Parks, Recreation, and Arts Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. Good evening. It is 05:31. I now call this meeting of the expanded access to arts and culture subcommittee to order. Can you please conduct roll call?

So moved.

I second that. All in favor, say aye. Aye. It passed. It's normally more of us, so that made me laugh. We will now begin with the pledge of allegiance. Will everyone please stand? Thank you. We will start with the approval of the agenda. Are there any changes to the agenda tonight?

Yes. The calendar attachment placed under ID 26483 will be discussed during ID 02/1981 instead.

Thank you. Is there a motion to approve the agenda as amended? Motion. I second that. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. This item is approved. So commissioner Tremillo, do you have any comments you would like to make?

No comments at this time.

Well, I wanna thank you all for coming out to our first public meeting of the expanded access to arts and cultural subcommittee. Thank you for taking time out of your evening to come here. I really appreciate you guys. We will now move on to part staff comments. Does anyone from the part staff have any comments for the subcommittee? No comments, miss Brown. Okay. Thank you. We will now move on to unscheduled communication. Would any member of the public like to speak on any issue within the jurisdiction of the subcommittee?

The purpose of the subcommittee is to assist and provide input and recommendations to the commission related to the EAAC grant guidelines. You will have up to three minutes. If you would like to make a comment regarding the scheduled hearing, comments will be taken during this call.

I'm gonna give a card.

Oh, yeah. Card is. Okay.

John Is?

Just speak just speak loud.

Yes. Okay. Cool.

Yeah. Thank you so much, subcommittee. First of all, thank you for holding this period. Thank you for holding it in public as you should for the for the Brown Act. And just to follow procedure, wanna make sure that I don't speak regarding the hearing coming out.

But just speaking on items that are not in in in the hearing coming out of the grant guidelines, I just wanna comment on on the lack of a application review application review committee or ARC review and scoring handbook. I'm sure that it takes time to produce. I'm sure that like I'm sure that it takes time to have a draft version of that. I just wanna reiterate that the the Fresno community is very interested in reviewing and having input in a transparent matter on that topic as well of of how the application review committee, like, will be recruited, how they'll be trained, and how and how those actual panel sessions will will move forward. I just wanna make sure that that's also given the transparency that it deserves.

Especially regarding clarified definition of arts and culture and a clarified definition of culture specifically. Among the numerous bad faith actions taken by Fresno Arts Council when they were in control of the business past cycles was having a very arbitrary and inconsistent definition of arts and culture or culture. Too many times, if if a culture did not have a flag, it was just chewed away. It's not really important. Black diaspora, DESI diaspora, LGBTQ plus, which is all categorically culture.

And so we just wanna make sure that, yes, this is arts and culture and those are very synonymous, but we just wanna be very clear that established organizations or bad faith actors are not thinning the herd, like, as a weaponizing thinning the herd of what culture is, especially for so many emerging DIY residents want to do with culture. Thank you, Connie.

Thank you. Julia Rinoa and the public would like

to make a comment under unscheduled communication.

If you would

like to make a comment for the hearing, we will take those comments during that time. Yep. And

after you finish, need you

to fill that card out.

Yeah. For sure. Hi, my name is Oishi. I'm gonna go out of the country tomorrow, so

I'm stressed and running around.

So I'm part of Dulce Upfront. We're fiscally sponsoring 21 of the 60 or so on the emerging side. And those upfronts pretty close to sure that we're not gonna be a fiscal sponsor next year for the next cycle, which means that you have what we we ended up doing was agreeing to fiscally sponsor 90 projects. Of those ninety, seventy submitted LOIs. Of those seventy, fifty actually were reviewed by the panel.

And of those 50, about 21 were fiscally sponsored on our end. I think that it would be super vital for you all to figure out the part around the emerging side and the fiscal sponsors. And I saw on the draft that there is like kind of question mark about how many projects can be fiscally sponsored by one organization. Now if there is a limit there and we already have a limited amount of organizations that can play the role of the fiscal sponsor, if that's limited of the those that are actually willing to play the role of fiscal sponsor's organization that can actually do work because they have to be at the moment, they have to be an arts based organization or a cultural organization. They have to be in the city of Fresno.

They have to have all their ducks in a row. And I think in there, it also states now that they have to at least have two years of playing the role of fiscal sponsor. Fresno Arts Council actually used to do that. Right? And since there's that embezzlement case, they are not gonna play that role. They can't play that role because they don't have their stuff together. Who's gonna play that role? You can't expect the Fresno Art Museum who I don't think fiscally sponsored projects or I don't know if it was one. You had that fiscally sponsored just a few projects. And then you had a handful of others that fiscally sponsored. So if we were able to just, on our own, support potentially 90, imagine

how

many are gonna apply now. I would say that that would be discriminatory, and that would be cause for a potential lawsuit because it actually creates a barrier to access. So you have a lot of artists, cultural barriers that won't actually apply. And those, like, for example, the the 21 that got through, if we're asking them that we want them to actually potentially become a nonprofit and we wanna support them in that, then you have to make it accessible. So there needs to be either a third party that plays that role to be a fiscal sponsor.

I think the other piece is around the insurance part. We recently had Erin, we we kinda talked about this, but there's the waiver of subrogation that is included as a requirement for the city of Fresno. And for insurance companies, I mean, that that makes your insurance go up. So then we're requiring the waiver subrogation. We're requiring the, the primary and the non non, oh, that's my pen. We'll talk about it later. But, yeah, you guys are up in

a situation. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Anyone else from the public? Do I have anyone on Zoom?

Yes. I have Alicia R.

Hi. Are you able to hear me okay?

Yes. Thank

you. Alicia, Labyrinth Art Collective. Been here a few times before. Some specifics, just to get them out. Echoing Omeya's thoughts heavily on the access inhibition you guys would create by limiting fiscal sponsorship. That's been a gatekeep since the inception. And I know the ordinance is written in a way where fiscal sponsorship is necessary, which honestly was a mistake. We have a lot of talent in Fresno, and not everybody is org or c three connected. And I'm c three, but I'm not NPIC. So the community is always gonna be the most important thing here, and I really, really wish that wouldn't be mirrored in the way this is carried out, that saying no better, do better.

And I know, you know, nobody nobody likes all the tension. I'll I'll be honest. None of us like it. None of any of us would rather be doing something else on a Wednesday than having to advocate advocate every time. You know? I do appreciate that you've opened this meeting up finally as it should have been the whole time under Brown Act, but also out Zooming out on on good faith. You know? And and I would have loved to be there been there in person. I would appreciate more notice for these meetings. I'm not quite sure why I got an email from Fresno Arts Council letting me know this was even happening, and I already have work scheduled out of town.

So just keeping in mind, like, if we want if you wanna gain the community's trust, you gotta gain it. So the other item that that was really troublesome was looking at, you know, the all these guardrails that we're missing, you know, and and and it's easy to point fingers. It's easy to say he said, she said, or this you know, it's not our problem, and there's a lot of that hot potato getting played right now with the city and and all the entities. We honestly don't we can't care about that. We care about this this thirty year. This I mean, if it was five years, I'll be honest with you. I wouldn't even care. And not and not that I wouldn't care, but I wouldn't be this hot about it. So and and I'll be real. You know, a few years ago, tower the the the evangelical church tried to take over our neighborhood.

And some of us said no. And what you saw on the corner may have been one thing, but I'll guarantee you that there's lots more that went on in the background to make damn sure that didn't happen. And so if you think that a building is I'll be honest, the building's a lot less important than a community. So there are some of us out here who are are gonna die on this hill and make sure that this expanded access happens. So why not save us all the trouble, and let's do this the right way? So I implore you guys to really look at how this structure goes forward. I know everybody's making their little phone calls in the back doors. It's a small town here. Every we're not new. So some of us aren't immersed in this, you know, legacy grant world, but we're not dumb.

So I just I would appreciate the respect and dignity given to the community and the members who have been, you know, canaries in the coal mine from the beginning. And let's just let's fix this, makes this easier for everybody, and it can be truly transformative for Fresno. I'm tired of being

Thank you. That was your time.

Do we have anyone else?

Yes. I have Amy Kitchener. Right now, we're taking discussions on unscheduled communications.

Can you hear me? Yeah. Hi. Hi. This is Amy Kitchener, executive director of Alliance for California Traditional Arts. Thanks so much for having this meeting and having the remote access. I really appreciate that as I'm out of town. I just had a couple comments. One is about the fiscal sponsorship. I don't even know why would you why would you limit it. I saw something there that said, you know, that there wouldn't be enough, you know, capacity building possible. But the purpose

I'm sorry, Amy. Right now, we're taking unscheduled communications. As a reminder, discussion items will be heard by the public. Opportunity to comment on the EAAC grant program cycle three will be during the hearing portion of the meeting.

Excuse me. I'm I'm just following the protocol of what I heard the other speakers talking about, and I don't know why I'm being stopped. Exactly. May I speak?

