Budget Committee - Regular Meeting

Alright, Regan and Robert. Unless you all need anything, I appreciate it. We're we're I've already started the current meeting. So, I think we're good. Testing for Webex.

Testing for Webex.

This meeting is being transcribed and summarized.

Robert, are you still down there?

Yeah.

The chair where I sit for the council meetings, it is timing out also. Do you know what I'm saying? It's going to a black screen.

He's headed your way.

Oh, it's I don't think it's okay. Come on. I don't think it's that important, but

Metro TV will start in thirty seconds. Good afternoon. Welcome to the third day of budget hearings. I'm Kevin Kramer, chair of the budget committee. And with me today in Chambers is Councilman P Argentini, Councilwoman Parker, Councilman Sam, Councilwoman Bass, Councilman Herndon, Councilwoman Watkins, or Hawkins, I'm sorry, Councilman Hawkins.

I'm joined online by Councilmember Moby Woolridge and Councilman man Owen. Owen. I believe that captures everybody who's here in the moment. Madam clerk, if you would please read into the record the required notice for virtual meetings.

This meeting is being held pursuant to Cara 61.826 and council roll five a. Right on full.

Thank you. I will be joined shortly. I I have a text message from the vice chair of the committee. He is on his way up right now. So we will be joined shortly. I've been asked by the clerk to make a couple reminders. First, again the reminders were made yesterday and I very much appreciate that. I will do the best I can to ask if you would hold it to three questions and then get back in the queue if you'd like. I will do the best I can to call on people who haven't yet been called on. So if I skip over you, it's because I thought you already spoke.

So just be aware that that's happening. Also for those of us who are joining online, please remember that the rules are pretty clear, that you are not allowed to participate in meetings if your camera's not on. So if for some reason you turn your camera off, means that from our perspective you are no longer participating. So if you want to stay participating, keep the camera on. So we have the Office of Social Services with us today.

They will be followed by several directors representing the external agencies panels. As a reminder, departments will not make opening comments, and we will begin immediately with council member questions. Welcome, directors Patricia Williams and George Swetnam. I'll start by asking, the mayor is proposing to add 210,000 to expand the Safe and Healthy Streets initiative by adding a second shift in Saturday operations. Can you explain how you are going to do this without adding personnel? And would you also touch on why you recognize that is necessary?

Chair, my name is John Pilbine, assistant director of OSS, director of the HEART team.

Thank you, John.

The funding will be used to support flexibility in reaching more people through outreach after traditional work hours. This includes getting people to shelter and recovery centers, while ensuring our streets are clean and accessible. We will not be adding staff, for those, for the overtime staff or the overtime routes.

Okay. Great. Thank you. Councilman P Argentini.

Thank you. And I'm I'm gonna keep going until you cut me off or somebody gets something to queue. Nobody else in the queue after me.

You go. Absolutely.

So first question is, the budget is a little confusing for thank you for being here. It's a little confusing, particularly around grants, around federal dollars. So what I'm looking at, if you'll excuse me one quick second, the budget summary section, funding by source, for example, you have under the line federal grants. It kinda moves pretty drastically from original budget 2526, dollars 16,000,000 amended budget 2526, that line zeros out. And then the proposed budget here 2627 is almost $19,000,000.18900000 dollars Can you explain what's going on there, why that movement is happening?

There you go. Now we're on. Can you point us to which document you're referencing?

Yes. It should be in the executive summary, Office of Social Services budget summary, funding by source. So you have a funding by source, then expenditure by source section. Page 158 of the 47 proposed executive budget. Is that right? 158.

So just speaking with Director Jackson, it looks like the total of anticipated awards is a combination of state, federal and other sources. Some are new and some are renewal. And so it's a culmination of all of those combined together. So that's how that's calculated for the FY 'twenty seven budget.

I understand. But I guess to be more specific, like why was it proposed in 'twenty six, then zeroed out, revised and then brought back in 'twenty seven even a little higher? So I I just wanna know what the movement is, like what's happening there.

Okay.

I can almost if I were to get I mean, like, what the way it reads to me is it's it's almost like the projects didn't come to fruition this year and you're and you're pushing them out into next year, but I don't wanna make that assumption.

Alright. If you just give us a moment while we confirm with the

Sounds good. Sounds good. No problem.

Thank you.

Big guns coming out.

Eric Jackson with OMB. So the original budget, the $16,000,007.62, those are primarily listed on the list of anticipated anticipated awards that we attached to the operating ordinance annually. The amended budget was zeroed out because we have two plans in our financial system on the annual plan and the award plan and those budgets are zeroed out in the amended budget. But when we get the when we propose those those funds, we budget them as part of the original budget.

Okay.

If that makes

any So this is basically a clerical move, but it's not as though there was money, lack of money, more money?

That's correct. It's same money.

It's just moving because of clerical issues?

It's administrative, yes.

Okay. No problem. Thank you. Then the $3,000,000 for day to care thank you, Aaron. The $3,000,000 for day to care, I have a note here that funds are contingent upon securing matching funds from external sources in an equal or greater amount. I just want to confirm that's true. And number two, if Dare to Care fails to match those dollars, do we have a provision that they get partial or none? How does it work if they fall short of getting the matching funding?

I'm sorry, didn't announce myself earlier. Josh Slutton, Director of Social Thanks, Josh. Didn't do that earlier. So we are in looking at the information in the budget, it does appear that matching funds must be secured. That funding is going to go towards the hunger relief center. So an expansion or actually construction of a facility that's going to expand Dare2Cares ability to do meal prep and meal distribution. So an expansion of their service to the community. But I would defer to OMB if there's additional information regarding the match component of that. But it does appear that it's contingent upon that match and that partnership.

Can somebody clarify, is it an all or none? Or is it like if they come up with 2,500,000 do they get a $2,500,000 match? Good either way. I just want to know.

Aaron Jackson with OMB. So I may have to get back to you on the specifics of that. But that language was specifically asked to include for a couple of projects that are listed in the budget.

Yeah. And I think to be fair to the grantees, too, right? Like they should know if they I mean, frankly, I think it would stick if Bear DeCair came up with $2,900,000 and we're like, sorry. So I would imagine we'll match up to whatever they've created by a certain deadline. But I'd like to know that we have a deadline, number one. And number two, that there's a function. It looks like there is a function just to clarify it for them and for us.

Yeah. We've clarified that.

Thank you. And that's two. Can I do my last one? Okay. I do have a question about strategic focus.

So when I look at your twenty twenty five key outcomes, you focus on a bunch of different things, neighborhood place, the heart team, supportive housing, senior nutrition, planning and compliance. There's two other areas, financial empowerment and outreach and advocacy. I'm just curious as to the administrate the administration's position on the strategic necessity for these two areas. Here's why. Even as I read your own metrics, right, financial empowerment.

You did 1,300 counseling sessions provided to 570 clients. So 570 people. Some of them received multiple. But the point is you had five seventy people you helped out of and then it says more than 1,600,000 in personal debt reduced, which is great. Debt sucks. But the the we have to decide at some point. And then sorry. And then outreach and advocacy, quote, engaged 415 senior volunteers, provided sir hours of sir so many hours of service. It's a lot. So many hours of service.

Distributed 700 fans and 70 AC units. Is that how much let ask this question. How much money are we spending on these two efforts particularly? Because quite frankly, 700 fans and 70 AC units, like, you know, Amazon could distribute in about ten seconds for about twenty bucks. So, like, I hope we're not spending a lot of money on distributing things that could be done pretty efficiently.

And, I mean, I think it's wonderful for the 570 clients that were counseled, but there's about a million free resources now between the Internet and podcasts on on financial coaching. And I'm not sure if that's, like, a strategic unmet need, you know, where senior meals is a a unmet need. I'm not seeing that financial coaching is when there's so many other organizations and resources that could do it. So you could clarify how much we're spending on these two areas.

So Councilman, think as far as the exact dollar amount for those two branches under OSS, we can get back to you with the specific dollar amount to give you the specifics on that. And I appreciate the question because one of the things that I was hoping to be able to do was to brag on our team a little bit today and that we weren't going to have a presentation to start off with. And I guess probably the overarching thing I'd like to say in response is that OSS is really a continuum. So it's one department, several branches. But we call them branches and subdivisions because it's like a tree.

