Community Development Block Grant (cdbg) Commission - Regular Meeting

Meeting of the Dane County Community Development Block Grant to order at 5PM. I lost my agenda. I look for a motion for consideration of the minutes from our January 13 meeting.

A motion.

Do have a second?

Second.

Good. Any comments, corrections, edits on the minutes? Alright. Seeing none, all those in favor,

aye. Aye.

Those opposed? None. Motion carries. Alright. On to reports, 2025 CVG home expended funds report. I'm assuming. Cindy?

Yep. Let me share my screen. So the 2025 expenditure status report or expended funds report is here for you to view. We used to do this kind of like on a monthly or quarterly basis, but because 2025 was a little bit different than past years because we didn't get our federal grant right away and weren't able to expend funds right away, we decided to do it as a year snapshot. So the first page is the CDBG 2025 expenditures, and you can see, so these are all the contracts that were active whether or not they received their grant funds in 2025 or not.

Most, I would say, of the agencies expended all of their funds that they awarded. And if you see the column amount relinquished in 2025, that's just the amount of money that some of the agencies had to, turn back or didn't spend all of their funds. And that's just for a variety of reasons, one being that, again, we didn't get our 2025 contract until later in the year, and some agencies weren't able to, start that spending right away. And then you'll see the contract balance column. Some of these grants, although they may have been awarded in 2024 or 2025, they're typically on a two year cycle because these funds are larger loans, and so they don't typically get out the door as quickly as some of the other programs, like public services or economic development.

However, all of these agencies are expected to spend their awards within the next year. And then the 2025 home expenditures, same thing. There are a few contracts that have been fully expended. And then there are seven or eight that have not spent their entire grant yet. Again, these are on two year cycles. So we just wanted to provide that information to you tonight so you can see that a lot of the contracts were fully expended in 2025, and then there are some that are on two year contracts that have not fully expended their awards yet.

What are the asterisks on Northpoint's two contracts on the home? Let's see.

Those I'm not sure why this might have been left over from a prior year with an asterisk, but I don't know what the asterisk mean at this point. Okay. It might have just been a note to ourselves about something. Alright. Yeah.

The asterisk back in the day used to mean that the contract was pending, that it had not been signed. But as Cindy mentioned, it's just a carryover. It was a

Okay. Yeah. They're they have active contracts.

K. Any questions for Sepia? No. Engelberger?

The amount relinquished, is that I don't it's not going to the contract balance. Where does the money go with that?

So the money goes into we're lucky enough that we these CDBG and home grants, they're for seven years. So if we have money that's relinquished or turned back, it basically just goes into our pot of money. And a lot of times what we do is when we award out grants for, like, say, 2026, sometimes we're able to use prior year funds for that, provided that it's still within the annual action plan category for that year. So if this is turning back in minor home repair, then we would use those funds for the next year's grant in that category.

So we use all the money. It's just we don't we don't ever send any back to the

feds? Correct. Yep.

Cindy, I have a question. This is Jeremiah. It seems to me that this report looks a little bit light as far as amount relinquished as as compared to maybe years past. Is that what you're seeing too? Is, these agencies or organizations leveraging the dollars a little bit more holistically than maybe in the past?

Potentially. But also, in the past, I think I mentioned we we would do these reports on a monthly or quarterly basis. And you would always, you know, see some money in that column potentially, and not necessarily relinquished, but that it was there, it was available. It's kind of a running total. But yeah, I would say that, even in the past, I would say most grant awards were fully spent.

So sometimes there there are funds that are returned or not completely spent, and that's fine, and we just put it back into the coffers, as was said. But I think, yeah, I think there was more of an effort to fully spend these funds this year even though some of the contracts weren't quite finished yet.

Any other questions for staff on the 2025 report?

Yeah. I just have a so if I look at, like, let's just say moving out as an example, there's the mortgage reduction program, and they're there for 2023, 2024, 2025. So they've completely expended 2023. That probably had to be expended before the end of 2025. They haven't spent the 2024 money at all, but they'll have to spend it by the end of next year. But then they have 2025 money, too. So their contracts are two years? I mean, guess I don't know why we but basically we're lending that money for two years from now from the CDBG fund. Do you know what I mean?

Mhmm. That's true. And again, sometimes they're not able to expend the entire thing in one year. Mhmm. And we are making more of an effort per our consolidated plan and annual action plans to ensure that we do spend the funds that we've set our goals for.

Mhmm.

