
know
if
anybody
has
those
contracts,
that
they
honor,
that
kind
of
inclusion.
A
A
Aaron
miles
from
the
city
attorney's
office.
G
Very
good
and
then
the
last
one
I
was
looking
to
see
how
many
city
of
asheville
applications
had
risen
to
the
top.
One
of
them
is
the
fourth
lowest
in
the
scoring
for
the
decision
sheets
and
I'm
hearing
concern
from
community.
Will
the
arp
of
funds
be
another
situation
of
perpetuating
a
resource
scarcity
narrative,
and
so
I
wondered
if
staff
all
of
these
applications
are
doing,
suggesting
that
we
need
to
do
important
work
in
our
community.
G
A
Yeah
we
had
originally
13
applications
from
the
city.
We
narrowed
it
down
to
the
top
three,
and
then
there
was
conversations
about
public
sanitation
and
litter
downtown
and
the
public
restrooms.
A
So
those
two
one
of
the
ones
had
not
scored
highly
on
the
evaluation
based
on
the
criteria
that
are
in
the
evaluation,
but
based
on
the
current
narrative
about
the
state
of
downtown
and
the
requirement
for
public
restrooms,
new
or
re-maintained
or
installed,
or
whatever,
that
one,
the
one
to
do
with
the
public.
Restrooms
came
up
on
the
list
and.
A
I
have
not
been
involved
in
that
process,
but
I
don't.
I
can't
comment
on
you
know
kind
of
other
conversations
within
the
city
I
mean
as
far
as
arpa
is
concerned,
and
you
know
we've
just
been
concentrating
on
how
these
fit
into
the
opera
process.
Thank
you.
A
So
this
was
the
this
is
the
recommendation,
so
we
had
17
million
907
641
remaining
to
be
allocated
to
sub-recipients.
This
money
has
to
be
allocated
by
the
31st
of
december
2024
spent
by
the
31st
of
december
2026,
but
allocated
by
20
for
the
end
of
2024.,
so
I'm
just
putting
that
in
there.
A
So
you
know,
I
know
that
we're
trying
to
get
to
a
decision
and
we're
trying
to
get
these
funds
out
there,
because
obviously
they're
crucial
funds,
but
you
know
not
all
the
decisions
have
to
be
made
today
we're
trying
to
try
and
make
as
many
as
we
can
and
allocate
the
funds,
but
just
for
your
information
that
we
have
got
a
little
bit
of
time,
you
know
and
as
the
rules
change
and
adapt
and
adjust,
you
know
just
just
keep
that
in
your
back
pocket
that
you
know
we
have
got
some
time
if,
if
we
need
it,
we
are,
we
have,
in
discussions,
recommended
that
we
hold
six
million
back
for
projects
outside
of
the
rfp
process.
A
A
So,
and
then
this
at
the
moment
is
based
on
the
new
rules
and
amendments
that
came
out
on
the
1st
of
april,
the
attorney's
office
and
myself
and
the
school
of
government
and
the
treasury
have
gone
through
what
was
a
19
applicant
shortlist
at
the
time
in
the
review
that
we
did
legally
and
with
the
treasury
and
school
of
government.
A
So,
and
so
this
is
the
list
of
the
17.,
you
will
notice
that
it
comes
to
9
million
823,
so
it
does
leave
us
some
in
reserve
to
look
at
some
of
the
ones
that
were
on
the
list
that
have
gone
off
the
list
because
of
the
risk
assessment
and
things
like
that,
but
also
to
just
adjust
and
adapt
to
the
new
rules
and
regulations.
A
The
other
comment
that
I
would
make
is
the
recommended
funding.
You
will
notice
that
some
of
them
have
got
partial
funding
figures
against
the
amount
that
was
actually
requested
and
again
those
have
been
adjusted
because
of
the
new
rules
and
regulations
that
we
had
to
follow.
You
know
so
there
was.
There
was
various
things
on
capital.
A
million
dollar
threshold
was
brought
in
on
the
capital,
any
capital
projects.
A
If
they
were
above
a
million,
then
you
had
to
provide
justification
on
two
other
projects
that
were
applied
for
that,
the
one
what
you
were
funding
if
it
was
over
a
million
that
you
could
provide
justification,
that
it
was
the
better
use
of
funds
than
the
other
projects
that
were
on
there.
So
you
know
they
came
up
with
a
rationale
that
we
had
to
do
that.
E
A
So
so,
for
example,
on
say
on
helpmates
application,
that
is
a
a
two
million
dollar
request
for
capital
funding
for
a
shelter
for
domestic
violence
victims,
so
that
is
above
the
million
million
dollar
threshold.
So
what
we
have
to
do
in
that
situation
is
say
is
that
we
have
to
provide
a
justification
to
the
treasury
that
the
help
made
project
with
what
it's
doing
within
the
guidelines
of
the
covid
and
arpa
rules
and
regulations.
A
Is
it
providing
the
surface
service
that
we
need?
That
is
more
appropriate
than
somebody
else
who
was
applying
for
domestic
violence?