Everything is connected. And so when you see these individual programs and their outcomes, they stand alone, but they also are all connected. So every program within our department is referring to the other programs. And they're working together to kind of create a continuum of services and volunteer opportunities across the community. I mean, we believe that overall it improves the health of the community.

So for example, with financial empowerment, our counselors are located at our neighborhood play sites. They work hand in hand with our social workers at the neighborhood play sites and our coordinators and even our connector staff who help folks with enrollment and benefits, all kind of as one rowing in one direction to help people become more stable financially independent. And so that folks aren't going to end up on the street or end up in eviction court. And so we view it all as working together. So again, think it's a great question.

But what we see every day is we see these things kind of working all as parts of a whole in those teams. And then there's also a lot of crossover in those staff helping each other with their different expertise. So for example, if there's someone who is facing eviction and we're helping them with eviction prevention funds. But then they're also connecting them to the financial empowerment team to help them budget so they don't end up there again. And so it prevents recidivism.

And so we see a lot of value there. And the same with outreach and advocacy. We view that as having a strong connection to senior nutrition because you're also looking at opportunities for seniors to have enrichment opportunities, volunteer opportunities. They're helping younger generations and helping really improve quality of life for our seniors. And that program is funded through AmeriCorps, federal AmeriCorps grants, too. So we're talking primarily federal funding that fuels that program without having to dip into our general funds.

Yes. Just for clarity, if it was federally funded, of course, bring in the federal dollars. Right? But but, yeah, I'm really asking general fund dollars. So if you can clarify for me offline, that'd be great. Again, not just this is not a disparagement of the intent, but rather a question of are there other organizations that could do this better and more efficiently? The neighborhood places are great. You know, they connect people with all kinds of services, and it's just a question of whether or not, okay, there might be somebody else that we partner with to get that done that may not be a direct cost on us. But, again, if there's federal grant money, that that's a whole different story. So But yes, we can follow-up offline on the general fund

allocation.

We can definitely get you those specific numbers. But I'll also just mention our financial empowerment team is excellent at securing new funding. And so they're constantly on the hunt and often securing new dollars. So they're oftentimes not funding the entire program, but they're funding pieces. And so they're bringing a lot of new funding in to kind of help cover those expenses. And so they do try to help offset those costs as well.

You. You, Councilman. Madam clerk, if you please cause the record reflect, we've been joined in chambers by councilman Joseph and councilman chapel. We've also been joined online by councilman parish Wright and councilwoman McCraney. Councilman Bass, you're next in the queue.

Thank you. Thank you all for being here. I wanted to ask about let me get it. The affordable housing trust fund. So, it shows here OSS there was 21,318 of 1,100,000 appropriations in 03/31/2025 and '26 on the capital report. Then on 03/3126 the capital report shows nothing has been spent out of the two homebuyer assistant programs in 2026. Are those still active grants available for potential homebuyers?

Patricia Williams, Office of Social Services. That is actually an administrative error. Okay.

Will we get the corrected? Yes. Okay. Do you know what the error was or?

And those funds are in the office of housing and community development. So they exist but they are in that department and being managed by that department. Again I think that could be clarified.

All right and then my other question was for Arthur Street Hotel there was $250,000 added by council and it was not used. Do you know why it wasn't used?

It was used.

Okay.

Are you looking at something specific that says it was not used?

Yes. My apologies.

Beth?

I'm gonna call up Christina Bunch, is our manager for planning and compliance to respond.

Hi, my name is Christina Bunch, I am the manager for Plan and Compliance team. So Arthur Street has been using their funding. They're at a 75% spend rate at this moment. And we just have to wait for the last quarter, and they should be fully spent.

The entire $2.50? Yes ma'am.

All right, thank you.

If I may follow-up on that one before you walk away.

Could

you speak to reporting and relationships with that organization please? So I have a How effective has their reporting been? How consistent are they with the Secretary of State's office? And how effective have they been in carrying out their responsibilities?

I would say that they've been really effective. We've had a really good relationship with them. I have a contract coordinator that talks with the director, doctor Pacino, on a regular basis. Any types of, like, issues that we have with financial reporting, we go back to her and she is responsive. It does take some time, but it hasn't been anything that raises any red flags.

And are they have they been in good standing with the secretary of state's office?

Yes.

Thank you. Sorry Councilwoman you still have the floor I just was following up.

That was the two I had for now. Thank you.

Thank

you. Councilwoman Parker.

Yes, thank you. My question has to do with the association of the community ministries. Generally, this body is very favorable and with the community ministries because they can do a whole lot for a lot less than government can. But my question is we gave them 2 or 2,000,150 ks and 60% of that looks like it's going to salaries. So do we know if Metro completely funds these salaries?

Is that just going for the director of each of the 13 going to the director position?

So the salary line item, I don't have positions that are being budgeted. Christina feel free to come back up if you want to chime in but we do allow for salary to be included in the budget that may include case managers that may include some of the directors. I'm not 100% sure we would have to check back to see specifically which salaries are included in that line

item. Okay. Because I know we typically don't try to shoot. We try to shy away from funding a lot of salary positions and other organizations. So then another question with the ministries is this 2.15, is that in addition to the 1.6 that's allotted in the external agency portion of the budget?

So the 1.6 is what the original recommendation was I believe for FY '26 And with the amendments, it ended up at the 2.1. This year, the recommendation is 1.65. So taking it back to the standardized recommendation. And part of the reason for that recommendation is, one, I want to say we appreciate the partnership with the community ministries and we acknowledge and recognize that OSS does not do this work in solitude. However, we do view this work as supplementary.

The neighborhood places are considered the first resource and stop for rental assistance, for case management, for utility assistance, and typically, when individuals go to the ministries first, they ask, have you been to neighborhood place? So, I think as the first resource, then, we want to ensure that we are able to manage as a first resource and then utilize community ministries as supplemental. I also just want to add that when there are ordinances that add additional funding, know, OSS salary is already budgeted. So, we're able to provide that assistance fully and 100% directly to the community as opposed to you see the 60% that went to salaries.

Okay, just to clarify, did you say that the 1,600,000 is included in the 2.15? Is that what I heard you say?

No, I think we're saying two separate things. So for FY '26, the award was 2.15 after the ordinances. The original recommendation for FY '26 was 1.65. So the recommendation for FY '27 again is 1.65.

Madam Clerk if you could cause the record reflect to be joined by Councilman Winkler and he has an immediate follow-up Councilman Parker I'll be coming right back to you as soon as Councilman Winkler is finished.

Okay so our notes.

Councilman Winkler had an immediate follow-up to that question is it okay if he interjects here? I'll come right back to you.

Sure. Thanks. Sorry thank you. Just on that point the total amount allocated to the ministries, can you what percentage of that goes directly to clients versus internal costs? And then versus if that money were allocated through the neighborhood place, would 95% of it, 100% of it go out the door? Can you give us that comparison if you happen to know?

Absolutely. So with neighborhood place if we were allotted a certain amount for eviction assistance, rental assistance, 100% of that goes out the door because our salaries are already budgeted in our core. As of the time of this paperwork that we sent to you all for the ministries, 61% went towards salaries and about 34% was allocated towards assistance. Now, I do want to say in the sake of transparency, that is an allowable budget item and we allow that for other agencies to budget salary because for example, if you are delivering case management, it takes a person to do that, right? Our people are our highest expense always.

But the difference being that having that inside Metro allows us to be able to ensure that that money is going directly to those in need.

Yeah, it would just be nice if next time they could send over like how many positions and what the salaries are of those positions because if it's just for directors, they're making 100 ks per year, you know, generally.

Well and I will say for indirect staff there is a limitation on that so administrative costs not working directly with the community members there is a limit on that. I believe it's 15%. Yeah. Is it 15%? Yes, 15%.