And so if they don't spend their funds, then we do take that into consideration and let the application review team know that they have this amount of money. And I don't know if Caleb is on the call or not, but he works really closely with moving out. And he's able to kind of gauge what their spending rate is and then their their capacity to spend it, too. Sometimes they don't have enough capacity to keep up with the wait list because a lot of work goes into some of these projects. So, you know, minor home repair is different than mortgage reduction, obviously. But so they're able to kind of make their plans for the two years that they're receiving these grant awards and then work with Caleb on ensuring that they're spending that.

Okay.

I know that move no. Never mind. Different program. Sorry. Any other questions for Steph?

Then we will move on to the, c two, which is the application review team updates from Seth on CDPG Pro Housing, but it sounds like, Kathy, you're gonna give some of those updates? If you want. As the application review team chair?

All right. Well, the application review team met and were updated by Baltasar on the PRO, the CDBG PRO program. And we looked at the criteria for evaluating those proposals when they come in. And we'll recommend to the entire committee that they take a look at that and approve it. But I think first, you're going to give us kind of some background so the whole committee is as up to date as the our team, our art team. Excellent.

Thank you very much, Commissioner. Thanks, everybody, for being here. I'm just going to provide a little bit of background as to where we are with Pro Housing. And obviously, if there are any questions specific to the rubric, just let us know. And my colleague, Caleb, is also online to help answer any questions. So we anticipate to releasing the CTBG Pro Housing RFP on March 23, so next week. The application deadline will be April 24. In terms of outreach and support, we just wanted to let you know that we have already hosted, municipal information webinar on March 11. I know a number of you were part of that webinar. Thank you very much for being there.

And we had 14 municipalities attend, which is a really strong level of interest. We're currently, this week, we are holding office hours to provide technical assistance, answer questions and help municipalities better understand the requirements. So we've been as proactive as we can be to make sure that we have enough participation. So, yeah, just giving you a little bit of background. Do you need me to go a little bit deeper, or is that just general information? Is that I can go into the rubric if needed. Evaluation criteria. The evaluation criteria.

Joach, why don't you talk a little bit about that? I'll share my screen too.

Excellent. Thank thank you. So and you have this in your document. I'm just going to go and review here. So as you can see, we are we wanted to make it easier for the folks who answered the RFP, but also for folks who are scoring.

And we did meet with our team, two weeks ago to to provide a little bit more of a background information. So we are utilizing a standardized one to six scale, five to six above average, three to four average, one to two below average and zero if it was not addressed, 12 points of 100 points. And application scoring 60 or below may not be funded. One quick note on the scoring approach is we used a consistent one to 60 scale across all sessions and then applied multiplies to reflect program priorities. For instance, with the logic model, you can see that it's the most important component that is being scored.

We use the multiplier of 10. Cost, multiplier of three. Narrative, multiplier of two. Experience, one. So we are, our goal is so that it will be scored, you know, equally.

One of the things that is super, super important, you can see that there is question zero, which is an eligibility question. One thing that we want to make sure is that municipalities are project ready for them to be able to implement the funds. So one thing that is super important, if the project is not ready, then those projects are not gonna be able to move forward. So, as you can see here, implementation ready. Eligibility must be implementation ready in thirty six months for category a and twenty four months for category b.

If they are not able to certify that they are ready, the our team will not have to review that that application. Then we go into question number one, logic model system. This is the core of the application. You know, you will be evaluating whether the applicant clearly identify a housing barrier, whether they connected to the valid pro housing activity. You know, we wanna make sure that external applications will clearly use the RHS or other documented tool and show strong alignment and demonstrate real housing outcomes.

So as you can see from the rubric, the scoring guidance, we have what's a good application, what's a so so application, and what's an application that might not be accepted. When it comes to the cost, we need to evaluate our cost necessary, reasonable and allocable. Does the budget align with proposed work? One of the things that we just want to make sure and we talk to this we do we talk to the art committee on this, just making sure that, you know, are we, in the budget? Are municipalities putting, you know, two hundred fifty hours for staff and only ten hours for consultant?

You know? Does that make sense? Who's gonna be the one doing the work? So those are some of the things that we wanna make sure that is evaluated. We have added leverage bonus points, 25% if the municipality if the municipality come up, bring 25% of leverage funds, non federal funds, then they will get two points.