Funds
that
were
capital
based,
so
is
their
project
more
aligned
to
the
categories
and
the
expense
expenditure
and
the
affordable
options
than
helpmates
was
or
is
help
make
more
appropriate.
A
So
so
yeah,
so
so
some
of
them
have
changed
because
of
that
million
dollar
threshold
because
of
the
rules.
H
A
We-
and
that
was
that's,
going
to
be
part
of
the
you
know,
kind
of
the
next
thing,
but
yes,
we
we
can
get
them
because
the
list
changed
and
the
numbers
changed
we're
now.
You
know
at
9
million,
as
opposed
to
11
million.
So
we
have
got
some
flexibility,
and
that
was
something
I
was
going
to
discuss
with
you
as
we
just
kind
of
go
through
the
next
piece.
A
But
yes,
whether
there
is
any
on
that
list
that
you
want
to
raise
well,
the
two
that
come
to
mind
are
whether
you
want
to
go
with
help
mate
up
to
their
two
million
dollar.
Ask
and
then
the
other
one
was
habitat
for
humanity.
They
had
a
nine
hundred
thousand
dollar
ask.
A
They
said
that
they
could
do
a
partial
funding
and
what
their
request
was
at
the
time
was
that
they
had
two
projects,
one
that
was
six
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
one
that
was
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
and
they
asked
if
we
were
going
to
do
partial
funding,
whether
we
could
fund
the
entirety
of
one
of
those
projects
in
this
instance,
because
they're
under
the
million
dollar
threshold,
you
could
actually,
if
you
so
wished,
put
them
up
to
the
full
funding.
A
So
you
said
help
me
help
mate
and
habitat
for
humanity,
and
that's
it.
The
only
other
one
possibility
is
that
the
mediation
center
in
their
ask
they
had
a
set
of
salaries
and
operating
budgets
for
the
mediation
center.
They
also
had
salaries
and
budget
for
help
mate
and
for
our
voice,
so
that
was
in
and
it's
a
different
project
than
the
shelter
obviously
for
helpmate,
but
based
on
the
guidelines
that
we
have
again
from
treasury
in
the
school
of
government.
A
I
A
Because
when
we
looked
at
this
new
threshold
of
the
million
dollars
and
the
justification
with
helpmate
based
on
their
project
that
they
had
put
forward,
it
did
actually
satisfy
the
criteria
for
going
over
a
million
dollars.
So
we
we
could
justify
it
against
two
other
projects,
so
it
did
actually
stand
up
on
it.
Okay,
so
helpmate
can
abccm
we've
gone
with
the
999
905th
bill
990
because
that's
under
the
million
dollars,
but
their
project
as
a
whole
didn't
match
up
to
the
justification.
A
When
we
were
looking
at
the
new
rules,
so
there
was,
there
was
some
adjustments
that
we
had
to
make
because
of
the
new
rules.
Okay,.
A
Yeah
homeward
bound
the
same,
so
the
ones
that
you
can
see
that
are
9
million
sorry
999
990,
that
was
keeping
them
below
the
the
million
dollar
threshold,
not
in
a
sneaky
move
or
anything
like
that.
Just
as
far
as
the
new
rules
were
concerned,
we
could
justify
up
to
that
level,
but
not
over
it,
because
their
projects
didn't
match
the
rules
that
we
needed
to
do.
A
Higher
it
was
a
they
wanted,
two
million
dollars
to
build
a
domestic
violence,
shelter
and
you
couldn't
separate
anything
on
their
project.
You
couldn't
try
to
separate
anything
out
to
be
operations
or
anything
like
that
was
entirely
for
a
build
of
a
shelter.
A
So
you
couldn't
separate
out
the
elements
where,
with
abccm
and
the
other
ones,
there
was
a
number
of
elements
that
made
up
their
project
and
you
know-
and
some
of
the
other
elements
were
more
tenuous
as
far
as
fitting
in
into
the
rules,
so
it
was
the
safest
option
to
make
sure
that
we
were
completely
within
the
justification
that
we
could
do.
Okay.
Thank
you.
E
And
just
for
curiosity,
what's
the
ramifications
if
we
make
a
mistake.
E
Well,
no
I'm
saying
like
what,
if
we
were
to
what,
if
the
city
were,
to
identify
a
subrecipient
and
later
on,
it's
determined
that
it
didn't
fit
the
criteria,
then
what
happens.
A
When
we
do
that,
when
we
do
the
quarterly
reports,
we
have
to
provide
the
justification
and
it's
detailed
and
fairly
intensive.
So
we
have
to
provide
the
justifications
and
then
the
treasury
will
come
back
and
say
whether
we've
got
it
right,
but
we've
been
pretty
thorough.
I
think
brad.
If
you've
got
any
kind.
I
mean
brad
and
aaron
from
the
attorney's
office
school
of
government
and
treasury,
because
we
have
gone
back
time
and
time
again
and
asked
the
questions
about.
A
Well,
you
know
if
this,
what
about
that
and
then
we
go
on
a
school
of
government
training
and
they
say,
oh
by
the
way,
new
rule
threshold,
one
million.