Okay. And then just on their paperwork evidently it just showed that their tax return showed no paid employees. And that's all I have.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. I'm Councilwoman Parish Wright.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a few questions, but since I'm late, I'm going to email you all the rest of my questions. The first question was around, there's $8,000,000 plus non reoccurring opioid funds specifically and I just want a breakdown of where that is in the budget, what it's going to be spent on. I know you may not be able to answer that. That's just a concern of mine. The second question is, on page 141, there's non scheduled overtime Should

I point

of order

or should we wait? Okay.

Are you already what's wrong?

Councilwoman, the rules are pretty specific. You can't participate in a meeting if you're not on camera, and for whatever reason, turned your camera off. So I'm gonna ask please leave your camera on. Thank you.

Thanks. Thank

you. So I didn't turn it off. Went because my notes are on another screen. But the other question was around the overtime. There was a significant increase in the budgeted overtime. So I was looking at page 141 I believe for that. Just wanted to get some more information on that and I will email the rest of the questions to you all.

Thank you. Mr. Ratnam.

Yeah, Josh Ratnam again. Councilwoman, I think I can speak to both of those questions. So as far as Office of Social Services and opioid funds, moving forward into FY '27, we have $300,000 of opioid funds transferred to OSS for the unlawful camping docket diversion program. This is a program that is specifically working with those who are participating in that unlawful camping docket to provide them with case management and other essential services. And so that is in our budget.

There are other funds that are in Office of Housing and Community Development that we can access for some of our personnel costs that are related permanent supportive housing case management. So in other words, if we have a case manager who is in our department who is working on some of the new permanent supportive housing initiatives. And so even though those opioid funds exist in a different department, there's a grant tag that we can allocate funding to. So those are the two areas in next year's budget that as far as opioid funds that affect Office of Social Services. There were some capital funds related to capital projects for St.

Vincent de Paul and Healing Place that are going to carry forward because those projects are still underway. But as far as any new funding, they would be just what I described. And then as far as overtime, I believe that the increase in overtime can be it is related to the second shift work from our heart team and the Safe and Healthy Streets initiative. So there was funding by ordinance this year to support that second shift work and then we have additional funding for FY 2027 to support the second shift work for the team.

Thank you. And the Harte team's budget is under Home for Good. Some of the Harte team staff is under Home for Good. Can you explain that because they're not leading that? And my concern is because you have, as we just talked about, Arthur Street Hotel, you have Hope Village, you have all these other programs that have been housing a great deal of people and doing the work, Sheehan Landing included. And so I'm trying to understand the significance of the heart some of the heart staff being under the budget for Home for Good.

And I can let Director Pilbine speak to the Safe and Healthy Streets initiative. But I can tell you that the Heart team is fully under Office of Social Services. So that team is part under the umbrella of OSS fully. So hopefully that clarifies that. And then again, if you had some additional questions about safe and healthy streets or the work of our outreach team, I can Director Pilbien can come up.

Did did you have some additional questions for director Pilbian?

No, that was my three. I'll Email those questions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Hawkins.

Thank you. Thanks for being here today. I got a couple of questions. My first question is, could you go over all the areas that you serve that you service where all the neighborhood places are at?

Sure. So and I have some of my neighborhood place team behind me. So if I get any of this wrong, I'm going to be in trouble tomorrow. We have eight locations throughout Jefferson County. So we have a location in Eastern Jefferson County, that's Charmoli Neighborhood Place. We have South Central Neighborhood Place, which is centrally located South Jefferson in the Ferredale area, a satellite office in Valley, Northwest Neighborhood place in the Shawnee neighborhood. We also have Ujima Neighborhood Place, which is in the Park Duvall area. We also Bridges of Hope. Bridges of Hope in the Park Hill area. Run Neighborhood Place.

In First Neighborhood.

Is why I like

Teamwork makes the dream work.

First Neighborhood Place, which as the name would suggest was the very first neighborhood place that was created. And that's a TJ Middle in the Newburgh neighborhood. Did you want to hear more about all of what OSS does or just

Absolutely not. I know. I'm very confident. I just wanted to make sure that you knew because my colleague asked you a question, Councilman P. Argentinian, he asked you, you know, he said, well, could you tell me if the neighborhood place is the best that does this or does that?

And you didn't say that with your chest out. You know, you should've you know, I've used the neighborhood place years ago as well as so many others have. And for me, I wanna know is there a need for increase for financial assistance for rental help? That's what I want to know because for a department that services a lot of areas,

That's my question. Sure. Well, let me say with my chest out now. Neighborhood place That's the only way you go get some money. Neighborhood well,

Well you

know I'm big guy so I can be a little bigger. You know Neighborhood Place is an amazing asset to the city of Louisville. It is a nationwide model. It's innovative. There is very little like it across the nation as far as having an integrated one stop model where you can walk in the door and get a variety of social services in one place without having to travel and make multiple appointments.

I think our leader, Cassandra Miller, is extremely passionate and has for thirty years been carrying that torch and keeping the model strong. And the staff every day and and I'm gonna include our connectors. I'm gonna include our staff, our financial empowerment staff, and everyone. See, Neighborhood Place is the connector for OSS, which means that that is the front door for the city when anyone needs help. So that is the first place people go when they need help or they're in crisis or they might be having their worst day ever.

And so I give my hats off to our staff who meet people often on their worst day with a smile, with grace and with excellent customer service and they do a wonderful job. And so. I believe that. It is the city's responsibility to help take care of its citizens and provide that front line social service safety net that's what Office of Social Services does. That's what Neighborhood Place does is the frontline for our department.

And every day they are basically meeting people when they have their most basic need to have a utility bill paid and keep their lights on or to help prevent eviction or to get a referral when their child is in crisis, either at school or mental health crisis when they're facing a lack of benefits and they need to get connected. I mean, that's that's what neighborhood place is there for. So, again, I I appreciate the feedback because I do wanna shout from the rooftops about all of our staff, but they do amazing work, and I think it's essential to be a open door to the community to make sure that people know that the city is there for them in their toughest times.

So you would say that are you okay with the rental assistance? Do you feel like that you should have increased and if so what would that be?

So so you know we understand that this is this is a budget year that has challenges like any other budget year. And we understand that there are so many priorities when you look at all of Metro. And we understand the tough decisions have to be made. So I will say two things. One, that whatever budget we have to work with, we are going to do our absolute best.

And whatever line item we have as far as financial assistance, our people are still going to be there to welcome people in, even if that's just to give them referral, connect them, help them make a plan for getting the needs met. If we have additional resources, if there's additional funding, we will make sure that gets to the people who have the greatest need. And we will connect with our partners for additional needs. But we will any resources we have, we'll make sure that those get directly to the people in the community.

All right. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you councilwoman. Councilman Chappell.

Hello hi. And since Councilman Piagintini brought brought it up a little bit earlier, the air the air conditioning program, we just completed that and so thank you so very much. Through my office, we had 20 air conditioners go out and so folks came over to your office and picked them up. I hope that last straggler picked up their air conditioning unit but thank you so very much for the incredible work that you all do in day in and day out. I think what a 100 and how many people? And you guys do so very, very much.

186.

186

people. Well, thank you so very much. I want to take just a second to echo some of my colleagues' concerns or sorry if I'm putting that, projecting that word but on the Association of Community Ministries and there are some of those that do really really really incredible work and then there's some that are lagging behind greatly. And it seems like they just can't get themselves out of a hole. And so when it comes to looking at the efficiency of programs, we really want to make sure that we're helping people and not just the people that are barely keeping the ship afloat.

So I just want to say that I I feel like there is abysmal reporting and it's utterly opaque what they provide to us. And I think that I not only would love to know their pay not payroll, but you know who's on the payroll. The tax question is a very legitimate one but I would also love to know how much of that they're actually giving out because I mean we could give them money and we can't necessarily guarantee it's getting to where it needs to be. We just have to kind of trust that reporting. So I just want to encourage us to do a little bit better of a job in that and I think that there will be need for earnest discussion in the future about neighborhood places and ACM and how those two work together.

With that said, I will get to my questions. In the past we've funded organizations to offer hotel stays to people who are homeless during the cold winter months. Can you speak to how much we put into the budget this year versus last year for that program if any at all?