If they come up with 50% of leverage, then it will be four points. And, again, this will have to be non federal funds. The narrative that are gonna have so folks are gonna use the logic model, then they are gonna have opportunity for them to be able to explain a little bit more, clarify some of the information expressing the logic model. We wanna make sure that they have enough enough space so that they can, confirm about the project. And then the last part will be question number four, experience.

We want to make sure that it's relevant. They have a relevant experience, whether consultants are secure or clearly planned. There were some changes during our art team, when we presented. That was a little bit, weird the way how we have some of the points for for this area, and we were able to make those those corrections as as well. I think these are this is all of the information, and I I know I threw a lot of stuff on you. Any questions that you might have?

I have two real quick ones. So you you

said there's 14 municipalities were in in on that meeting the other day. Right? So so we feel confident you said we needed, like, four to seven to kinda have enough applications to

So we were happy to know that there were municipalities from around Dane County, you know, the the the big ones and the the the the small municipalities. I think it's not gonna be until they fill out the RFP that, you know so far, we feel comfortable. We felt confident. Again, there was a lot of work done, you know, pushing emails. I think we sent, like, 50, you know, emails, three, five times to a 160 contacts. So so yeah.

And then the last thing, I should've asked this the at the other meeting. So what what exactly do you mean by the logic model in the in the scoring system?

Yeah. So we are using so we don't wanna we do not we didn't wanna give the applicants a space where they have to put hundreds of hundreds of words. We wanted to something that will make sense. You know? What's what's the activity? How does the activity relate to the to taking care of the barrier? What's your input? So input, in this case, will be staff time, consultants, funding. What is the outcome of that input? You know?

What are some of the zoning restrictions that you are gonna, better? So and then what's the impact of that? So in a page, in a document, we want them to just make it easier so that they just input the information. And I can share my screen. Can I share my screen?

So you're saying instead of, like, the typical narrative, they're mostly following a logic model to answer those questions on what's the what are the inputs,

what are outputs? Points, and it's a lot easier to create.

Alright. So they're not creating recreating the wheel every time. Right?

No. No. So And we will be looking I mean, they they are you know, you folks will be looking for, you know, bullet points and and for the impact to be related to the barrier. You know? So that will be more like a linear evaluation instead of them having to write pages and pages

of Us as reviewers, and we'll be looking at

Yes.

Basically a standard format.

Yeah. Because we wanna make sure that everything is everything connected? Is the outcome connected to solving the barrier? Is the outcome connected to, the activity? And the applicants are gonna have you know, they are gonna be able to choose up to 24 different activities that they can connect their input, their outcome, and their impact to to that. So, hopefully, this will make it easier for folks and also for reviewers at the same time.

Understood. Thank you.

Mhmm. Baltasar, I have a question. So it pertains to the question, zero implementation ready. So, why does category a and category b have two separate, kinda timelines?

Can you

explain that a little bit more?

I I can I can do that? So, for instance, a category a project, it might require for these municipalities to be able to successfully complete those in thirty six months. So we wanna know right away, you know, are you are you gonna be able you are applying for these funds. Are you gonna be able to successfully pass? And and I can I can share just something really, really quick here?

Is that something they self elect? Yeah.

Joe. Thank you.

Jumping in. So this was Thank you, Tom. We worked with the planning department as they have expertise on the different eligibility act eligible activities. And one thing that they noted was that there was two eligible activities out of the 24 possible that have to do with updating comprehensive plans, the the housing policy of the zoning plans for those longer timelines, and that's why they suggested to us these ones might take longer. Whereas the other 22 or so category eligible activities are much more focused, and so they might not take as much time to be able to complete. And that's why you have that two year timeline versus a three year timeline there.

Does that does that make sense? Yeah. Exactly.

Yeah. There's, like, a list of activities, and somebody said, oh, these are gonna take longer. So there's two of them that are thirty six months, and the rest are twenty four.

Got it.

Oh, and then, Balthasar, another question I have for you. So the leverage bonus, that basically just means the money that the other project has as of right now that they can use as a leverage to kind of Yeah. Increase their scores within this application.

Yeah. And, again, it's not it is not obligatory. Like, they don't need to have leverage, but that will give them extra extra points. They don't need to have leverage in order for them to apply for this RFP.

Okay. Got it.

Any other questions?

And I think that in the action items, the committee is requesting that you approve these evaluation guidelines as they're presented. So that's it for us.

Yeah. I guess I got a couple questions.

Yeah. Mhmm.

So is there a lot of changes that have been made to these from the previous?

No. The only from from when we presented this to the art team. So the only the only change that we made, the only addition that that that that we made, if you go down to the number four, experience and qualifications.