So
you
know
we.
We
have
checked
and
double
checked
and,
and
we
are
fairly
confident
I
I
would
say
we
were
very
confident
sorry
not
fair,
very
confident
that
what
we've
got
now
will
get
past
the
justifications.
F
F
You're
fine,
you
no
longer
have
to
be
liable
for
those
funds
for
not
meeting
them.
So
in
a
situation
where
we
were
potentially
to
go
beyond
what
either
state
law,
the
federal
guidelines
or
some
of
these
individual
assessments
require,
we
would
potentially
expose
ourselves
to
having
to
pay
back
that
portion
of
the
funds
which
would
not
qualify.
E
So
I
mean
it's
a
fairly
high
level
and
you
know
you
don't
want
to
make
mistake.
A
And
then
just
one
more
question,
one
more
point
to
note
on
the
recommendations.
A
The
majority
of
the
projects
that
we
have
on
these
recommendations
were
in
the
top
40
percentile
of
the
evaluation
scoring
you
know
a
lot
of
them
were
in
the
top
40
percentile
in
fairness,
because
there
were
so
many
you
know
good
scores,
but
we
are
comfortable
that
the
process
was
robust
and
that
we
have,
you
know
kind
of
managed
within
that
process
to
give
you
the
recommendations
that
are
safe
as
safe
as
we
can
make
them
within
the
rules
and
regulations,
but
also
within
our
our
own
process,
because
it's
on
a
continuum,
the
rfp,
the
evaluation
and
then
now
the
monitoring
and
the
performance
management.
A
You
know
to
your
point,
you
know
the
performance
management
is
the
next
phase.
It's
the
bit
that
I'm
most
passionate
about.
I
like
this
bit
as
well,
but
I'm.
A
That
bit
and
I-
and
I
think
it's
a
good
opportunity
for
community
groups
to
work
with
us.
Not
you
know
not
us
telling
them
how
to
do
things
to
work
with
us
and
to
improve
this
process,
because
this
is
an
unprecedented
situation,
an
unprecedented
amount
of
money.
A
You
know
the
whole
pandemic
is
just
something
you
know
once
in
a
lifetime
situation
touch
wood,
you
know,
so
I
think
we
can
use
this
opportunity
to
build
on
our
process
and
our
performance
management
and
really
work
with
the
community
to
make
it
as
fair
as
equitable
as
we
as
we
can,
but
also
to
build
capacity
in
the
situation
of
federal
grants.
Grants
on
this
on
this
level.
J
Kim
I
want
to
kind
of
follow
up
on
your
statement
about
the
majority
of
the
recommendations
were
for
applications
that
scored
in
what
the
top
40
there's
one
knot
on
there,
and
I
was
just
wondering
the
reason
for
its
exclusion.
I'm
talking
about
the
pods
requests.
Yes
from
the
asheville
housing
authority,
I
was
wondering
if
the
reason
they
aren't
on
there
is
due
to
some
changes
or
if
there's
another
reason.
J
I
noticed
that
they
scored
83,
and
we
mentioned
earlier
that
the
moderate
modernization
and
upgrade
actually
was
not
amongst
the
top,
and
I
see
that
had
a
75
score.
So
how
do
we
reconcile,
especially
when
we're
repeatedly
talking
about
the
achievement
gap,
not
recommending
pods,
but
we
moved
something
that
was
amongst
the
lowest
scores
up
to
us
for
recommendation
and
consideration.
Yeah.
A
A
There
was
two
that
dropped
out
one
because
of
risk
assessment
and
then
the
pods,
because-
and
the
rationale
was
because
the
pods
and
the
application
was
for
remote
schooling
and
things
like
that
during
the
lockdown
and
the
focus
of
their
application
was
very
much
about
the
lockdown
and
the
immediate
portion
after
and
I
think
the
the
value
of
having
remote
learning
and
in
the
pods,
I
think,
is
still
relevant.
A
But
the
way
that
the
application
was
written
was
very
narrow,
time
frame
related
to
lockdown
and
the
coming
out
of
the
lockdown
and
with
the
new
rules
that
got
very
tenuous
as
far
as
putting
it
in
it's.
Not
it's
not
completely
out
of
the
frame,
but
right
now
with
the
rules
as
they
are,
it
didn't
make
it
past
the
new
rules
and
the
new
guidelines,
but
there
may
be
some
other
ways
that
we
can
do
that,
but
that.
A
But
that
is
why
originally,
it
was
on
the
list
and
until
last
week
it
was
on
the
list
and
then
last
week,
when
we
had
this
new
kind
of
new
updated
rules
from
the
first
of
april.
And
then
we
just
tried
to
analyze
what
was
left
of
the
19
and
we
went
through
a
legal
review,
school
of
government
and
federal
and
and
that's
what
happened
so
yeah.
So
unfortunately
they
had
to
drop
off.
But
I
wouldn't
count
them
out
completely
at
the
moment.
But
yes,
at
the
moment,
that's
where
we
are
at
okay.
H
I
have
a
question
so
early
on
the
agree.