It is approximately 1,100,000 for FY '26 and it's the same for FY '27.

Thank you. And how much funding is being directed towards neighborhood places for eviction prevention?

So in the FY '27 budget there are well the first thing I would say is that and we've probably spoken about this before that because of the influx into Metro of federal dollars during and post COVID, something particularly called ERAP funding. There was a large influx of funding for eviction prevention, which was shared with the ministries and OSS. That funding has been expended. And so not only do we have that additional federal funding, but then that also allowed a lot of carryover from year to year. So any unspent funds could be carried over.

Really, we've just been very fortunate to have a lot of funding for eviction prevention. But this going into FY 2027, we do not have that. So again, not a budget cut, but just a budget reality and that those additional funds are just expended and they were time limited. So going into FY 2027, we have two basic funding streams for rental assistance or eviction prevention. One is general funds and one is the community services block grant, where I was able to have a portion of that funding reserved for assistance.

And so we are looking at approximately $1,400,000 in general funds through Neighborhood Place for eviction prevention and then approximately $300,000 in CSBG funds. So we put those together for about 1,700,000 that we would be able to distribute to the community through FY twenty seven.

Thank you. And my last question, could you explain what the Safe and Healthy Streets initiative is?

I'll defer to Director Pilbine.

Yes, ma'am. So it's a collaboration between the Heart team, public works, and LMPD. We go out several times a week, try to make sure that we are connecting folks to services and making sure and ensuring we have safe and healthy streets.

Thank you. I've searched for it before, and I can't find anything online. So if it's a public program, maybe we should do a better job of talking about it.

Yes, ma'am. That's good.

Thank you. I'm looking at the clock. We've got about twenty minutes left on the schedule. We have two folks who have not yet asked questions and a couple who are seeking to get back in the queue. We can run over if we need to. And if there's a bunch of questions, can always do a callback. I don't see a callback in our future, although that's not to say it couldn't happen. But colleagues if you just keep in mind we are kind of up against end of the committee. So Councilwoman Mulvey Woolridge.

Thank you. I do want to echo as well. Thank you for being here and for all that you all do, for the the community. And also want to echo what my colleague, Councilwoman Chappell said. This I think it was said last year, but we really do need to do a good better job of the accountability, and where our funds go and the reporting that comes back to us and making sure that, we're thorough.

Not I'm not only saying that to the Department of Social Services, but all of our departments. I think we need to make sure we're echoing that. And secondly, not sure if you can answer this question, but the budget island item for the home for good, my understanding is that that budget item is provided to be part of the services that are provided, along with the grants for the rent and security, not specifically to pay for the organizations or personnel for, like, heart, the mayor's office, or other nonprofits? Again, not sure if can answer that question today or not, but I know that those organizations and nonprofits and, you know, HEART do an amazing job. But, again, it's my understanding that those are going for the wraparound services and to engage in those, which is also kind of why we are working so hard to get those on board along with the grants.

And, Councilman, we know that the Home for Good initiative is driven by vision from the mayor's office to really align both metro agencies and nonprofit partners around a vision to provide more permanent supportive housing and supportive services and ultimately to get two fifty new people housed who are currently on the street. And so we're a partner in that initiative. But I know that that work is ongoing and it's in process right now.

Right. I guess my question was I just wanted to make that if you're aware of the budget item that's listed for the Department of Social Services, that it's for those services, not specifically for payroll for heart resources for Home for Good. And again, if I need to email that to ask more directly and you get an answer, I'm happy to.

There's no budget item in OSS's budget for FY twenty seven for Home for Good.

Okay, I apologize. Thought I saw it. Thank you.

I feel like I would be remiss if I didn't add. I think that OSS is really leading the way in terms of how we review impacts of these dollars going to these agencies every year. We do have annual evaluation that was implemented this year that we're happy to share with you. I want to shout out Planning and Compliance led by Christina Bunch because there was a lot of work and effort put in to really understand the impact, the outcomes, the responsiveness, the reporting and spending. It's a huge file but we're happy to share that with you all.

Yeah I think that'd some of us would be very interested in that. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilman Tom.

Thank you, mister chair. We've finally was able to get a staff member at the Platorium in Fairdale on '26. Is that position going to be supported in '27?

It has been recommended. Yes.

And we when we had the budget item put in, we didn't fill the position for almost a year. What happened to that money? How's that accounted for?

So I believe it started in Parks and Recs and then it is actually in process of being transferred to OSS now. So I think the question would be with Parks and Recs for that initial appropriation.

Thank you.

Thank you. Councilman Winkler. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The question I've got and maybe this is for John, I don't know, but what would be the top one or two investments that we could make that would have the most or additional funding that we could give you that would have the most direct impact on street homeless and panhandling?

I think a quick answer for that would be twenty four hour shelter. Okay. Additional twenty four hour shelter beds.

And if I could ask a follow-up there, John, would through our funding additional funding to like St. John's or our partner agencies or like

I would suggest partner agencies. Healy Place does a great job. St. John's, Wayside, any of those would be great.

Okay. And for any particular segment, because we've got men, couples, child, like And if you don't know the second. I mean if it

Yeah, if I could probably get back with you on that one. Families, of course, is always great. Seniors, children, young adults would probably be top. But yeah, I can get you a better answer on that,

I'd appreciate it.

Thank you. Yes.

Thank you. Councilwoman Bass.

First I want to ask on the miscellaneous supplies. Physical year '26 the original budget was 13,900. The revised budget for '26 was a 102,500 and then the fiscal year twenty seven proposed budget is '25 what caused the need to add to the physical year '26 budget?

You said it was miscellaneous supplies? Yes. Let's check with Owen Beach just a moment.

Let us do some research and get back to you on the answer to that specifically.

Okay. And then my other question was on page two thirty two that you all supplied the proposed '27 budget was different amounts for up for women and children it says 45,400 what was the extra $28,000

So there was an allocation to Up as a partner, but there was also a competitive process through our office. So we can look at those details if you give us just a moment.

While she's looking for that, just a follow-up I was thinking about, I'm going to bounce back to the Arthur Street. Additionally was there a reason it wasn't funded in '27? Was it lack of information and complete documentation?

So Arthur Street applied through the competitive process through EAF and was not recommended based off the panel scores and reviews. I will say though they have done a good job at getting people in the hotel, we have struggled with getting compliance to what we require of other agencies in terms of we're looking at case management and wraparound services that are not just a band aid of giving somebody a hotel stay for a night, but really looking at how we get them towards greater stability. Sure. And we did struggle with getting comprehensive information. We did get minimum information.

Okay, thank you for that.

And the 28,000 was through competitive CDBG funding?

Right. And the additional recommendation was to provide additional support for their day shelter to kind of supplement for what wasn't recommended through the competitive funding process.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Councilman P Argentini.

Thank you. I I want to clarify this question of overhead. Related to really any any any money that goes out there including rental assistance. First of all, I would just make a general comment. I I I would I would push back that your department doesn't have overhead. It's just not accounted the same way. Right? In other words, if I took away all the funding that you all distribute, I'd probably cut your head count in half. Right? Because you wouldn't need as many people to do the job.

So it's just a matter of this budget pays for that and this budget pays for that, and and it doesn't it doesn't hit you know, take it out of the charitable money. But there is overhead. Right? Now it's not 60%, to be super clear, which is what I wanna come back to related to what you said about the community ministries. I I know community ministries that serves my area, which is Eastern Area Community Ministries, and I know them to be quite a great organization, very efficient.

I think somebody said something about a 100,000 a year. I know that's not true related to at least the leadership that I know. So is it that that the community ministries have an overhead if we give them rental assistance dollars that only 30 plus percent short of 40% makes it to the end user and over 60% is used? Because then we mentioned a 15% admin cost. I'm trying to jive this. 15% would make some sense to me. Mhmm. 60% doesn't make sense to me. And now I'm not sure what is happening. Can somebody clarify this really easily for me?

Absolutely. So the 15% is indirect administrative costs. So if you've got an executive director or a front office receptionist that doesn't necessarily work directly with the client but they may touch it in some way. So that's a standard amount that they're allowed to charge to the grant. Now in terms of the actual work in the program, some folks do charge salaries to that grant.