Right now, we're taking unscheduled communications, but go ahead.

May I? Three minutes.

I heard two other speakers before me speak about fiscal sponsorships. Is may I speak about fiscal sponsorships?

Yes, Amy. You do go ahead and continue your comments.

Thank you. Okay. I'm gonna start again, but I I'm just gonna say that there's, it's very unclear why you would wanna, limit that unless you were trying to limit access to the expanding access grants program and that it's a service. I we're sponsoring two organizations. I can tell you right now, it takes a lot of capacity of an organization to do this, and there's not a lot of organizations in Fresno that can do this or want to do this.

And so it's really a service. And, it's very important to, like, the growth and development of our arts and culture field and to having accessibility of this program. So that that's number one. My second, is really about the panel process. And in in the the guidelines, you talk about having outside panelists.

And I think it's really important that we do not have outside panelists and that we value people who understand our local community and have lived experience in it. And the worst thing that could happen would be to be bringing people from outside with standards from outside our community that don't understand Fresno. We suffer from that a lot as a community. My other question is about a panel process. I I only see something where you speak about scoring, but there's a lot more to adjudication than just scoring that involves a discussion amongst the panelists.

And it's gonna be very important to have an equitable, open public process where there are discussions amongst panelists and that they can inform each other. No one has the whole, expertise needed to be able put together the whole picture of a of a grants process. So those are just, a few initial comments from me, and I'll look forward to offering more as we

you, Amy. That is your time. There's no

one else on the line. Thank you. I will now close unscheduled communication. Mhmm.

I can't speak on LinkedIn that's on the

fifth grade. You can speak under unscheduled communication discussion items. Okay. You won't be able to speak under unscheduled communication. Correct?

Right. So this period is supposed to be

updated in motion. So I'd like to say that in any decision that have been made that vaguely I'm speaking probably is that maybe some of these things are not written up in, like, trying to figure out who makes these decisions. But yeah. And I wouldn't like to see people, like, to keep you or not being very open or just places that are well known or just I hope it's kind of a quite fair because if not, I don't need to

ask. Thank you. Anyone else before I close unscheduled communication? I wanna be fair. Alright. I'm gonna close unscheduled communication. We will now move on to discussions. As a reminder, discussion items will be heard by the public. Opportunity to comment on EAAC grant program cycle three will be during the hearing portion of the meeting. Discussion item ID number 26481. Discussion draft calendar

of

subcommittee meetings. The subcommittee must establish a calendar of meetings to complete the review of the cycle three EAAC grant guidelines. Begin discussion amongst our staff at subcommittee.

Okay. So this item is basically a discussion to get input from the subcommittee as far as what dates work for you guys

for upcoming subcommittee meetings.

And we did provide a draft calendar of events for you for April. So we just wanted to

touch base with you all

and and see what what works for every second.

And fire special meetings depending on the timelines that we'll get into the next

item. Okay. So

we're gonna go ahead and put on the calendar a subcommittee meeting, 05:30PM on the twenty ninth. Yes.

Sir, do we know on the twenty ninth that that meeting is gonna be here or Cambridge?

Do we know that? I

need to see the availability.

Okay. It'll definitely be here at City.

Here. Can

Somebody? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And then the public comment portal opens and closes. We're gonna get into all everything that's on this calendar.

Yes. That's our next item. Okay. Next discussion item, ID 26Dash483 discussion, expanded access to arts and culture grant guideline update and outreach overview. Be will someone from the parts department please begin the presentation?

My

name is Sarah Gaithat. I'm a program manager for the Parks Department. I'm going to be reviewing expanded access to arts and culture grant guideline update and outreach overview. During the last Parks, Recreation, and Arts Commission meeting on March 16, the Expanded Access to Arts and Culture Subcommittee was formed. As a reminder, this subcommittee was formed as a standing subcommittee and will adhere to all Brown Act requirements.

The purpose of the subcommittee is outlined in the resolution, and it is to assist and provide input and recommendations to the commission related to expanded access to arts and culture fund, EAAC, grant guidelines.

Since

this was our first time meeting, I wanted to go around and do some short introductions. The Prac subcommittee members will include Chair McCoy, Vice Chair Warren, who is absent today, and Commissioner Trio. Would you guys like to introduce yourselves? I

think we are pretty familiar.

And on the Parks Department side, we would like to introduce ourselves a little bit here. We have Assistant Director, Shelby McNabb.

Yes. So I'm Shelby McNabb. I'm Assistant Director in Parks. We just wanna introduce ourselves a little bit more since we'll be working through this and work to hire staff. I I do wanna share a little bit about my background just to give you a reference. I've been working in grants, nonprofits, public service for the last twenty years. I've written over 200 grant proposals and brought in over 200,000,000 for the City of Fresno. And so I'm very familiar with the grant process. Born and raised in Fresno, two kids, a dog, ancient chihuahua. She's hanging in there. So anyway, great to meet you all. Look forward to working on these case process.

Thank you. And myself, Sarah Gaetan. I have over fourteen years of experience serving the Fresno community in public services as well as program delivery. I began in social work and then made my way through program development, partnership development, and also some communications. In my current role, I help lead the Measure P program through. And three kids, no pets. We also have a She is our community outreach specialist. Hi. She's helping

with tech today. Hi. I'm Cheyenne. I'm the community outreach specialist with Parks. I do a variety of tasks such as data analysis, attending community events, informing the public. You can see my work in our annual reports, our social media channels, and our website. I'm looking forward to strengthening our relationship with the arts community.

And then we also have Marco Hernandez, our services aide in the program and the Parks Department.

Hi, everyone.

My name

is Marco Hernandez. I'm the services aide with the city of Fresno Parks Department. I execute a variety of responsibilities, mainly aiming to inform the present residents about our services, programs, and what we do and, like, capital projects. And I'm excited to serve you all and create a great relationship between City of Fresno Parks and the arts community.

Great. Thank you for your intros. We're gonna move into an overview. So the purpose of this presentation is to provide an overview and collect feedback on the proposed timeline and process. So we're going to be updating the expanded access to arts and cultural grant guidelines.

And we will also be collecting community feedback using listening sessions, public meetings, and a comment portal, which will be available online. The notice of funding opportunity for cycle three must be released on or before June 30 of this year. So we plan for listening sessions to be in person via Zoom option available also. We will have them recorded. We will have interpretation available.

There will be verbal and written comments accepted. And we are aiming to have these listening sessions located at community centers in Southwest and Southeast and downtown areas of Fresno. We are also aiming to have them available in the evenings and on Saturday option also. Our proposed timeline of events include today, the first subcommittee meeting, which is the fifteenth. Our public comment portal opens tomorrow on the sixteenth.

The proposed dates for the listening sessions will be April 22, and we're hoping to have that 05:30PM to 07:30PM at 10 C Wills. April 25 will be our Saturday session, and that will be at Maxiel Parks Community Center from 1PM to 3PM. And another one on April 28 at Musqueda Community Center from 05:30PM to 07:30PM.

What at each I don't know

what questions because I I have questions.

I'm almost done, and then you can give me all your questions. And then we just decided on second meeting, so we will go ahead and pencil that in for the April 29. We will hopefully have the availability of the chambers for that one. And then April 30, we will close the public comments at 3PM for our comment portal. Here we have another view of the calendar that we just reviewed.

As you can see, we already went through the community lesson listening sessions there, so you can you know the information for those. And go to there. In May. Okay. In May, once the comment portal has closed, we will make edits to the draft grant guidelines for cycle three to incorporate public feedback.

So we plan to have a draft that includes subcommittee feedback and public feedback to PRAC on May 18. If there are any other proposed changes that night, we will call a special meeting with PRAC on May 26 to review the draft guidelines once again and get them ready to be recommended for counsel. On June 18 is the goal date to present the final draft to counsel. If a second counsel meeting is needed, we will have that on the June 25. And again, with our goal and date to have the cycle three grant guidelines complete and a notice of funding ready to go by June 30 of this year.

And a little bit about

the community comment form that we have available. Members wishing members of the community wishing to submit a comment on the proposed guidelines may submit a comment in writing via the online portal. The form will ask specifically which section of the guidelines you want to comment on and allow for you to comment on that specific section. If you have multiple comments, the form can be submitted multiple times. This will allow us to stay organized when editing all of those comments.

And we have a correction here. The form will be available from April 16, which is tomorrow at 8AM until April 30 at 3PM. It will be on our website, And you can go to the link mentioned here as well, the Bitly link that we have right under there. And it can also be found on our Linktree on Instagram and social media. And that is the end of our timeline here. We'll go ahead and

take any questions. Alright. Well, thank you for that presentation. Question number one that I have is at each community listening session, it's gonna be the same thing that was done at one, it's gonna be done at two, it's gonna be done at three. Correct? Yes. Correct. My other question is, is this timeline adjustable? I know it's for a proposed timeline, but I'm I'm thinking that with the current guidelines that we have, we're gonna have to make a lot of adjustments to them. So I don't know how we're gonna fit this timeline instead of me.