I
guess
the
group
on
here
is
listed
as
mediation
center,
but
it's
originally
a
five
group
ask
and
I
met
with
them
early
on
and
I
have
heard
from
them
now
that
this
slide
is
up,
that
there
may
be
a
little
communication
error,
because
the
original
ask
was
for
1.5
and
then,
as
you
have
stated,
some
of
the
organizations
were
able
to
get
funding
elsewhere.
H
But
my
understanding
and
I'm
sure
this
can
be
cleared
up
after
this
meeting-
is
that
they
were
suggesting
that
there
could
be
a
500
reduction,
meaning
it
would
still
be
a
million
dollars
needed
and
it
appears
that
it
was
stated
as
we
just
need
500
now,
so
just
to
clarify
they're,
actually
still
I'm
hearing
that
they
were
still
hoping
for.
1
million.
A
I
A
It's
an
overall
ask
and
representing
five
different
organizations,
but
because
of
the
funding,
that's
going
to
help
make
for
a
different
project,
but
it
just
what
happened
was
it
was
reduced
by
the
the
salary
everything
from
the
mediation
center
that
they
asked
for
for
operating
and
salaries,
and
things
like
that
stayed
in
everything
for
help
mate
and
our
voice,
I
think,
was
removed
again
because
of
the
rules
and
the
changes
that
were
in
effect
with
with
mediation
center.
We
can
go
up.
I
think
it
was
the
750
000.
A
H
A
But
you
can
go
up
with
them
a
little
bit.
I
I
think
if
memory
serves
me
correctly,
it
is
750
000.
We
may
have
a
little
bit
more
play
in
that
because
we
had
to
drop
some
of
the
things
out
that
didn't
work
with
the
rules.
A
I
think
pisgah
was
the
yeah
episco
legal
services
were
salaries
for
two
and
a
half
people,
I
think,
and
I'd
have
to
be
I'd,
have
to
go
back
and
have
a
look
at
the
budget
more
specifically,
but
we
may
have
some
flex
with
that:
okay,
but
not
up
to
a
million.
I
think
when
I
we
looked
at
it,
it
was,
I
think,
750
was
the
max.
But
again
that's
within
your
remit
to
just
that.
If
you
want
to
because.
H
A
It
wasn't
on
on
the
original
group
of
19,
which
was
our
shortlist
and
the
the
original
group
of
19
on
our
shortlist
did
get
to
us
to
the
11.9
million
which
we
were
looking
at
and
then
just
this
last
week.
We
have
made
the
changes
down
to
this,
so
we
still
have
that
2
million,
which
I'm
just
going
to
kind
of
mention
on
the
next
slide.
We
still
have
that
2
million
to
decide
what
to
do
with.
H
B
Wondering
what
the
so
process
wise,
which
you'll
get
to
at
some
point
in
this
presentation,
but
I
what
I
would
expect
is
that
when
we
move
this
forward
to
council
it'll
be
a
resolution
with
a
recommended
group.
You
know
it
could
be
this
group.
However,
if
there
is
not
consensus
around
one
or
two
or
three,
they
can
be
pulled
out
for
a
separate
vote
so
kind
of,
like
you
would
do
a
consent
agenda
that
that
would
be
the.
B
That
would
be
the
idea
not
necessarily
go
through
each
one
and
vote
it
up
or
down
try
to
have
a
majority
of
it
as
a
as
a
recommended
package.
H
B
Going
to
try
to
do,
I
think
we
need
to
give
some
feedback
today.
So
if
we,
you
know,
if
we're
looking
at
this
list
and
we
we
want
to
change
some
of
the
funding
like
if
we
wanted
to
bump
the
mediation
centers
back
up
to
750,
which
I
think
is
the
max,
you
said
we
could
do
or
help
mate
up
to
2
million.
B
We
we
need
to
have
that
discussion
here
and
indicate
that
support
or
if
there's
something
you
want
to.
You
know
change
your
mind.
You
want
to
take
off
this
list
or
whatever
or
if
there's
something
that
didn't
make
this
list,
and
you
want
to
add
it
back
in
this
is
the
time
to
say
that
so
we
can
get
as
much
of
this
gelled
up
as
possible
here.
G
So,
for
example,
I
had
signaled
in
my
decision
sheet
a
maybe
for
the
restroom
facilities,
which
I
think
we
should
seek
other
funding
for,
and
I
would
signal
support
here
to
remove
that
partial
support,
because
we
haven't
yet
seen
the
full
impact
of
the
kova
19
pandemic
on
evictions,
we're
just
beginning
to
see
the
beginning
of
that.
I'm
really
concerned.
A
If
I
could
just
make
one
comment
about
that,
if
the
ones
that
we
analyzed
legally
were
the
19
that
were
on
the
list,
so
you
have,
of
course,
the
option
to
bring
some
more
onto
the
list,
but
we
would
need
to
go
through
the
same
legal
jeopardy
to
go
to
kind
of
actually
look
at
all
of
those
ones
so
and
pulling
up
any
more
onto
the
list.
At
this
juncture
we
would
need
a
little
bit
more
time.