That may be an employee that is a social worker, that is providing case management, that's a therapist. So that is related to the program and we consider that more of a direct cost. There's not currently a limitation on that unless you all specify in an appropriation like the mid year ordinance for the ACM that only this amount can be used for administrative.

Okay. Okay. But that seems a bit of an oversight in our part, and we probably should create a standard. Right. And not and and not just for the ministries. I think for I think this is opening up a can of worms for all of the charitable organizations that public dollars go to. We need full transparency on what is going to the end users and what is and what is going toward paying salaries and those types of things. We obviously need people to do the work, so I'm not disputing that. And, again, even even if I were to do the math here, I can create an overhead cost that your department has on end user dollars versus what we're paying on on your old salary. So the question is just who is doing it more efficiently.

Right? It could be that the amount of dollars that we give your the OSS versus what hits the end user is a 30%, you know, to staff salaries and all this stuff, again, which I'm fine with. We have to pay people to do this work, and you all do a great work. Right? So it's just a matter of understanding what it is and, comparatively, is this more efficient than that, which is not clear to me.

So, yeah, I think we're not gonna solve that in this meeting. I just wanna clarify it. I appreciate you clarifying it, and I think we need to work offline to quantify this accurately in partnership with the community ministries and then figure out and not just them, but anybody, again, we're giving money to, and then figuring out, Okay, what are now the best solutions moving forward? But I think we can get there. But thank you very much for clarifying that. That was helpful.

Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Chappell.

Sure. Just wanted to touch on UP and St. John Again, it looks like UP is getting a total of $155,700 from local metro. About 82,300 of that is EAF. I'm also looking at Saint John and it looks like they're getting a $192,300 and that's coming from EAF and ESG grant I think Mhmm.

And OSS, you all. So that's $44,000 from you all. And that's a total of a $192,300. Both of these organizations are citing about, I think St. John's 43% and up is about a 50% reduction from fiscal year twenty six. So I was wondering if you all could speak to justify why those are are getting reduced funding.

Absolutely. So I want to just I guess clarify. I know that these agencies start to rely on this funding once they get funded in a single year. However, these recommendations were made through the competitive process. So the external panels score those applications and then made a budget recommendation as well.

And so that's how they ended up with these numbers. I will also say with St. John, I don't think it's quite 42%. I think we may be a little bit off on the difference from the current fiscal year. But the recommendation was based on what the panel walked away with.

And we also, know, we value the partnership of both St. John and UP. One of the ways we're able to provide service provision and fill any gaps is through the process of using the homeless initiative funds as well because we know they're providing shelter services which is our key priority.

And not well I guess a question. If a council member wanted to see maybe the last five years of funding for both of those organizations, would I be asking that? I just didn't know what point that should be asked since those organizations get funding from multiple departments. So I'll find that information and we'll get it out to everyone on council. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilwoman. I had just a real quick question. I'm looking at page 158 of the proposed executive budget. And I'm looking at expenditures by category. And at first glance, I was curious about the contractual services, but then I slowed down and looked at all of expenditures by category.

And I'm curious if you could speak to that whole thing. Personnel services goes from $6,681,000 up to $7.396 and then up to $7,559,000 Contractual services goes from $8,000,600 roughly to $10,000,000 then it goes up to $14,000,000 then it goes back down to $9,000,000 Supplies went from 171,000,000 down to $145,000,000 then up to $237,000,000 then down to 70 And then equipment capital overlay started at 39, went down to $439,600 and then went down to 400. And then your total expenditures are equally I mean, my goodness, your total expenditures start at $15,492,000 and go up to $37,767,000 back down to $22,000,000 and then back up to 37,900,000 And that's over the course of your prior actual was twenty twenty four, twenty twenty five. Your actual total expenditures were $15,400,000 The original budget for 25,260,000 was $37,000,000 The amended went down to $22.95 and now the proposed is back up to $37,000,000 Can you just speak to that entire expenditures by category section?

So Councilman, in speaking with Director Jackson, the personnel services line, we believe, is related to the master contract.

That one's the most consistent, if I can say.

Certainly, that affected our personnel line. As far as the others, I believe we're going to have to research and come back with a response. Please. And we can provide more detail on that once we look into that.

Thanks. It just was kind of all over. That was the last question that I see from any of my colleagues. I'm looking towards the screen to see if you went online. It doesn't look like it. Folks, we did well. According to my clock, it's 05:14. We're supposed to finish at 05:15. So you've got one minute to do the bragging you wanted to do, and then I'm going to adjourn the meeting.

All right. Well, we'll take that opportunity because again, I guess, I had a chance to brag on our staff a little bit earlier. But I think for to speak for Director Williams a bit too, I think we're very proud of our staff. This is very difficult work. And I think it's getting tougher just because of certain systemic issues. And so our folks every day have to kind of go out there and put on some armor and deal with some really tough situations, whether it's our teams who are working on the street or teams who are working on-site or even in the community and doing home based work. So we're very proud of them, and we are very appreciative of what they do every day. We do think it makes our city better, healthier, safer, and stronger.

Thank you, Director. We appreciate you

being here. Thank you for the opportunity to say that.

You're quite welcome. That brings us to the end of this session. The next session is supposed to start immediately following this one. So there is a brief pause, long enough to switch seats and get Metro TV ready. What that means for those of us in chambers is, if it's necessary for you to step out, please feel free to do so.

But when you come back in, we will have already started the next session. So just be aware. Metro TV will start in thirty seconds. Thank you, colleagues. Welcome back.

I am Kevin Kramer, chair of the budget committee. I'm joined in chambers today by council members Piagetini, councilwoman Chapel, councilman Joseph, councilman Sam, councilman Herndon, councilman Hawkins joined online by councilwoman McCraney and Councilwoman Parish Wright. We will continue our hearings with the external agency panels. As a reminder, departments will not make opening comments and we will begin immediately with council member questions. Council members are also allowed to ask three questions at a time.

After that, you will need to get back in the queue. We'll also call on first time questions from council members before I call on those who have already asked questions up. I want to remind you before we start discussing the combined EAF social services, EAF violence prevention services and EAF arts total proposed operating budget for FY twenty seven of $2,250,000 Welcome directors. So they've Doctor. Williams and Wetnam has stepped away, but it looks like Assistant Director Carlo Kirby is with us and Director Kincaid are both here to join us.

So, I'm gonna go ahead and start with a question, if I may, and then we'll jump right in. Can you briefly explain the whole EAF social service selection process? How's that for an opening question? I should point out, in fairness, for the viewing public who may or may not fully understand what this looks like, if you could explain. Also we have some new council members and many of them have served on your panels, but not all have. So if you wouldn't mind just a real quick explanation. Thank you.

Just to clarify, was that question for social services specifically?

It's a question about the EAF process. Like how does it work?

Okay. Jessica Kinkade, Director of the Office of Arts and Creative Industries. So there are three different agencies that administer competitive EAF grant programs. We have worked over the last year to systemize that process and the administration of those programs to the best of their ability to align while also acknowledging that we run different programs and are serving different sectors. So we all open our applications on the same day.

We leave them open for the same amount of time. We are using the same grants administration portal to receive those applications and administer the program. At the point at which applications close, we've assembled an external grant panel of subject matter experts to help us evaluate the applications. We send those out. All of the agencies have at least three panelists review each application.

I do think that there is a little bit of difference in the scoring and the evaluation criteria and the points assigned to different scoring categories across the different agencies and then those scores are received They're aggregated and averaged across the three different panelists and then we convene either an in person or a virtual meeting for all of the panelists to discuss the scoring outcomes and then the panel agrees on a list of recommendations to forward to the mayor's office for recommended funding.

Great, thank you. Councilman Winkler.

Thank you Chair Kramer.

Sorry, I was not expecting to go next, so I apologize. No way. Thank you. I'd like to follow-up and piggyback off Councilman Kreindler's question. I'll first make a statement, which I think we have a review process and I think it's wise for us to remember that overturning what the panel does then why even have a panel?