Mhmm.

Last time, there was a question regarding, you know, how do we so, if you see under column, score one, two, below average, and score zero, not addressed. So we did not have anything under score zero, no address. By now, what we are saying is that if staff or consultant has been identified, if no staff or consultant has been identified, no information has been provided on how consultant services will be procured. Because so they do not need to have a a a staff who is able to do this, but they need to let us know, do I already have the do you know? Do I know how the work is gonna get done?

Do am I gonna hire a consultant? And last time, we did not have anything there to guide the committee. This time, we added that so that when you are reviewing the applications, you can right away say, okay. They did not identify anyone, so they get zero in that area. Okay.

And the other thing that the other addition that we made here, it had to do with the budget and their cost. Of the things that we did, my colleague, Helof, did, for the budget, really making sure that the barrier that you the municipality has identified that they accurately put put the value monetary value in the in in that. So for instance, if you are gonna, ask for $10,000 and then you said, you know, 9 thousands of those dollars is gonna go to staff time, and only $1,000 is going to be to consultant time. So there's a little bit of discrepancy because we want to make sure that the funding goes to there is enough money to pay to the consultant because they are the ones who are going to be doing the work. So that's we just added that component based on, some of the changes that we made to the budget document.

Okay. And then the other question I have is, isn't there a I mean, isn't there a standardized way of I mean, these these grants are all over the country. Every I mean, there's these commissions are all over the country. Isn't there a standardized way of doing all this? Or I mean, is ours different than other places? Or

Alright. So for, the CDBG pro housing, it is a new grant, and so it's only gone out one year before. We're part of a cohort where we're talking to other jurisdictions that have received money. A lot of them, we're all putting it together, and then so we're working with each other, letting each other know what's happening, but there isn't a standard way for this CDBG pro housing brand.

I would say too, our priorities are different than what other community's priorities are, so that probably sets the criteria a lot for the grants depending on what the priorities of the area are. But it's a good thought. Never thought about it.

And if I may say this, we're also I mean, this is a new grant, a new opportunity for Dane County. We are also trying to implement the basis as to, as other RFPs come that has to do with pro housing, using carry out. We want to use the same kind of rhythm or structure to make sure that it's easier as well.

Okay. Thank you.

And supervisor Engelberger, if I may add, when in the creation of the RFP and the evaluation criteria, one of the things that staff did take into account was the fact that we're working with municipal staff that may not often have grant writers as part of their team. And so we try to make the application as easy as possible as well as the evaluation criteria. We craft it in a way that we did take, like, what our CDBG standard evaluation criteria was, and we crafted it specifically for planning, which is typically not an area that we're funding under traditional CDBG dollars. And so this is a unique opportunity where we are able to implement, you know, we we are able to craft the application and the criteria in the way that best meets our needs. So, yeah, what you have in front of you.

And so what and so if you do have any recommendations for changes, I would I would say today would be the day that you would make those changes, ideally before they are approved, and then that is the standard that US commissioners will use when evaluating the proposals.

Okay. Thank you. And I'm make changes. Okay. I was gonna say if somebody does have changes, let's do that underneath action items, and then we can do that as the part of the motion Yep. To review. So

Okay. I have another question for you about, again, the leverage bonus. So it states that, so, 25 to either 50%, obviously, the kind of determining from nonfederal funds. Mhmm. So this I guess this is more of, like, a more, like, systemic or a, more like how the art is going to review these. Mhmm. So will the application review team have the sources to know what funds are nonfederal versus federal, or how how do we kinda do that?

So in the in can I address? So in the budget, there is a a line that says, you know, if other sources, and that's where the the municipality will add the information. Got it.

And so that even includes so, like, nonfederal funds, if that even includes state funds that would that include, like, also state funds as well, or is it although I will say most state funds tend to be from the federally sourced. But in, like, certain cases, have you seen instances where it it is just like a state, like, fund?

So yeah. And and, you know, again, this is this is a new project we will also be looking to see if there is you know? I mean, the typical will be, like, a united way, like, other other other foundations. Yeah. I know of yeah. So some municipalities receive money through through their care, through the Yeah. Department administration as well.

Yeah. So Yeah.

I'm assuming with municipalities, it's either gonna be levy or supported or some sort of affordable housing type of account that that's where the money is coming from is where I would be. But it could come from you I never yeah. Private donations to like, UW Health has a housing fund then as well that they've started contributing to.