A
So
for
the
may,
the
10th
situation,
I
think
what
we
were
recommending
is
that
we
we
get
to
agreement
on
any
of
these
17.
A
You
can
take
some
off
obviously,
but
these
have
all
been
vetted,
so
we
are
comfortable
that
these
ones
fit
that
that
is
not
to
say
at
all
that
you
can't
add
any
more
in,
because
you
we
have
two
million
dollars
at
the
moment
over
two
million
dollars
to
still
allocate
so
they
you
know
if
you
want
to
bring
some
others
onto
the
list
by
all
means,
but
we
need
to
do
the
legal
vetting
to
make
sure
that
that
that
they
are
under
the
new
rules
eligible.
B
B
Oh
I'm
sorry,
I
was
looking
at
the
wrong
shanika.
You
led
me
straight
okay,
all
right,
so
all
right!
So
so
I
I
think
one
other
point
of
clarification
in
terms
of
process
and
especially
given
the
work
that's
going
to
be
required
to
review
anything.
That's
not
on
this
list
will
need
to
indicate
a
majority
support
to
ask
staff
to
do
that.
For
that
particular
item,
so
they're
not
just
well.
B
So
that's
number
44.
We
don't
have
the.
I
And
also
I'm
in
agreement
with
that
me
as
well
particular
suggestion
by
kim.
A
If
we
brad
do,
if
we
have
one
more
that
we
need
to
look
at,
can
we
review
it
before
may
the
10th?
If
there
is
agreement
amongst
the
council.
F
Get
it
yeah,
that's
not
going
to
be
a
problem.
If
we
have
a
handful
that
we
need
to
review,
we
can
absolutely
dedicate
the
resources
needed
to
get
that
done
in
a
timely
manner.
If
we
end
up
having
to
go
back
through
every
one,
it
might
be
a
difficult
proposition,
but
I
I
think,
two
to
five:
it's
not
going
to
be
a
problem
for
us
to
go
through
just.
E
I
I
just
because
mine
is
written
in
like
ridiculous.
How
much
is
the
pisgah
request?
I
can't
find
it.
Oh,
my
god,.
A
Well,
the
million
cap
is
on
capital,
so
it
depends
how
much
of
that
is
capital,
none
of
it?
Okay,
so
if
none
of
it
is
capital,
then
the
million
cap
is
is
not
this.
It
doesn't
have
the
same
rules
and
regulations
if
it's.
H
Not
capital,
so
I
want
to
clarify.
I
do
support
I'm
having
that
one
looked
at
for
applicability
again,
I
don't
support
what
I
think
might
have
been
the
first
part
of
that
which
was
to
remove
the
restrooms
in
exchange
for-
and
I
want
to
make
sure
I
understand
what
is
written
on
here,
because
modernization
and
upgrade
of
downtown
restrooms
doesn't
necessarily
mean
portland
lou.
Is
it
to
mean
that
we
may
look
at
a
portland
louvre
versus
getting
another
existing
restroom
up,
24,
7
or.
A
I
think
we
changed
the
title
of
it.
It
was
the
portland
lure
originally
because
there
was
a
lot
of
conversations
about
whether
it
was
two
portland
lose
one
or
whether
we
were
going
to
do
one
and
make
and
upgrade
some
of
the
other
facilities.
So
we
just
made
it
as
a
modernization,
but
it
is
the
the
portland
lou
application.
G
B
Yep,
we
actually
have
a
meeting
scheduled
today
to
to
talk
to
the
tda,
so
I'm
glad
to
bring
that
up
and
see
what
the
viability
of
that
is.
But,
but
so
I
guess
I'm
not
hearing
for
now
removing
that
item.
For
me.
J
I
J
C
And
I
think
it
depends
on
the
additional
ones
that
are
that
you
all
want
us
to
consider,
because
there's
still
a
two
million
dollar.
That's
what
I
thought.
There's.
A
I'm
sorry
yeah
I'll
just
move
to
the
next
slide,
because
yeah
this
recommendation
is
for
nine
million
dollars.
There
is
remaining
funds
of
two
million
dollars,
so
you
know
so
we
could
keep
the
restrooms
in
and
we
could
still
do
pisco
legal
if
it
passes
all
the
various
checks
or
we
could.
You
know
this.
This
amount
of
remaining
funds
is
has
to
be
decided
on
by
the
end
of
2024.
A
B
Me
ask
you
all
a
question
so
they're.
You
know
they're
gonna,
go
look
at
this
item
for
episcopal,
which
is
1.4
ish,
so
that
would
eat
a
good
chunk
of
this
almost
2.1
million.
But
let
me
ask
you
guys
about
the
reduction
in
funding.
It
looks
like
for
ymi.
We
don't
have
flexibility
on
that
one
litter
and
the
cleanliness
going
to
look
at
some
other
resources
well
through
contracting
and
then,
but
what
about?
B
What
about
help
mates
being
reduced
to
1.5
and
the
mediation
center's
being
reduced
to
500
and
the
habitat
one
being
reduced?
Is
there
any
interest
in
me?