I mean I think you all spend time, review, get input and so from my position at least that's something that I'm reticent to do because I think that's why you're there and interviewing you sort of collectively. I have two questions related to the process. Number one, mentioned that you've got the panelists scored independently and then you bring those scores together. If there is a panelist that has a significant delta from the other two, do you account for, do you throw that out, do you like talk about what resulted? Because, you know, one person interpreting something significantly different could dramatically impact somebody's scoring.

So can you speak to that part at all?

I can speak to it for arts and creative industries. So as part of revising our program over the last year, we have done significant work to amend our scoring rubric to be very explicit about if you're going to assign this score, these criteria must be met. That has helped curtail a lot of disparities between reviewers at points. And as always in years past and again this year when there is a distinct difference or an outlier of one panelist, we do call that to the attention of the panel. We share the aggregate scoring with our review panel in advance of our meeting so that if there is a panelist who notes that an organization perhaps didn't score as highly as they thought or there was you know something that they can be prepared to speak to that.

And on and in certain instances where there is a very wide range of scoring we will slate those for special discussion during the panel convening but since we have revised our rubric we have seen a significant decline in the occurrences of disparate scoring amongst panelists.

Great, thank you. And then the last question I've got on that topic is we got a spreadsheet and I think it was sent from you all and I apologize if staff referred it. But it listed the not recipients, right? Gave their score and then the right most column it just says didn't score high enough. But it doesn't really have any detail as to why.

Can I get that detail? And then do you share that rubric in detail with the panelists? Because as you might imagine, myself and I'm sure most of my colleagues are getting called by these organizations saying, understand why you know we didn't get funded you know we think we've got a strong case and I think it would be helpful to have that information and understand. So if you could share that with us if you haven't already would be quite helpful.

Absolutely and just to let you know we do share that feedback proactively with our applicants when they're notified about whether or not they are recommended for funding for you know space as a commodity and those spreadsheets when we send them to you. But we do have a couple of different options for reviewers to select sort of pro form a feedback about why they might not have scored a particular category very high and then they're also always welcome to add additional comments specific to an application and we do aggregate those and send them to the applicants when they are notified of funding as well.

You. Councilman Piagentini.

Thank you Mr. Chair. So thank you for being here. I've been through this process before. I'm glad we've changed some things and actually I think the forward process is much better. I'm very happy with that. On the back end, still look at this. And some of these organizations I know very well, some I don't, obviously. And we were just talking about other organizations a second ago. Again, disparity within those organizations of who's efficient, who's not.

How do we and do we, particularly around the social services grants, the arts grants, like, have a final metric? Like, they have to report out on the final metrics of what they did and we archive that somehow? We do.

We do, yes. So we haven't received our final closeout reports for this year obviously. We are doing quarterly reporting for grants above a certain amount and then twice a year reporting for grants under a certain funding level. So we have received activity reports and financial reporting at a regular cadence throughout the year. And several of our grantees are reporting that they've exceeded their the goals that they've set for their performance with quantitative numbers provided.

Could we is there a way to get that in an organized manner? And literally and by mean that and more not so much fiscal. Fiscal, I'm sure you're monitoring it. That's a little more cut and dry. You have this much money. You're reporting out. You're putting the receipts in. Okay, great. We're following the process. But more the outcome measurements. Is there a way, without sending each report individually, that we could almost chart out, like here are the different grantees by row, here are their metrics and here's what was assumed and here's what they hit. Can we create that when it's done, when it's closed out? Is that possible?

Definitely something we can take a look at on how to format that for sure.

Yeah, thank you. Let's look back after the fiscal year is closed, after the reports are read, let's look back on that because what I'd like to be able to do moving forward is if those organizations ask again, we could actually add as one of the criteria. If you've done it again, did you hit the metrics last time? Yes or no. And maybe they get bonus points if they did or something like that.

And then the last question I have is hyper specific. And look, I was not in this group that made these decisions. Normally, wouldn't second guess these decisions, but I do have a question about one. And that is Louisville Public Media. Why are we giving money to a media outlet as a government or agency? Why would we do that?

We did fund them last year as well. So we are aligning

My fault for missing that.

We are aligning our since we've shifted to operating support we are funding arts and cultural organizations and we are aligning our how we define an arts and culture organization along with the Kentucky Arts Council and the National Endowment for the Arts, which does include film and media arts. So they have the we've specified that we're looking at the NTEE codes which is their taxonomical category as a nonprofit and they do fit into our eligibility criteria.

Okay. I think we need to talk about this, which we're not gonna do it here. But the reason being is I see it as a colossal conflict that we are funding an organization who also has it as their mission as, you know, the the as a media outlet to then look at what we're doing and scrutinizing it. Right? I mean, theoretically, if I gave WDRB a million dollars, maybe they'll shut up and stop running articles about things we do wrong. Right? So so I mean, I'm not I'm not saying that's happening here, but I'm saying we can all get how weird this could start to look. That's not to impugn, again, the intent. I'm sure what they're proposing had nothing to do with that and maybe is totally legit. And I'm sure, because they're not for profit, they fit the criteria.

It's just I'll acknowledge that they are in a unique position because they are not for profit. That is a media organization. They are rightfully so quite critical of government. They should be. They're part of the watchdog apparatus of free media. But it just looks weird when the government is then giving that same media organization money. And I I don't know if we're gonna do anything now, but I think before the next budget cycle, we need to refine the criteria and see if if there's other conflicts like this that might look weird. So that one just jumped off the page to me.

I would also be happy to provide you with the budget breakdown of what they've proposed to use their funding towards. It's to support things like Waterfront Wednesday, their, you know, live lunch support for music local music artists.

Trust me. I'm not disputing that they're proposing it to be used in in fine ways that aren't that on paper would not be seen as a conflict. But at the same time, they are still a media they are still media organization, you know, a reporter, a reporting media organization that scrutinizes this government agency. And it just looks weird. And so, again, we're not going to solve it here. I'll stop talking about it. But I think we need to talk about it offline during the year and figure out if that if we're gonna continue doing that moving forward. So thank you, mister chairman.

Thank you. Councilman Hawkins.

Thank you. Thanks for being here today. Just a couple of questions. The process. The process. The comes up with that process? For the for who's who comes up with that process? Because I know it's council members that sit on and have to grade, and I know this this particular year, I just have to ask this question, it sucks. Like, you know, I don't know if it's on our end. We was told at the last minute to get on there to do it, and then we gotta figure this out and figure that out.

You I I just wanna work on that process. But I guess my question is is for the entities that have been granted these awards, are there any entities, at least five entities that has been granted these awards for the last past three years data wise?

So councilman, do you want me to answer your first question?

Yeah. You can't let me give them time to think about my

next one. Yeah. Where the I mean, the process was created collectively between the administration's recommendations and then staff, councilman Kramer, myself. They sent feedback.

We didn't find out until the last minute.

About?

About how to get on her and who

Who who was on the EAF panels? Yeah. I can't answer that. That's not I don't assign the people to the No.

No. No. I was fine with being on it myself and a colleague of mine. Yeah. But what I'm saying is is when it got sent to us, when we started to get out, I mean, it it was a whole process.

My district was the other

Yeah. I mean, was a whole process. So I'm just saying, you know So

if I could say as chair of the budget committee right this minute, and who knows what next year brings. But as chair of the budget committee right now, I'm saying to everyone of my 26 colleagues, we are always looking for people to be on these panels. If you have any desire to work on one of these panels, please let us know. The appointments are actually made by the president. But I assure you, the chair and the vice chair, as well as staff, will do everything in our power to make sure that the president knows that you are interested in serving on these panels.

Every year, when it comes time to make these appointments, the president is left trying to get people into these slots. And that could be a matter of, councilman to your point, it very well could be that the folks who are most interested, he wasn't aware that they were interested. So my point would be again to my colleagues and understanding there's an election in November, so we may have some new folks. But we will certainly in the orientation process make our new council members aware that these policy that these EAF alternative opportunities these EAF opportunities are available to them. And again please you have an interest in any one of these, this to all 25 of my colleagues, please let staff know and reach out to the president and we will do everything we can to make sure you have an opportunity to serve.