And and I know that we wanna start getting letters out by June 30, but and I don't wanna be the Debbie Downer, but I do think we'll be the Debbie Downer. How do we know that everyone in cycle two has been has received their funding before we start sending out notices of funding for round three?

We're not able to speak about cycle two at this meeting, but we do have an update plan for PRAC on Monday, a very detailed update. So stay tuned for that. We don't have an option about the timeline, unfortunately, because we have to release the notice of funding opportunity by June 30. So what it's going to require and what the draft has required maybe some evenings and weekends. And we're working actively to hire the team to help support. It is a huge lift. So it

is going to be a challenge, but we don't have wiggle room on the notice going out. So how close are we or you guys to hiring the team so the process can begin if we can't move the June 30 date?

So we are doing the work while that team gets hired. That meant all weekend for me. That meant like, we are working a lot to try to keep this going while also addressing other cycle because it's not an option, unfortunately. I wish there was more liberal room.

Okay. Have more questions for now.

I think you took my question just

about flexibility to schedule. So

Alright. Thank you.

We'll move on

to the next discussion item, which will be HC ID number 26Dash484. Discussion cycle three grant guideline review. Would someone from the parts department please begin the presentation?

So Sheldon McNabity, I'm Assistant Director, I'll be going on this presentation. We'll try to enunciate just as I can. And to let you know, this presentation will be going through it, but then we're going to proceed to go through the draft guidelines page by page in very explicit detail. It is important that you all engage early in this process because, as you know, we just presented on the timeline. We're moving very quickly, but we don't wanna move without moving. We will be going through it. It's gonna be a long presentation. So alright. Here we go. Okay.

Next slide. And as a reminder, I know there are a lot of topics that we wanna touch on, but the focus of this subcommittee is for cycle three grant guidelines. Okay? Next slide. Okay. So we're gonna go over this presentation and go through the guidelines. We are gonna go section by section on a high level first through this presentation, and then we will switch over to the guidelines. If you've not received a copy yet, they're up here. And we'll get to that next. So staff have prepared a draft for review and discussion purposes.

We needed something for everyone to have a chance to react to. So this is the starting discussion draft. We are proposing and I'm going turn this way so they can hear me. We are proposing centralizing the guidelines into one document instead of four for ease of use. And this discussion draft consolidates them into the one document so that you're not referencing between four different thirty, forty page documents.

Many discussion points are flagged throughout the draft document. So you may have printed or reviewed the document that looks clean. There is another copy with comments all down the side, question marks, and points points for discussion. So if you've not seen that, there's some copies up here. And feedback, I wanna be very clear. Feedback is essential to the guideline update process, and comments are welcome on all aspects. Okay. So I created this table just to give a high level overview. And after we go through it, we're gonna go through the guidelines. But I'll pause for questions for the commission just on this initial presentation.

So some of the major discussion items that we're proposing to review tonight are outlined here. The overview background in the guidelines has been updated to include more information about the Cultural Arts Plan and to reflect more of the goals, recommendations, strategies, and priorities that are outlined in that plan. That plan included over 4,000 community comments and over 10 community engagement efforts, so we wanted to make sure that it was referenced very clearly within the document. The available funding and funding allocation section, we'd like to discuss project support and general operating support, set asides, funding request minimums, maximums, and the emerging and established designations. We'd like to hear feedback on that and what it should look like, how it should be included, if there's set asides for each category, what that looks like.

Again, this is a draft to react to, so it's silent on many things, but that's because we're building it with the community. All right, the timeline. So again, I wish we had more time, but we have to get the notice of funding opportunity out. That's why I say engage early. Send us as many comments as you want on that form. If you run out of space, do another form. We want to hear from you. Eligibility. So we did make some updates recommended to add or clarify eligibility. There's also some comments within that so that we can get feedback.

Fiscal sponsorship. So there's updates recommended to foster capacity building in alignment with the Culture Arts by Goals, specifically funding to help emerging or individual artists or cultural bearers become a nonprofit. Funding to help them get there so that technical assistance and fiscal sponsorship is a short term gap to help them have a sustainable operation. The application questions, we put general question topics. Those have not been developed yet.

It's best practice to develop those toward the end once you get feedback on the guidelines, because we want to make sure the questions ask the right questions. And we also talk about any permissions that are needed. And we included a brief note on artificial intelligence. You can use AI, but just be advised that we're asking for specifics once we get to the application. And we found that AI tends to repeat the same answers to all the people who input the questions with little specifics. So we did think it was important to acknowledge that tool. It's a tool. It's not meant to write it for you. Okay. The application review and scoring process.

We mentioned the application review committee composition. We also mentioned the scoring handbook. That has not been drafted yet. But once it is, it'll be presented to the subcommittee to crack and be publicly available for review and comment. Training and compensation has been included because that's what we heard from you all about rigorous training for scoring members and compensation for the time that it takes to go over the applications and score them.

Conflict of interest, disclosure, and a recusal process will be detailed in more detail in the handbook, but there is language within the guidelines that lays that out as well based on community feedback. We're proposing that we replace the letter of intent with an eligibility screening that just checks off that you're a nonprofit, you're in good standing. Really kind of a simple way to check those off, and then we can get you your application link. So similar, but a little different. Questions and technical assistance.

We're proposing to offer technical assistance workshops. We would accept questions in writing only, and here's why. We want to make sure that everyone has access to all the same information. So when questions are asked, we would record them, we would omit your name and any personal identifiers, and then we will type an answer and post it on the website for everyone to access. That's how we've run other programs.

And we found that it's very efficient so that information is consistently available to everyone. And then we are also looking at a more flexible appeals process so that you may appeal on any drones. And that's built into the award making process. It does require more time at the craft meetings, but it holds space for feedback in that process. Okay.

And then on the last slide, we did include language that the city includes in their RFPs. So you'll see regulated communications. It's really important that you read that section because as there is an open notice of funding opportunity, the communications that you have have to abide with that. So there is less side conversations happening. Reading in detail, I'm not going interpret it for you legally, but it's important that you review it.

Post award requirements. So we've updated to include some city specific requirements that are part of our standard process, and we really wanna have a conversation on payment terms. Past practice has been 90% upfront, 10% at completion. PRAC has raised a feedback about having it be quarterly. Depending on the amount of the award and the scope, we really want to hear from you all because we're trying to balance access to funding and fiscal fiduciary responsibility.

Okay, so that's why it isn't decided. It's placed in there as a discussion point to hear your feedback. And then the rest of the section, standard city language regarding confidentiality, debarment, public records, just disclosing that things become public records, indemnification, and so on. We also have the accessibility and nondiscrimination statement included as well. So I'm going to pause here and then turn it over to the commission if you have any questions initially.

And then we're going to get into the guidelines page by page. Okay? No questions? I'm gonna pause at every page for you to be able to ask questions at the end of the page. And then just as a reminder, you all will be able to ask questions during the hearing portion. Okay? So we're going get you the whole thing. Write down your questions if you have them. And then we will you'll get a turn to. If you cannot hear me, do a wave or something.

I'm trying to yell. Just yell out, please. Okay. So the document that we're gonna be reviewing, Chyna, if you could switch over to the annotated version. I apologize that the font is a little small, but we do have printed copies for you here. We also you'll see a split screen. It's gonna be hard for you to see from here, but we have this recorded so you can reference it. What we're gonna do is as we talk through this, as we're making comments with the subcommittee and even as you get your turn, we will be citing the page and we will be logging the comments. All comments through this process and the listening session will be logged on a master spreadsheet, and we will respond to every single one. Okay?

We can't always say yes to everything, but we will read every single one. This team will personally read it and see how we can make adjustments to try to incorporate. And if we can't, and if we just thank you for your comment, know that it was there. Okay? We're committing to that now. And this is gonna take a long time, so here we go. All right, so the first page, again, the discussion draft is gonna have the stuff down the side. It's a little bit cut off. I apologize for that. We started off with just the table of contents, so that's easy, okay?

And then we'll get to the meat of it. So on page three at the bottom, you'll see the page numbers. On page three, we mentioned some background on measure p, and then we mentioned some background on the Culture Arts Plan. You'll see a copy of it pictured there. It's available on the park's website. It's also linked within this document. So if you go to the the digital version of these files, you'll be able to click the link, but that's publicly posted on the City of Fresno Parks website. We also recognize the vision statement that was adopted as part of the Cultural Arts Plan. Any questions on page three? Page four.

So one of the things that's important about a plan is the recommendations and strategies that it includes to achieve the goals that it outlined based on all of the community engagement and work. And if you've not had an opportunity to review the plan, which many of you have probably read it in detail because you've been involved, but if you haven't, it's very important that you review it. So we try to give an overview in the guidelines to help people navigate that plan. And really, we're just highlighting here that there are six goals. Many of the grantees are helping achieve goals two through five primarily based on the nature of the work.