I
just
want
to
know
in
terms
of
our
funding
and
moving
those
I'm
curious
about
the
help
mate
yeah.
I
I
am
interested
in
moving
helpmate
back
to
2
million,
but
you
know:
we've
got
this
2
million-ish.
A
B
K
Of
moving
help
back
to
2
million,
but
I
believe
that
the
legal
needs
to
go
through
the
process
that
everybody
else
went
through.
First
of
all,
we
asked
all
organizations
if
they
were
to
take
partial
what
that
amount
would
be.
So
I
think
that's
the
first
thing,
because
I
believe
that
the
1.3
that
pisgah
is
asking
for
is
like
a
three-year
funding.
It's
multi-year
funding,
so
I
think
we
need
to
start
them
where
we
started
everybody
else,
so
that
we
can
determine
if
we'll
need
the
full
2
million
to
cover
yeah.
A
I
spoke
to
everybody
about
partial
funding.
We
asked
on
the
rfp
initially
if
anybody
could
take
partial
funding
if
they
would
put
it
on
their
rfp
and
a
number
did
and
then
subsequently,
when
we
narrowed
the
list
down,
I
then
spoke
to
everybody
to
see
whether
their
projects
would
still
be
successful
if
they
had
partial
funding.
So
yes
with
all
these
on
the
list,
I
have
had
a
conversation
with
them,
but
yes,
with
pisco
legal,
I
would
need
to
have
that
conversation.
B
So
it
looks
like
there's
majority
support
to
move
help
mate
back
to
two
million.
What
about
the
mediation
center
funding?
I
think
you
said
it
could
go
up
to
as
much
as
750.
B
council
any
interest
in
making
that
this.
H
H
B
No,
I
do
I'm
running
the
numbers
here.
So
the
number,
if
we
have
two
point
almost
2.1,
the
difference
would
be
if
you
move.
If
you
move
help
me
half
a
million,
that's
half
a
million.
If
you
move
the
mediation
center,
that's
another
quarter
million.
So
that's
seven!.
B
If
you
fully
fund
pisgah
is
that
what
you're
assuming
okay?
Well,
that
I
mean
that
gets
you,
so
I
think
I
think
that's
what
staff
needs
to
know
so,
when
they're
evaluating
the
pisgah
application
they
need
to
know
whether
council
is
is
supportive
of
moving
any
of
these
other
numbers,
so
they
can
make
it
all
work.
I
mean
it's
we're
close
we're
pretty
close,
so
I
mean
you
know.
We.
H
C
A
Yeah,
so
we
could
we
we
could
partially
fund.
I
mean
I
have
to
go
through
the
conversation
and
we
have
to
check
it
legally,
but
you
know
we
could
do
partial
funding
for
pisco,
which
would
at
least
help
them.
You
know
there
is
very
few
that
we
have
gone
over
a
million
on,
but
there
is
some,
so
you
know
it
just
depends
on
yeah
what's
exactly
in
there
and
we
need
to
run
it
against
the
new
rules,
because
that
that
was
not
was
not
run
past
the
new
rules.
A
It
changes
every
day:
it's
not
my
brain
power.
I
think
that
reduces
every
day
but
yeah,
okay.
So
any
more
conversation
on
that.
Let
me
just
get
through
to.
I
think,
that's
pretty
much
so
that
this
is.
You
know
the
kind
of
that's
what
we're
where
we're
at
so
we're
talking
about
this
two
million
and
then
yeah
with
the
suggestions
that
we've
talked
about
today,
then
that
would
get
us
closer
to
you
know
kind
of
funding
everything
so.
H
A
I
think
we're
just
holding
it
because
there
is
a
number
of
different
things
on
the
offing,
but
we
took
the
six
million
out
of
this
rfp
process
just
because
of
other
things
that
was
discussed,
low
barrier,
shelter,
various
other
things.
So
that
is
a
decision
for
another
time.
So
at
this
juncture
I
think
it's
just
acknowledging
that
we're
holding
the
six
million
back
and
you
know
kind
of
going
forward
with
the
remaining
amount
yeah
just.
A
Yes,
that
six
million
is
you
know,
memorial
stadium,
low
barrier,
shelter
that
kind
of
thing.
No.
We
haven't
finalized
that
situation
yet.
But
yes,
that's
what
it's
been
helpful.
B
Okay,
so
to
summarize
what
I'm
hearing
our
direction
is
is
to
ask
staff
to
explore
the
pisgah
legal,
ask
line
item
44
on
our
other
spreadsheet
and
determine
what
level
of
eligibility
it
has
and
then
to
increase
the
help.
Mate
amount
to
2
million
and
the
mediation
center
amount
to
750.,
and
then
we
we,
I
will
and
deborah-
and
I
I
think
I
think
you're
in
my
meeting
today,
but
we
will
have
a
conversation
about
the
bathroom
item
and
see
what
other
funding
opportunities
are
possible.