So

And probably not ARPA because that's all No.

ARPA's all done.

Yeah. It's all done.

All done. Yeah. Yeah.

So any other questions for staff on the pro housing criteria, evaluation criteria? No? Alright. Then we will move on to presentations, and we will do so this will be information as we prepare for the public hearing and citizen input for the 2025 CAFR CAPER. This is a CAPER, not a CAPER. Mhmm. We have a CAPER.

Yep. So this is a presentation, for the public hearing, and this is the 2025 Dane County consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report or CAPER. And this report is required by HUD, and it covers the CDBG and home funding as well as some other sources. And it's an opportunity to see how we did in 2025, our funds spent, and any objectives that were met during that year. So I'd like to so this is the this is the final draft.

And and the purpose of having it as a public hearing is to allow the public to provide input on how we did in 2025 and then to later think about, if there are any priorities that we should address for 2027 as we're developing the RFP and the annual action plan for that year. So a few highlights, in the executive summary that I'll just note. In 2025 and I mentioned earlier that we received our federal grant from HUD later in the year, and therefore, some of the agencies that were awarded funds weren't able to spend their money right away. But we did meet quite a few goals for the year, and we're also on track to meet goals for the five years of our consolidated plan. 2025 is the first year of the five year consolidated plan.

So we served a total of 719 individuals, with CDBG and home funds last year. 139 businesses were assisted. 86 jobs were created or retained. Seven households were provided with affordable housing units, rental and owned. 25 households were supported through home rehabilitation, acquisition, or mortgage assistance.

And three zero six individuals were served from the Public Services Project area. In addition, I have kind of a matrix that we can look at here. And this is downloaded from our online system, so it's not super easy to look at. But each line is one aspect of our consolidated plan goals. And so the things I just mentioned included public services, which we were able to serve more than we anticipated for the first year, if you look in the columns on the right.

And in the middle, you'll see expected strategic plan and actual strategic plan. This is the consolidated plan five years, if you see the twelve fifty number. And then the actual is what it is to date. So again, this is 2025. 03/2006 individuals were served through our public services program. And so we are on track for the five year goals, even though, some of the project areas may not have met their one year goal. In addition, we have, so 86 jobs created or retained. We surpassed our one year goal and our five year goals. And sometimes this just depends on the project or the program that was funded. And if they're able to serve more people than they anticipated, that's fine as well.

If we are under in certain categories, then that's why we look to readjusting our priorities for the next years to come. So I'll just go down here a little bit, because you can see how there are some goals that were surpassed and some that haven't been met yet, and that's Okay. Again, this was just year one out of five. Any well, I guess we can wait until we get to the action items to approve the CAPER. And then the next item for the discussion let me just look at the agenda.

Draft consolidated plan. I'm sorry? The draft consolidated plan.

Oh, so the consolidated plan. So those categories that I was just showing, were part of the consolidated plan. And then the next item for presentation would be the twenty twenty seven RFP funding categories, and I'll pull that up. Okay. So as we looked at the CAPER, which identified the annual goals as well as the consolidated plan goals, we're able to then think about what we'd like to see for the priorities for 2027 as we're developing the RFPs.

So these goals are what are listed in the consolidated plan, and then there are project areas within those goals. And under the project areas is how we list the RFPs that we submit or that we open up to the public to apply for. And so most of the categories will stay the same, and we're working on ways to adjust those percentages. If you recall last year, we thought about how some of the applicants met some of the criteria and the percentages depending on what project area they were applying for. So we're taking all that into consideration as we develop our priorities.

Some changes to note. If you look at under goal one, project area three, we're focusing solely on home building for 2027 rather than including rental construction. And then another note is that under goal two, economic development, we're focusing more on micro enterprise assistance and not necessarily on jobs created or retained, although that's kind of like a second kind of comes with that. But we're not making as much of a focus on that because we've surpassed our goals in that area. Public services has stayed the same.

And then for goal four, project area seven, public facility improvements and public infrastructure improvements. We're focusing more on the public infrastructure side of that. We have done a lot of funding through public facilities, but we will also gear more towards prioritizing the municipalities and applying for their own public infrastructure or facilities there.

I didn't see in the CAPER the sheet that you were just kinda talking about, the page two that would show kind of the percentage. So we have

go back up. I went all the way

through the document. So you have the expected versus met Mhmm. But not necessarily, like, the percentage. Because wasn't the the scoring criteria, like, percentage of projects funded? Yes. By was that by dollar? I'm not sure now if that was by dollar amounts, but showing it that direction because that's what we were kind of looking at when we were scoring. Right?