The other goals tend to be geared more towards the municipal city environment. We also identify for you where to find the strategies and recommendations and how to review that for each of the goals. So it lays out how we achieve this vision through lots of examples. You aren't limited to what's included here, but this is a great starting place to clearly identify the needs that were identified during the planning process, including helping artists and cultural bearers form a nonprofit that's come straight from the office. So long term, it sees a vision for sustainability.

You'll see we added some arrows just to help you navigate what the recommendations look like and what the strategies are. And there's also priorities that are outlined in the culture of arts plan about what should be funded first, what needs to be invested in first. So please read it if you haven't. If you have trouble finding it, we'll help you navigate there. Any questions on this page?

No? All right, page five. So on page five, we basically just copy and pasted the measure p ordinance verbatim. The only letter that's missing is letter c, and that's because it's on the prior page talking about the culture arts plan, just making it easy for the user. We also mentioned the funding priorities specifically that are called out in measure p.

And we hyperlinked the culture arts plan again because on pages 48 through 52 of that culture arts plan, it identifies priorities. All right. The available funding and funding allocations. So there's a total of 6,400,000 available for cycle three grants. For the purposes of measure C compliance or measure P compliance, that's a whole another issue.

Sorry. Shut down. Coffee. So, we're gonna be offering multiple solicitations, but we're asking that it all tie into one set of guidelines just for clarity. And it would still offer project support and general operating support. So, here's where you're gonna see the first bubble because I think that we're gonna flag and talk through this. We'll get commissioner's feedback, and then that's a good place for the community once we get to that. So I've already talked about the guidelines one instead of four. Multiple solicitations. That's consistent.

The question that I'd like to have some feedback on is in cycle three, can applicants apply to both operating and project support? That's something we're gonna wrestle with. So you don't have to answer right now. Know I'm gonna put you on the spot. But that's a question because we don't speak to that yet, but it's flagged because we need to speak to it. Okay, so feedback is gonna be important on what you all think. The next question is, are there any limits on the number of proposals that can be submitted by an applicant? It was debated in past cycles. We're revisiting the question here. We need your feedback.

The next question there is past rounds have included requirements specifically for established and emerging organizations. It was almost like two different tracks, right, based on the $50,000 mark. Should that distinction be included in the guidelines. So we're gonna wanna hear feedback on that. Again, we wanna hear feedback on everything, but these are some very important questions that we need to determine. Commissioners, do you have any initial questions on this or any feedback?

No questions yet. Well, why is there a question on the number of projects that a fiscal sponsor can sponsor. And the reason why I asked is because from my understanding when measure p was being written out and this arts component was put in place, it was to help artists and and may I call them community based organizations who were already doing the work but did what didn't have an established nonprofit. So then when, like, a comment we heard before, they sponsored so many projects because they don't have anywhere else to go. The arts community is a big community, but they do a lot of the work out of their own pockets, or they do a lot of their work voluntarily.

So this is a great opportunity for them to be able to be a part of and receive funding to do the work, hopefully, being able to grow into a nonprofit. But if you put a restriction on a fiscal sponsor on who they can sponsor, then we may not have a lot of artists or or up and coming artists utilizing this.

So I want to get into that on page nine. When we get there, I wanna keep going to order if you're okay with that.

So we

go over fiscal sponsorship in detail on page nine. So we'll definitely pause there because I know there's a lot of questions with that. Okay. Any other questions on anything on page five or comments? No?

Okay. So on page six, we get into award amounts, project support, and general operating support. Some of the discussion questions include a staff proposal that if you apply for grant funds, we're recommending that after those are scored, the applicants that requested the funding get 100% of what they requested until we get down to whatever is left, and then that next person in line with their score can get a portion rather than the thirty, sixty, 90 percentage that was done because that created some work for people to update scopes. It's a lot less than what's requested and so on. So feedback is welcomed on everything, but on this as well, because we think that that could help people budget accordingly.

And we don't want to see unnecessary inflation of costs, trying to anticipate that you're going get 30%. So I'm going to say, know, costs this much more, and really the intent is to fund the project as as. So that is flagged there. We also talk about a minimum threshold. In past cycles, there were awards as low as around $100 And so typically in grant making programs, there are some minimum thresholds, right, and some maximum thresholds.

We did not decide what that should be because we understand because there's a variety. But we would appreciate feedback on what that should look like because we don't feel that it may be beneficial to get a $100 award once it's all calculated. Okay? So we appreciate feedback there. And then we indicated in this language a set aside for projects versus operating.

That's not required. It's in here to react to. So comments about whether you think the pot should be 50% for this or 60% for that are welcomed and encouraged. That gives you a sense of what's available. And so that's a common practice in Grand Garden. And then the timeline we have proposed would include counsel adopting the guidelines on the twenty fifth. That's the estimated and last date that we can get it to counsel. If they adopt sooner, fantastic. So this is just a draft. For June 30, that would be the release date for the solicitation.

In July, we would immediately start the technical assistance workshops going through how to apply, the tools to use, the questions, what a strong answer might look like, and making that available on Zoom, in person, translation available, interpretation available, and trying to really make it as accessible as possible. And then the August 1, we want feedback on this, about the eligibility screening form being due and if that's enough time to give everyone a chance to digest, attend the workshops, and then decide what they want to do or if more time is needed. The June 30 is the non negotiable date to get the NOFO out. But the date in which your letter of intent or your well, not your letter of intent, but your screening form is due, we have a little bit more wiggle room. We also don't wanna unnecessarily delay, though, because we know that we wanna get these funds out.

The rest of the dates will be driven by the initial dates. So we will hold space in the process for appeals for the eligibility review and hold space in the process for appeals for recommended awards as well. So before I get into the rest of the schedule, I wanna pause here for any commissioner feedback on the percentage allocations, the minimum funding, or any questions that you might have before we go to the next page.

Why the switching of the letter intent to the eligibility screening form?

Because functionally, it's really screening for eligibility. The only thing we're asking for is who your contacts are, the nonprofit, the EIN number. So it's less about explaining that you wanna apply what you're applying for and more about just checking that they meet all of the requirement or required to completion. Do you have a

template of that, right? We

don't yet. But once we do, we would attach it. We have a list of eligibility criteria that we

want to include that's already will we be able to review it before it's released out? No questions? All right. And

this isn't your only time for questions. We're having another subcommittee. And then even once the public comment closes, it still goes to practice, so you have another chance of May. Okay. So going to page seven, we have an application due date of September 1. Does this provide enough time? We are asking because I know that in some cases, folks have to get a resolution from their board to authorize it. I know that it takes time to prepare. So we have this as a tentative date, but feedback is appreciated on that time frame. We're proposing scoring to occur thereafter in September and October.

We're proposing a notice of intent to award, an appeals notice publishing, giving you ten days to review the notice, and then allow you to come to PRAC for any appeals that you may want to articulate. And then the recommendations would be presented to PRAC along with those appeals, and then they will go to counsel. Those dates are seasonally listed because we have to look at the counsel deadlines and dates and how everything lines up to ensure that we allow enough time for you to appeal while also moving forward expeditiously. And then we are proposing that we would then execute the grants, and we would have a grant term of thirteen months, twelve for project delivery, one for final report. But you'll notice that it's flagged within the document whether the terms should be adjusted for a different duration.

We stand up a lot of grants ourselves, and sometimes mobilizing can take a little time once you get awarded the contract to get through everything. So feedback is appreciated on the terms. Okay. Eligible applicants. So this mirrors very closely past guidelines and is in line with best practices.

We did take language about the nonprofit, the charitable organization, as described in section five zero one(three). There are links to being in good standing with IRS, the Franchise Tax Board, Secretary of State. City of Fresno is listed as well. That primarily references like a debarment status. So if you've contracted in the past and your organization was somehow debarred, then you're not necessarily considered in good standing.

We indicate that you've got to be primarily located within the city of Fresno and serve city of Fresno residents or visitors. And then the general operating support grants must be arts or cultural organizations. That language comes from measure p. But that can be demonstrated, again, by the NTEE, which we've linked within the document, you can look up what those codes look like. It's something the IRS assigns.

But I I understand that those can be updated if in alignment with the mission. And then you can look them up to see what your organization has currently using the tool that's linked as well. As much as possible, we are linking the tools that you would need to try to verify this. We'll go over it again in technical assistance, but we've tried to include helpful links to make it easy for folks. Any questions on page seven or any comments?

You said that the grant term could be adjustable. We're willing to consider what that looks like. Okay. Do you have a in your mind, do you know or estimate would it be, what, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen months? I don't. I wanna hear

from the community. Before that determines. Okay. And if you are suggesting suggesting a different term, please include why and what that means and, you know, what what your feedback is.

So I think definitely for this round, it's gonna be some adjustment. I don't think anybody will be ready in twelve months. But is the rest of the year how long as well?