H
H
H
Originally,
a
three
million
dollar
ask
now
on
one
million
because
of
the
capital,
but
I'm
still
unclear
on
the
use
of
that
fund,
and
I
know
I've
sent
a
lengthy
email,
but
what
I
understand
that
project
to
be-
and
I
would
love
for
someone
to
help
me
understand
if
I'm
correct
in
this
analysis-
is
that
it's
a
five
building
project
five
different
buildings,
each
costing
about
three
million-
or
so
it's
a
22
million
dollar
project
and
the
ask
of
us
is
to
fund
three
million
or
in
this
case
capping
it
at
one
for
one
particular
building.
H
So
I
had
reached
out
to
the
applicant
to
say
you
know
just
generally
personally,
I'm
a
little
concerned
about
our
capacity
as
a
community.
Can
we,
you
know
we're
already
challenged
to
take
care
of
our
own
folks
here,
and
we
have
some
agencies
in
the
in
our
community
that
do
a
great
job
such
a
great
job,
that
other
people
are
relocated
here
to
receive
those
services?
H
And
I
wasn't
clear
on
this
particular
application
if
it
is
actual
services
that
will
be
provided
for
our
local
folks
in
need
or
if
it
is
like
some
of
this
organization's
other
projects
where
folks
are
sometimes
our
folks
or
sometimes
from
other
areas.
And
while
we
want
to
help
as
many
people
as
possible,
of
course,
I'm
just
kind
of
hesitant,
because
I
don't
quite
understand
that
entire
project
and
I
wasn't
sure
if
staff
had
been
able
to
figure
anything
out
or
if
the
onus
is
on
us
and
I
just
need
to
dig
in
further.
H
A
I
think
the
view
was
that
we
could
maybe
put
something
in
the
contract
that
you
know
the
same
with
mountain
biz
works
that
it
has
to
be
for
people
from
the
city
of
asheville,
but
I
haven't
got
a
clear
answer
on
that
at
the
moment.
So
I
would
share
your
concerns
or
confusion
about
exactly
how
they're
going
to
monitor
that
and
and
how
are
they
going
to
stipulate
that
it
has
to
be
our
own,
that
we're
taking
care
of.
A
Yes,
so
you
know
the
whole
every
piece
of
funding
for
arpa
the
upper
funds,
even
the
stuff
that
was
decided
before
the
rfp
went
out,
then
they
are
going
to
follow
the
same
monitor.
We
have
to
use
the
same
monitoring
and
reporting
process
because
that's
what
we
have
to
do
to
the
treasury,
so
they
will
follow
the
same
monitoring
and
reporting,
even
though
they've
already
been
funded,
and
there
are
other
organizations
that
are
wraparound
and
things
like
that.
So
I.
A
Yeah,
so
any
any
of
the
funds,
even
the
6
million
holdback
fund.
Any
of
that
everybody
has
to
go
through
the
same
monitoring
and
reporting
process
and
the
same
compliance
because
we
have
to
as
the
sub-recipients.
So
you
know
so,
regardless
of
when
it
was
allocated
and
what
the
funds
are,
we're
still
going
to
go
through
the
sa
exactly
the
same
performance
management
and
monitoring
and
reporting
for
everybody.
C
And
just
for
clarity
is
there
a
desire
of
counsel
to
say
that
for
these
services
a
certain
percentage
has
to
be
for
local
residents
either
city
of
asheville
buncombe
county?
Whatever
I
don't
know
how.
K
H
My
concern,
and
maybe
I'll
just
put
the
onus
on
us
and
if
my
colleagues
could
assist
me
in
that
and
researching
this
project,
what
I
see
is
a
project
for
22
million
dollars
to
build
five
buildings:
wonderful,
we
they
did
email
us
back
and
say
what
the
need
is
in
our
community.
It
was
about
70
mothers
and
family,
but
this
housing
project
is
going
to
build
about
400
beds
and
most
of
it
is
funded
by
other
organizations
already.
So
they
have.
B
I
mean,
I
think
what
you're
pointing
out
is
the
challenge
around
being
a
regional
hub
and
providing
services.
Regionally,
I
mean
you
know.
Obviously
you
have
consolidation
of
service
provision.
B
Are
we
actually
getting
in
the
business
of
you
know
almost
from
an
economic
development
standpoint
of
providing
the
service
beyond
beyond
our
region?
You
know,
and
where
is
that
line,
and
how
do
you
evaluate
that?
You
know
I?
I
don't.
B
I
wonder
if
there's
a
way
to
kind
of
do
a
little
bit
of
a
deep
dive
to
understand
with
that
number
of
beds,
just
how
broad
the
service
would
be,
what
the
expectation
would
be
around
that
and
what
kind
of
impact
that
could
have
on
other
service
providers
in
the
area.
I
H
K
J
And
mayor,
can
you
elaborate
just
a
little
bit
more
on
your
thought
process
regarding
the
possible
impacts
it
could
have
on
other
providers?
What
did
you
mean
by
that?
Well.
B
I
mean
if
if,
if
folks
require
additional
services
beyond
just
housing,
which
may
be
the
case
you
know
do,
can
we
regionally
support
that?
For
you
know
I
mean
we
only
have
so
you
know
we
have
only
have
so
much.