Yes. So I think what you're referring to is last year when we were determining our funding recommendations for 2026, we were looking we were taking the consolidated plan goals and then looking at the funding that we were recommending for 2026, determining the percentage of that

Based on what we already didn't want in year one and then what we did in what we're proposing for year two. Right?

Yeah. Yep. So the the CAPER is showing just what we are at in 2025. So then in Oh, I see. Yes. So then we're in 2026 now. And then I know we're kind

of like Okay. Now I know what year we are.

Alright. I

know. K.

That's where it matters. We develop the RFPs. And I think at one of the next meetings, we'll take a look at some criteria that we are, I guess, developing for the RFPs for next year, I think, which will make our process much more streamlined and clear cut as far as how we're meeting those consolidated plan percentages, in the CAPER, you know, we'll we'll see that looking

backwards, but we're always in we're working one year ahead, though. Alright. Nope. Yep. I now I see where my disconnect is between those two.

No. It's okay. It takes a while to figure that out.

I forget. Okay. Anybody else have questions for staff on the CAPER or on the what are we the pending categories for the piece for the 2027.

Action items too, we could consider that also.

So, again, when we're in the art meeting, to me, it seems like this page two and three are the core of what we're doing here. This is a running scorecard. Right? We're in year one of five. And while we can't we we don't have to necessarily meet every criteria or have it pro rata done, as we get to year four and five, it'll become more and more important. Right?

And then

we have to, like, kinda narrow our focus on what we do.

Correct. And then

And now we see what we've done in 2025. We know what we're funding in 2026 already.

Mhmm.

And as we're developing 2027, we can and we've been working as a team to kind of figure this out, and you'll see it in one of the next CDBG meetings. But we're saying, how can we still, like, aim for those goals in year three? Mhmm.

Yeah. Okay. Then we will now move on to the public hearing specifically. I will call the public hearing for the 2025 consolidated annual performance evaluation report or the CAPER open at 05:39PM. And we didn't have anybody registered. Correct? Correct. Lost my Zoom.

We have

Or nobody registered to speak to speak. Correct. K. Alright. Let this and we have nobody in the audience to speak as well.

Waiting for a minute to be up, guys. Alright. I will close the public hearing for the 2025, consolidate annual performance evaluation, with no public comment. I will open the public hearing for the citizen input for the 2027 RFP funding priorities and housing and community development needs at 05:40. There is, again, nobody here and nobody online to speak.

Okay. Don't think a minute is ever longer than when you're. And I was even trying to talk really fast so we would say so we wouldn't have to wait a whole another minute. Alright. Close the public hearing for the citizen input for the 2027 RFP funding priorities at 05:41.

Okay. Action items. So now we are on to the CEBG pro housing evaluation criteria as presented by staff. Do I have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

Alright. Second? I'll second. Second. Alright. We're into discussion. Do we have any recommended changes or items, or comments before we would take up the vote? I'll make sure to pull up the oh, my Zoom. Anybody online? No? Alright. Then I'll look. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Those opposed?

I abstain.

Okay. And then, Lorraine abstains. So then, no nays. So that passes. Alright. And then we will go on to action items. So the 2025 consolidate annual performance evaluation. Nope. That's what we just did. No. That is not what we just did. No. We did the pro housing evaluation criteria. Alright. Now we're on to 2525 consolidate annual performance evaluation report. Do I have a motion to approve?

So moved. Kathy, second?

Second. Second. Any discussion, comments on the CAPER before we ask for a vote? None? All those in favor, aye. Aye. Those opposed? None. Motion carries. Alright. Now we are on to 2027 RP funding priorities. Do we have a motion to approve as presented?

I'll move.

Do I have a second? Second. Supervisor Engel. Any comments or questions, changes to be recommended before I look for a vote? Seeing none. All those in favor, aye. Aye. Those opposed? None. Motion carries. Alright. We are on to our next meeting is April 14 at 5PM, and we will be in this room. We'll be at this building at least.

Likely.

Most likely. K. I asked. Apparently, the Technology Building isn't quite ready for them. So alright. And then I will look for public comments for items not on the agenda. And I don't think then we had anybody registered to speak actually on that. So I will look for a motion to adjourn at 05:43.

So moved. Nothing. Second? Second.

K. All those in favor, say aye.

Aye. Aye.

Opposed? None. Motion carries. Thank