No questions? All right. So make it easy for me. All right. Page eight, eligible expenses.

Many of these mirror what was included in past guidelines. There are some notable changes, though, that I've commented on there. So we've included just direct costs, personnel, supplies, services, permits, things that are relatively routine. Core operating expenses are defined a bit more, and we included the 10% cap from the prior guidelines. I didn't flag that in the red comment box, but if you have feedback on that 10% cap, please comment.

We'd be happy to hear that. Previously, the guidelines did not allow expenses for food. We're proposing to include expenses for food because they may be relevant to cultural programming. For example, if you wanted to do cultural cooking courses with your heritage or there's lots of things that we can do with food. It brings people together.

And so we're proposing for consideration that it be included. But non alcoholic beverages, so alcohol would not be eligible, and that's very standard in programs. And also, we need to be reasonable and necessary. So we're not talking like steak dinners, but we're talking about things that are reasonable and necessary for delivering the scope of your work. We also have included for discussion, which is a substantial change, construction expenses to update facilities for the purposes of expanding access.

The cultural arts plan discusses at length community comments about improvements needed for lighting for the aging cultural and arts facilities. Now, this comes with a lot of other regulations, permits, potentially prevailing wage. So I'm proposing it for feedback. What it brings with it may include a whole another section. But we really would welcome the feedback on what that could look like for interested parties because the culture arts plan is not silent on that.

Yeah, building permits. I mean, it's a whole other world, but one worth discussing. Costs associated with providing technical assistance for emerging organizations to establish an arts and cultural nonprofit. We've seen past awards where there might be artist fellowships and things where it's a one on one type of training and immersive experience. But the Cultural Arts Plan identifies the needs for many of these smaller groups, informal groups, to obtain their status so that they can have a more sustainable operation.

So we're proposing that that be an eligible expense so that we don't do a short term stop gap, but we see like a thirty year vision. Let's see. Equipment expenses are mentioned. They're not highlighted, but that is a difference. We would be asking that equipment exceeding $5,000 that folks get three quotes to get the best price and identify it on an individual line item just because that's a larger expense.

That's a standard practice. And any travel expenses would be subject to the IRS mileage reimbursement and per diem rates that are set by the links that are included in these guidelines. Also well, that gets you to the next question. Let me pause there for that section on eligible expenses and log in to ineligible. Any questions on the eligible expenses?

No. Alright. Okay. Do you have a dollar amount for food and nonalcoholic beverages, or it just depends on what's included in the applicant's budget?

We did not set a dollar amount, but we did say reasonable and necessary. So it's reasonable and That's a very good question. So that's a common term used in, like, federal grants. We will need to define that further. But generally speaking, it would be like if you're let's say you are doing a cultural course on sticky rice.

Those are my favorites. So if you're buying rice and the ingredients, mango, that is reasonable and necessary to do a class on, like, mom cookie and Laotian cookie. Right? Having meetings and feeding everyone steak dinners to just discuss is not a reasonable and necessary expense for the purposes of that. So it's hard to define, but I will welcome anyone's feedback on what is reasonable and necessary, what does that mean to you when you hear it, and are there, should there be caps so that we're physically responsible.

Because when I hear it and you're describing food for culture, I think about for me soul food. So I think about greens, think I about candied yams. I think about dressings. Some people may call it stuffing. And that can be because there's so many different components to add only macaroni and cheese. So there's so many different components that go into the food to make that one dish. Absolutely. So and then if you are holding a community meeting of a 100 people, introducing them to the cult to your culture and, you know, how you bring people together. Like I said, it's food. You may get more than a 100 people, so you may have to prepare for a 175, a 150, a 175 people.

So, like, knowing the cap at the dollar amount will help you plan out for your community meeting, because you may have to do invite only, which is, you know, depending on what the budget

is. So Right. That reasonable comment. Right? Because you know you're gonna have a 100 and you file a private certificate. I think that's reasonable. Now, we're paying for $5,000.05 Right

now, I'll just tap it.

I know it's a broad thing. It was something that I used to follow with the USDA. We would do different cooking classes with the community. And they would serve different taste tests of all these different types of things. So you're not serving maybe a full meal, but you are getting to taste and try and be a part of baking. And so really how you describe the scope of work helps the evaluator determine what's reasonable, what's necessary. But again, feedback. If you've seen other programs

Not necessarily, Shelley, because in my culture, if you come to my house, you're gonna get a full

I know. I know. It can be insulting. Know. I know. And so we don't want people to be offended that they're getting a little tough. I know that. We had to navigate that, right? But I think the sentiment, I think it's worth discussing, and we can see what we can do to balance, again, access and the full breadth of what culture and arts can look like with fiscal responsibility and stuff. Okay. Other questions on just that paragraph before I get into ineligible?

Oh, when you say equipment, like say 5,000. Like, what type of equipment? Printing equipment?

You know, the things that I would kind of expect to see based on looking at past applications, sound systems Projectors. Projectors, screens. And so it's not that it's like a 40,000 piece of equipment necessarily, but it's not inexpensive. And so just having that indicated, and here's why. Usually when you buy a piece of equipment that's over $5,000 it's intended to last for more than a year.

You know, it's a durable piece of equipment, has a useful life, is the words that we use typically in our grant. And so if an applicant applies for that, they get it funded, and then the next year they apply for a whole bunch more. It's just a check to see that equipment is being used and that it can be used for its useful life. Or if you need more, there's an explanation as to why, yes, we bought one zone system, but we've expanded, so we're going to buy a second one. So it's a checkpoint for fiscal oversight.

I was just asking because it's not like no examples listed out. So examples could be helpful. Yeah.

Do you get that one to your hand? Okay. Thank you. Okay. So for the ineligible applicants, this also mirrors past ineligibility.

Open to feedback. One of the things that I flagged that I'd really like to hear feedback on is when there are applicants who did not complete a final report in prior rounds, do they become ineligible for future rounds? Is there a corrective action process where they turn that report in and then they have opportunity? Because we're not trying to exclude access, but we also want to make sure that funds are being used as intended. So how do we balance again, you'll hear me say this making it as accessible as possible while also being fiscally responsible?

So any feedback about organizations that didn't complete their reporting, didn't turn any receipts, nothing? Are they eligible for the next round, or do they have a period of time where they become ineligible to apply? Or they have to go through the corrective action process, turn in what they have, and then they get so I didn't decide that for us, but that's flagged because we would like

to hear feedback on it. What would be acceptable excuses?

I think that we would have to ask situationally for each organization. So let's say you're a fiscal sponsor and, you know, you've worked with them and worked with them and the individual that you fiscally sponsored left town. What do we do with that? Or let's say somebody got ill. They passed. I I don't wish that anyone was gonna but that happens because this is life. Right? And so we didn't want to just say, you don't do it. You're out. That's not the intent here.

We want to hear feedback because there are real life situations where those type of things happen. Something burns to the ground, all the records are gone. We're trying we we're gonna propose some quarterly reporting that will help flag that sooner. But there are situations that may need to be considered, and perhaps we include cracking an appeals process just so that they can kinda state what happened and

we work through what that looks like. Yeah. I was just asking because like you said, life is life being. Right? So someone could be ill and wasn't able to complete a final report. So why would we not let them apply for the next round if they got the report in after that. Right? So we have to put some type of stipulations and and it'll be determined for each or depending on the reasoning why without just listing, like, examples of, like, if someone died or something like that.

Yeah. We need more detail. So maybe, like, a form they can fill out, and we could, you know, have it be reviewed to see.

Then And it's private, right? You don't have to make that public.

Right. Right. But then how then we would have to determine, you know, does that have to be done before you're eligible? If you miss

this year's window, So I mean, it's a lot to think about, but it's just like it is like you said, it's just being determined upon that person's or that nonprofit or that whatever artist's reason why they didn't do the final report. And if there's a good enough reason why they didn't do the final report, then we need to get that in so we could be considered for the next round. But it just really depends on the reason. Agreed. Agreed.

Okay. So the the ineligible applicants are listed there. And then ineligible expenses. So activities happening outside the city of Fresno that do not expenses that do not reasonably expand access to arts and culture. Alcohol or other controlled substances.

Funds shall not be used to develop facilities on existing or former landfills or waste refuge facilities. Because we included capital for consideration and the inclusion of eligible expenses, capital improvements, Measure P speaks to the fact that you can't build on landfill. So we threw that in there too. And then any expenses considered ineligible by Measure P in any of the ordinance. And then the other items were included in the past guidelines, but I have flagged a couple for further discussion.

Cash prizes, I think it makes sense. Scholarships, though, we have flagged that, and here's why. Measure P, we're looking at the scholarships for youth sports. Scholarships is a way to get money out. Obviously, there's criteria that's included in that process, but we just flagged it for further discussion.