Thank you so much. I think you know I wanna give our president his credit that's deserved. He was spot on with putting us on there. It was the process once I don't think that they was aware. I don't know if they got it sent last minute or what, but the whole process, if we would just know ahead of time and be able to navigate through the system that you all have, that would be awesome because it was a lot to to where I was like forget it and I don't want to feel like that. Right?

EIF panels. I know that this process is a lot different for those who have done it in the past because it used to be a fully manual process. So I do realize that it's gonna take a little bit of time for us all to get acclimated with the software and I will speak for OSS but I think my colleagues would agree as well. I mean we are happy to sit down with you and start sooner than later to make sure everyone is familiar with the system and so it's not a last minute like let me hurry up because we also want to ensure that every agency and every application is getting the same attention and detail and focus. To your second question, I am almost certain that we have agencies that were recommended that have received funding for three or more years.

I will say for OSS we have a supply and demand issue. So based on our priorities, I think that will probably continue to happen. We will look and give those specific agencies that have been funded three years or more but I think for us there's just not enough providers doing the work around homelessness so you're going to continue to see the same agencies get funded.

Councilman Hawkins?

Yeah and just to echo off of your answer, it just everybody deserves a shot, Right? And it's just not a you know if you don't give a person or an entity an opportunity to show you know, their work, how do you ever know? Right? If we continue to one of the things that I've learned since I've been on Metro Council, a lot of my colleagues are firm believers in sustainability. After so many years, an entity should be sustainable to where we should not have to fund them.

Right? I just wanna I don't wanna take away from those good entities, but I want to also give other entities the opportunity to be able to have access to those fundings after we've given other entities an opportunity to become sustainable.

Absolutely. I think we defer to the pleasure of Metro Council. So whatever you decide obviously we're going to follow. But what I would like to see more of is agencies taking advantage of the technical assistance that we provide. Susan Durham with the mayor's office offered many opportunities for folks to receive some grant support, training, and typically it's a couple agencies that attend.

And I think just remembering that this is a competitive process and I had a particular agency reach out to me that was upset that was funded last year, didn't get recommended this year. And they admitted that they didn't really put enough information on their application. They said we thought everybody knew who we were. Well no, this is a competitive process and it is being managed by an external panel so this is not us scoring this and we were very open and transparent. So even though we've simplified the application, a lot of the comments we've seen from panel reviewers was they didn't answer the question.

So I think we have to hold these agencies accountable too. If they want the money there's a requirement in order to receive that recommendation and then to also continue to get it.

Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilwoman Parker.

Thank you. I've served as judge and jury a couple times in the past and so I was a little surprised when I saw that you were doing it different this year where you were funding operating instead of programs and that everybody got at least 25,000. So I guess I don't understand that in some ways because like I mentioned before we're not always that crazy about operational. So where my thinking is going is if we're just doing operational how are we making the folks that we are funding accountable because one of the questions that a lot of us always ask was what is your measurable outcomes. That was a big thing.

Almost none of them could ever give you good measurable outcomes. They would say twenty, fifty people attended the event, we did a survey and they all had a great time. That's not a measurable outcome to me. A measurable outcome is know did you stay in school for six months, how many people got a job you know, after a year's time. And so when we're just giving money to the organization for operating cost, you know, I think there's room for abuse there.

You know, the director could just give themselves a $25,000 year raise. So how are we measuring outcomes now that we're doing it differently because we couldn't measure outcomes very well in the past and they couldn't provide that. We did programs and getting to the 25 ks, you know, there were some programs say they were 18,000. So, they could get funded at 18,000 and with that program because it was a specific specific happening they could come back and give you measurable outcomes at least in some fact and not great ones but of what that program did. So, that's where I'm at on this.

I'm a I'm a little I don't know what the right adjective is. Frustrated.

So councilman I'll let them answer your questions but in response to the decisions about the process itself that was a decision that was made last year that would allow for an amount to go to operating. There was a percentage and again they can speak more clearly to that than I can. And the decision was that 25,000 will be the minimum because the feeling was we wanted to make sure that we were, we Metro Louisville was offering grants to organizations that we could actually see long term results. And the feeling was anything less than 18,000, it was more, you know, we're given 5,000 this organization, 10 to that one, and it really wasn't about those, those issues or concerns that matched up with Metro Louisville's responsibilities and what Metro Louisville would do ourselves otherwise. The whole idea is that we're looking towards these external agencies to provide services that Metro Louisville would otherwise provide, but that they can provide more efficiently or more effectively.

And so we wanted to make sure it was stuff that fit into that category. So these are the kinds of things we would normally do or we'd normally feel in some way responsible for. So the floor was set at 25. There was some discussion making it higher. I don't think there was a whole lot of discussion making it lower. And then the operating piece, I think that came into play with, again, you can have folks you can give money to an agency. But in order for them to actually do the things they need to do, they have to have employees. And so there was some of that too. Chair, I could add. Councilman Winkler.

Yeah, the operating only was only done for the arts organizations, and that was done for two reasons. Number one, the arts organizations across the city were struggling in the post pandemic era and it was a conscious decision versus saying what we found is that arts organizations were creating programs just for the sake of being able to apply for funding. That wasn't really their need. Their need was for us to stay afloat, we need some general operating support because it's very hard to raise money to pay the It's easy as an arts organization to go out and raise money because you want to build a new wing or start a new program. It's much harder to raise money because you've got to pay the light bill or buy paper towels or all those sorts of things, and that's in the process we made the conscious decision for the arts organization specifically that the city would provide, that you could apply for general operating support to cover those base costs versus creating a new program just for the sake of asking for funding.

And so this is the second or third year that we've done that for arts.

So at that point again we'll throw it back over to your questions for the directors. I didn't mean to

No cut them that's helpful. Yeah because and then I do know in the past that brand new organizations they didn't really have a proven track record but the ones that had been in existence for a while did.

That's correct and we do require I believe you have to be operating nonprofit in Louisville for three years before you're even eligible to apply for this funding so that you do have that proven track record to justify the funding being awarded. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. Councilwoman Bass.

Thank you.

Let's see. I'll start with my first three and then I'll get back in the queue. So, let's start with the easy one. Start with this one. So, I was curious because the Ferrodale Area Community Ministries has been closed since 2020 and for some reason, there's funding for 16300.

This might be the wrong dates. Scratch that one that has answered my own question. Alright go to this one. Why are the funding appropriations and individual agencies different in fiscal year twenty seven from fiscal year twenty six even though the total funding from fiscal year twenty seven to '27 did not change?

Is that question in reference like per agency why the funding recommendation is different? Yes. Okay so the way the process works is that application is scored three times and we take the average score to give them a total out of a 100 and then, they make a recommendation. You're shaking your head. Are you talking about ministries? Yes. Okay. Can you repeat the question?

So, in the unused part, there are organizations that will not be getting the total proved a grant award. Yes. So the funding appropriations in the individual agencies, If you're looking at fiscal year twenty seven from '26 even though the total funding from '27 to '27 did not change.

So the breakout for the individual ministries is provided to us by the ministries. So we make a recommendation of the total but they give us the individual awards based off a calculation, a formula that they use that measures percent of poverty and need. So they would have the more detailed response as to why that may look different per agency. We can reach out for that answer. Okay.

If I may, I think the real question here is we know for certain that there are grants that are offered and that that grant is not fully recognized and some of those monies aren't spent. Right? So where are those dollars?

I'm not aware of dollars not being spent.

So there are organizations that aren't using the total approved grant award. They may be finishing. They may still going to use it between now and the end of the year. But if they haven't used it yet, where is that money? And if they're not going to use it, where will that money go?

So we still have one quarter.

Thank you. That's the question. So your anticipation, if I can finish that out, oh yes please introduce yourself for the record.

I'm Christina Bunch, I'm the Planning Compliance Thank Manager for

you Christina. Your anticipation is that these organizations will in fact will use every bit of their grant money before the end of the quarter?

Yes that's

Okay that was my question thank you.