B
A
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think
in
their
you
know
their
rfp
responses
and
it's
an
eight
page
application.
So
the
detail
is
not
there
and
I
think
you
know
we
do
need
to
understand
it
more
whether
we
remove
them
from
the
list
temporarily.
Whilst
we
do
that
investigation,
I
think
that's
that's
a
conversation
that.
B
A
And
that's
that's
another
good
point
is
we
have
looked
at
the
county
funding?
We
work
closely.
We
have
a
jamie
and
I
have
a
a
bi
weekly
meeting
with
the
county,
so
we
kind
of
you
know
and
because
the
rules
keep
changing
and
they're
in
a
worse
situat,
a
worse
situation
because
they're
having
to
rewrite
contracts
and
things
because
of
the
law
changes
all
the
rule
changes.
But
we
do
you,
know
kind
of
confer
with
them
and
try
and
come
up
with
mutually
beneficial.
A
You
know
kind
of
arrangements
with
how
we're
kind
of
funding
and
stuff
like
that.
So
we
are
trying
to
just
be
conscious
of
what
our
what
the
county
are
doing
as
well,
so
that
you
know
we're
kind
of
with
the
capacity
building
and
the
monitoring
and
stuff
like
that.
We
all
have
the
same
onus
on
us
to
report
so
we're
trying
to
work
together
to
to
help
with
that
capacity
building
and
things
as
well.
I
I
was,
I
was
just
wondering,
I
know
that
as
far
as
the
dogwood
wood
basically
funding
the
consultant
that
comes
in
to
sort
of
evaluate,
I'm
just
wondering
if
that
particular
evaluation.
How
far
and
how
extensive
it
is,
and
that
way
we
wouldn't
be
able
to
get
more
information
as
to
what
we're
dealing
with
here.
So
do
you
know
when
that's
going
to
be
actually
take
place
or.
C
C
And
what
is
the
gap?
You
know,
what
is
it
from
a
I
guess
best
practice
as
it
relates
to
providing
housing
services,
particularly
related
to
those
that
are
unsheltered.
C
What
what
would
be
the
best
practice
and
do
we
have
that
and
is
it
adequate?
Yes,.
C
I
C
A
Don't
think
so
I
think
you
know
the
next
steps
is
obviously
we'll
take
the
feedback
from
today
and
and
look
at
pisco
legal
and
change
the
numbers
and
then
we'll
just
try
and
get
it
ready
to
make
final
recommendations
at
the
may
10th
meeting
and
any
other
questions.
If
I
find
out
any
more
information
about
anything
I'll,
let
you
know,
but
I
just
think
it's
been
a
robust
process.
A
I
know
it's
been
lengthy,
but
you
know
there
is
a
lot
of
things
that
we've
had
to
look
at
behind
the
scenes
in
this
kind
of
unprecedented,
unprecedented
situation.
But
we
are
trying
to
work
on
a
continuum.
So
the
rfp
worked
into
the
evaluation
worked
into
this
decision
making
and
then
we'll
go
to
the
monitoring
afterwards,
and
I
think
that
the
process
has
been
successful
so
far.
A
I
think
the
applications
were
of
a
very
high
quality,
and
I
think
this
is
a
great
opportunity
for
us
as
a
city
to
make
sure
that
the
next
stage
matches
that
continuum.
So,
but
I
think
we're
in
a
good
place
with
with
these
decisions
at
the
moment
and
then,
if
any
others
need
to
come
into
play,
then
we
will
just
don't
go
through
the
same
analysis
as
the
horizon.
Changes
constantly.
I
I
was
just
going
to
say
I
just
really
like
to
thank
her
because
believe
it
or
not.
She
brought
a
lot
of
things
sort
of
clarified
a
lot
of
things
where,
before
I
was
just
sort
of
all
over
the
place,
and
so
I
really
appreciate
that-
and
I
also
appreciate
us
being
able
to
get
those
guidelines
before
we
put
anything
out
there,
because
that
could
have
been
really
messy
here.
A
It's
been
an
interesting
challenge.
I
know
that
you
know
every
time
we're
involved
in
any
of
the
training
or
anything
like
that.
It's
not
another
new
thing.
We
have
to
try
and
accommodate
so,
and
I
really
appreciate
the
help
that
the
city
attorney's
office
has
given
me
in
trying
to
get
through
the
legal
questions,
because
they
are
many
and
complex.
A
B
And
thank
you
all
to
all
you
and
your
team
and
all
the
people
that
reviewed
these
applications
and
jamie.
I
mean
it's
just
a
tremendous
amount
of
work,
so
thank
you
for
making
our
decision
making
process
a
little,
smoother
and
easier
and
and
thanks
to
all
the
applicants.
I
know
we
have
some
folks
here
today
that
were
some
represent
some
of
the
applicants.
B
I
know
it's
a
lot
of
work
and
we
can't
fund
everything
I
wish
we
could,
but
you
know
thank
you
for
working
our
community
and
figuring
out
how
to
make
the
best
use
of
these
funds.
So
we
appreciate
it.