As it is a tool that could help expand access. The other one I flagged is projects in schools during school hours. It's flagged because we did hear community feedback about reconsidering that as an ineligible expense. If it's included as ineligible, we need to define what school hours might mean because schools have after school programs. So is it the instructional day?

Is it the after school program? Is it after that? But if it remains included, it needs to be better defined because schools have different schedules and different ways to refer to things. And that's also a great place to access families and students. So that is flagged there for further discussion. And then projects on university campuses that are primarily for enrolled students. We do want to expand access to the community, but that's just flagged because enrolled students, I mean, you'd be be extending access to them or the community as well. So no changes to that, but just we welcome some comments on those because we had heard

some feedback before. I have another question on KJ. I'm sorry. Sure.

I didn't even stop. I just went to nine. I'm sorry.

A little bit more explanation on eligible applicants under a nonprofit organizations that are religious, political, or private foundations. Why are they ineligible applicants?

So that was included in the past guidelines. And I believe that it's based on an interpretation of the ordinance because measure p defines what a nonprofit organization is within the ordinance, and it says charitable five zero one c three. These other organizations are also in the five zero one c three section, but they're not categorized as charitable. That's the IRS, and that's how Measure P was defining it, but we can ask for a secondary legal opinion just to verify that language.

No. Because we do have some faith based nonprofits that work in the community, and they do have community organizers. They do have a youth component. They do hold at their community meetings. They do activities, withdrawal what a healthy community looks like, little things like that.

So if that is working for them and they wanted to go for a grant in the arts and culture, they would not be able to because they are considered a religious nonprofit. So, like, it kinda, like, is not fair in a way because they're actually doing the work, but they will not be able to access. But I just wanted you to state it because we did have some comments made during unscheduled communication about that, which I knew was in the prior guidelines, but just wanted to get on record saying.

Yeah. Thank you for going back. That's a very good question. We will submit it again for a legal opinion, but that's how the definition of measure p appears to be stating as charitable versus the other stuff. Any other questions before

I jump back? Sorry. Just kept going. Alright. And then Mike would oh,

you have a finished up. So

some of the language about the two years was present and past guidelines. Also mirrored language about the different administrative functions, including but not limited to compliance, human resources, legal support. So you're providing that framework, helping to get the insurance, overseeing expenditures, those controls that are in place. And then the last paragraph is where there's an acknowledgment that the Culture Arts Plan recommends emerging organizations establish a nonprofit so that they can more sustainably operate in the long term. So fiscal sponsorship, I hear all the questions about a cap on sponsors.

We did not set what that is because we wanted to hear feedback. Again, this is a draft to react to. But we also know that if the end goal is to help the individuals get their footing to become a nonprofit, then that takes a lot of administrative capacity. And if you have 100 individuals that you're fiscally sponsoring, that presents a challenge. It's no easy task.

So props on that for a lot of the organizations. But it is no easy task. And if the Cultural Arts Plan outlines the goal of forming those nonprofits, we'd like to recommend that we invest in that capacity building so that come the next round, you have a lot more nonprofits that are there. Or if folks get together to form a collective of nonprofits to set themselves up for the next round. So, again, I really welcome comments.

I expected that we will get a lot on this particular section. It's important to have that discussion. But we didn't set the number, and we just showed from the culture arts plan what the end goal is. Measure P also requires that the grantee be a five zero one(three). So it's also in best practice, the end goal shouldn't be to have only fiscal sponsors. The end goal is to invest in nonprofits.

Good question. So when you form a nonprofit, a five zero one(three), don't you have to be established for two years before you're able to go on on your own without having a VISTA sponsor.

That one correct? In the guidelines or legally? Legally. So I cannot Okay. I don't want to give legal advice. No.

The reason why I said that because you do have some people who have nonprofits, but they haven't had it for a period of a long time. So they do have fiscal sponsors. So even though they have a nonprofit, they still have to have a fiscal sponsor because they haven't been established. So that's gonna remove some of those people out of that realm as well because even though they have a nonprofit, they haven't been established in a period of time to be able to be their own fiscal sponsor. Right? They still need someone to sponsor them. So a little bit of a clarification will help.

And navigating that complexity is the intent behind, investing in grant funding that helps build that capacity for the emerging nonprofits or the individuals who are forming it or the ones who haven't been established. It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's worth the feedback and discussion. So thank you. Do you have any other comments on that section? So as previously stated on the application questions, right now, it's just a high level list of things that would be asked in general, but those questions would be more detailed if we had comments on the guidance come together so that we're asking the right questions.

I'm sorry. Sure.

Number nine, projects in school during school hours. So what if an artist was invited to a classroom to teach or to to teach art to the kids, and they have a grant under the arts culture grant, and that's part of that. That wouldn't be they wouldn't be able to do that because that's during school hours.

You are correct, and this was included in the past guidelines, which is why we flagged it for further discussion. Okay. Because, I mean,

you may have a relationship with the artist and you may have a high school class, and I want you to come to my high school class all day and hang out, and this is what we're gonna do all day. You're present your work. You're gonna talk about what you're doing, and they're gonna just draw. Right? So I don't know how I feel about that one. I've been able to I think they they should be able to go during school hours if they have a protocol in place. Okay.

So that comment is being logged right behind you. It's really small. I can't see it from here. Me either. I am. We'll have it We're gonna post it to the website. Yeah. Will. Yeah. So it should be included there.

Anything else on page nine before I jump ahead? And you're always free to come back. Okay. So page 10, we just mentioned some common things that are included. We intend to have the guidelines available in English, Hmong, Spanish, and Punjabi and included in the email where you can request those copies.

We'd also include them linked to our website just for convenience there. And then if anything was submitted in other language other than English, we would use a third party translation service to translate into English for the scoring panelists. The owner permissions and preliminary approvals is relatively consistent. If you're proposing to put a mural on property that you don't own, owner permissions would be needed. At the time of application, it could be as simple as, like, a letter that they get preliminary approval because we realize that there are costs to permits and other approvals, so just a letter.

Maintenance plans, that was included in the past guidelines and has been reflected here as well. And then if artists are included in your proposal, a commitment from them, even as simple as a letter of interest, advice as well. And then, again, that use of AI in the application process. AI can be a helpful tool, but it's important that you use clear language and include details in the application so that we don't get a bunch of applications with all the same answers. Okay.

So the application review and scoring process, we wanted to outline here, though it would be outlined in a handbook, which is on the next page, that would be published and available for feedback as well. But what we are proposing based on all of the feedback that has been required is that applications being reviewed in, obviously, the transparent and competitive process by an application review committee. And then I'm gonna go to the next page, which details that a bit more. But are there any questions on page 10 before I go there? No.

I already jumped to 11. Okay. Alright.

I know. There's gonna be lots of feedback, and we'll welcome in. Okay. So we are proposing to form an application review committee or ARC for convenience. Easier to say.

And that committee should be representative of Fresno's demographics, people groups, and reflective of a wide range of artistic and cultural experience. We anticipate needing approximately 20 to 25 ARC members to review and score applications. You'll see my calculations in the right hand column. If we get around 150 to 200 applications, divide that amongst the reviewers and have three reviewers per proposal, you land on 20 to 25 scores. Parks, we wanna be very clear about this, parks, the parks department and the staff that we're hiring will not be a scoring member of the ARC.

We will facilitate a very structured process, which will be outlined in more detail, A very formal process like what you see. But we will not be scoring. We will not be calculating. We'll just add up the total, put it on a spreadsheet, and you'll have a whole thing. So, that is explicitly stated there.

Representation will be sought from each of the experience areas outlined below. I want to pause to say that if we've missed experience areas, please point them out in your comments. If we've missed representation that should be listed here, please point those out. And you'll notice that the only one that we assigned a number to was the one at the bottom. We're proposing two members that reside outside of the city so that they can be plugged in to support their recusal and conflict of interest process.

So if a scorer, even though they've disclosed that they may have a conflict and they didn't think it would come up, if at any point during the scoring it comes up, they would stop scoring, and it would go to that group to help facilitate a refusal. So in the comments, you will also see that what I just stated, if there are other experience areas, please comment and even give comments on the number of representation for each of the groups proposed. If you think, know, not this group, please let us know. Okay. I'm gonna pause there before we get into the hands question. Do you have any questions? I

don't see on here members with experience in reading a fiscal budget. Okay. I don't see members with experience of understanding what cultural art means in different ethnicities. And I don't like the one about members residing outside of the city of Fresno because they're not gonna know anything about those markets or those yeah. Yeah.

Or the applicants. So I would suggest that we have as we do the reviewing process, that we have some alternates in place that would be able to step in that lives in the city of Fresno that's familiar with the arts community and knows how to read a a budget and that is very cultural diverse to be the replacement if there is a recusal. And I just would like so it has members have to reside in the neighborhood that's identified as highest needs. So need a little bit of clarification on that.