And then I'm going to ask a question in from District 25. Councilman Bashon asked me the EFA panel came in in an agreement and voted on it to reduce ideas x lab to 25 k and add Louisville Folk School to the funding of 25 k. Holistic panel and determined that the application had harsh graders and the meeting progressed and they all agreed and determined that it was going to be funded so can you explain the why or where the discrepancy is now it's not being funded after it said it was going to be funded?

Yes I can. So during the panel meeting there was an organization that one panelist felt like needed to be elevated in the ranking but the culminating conversation was that the scores weren't changed. In summary they wanted to jump an organization who had scored significantly lower than I think the total was maybe 10 or 11 other organizations but did not have any discussion to adjust or amend the funding and their recommendation was forwarded to the administration and the decision was made to go with the scores that were assigned as far as the ranking goes.

According to Councilman Bashon after discussions and it was ranked higher it was all in agreement to become funded so he he really was adamant that this needed to be added and funded since that was agreed upon amount in discussion in the

way it was scored so the scores did not change through the panel meeting. So there was no discussion about changing an organization's score. The discussion was one panel member or one panel member representative had advocated strongly for this organization to be funded. There was I think significant conversation amongst the panelists and again that recommendation was forwarded but then upon further review there's also a policy within EAF not to award partial funding to organizations. We've encountered that in the past where an organization has applied for a certain amount of funding and the panel has adjusted the funding amount that then would not enable them to put we were putting organizations in a position to not be able to meet the obligation that they proposed in their grant application.

So the decision was made to go with the scores that were assigned. So the scoring was not adjusted for either organization that you mentioned.

And if you don't mind I'm Susan Durham from the mayor's office. The office of arts and cultural industries brought this to us And we did a thorough review of the situation. We take those scores very strongly. The mayor's office does not interfere with the panelists' recommendations. But we looked back into what applicants were told.

And at the beginning of the process through guidelines that were released in January, the applicants were told this is how you get a grant. You get a certain score and if you're within the funding level, you will get funding. And we thought that if this change stood that there would not be integrity to the process that we had informed the whole community existed.

So I guess based on that then why do we even open this up for discussion and have votes during these discussions to prove or not prove during this process if it's just going to be null and voided based on something outside of the discussions and votes.

So to be clear this was an aberration this is something that had not happened before those scores are the basis of the funding and to have someone lobby for someone who did not score high enough and for the panelists to agree it is something that just doesn't happen and it's not what those meetings are meant to be.

But it was what the meeting was and it was one of the second highest scoring's and other organizations.

That's not accurate I'm sorry but that's what he relayed to me so we make One panelist that. I believe that was one panelist's second highest score but in terms of the average I can give me one second I can tell you where they are.

If I could interject for just a moment while you're looking so I'm not suggesting you stop. We heard in previous testimony that if there was a score sheet that came in and there was a wide disparity between what some of the members said and what one member said, they would go back and consider that wide disparity. And if they recognize there was a reason for that wide disparity, they would agree to change the scoring. What I just heard Ms. Kincaid testify is that they did go back and discuss it, but they did not change the score.

So apparently, whatever the disparity was or if there was a disparity, I don't know if there was a wide disparity or not. It's obvious one council member felt strongly about this organization. I don't know if there was a wide disparity in the scores. Like if his was or hers was one high one and everyone else's was low, there needs to be a conversation around that disparity. If there's a need to change, think we do that.

But again, if we're going to have a rubric and we're going to say to the public this is our process, it doesn't it's very difficult for us to publish later that this was the scoring on the rubric and that a council member was able to to insist on a higher or lower award because that throws everybody who's asking for a grant into this weird place where they feel like it's not a level playing field. So the goal is to try and keep that level playing field. Now again, miss Kincaid, I did not mean to cut you off. I hope that gave you time to find what you're looking for.

It did. Thank you very much. So the organization in question scored thirty second out of a field of 43. So they were 13 ranks below the other organizations before they would have even gotten to the funding threshold. So there was no discussion about adjusting scores. There was just an insistence that they felt strongly that this organization should be funded regardless of the score that they received which is not consistent with our process and to speak to you know the anomalies the scoring was pretty consistent with the the other two panelists.

I think more of what he was trying to understand is it was open for discussion and voted on it it was agreed upon that it would be funded to then learn later turn around and find out that it wasn't and that was what was agreed upon.

I think that there was a discussion about a panelist feeling strongly that it should be funded but again there was no adjustment made to the score there was no discussion about adjusting the score. No this wasn't about the score it was the discussion and then everyone agreed and voted that it should be funded and then to later find out that it was not funded. He was wanting to know why it was discussed voted on agreed upon and then removed without discussion. So the the recommend the it's not a vote of whether or not it would be funded it was a recommendation being forwarded to the mayor's office which it was It was brought to the mayor's attention and it was discussed and it was determined that in order to maintain the integrity of our process that we needed to be consistent with the scores, the actual scores that were assigned.

Okay.

I can't help but notice miss Maiton you've taken the microphone.

Dana Maiton, Deputy Mayor for Operations and Budget. I'm a little surprised by the question because we did follow-up with Councilman Batchon after all of this transpired. And I think we're hearing a couple different versions of events and I would appreciate the opportunity for us to follow-up directly with him. Sure. And then if we need to come back and and provide additional information to the committee, we're obviously happy to do that but we thought that this had all been resolved.

Yeah it was just he said he couldn't be here today and he wrote all of this down and he just wanted some answers on record for it so.

We appreciate that. Thank you Ms. May.

We'll follow-up with him. Miss Bass any further questions? Great. Councilwoman Chappell.

As someone that served on the EAF panel for arts I just I don't have a question, but I just want to say that I really feel like our process is very thoughtful. I really appreciate our Louisville Metro staff folks and how much time they put into the process. It's thought out but one of my favorite things and I think that's something that gives me a lot of confidence about the the program in the process and again I can't speak for the other two buckets of EAF funding but I can say that after everything was scored we reviewed them and the committee met for two hours and we discussed all of it and we did make some changes but for the most part it was a very, very fruitful, thoughtful discussion. And I think that people felt comfortable in the space to express when they felt uncomfortable. And we were really able to talk through that.

And so I just want to say my experience this is my fourth year serving. And it's always been a good one. But I see on the arts panel that process being a very solid one. And I hope to instill confidence in my colleagues in that process. And of course, every year we wish we could fund everyone. But that's not the reality but thank you to everyone that applied.

Thank you very much.

Thank you councilwoman. I don't see anyone else in the queue and the last two questions I had have been asked So if there's no one else that has any questions, we will call this meeting to a close. Thank you for joining us, colleagues. Tomorrow, we start at three. We will have a couple hearings, and then there will be a break. And then we'll have the public session tomorrow evening from six to nine. Look forward to seeing you tomorrow.

Moments in our history on November 4 in the UPS plane crash. Since the first moments following that crash, you and your brave colleagues were on-site working to save people to get our community going forward again. Remediation and recovery took months. It's still going on in some ways. You all were there from the earliest moments.

Folks from Jefferson County, all across our city and county, and folks from surrounding counties as well. We thank all of you. It was an incredibly difficult and challenging time. And in these moments of tragedy, I always try to look for silver linings, for opportunities for hope and optimism in the face of tragedy. And one of those areas following this deadly crash was the positive feedback that I received from all over the country.

Folks that have worked on sites, devastating sites like this in many other states, in many other cities. And the feedback I received over and over again was what a world class job each and every one in your of your agencies, of your colleagues did in response to this tragic incident. Thank you for your courage. Thank you for the teamwork that you all showed with your colleagues. Thank you for your humanity in the face of unimaginable loss, for the families who lost loved ones, for the families that were seeking information, and for all of those impacted.

Your sacrifice will not be forgotten. We are grateful for what you did on that day and every day. Thank you all very much.

Hi. I'm Kayla with Louisville Water, and this is Made with Pure Tap, a special segment where we're highlighting some amazing local businesses that use water to make their products. Here in Louisville, we're proud of our drinking water. It's so good, we even gave it a name, Louisville Pure Tap. Today, we're at Rabbit Hole Distillery. Let's go see how they're using Louisville Pure Tap to make their one of a

kind