So what we were proposing is just an idea because highest needs is such a good part of measured peak. Not that all members would have to, but just that we ensure we're getting representation of a certain number of members that would reside in those areas. Just to make sure, you know, if there are additional barriers to their participation, we would like to make sure that we're intentional about finding folks that live in central and southern areas which are identified as high

I think that will come with the outreach process, but then that will complete to me, will come will have a conflict in the art community because artists all over Fresno, not just in the Heights And East neighborhood. So you have artists everywhere. And a lot of the applicants that were approved were primarily, if I'm not mistaken, District 3, which is a heavily art community because of the downtown area. So I I like it, but I don't like it because it's, restricting. Right? And we don't wanna restrict. If those neighbors happen to the members happen to live in those neighborhoods, that's fine. That's great. Right? We have representation.

But I don't know. I have to think about this, and let's see what type what can I come up with to propose?

Yeah. And it could be as little as one member. It's not that you have to meet all those criteria. It's just that a certain number of members, we will be, you know, wanting to have that background or that perspective. So that's good feedback. And I think that's the kind of feedback that we need hear.

And, Charley, with the new highest needs definition, that's expanded, right? Yeah. I think you're going to capture more outside of the the typical. I think it's been 50%. 50%. Correct.

Yeah. It goes all the way up Blackstone. And

I think we'll capture more without even identifying it as So the highest we might not even have to use that word. K. K. Because when I see it, I think, oh, so everybody has to come

from the highest needs. Like, good.

Well, that's leaving out other people, but that's how I'm reading it until we have the conversation. Right? So

Yeah. And that's why I'm going through every single section. I know it's gonna take longer, but I wanna make sure that the intent is conveyed. And again, the number sign means, like, if you'd like to see, you know, three

members with this or one member with

that or none, could say, you know, zero. Or if there's something again that

I

missed, including it, you'll also see that we added, like, youth or senior perspectives because we think that, you know, the the broad range can be helpful.

Well, we do need a diverse panel. So obviously, you've missed some seniors on there. I I always love a diverse group. But I don't think we have to use the word the highest needs. I think that's just gonna be captured when we start reviewing applicants for head on us. Any

other comments on that or initial feedback? No? Okay. So going on to the next section. So the application review and scoring handbook. We are proposing that there be a handbook that outlines the processes, procedures, and training materials to be utilized by the ARC to ensure a transparent and competitive process. The handbook would be linked in here. It is not yet written because we wanted to get feedback on what that should include. I did include some sections that would show up in there, like conflict of interest and that type of thing. But we're just finding that it should follow a very structured process.

And discussion amongst scoring committee members is important, but we also want to ensure that the process allows everyone to make their own voice heard and follows rubrics and the standard process so that there's not undue influence in that process. So that will be published. It will be available as a draft for the community to add feedback to and for practical review as well. We'll need to put it together as a starting place. Training and compensation.

So one of the things that we included in here is compensation for the time spent on training, reviewing, and scoring grant applications. We feel that compensating people for their time will help to attract a wide breadth of members, and we anticipate a lot of applications, and that's a big time commitment. So that's what we're proposing. We also are proposing, at a minimum, training on conflict of interest disclosures, training on unconscious bias and ethics in public service, an orientation on fair and impartial grant application review. That means, like, looking at the rubrics and the guidelines and what's prioritized and using that to then evaluate.

And training on the handbook, which again is yet to be developed but will be available for feedback. And then conflict of interest disclosure requirements. We will be requiring that ARC members disclose any conflict of interest or perceived conflict of interest. So that will be detailed more in the training, but we never wanna have something that might be perceived as a conflict of interest, whether there is one there, we believe or not.

Any questions now?

Absolutely. You're ready

for me. What does compensation look like? Is there a dollar amount? I'm sorry. You know, I'm already ahead. I'm reading one sheet somewhere else.

That is something we've gotta figure out. So I don't have an answer, but we have to figure out what that looks like, whether it be a stipend of some sort. Through the city process to pay people, you can usually contract or you can hire them as employees. We're not gonna hire them as employees. And so I've gotta work through the logistics, but we did hear that people want to be compensated. And so if you'll allow me a little time to figure out how.

The reason why I asked is because we have all type of committees and commissions for the city of Fresno that requires a lot of our time that we volunteer for or we get appointed for, and we don't receive a stipend. Right? So just looking at what the compensation will look like. Why did you feel you need to compensate these these people? Is it because you wanna attract or you like, the reasons. So the reason I included it in here was because there were comments made

at crack that the community wanted it. Included.

They wanted We just wanna be compensated for our time as well too. But Yes. I'm just saying, you know Yeah. I'm not against it. Right? If this is something that community wants, you know, I'm all for community. But at sometimes, you know, we volunteer our time, and we're here every meeting. Right? We don't miss a meeting. I know I haven't. Right? And regardless if I was chair or not, I would still be here every meeting because this is something that I'm passionate about. So you don't have to compensate me to be here. Right? But I I get I just wanted to say that.

No. I think that's important, and we'd like to hear more more feedback on it. You know, it's included based on comments, but there may be comments that say, well, you know, I'm not sure about that. So it's a starting place. And logistically, I've gotta figure out how that could be possible, but there you go.

I mean, you guys say it's a coffee,

which is great. I know.

Get that tonight, but you know? It's

our first time. We'll try to go. Yeah. Think so. Okay. All right. So I'm gonna move on to the next page of list. Do you

have any questions? No. Sure. Go ahead. It's physical. Okay.

So on page 12, we have drafted an initial scoring rubric. The past set of guidelines had a very high level rubric. Most grant programs have a little bit more detail included so that you know where your proposal will land as far as points. This is our first attempt to start with this. And then comments, again, you're gonna hear me say it a million times, comments and feedback about it, whether that be what's being scored, how many points are assessed, hey, you missed this.

We think it should be out of 100 points for ease of calculation. Whatever feedback you have, we welcome. But here's the starting point that we came up with based on the culture arts plan and the goals of mentorship. So for project support, there's two different rubrics, project versus operating. What we're proposing is to use a standard rubric that goes over a variety of categories. So the first category is how well it meets the culture arts plan goals. And there's scores across the top. I don't know if your copy has colors, but if it doesn't, red is zero to one points, and then you get to bright green for five points. And then there are tangible examples that scoring catalysts oh,

I'm sorry. I think I got

to the color versions so we could see. But in any case, it gets great. It's like, stoplighting. So there's tangible examples to help you score. So if you if an applicant did not demonstrate too many of any goals, then that would land on the zero to one point. Most likely zero, but nothing was included. If they partially demonstrated it, that would be two points. That still requires judgment by the scoring members. So if there's additional detail that we can include that would help make it a little easier, please add comments. But as you get more points, you're showing more examples.

You're getting clear deliverables that would achieve that goal. And there's ways to more, I guess, consistently assess who's getting five points versus who's getting zero points. But again, let us know if we've missed something in that section. The Cultural Arts Plan Grant Funding Priorities. That's a scoring category. Measure P funding priorities is another one. The scope of work is another. And starting off, we've assigned anywhere from, like, three to five points for these. But if you're like, you know what? The culture hour sign needs to be 10 points, give that feedback.

We give examples of how you would attain those points. Going on to the next page for this scoring rubric, we also include the budget. So are you giving a budget that says, this is going to be $500 Or are you giving a budget that says, it's going to be this amount because we're anticipating 150 people attending our event and the supplies are, you know, itemized? And we're not proposing to make this a long grant application. So I know that you see all this.

We want it to be as short as reasonably possible to articulate. But we also want to make sure that we're asking the right questions and including the right details so that scores can assess transparently how the scores will be done. We include an evaluation plan. So how will you evaluate success if that's included? The schedule, does it appear reasonable?

You know, if you propose in your schedule that within month one, you're gonna, you know, have planned an entire event for 10,000 people, the scores might say, hey, think that takes a little more steps unless you articulate that it's already ready to go. So we included three points there just to see that it appears reasonable, but we can refine that language if we get some feedback on that. And then how does it expand access to arts and culture? Giving multiple examples of how it would do so. And that one right now is scored at 10 points, but that could certainly be revisited with the

feedback that we received. Any questions on this first rubric? No. Not right now. I have to really

You're gonna have to sit with it Yeah. Yeah. And we can get you a color

copy of the too. And

I apologize. The font is small, but

we'll we'll work on that formatting.

Okay. So then for the core operating support starting on page 14. Very similar, but we realized that core operating is for that and not necessarily project specific. So, again, the culture arts plan goals with the scores there. The culture arts plan grant funding priorities, which are outlined in the plan, scores there. That's the fee funding priorities. And then organization organizational stability, which is the intent of the funding. Right? And so explaining how it would provide that stability and how doing so expands access. The next section is, again, expanded access.

There's the scope of work, the budget, the evaluation plan, the schedule, and then a little bit on the page 16, I've kinda cut off there. So very similar to the others, but as you read through the more kind of detail, there's other examples of how you would achieve those points. It is very important if you read nothing, read the rubrics and give us feedback. That is how points are assigned, and that makes a difference whether you get funded or not. If you don't score well, it's likely because you

did not include the information

that was prioritized here. So I know it's small font, and then we can get a bigger font posted as we touch on our website or something. Make it a little easier. But okay. Questions on that

one? I get it.

Okay, so page 16. So now getting into the how to apply. We are gonna use that eligibility screening form. It would be there'll be a deadline for submitting it that will be populated, and then we would provide a template that was available for you to complete. Once that's submitted, a link would be issued to the grant portal.

We're working with our information services department to build a portal where we can contain all of this for your convenience. It's gonna take us a couple more weeks to get through it, but it should be something that you log in, you can see your application, you can see the status, you can see once once you're awarded, you know, the financials, put everything in there. I know that Submittable was used for the pass grounds. So this would be like that, but some different features that we think could be helpful for managing long term. I put in here a flag for applications.

Applicants may submit no more than a certain number of proposals if that is decided. So you'll see, again, a question of will there be limits on the number of proposals that can be submitted? Can you apply to both? And do fiscal sponsors have higher limits so that they're able to apply for their organization and their subrecipients? So those are questions that we need to get feedback on so that we can make the best determination.

I'll go over just the next section, then we'll come to you for questions. For questions on technical assistance, again, I touched on it earlier, but we would have it in person with virtual option available, recorded, and published. All questions would be coming through a written format, and we would be publishing those as well so that everyone has access to the Q and A that has come in. And we will close questions at a certain point so that it gives us a chance to get all the answers out ten days before the grant's due so that everyone has a level of length to access those Q and As. That way a question doesn't come in ten minutes before it's due.

And then the appeals process, two points of appeal if you don't pass the eligibility screening, and then if you're not recommended for award on whatever grounds you'd like to appeal, that can be heard at CRAF and then PEC can make recommendations. Okay. So questions on page 16.

I feel like I'm talking so much. You and them both. I know. You described, like, a a grant portal where they'd be able to see if they receive funding, how much they receive funding. Will that be reached with each applicant have their own unique sign in, and it won't be that all applicants can see who got awarded what, like Yes.

So what we're working with ISD, which is our information services to build, initially, you would get a link so that you can complete the application. And then what you would see is that your application has been received. It's under review. It's in the scoring process. And then comes the the notice of intent, right, that we would be recommending to crack that they'd be awarded based on the scores.

It would be specific to only the authorized parties in the organizations that are awarded, the grantees. And then the second portion of the portal, what we'd like to do is make that a place where you can upload your, you know, your budget, your receipts, the documentation to show how things were spent, do your own reporting, and that would not be accessible to anyone other than that grantee. So it's taking some time to work with our department to make sure that all those controls are in place. But we feel like that could be an all inclusive place. But you wouldn't see how others are spending the funds, although everyone who gets awarded, that list of awardees will be published to

the city website. Yeah. Will that portal be able to accept appeal documents?

We're gonna have to work through that. Because if you are not eligible to apply, you wouldn't get access to the portal initially. So I think that's a really good question that we're gonna have little bit of ice tea on how we

I think there should be another component where you can accept the appeals documents. And then once the appeals are in review and then they're deciding that they're gonna be accepted, I think that that information should be that would be fair. And then each each project who's appealing will get a green ID so they can follow their own appeal process. I like that.

That's a really good idea. Thank you. Take that back to the coders. Any other questions, comments about what's what's on here? All right. So page 17, the regulated communications, that's standard language in the city of Fresno. RFPs, RFQs, or some funding opportunities. So if that's something that can be reviewed in detail, there's a link included there for more information about what is regulated communications. And then the post award requirements. So by post award, we mean, like, after your guys is awarded, what what's next?

And I will say that the team is working out to build tools that show lots of visuals of like what steps to process and make it very easy, even for groups that may be less familiar with the grant award process. So what we're envisioning would be required is obviously a grant agreement. That's important, the contract. We also are required to put signature authority documents that shows who can sign for your organization and the statement of information. We have a city administrative order that outlines that, but we're making a technical system document to help people figure out where to find that information.

There's a vendor update authorization form that the city requires. And what that means is you would include your information and your bank account so we can pay you to the right account. And then our finance team will actually call you to verify that you're real and we don't have the wrong numbers. So it is a process, but once you're set up, then you're set up, and once you get through it, you're good to go. Many of you may already be set up as a vendor in the system, but that's something that we can look up and work through.

Insurance will be required. What that looks like depends on the scope of your project. So let's say we do include capital. That might require different types of insurance than what's required for working with you. I noted that there, with capital or construction projects, there may be permits, prevailing wage, and different things that would be required to review.

TB testing, mandated reporter training, and fingerprinting for any projects that work with youth. That is the city standard for due diligence. Proof of right of way on the permissions and things. I think I mentioned that earlier, but that's, again, a post award requirement. We will also require itemized invoices for payment requests, And payments are intended for actual costs that are incurred.

So many of you are keeping track of that. I think in the past agreement, it's supposed to be available upon request. But we just wanna be very clear about what would be required, and we will have a very detailed overview of what that looks like, just so folks, if they need a refresher on that. So paid receipts, paid invoices, time sheets, other backup documentation associated with expenses would need to be submitted in quarterly reports and then retained for three years as well. We would require quarterly progress reporting and a final report.

And then there are measure fee acknowledgment requirements, which will be outlined in the grant term. All very standard, all very similar to best practice. The payment terms, again, I mentioned it earlier, but we'd like feedback on that. We're balancing getting the funds out so that work can begin with ensuring that the funds are used as intended. So past terms were 9010. I believe Commissioner Baraza had made a comment at a prior meeting that it should be considered maybe quarterly for consideration. So all feedback is welcomed on that as well. I'll pause here on page 17 if you have any

feedback or comments. Nope. Not on this page. Okay.

Generic from there. I actually like the

way that it's laid out. And then measure p acknowledgement requirements, quarterly progress report, and the final report would be required. Payment terms, though, I know that they have been 90% upfront and 10% upon completion, But that's how it always has been, and that's standard practice. So I don't have a problem with none of that.

Okay. So I know the past guidelines had had that in it. Other grants, I know reimbursement can be challenging. But there's a variety of different ways that even the state gives out money. In other type of grants, they might do 25% upfront and then progress. So we're gonna have to work through that. But, again, feedback is essential so that we can inform our decisions based on

And each project will be different of what what they may need. Or Yeah. I don't like, that's kinda hard to to say what you should get unless we do it by how they score the ranking. I don't know. Just throwing out. Yeah. I don't know. That's a tricky one

because that gets yeah. And and, honestly I'll let y'all figure out Yeah. The city does have a risk assessment process and that can also inform things, right? And so there's just questions about controls and, you know, do you have staff in place? So that also informs payment terms. So feedback is essential. I didn't put in here what it was going to be deliberately so that we could hear. Any other comments on that page? No? Okay.

Page 18. It continues on about some of the post awards, so completion of a risk assessment that gives us a sense of, you know, there's questions about has your organization been audited. We just need standard checklist questions that gives us a better sense of any potential risks. We also indicate that programs need to be operated in a non discriminatory manner in compliance with all applicable laws, including without limitation, those that are protecting persons with disabilities. We left the language from past guidelines about providing discounted admission to residents of the city of Fresno for any ticketed events or general admission to venues.

That helps to make access a little more affordable. And then any projects that have a scope of work which requires licensure, the example used in past guidelines, which we kept is like art therapy. It would have to include the license numbers and application materials because anything that requires licensure, we want to validate. Confidentiality and nondisclosure is explained, and we mentioned the California Public Records Act. So we have to adhere with that.

There's different cases where records may not be released, so that we leave that up to the city attorney's office. But we did want to disclose that things will be held in confidentiality, barring legal requirements. Debarment, I mentioned earlier, that that means that something happened in the past since the city is no longer allowing you to do business. We have not seen a lot of that, but that would be something that can happen according to the Fresenius will code. And that's standard language in all contracts.

And then, again, we emphasize the public records. So there's details there. If you have trade secrets or proprietary information, labeling it as such throughout your application will help the city attorney to be able to assess what could be released if there's public request for information. Questions on any of that standard? Okay.

And then on page 19, indemnification language is provided by our risk department. This is high high level, but if you're awarded and the contract is issued, it would have specific insurance requirements for your agreement. We do ask applicants to disclose any conflict of interest, so that would be part of the application process. And then we just made a statement there of accessibility and non discrimination that folks needing different accessibility tools know how to contact us. And then, obviously, non discrimination is fundamental to how we're operating. Any questions on page 19? Okay. So thank you for bearing with me. I see some slicky eyes. I know it gets warm.

But I think it was important to go through it page by page so that we can collect feedback first from the subcommittee. Are there any other comments or questions that you all have that we wanna reflect before moving on?

No. But thank you for putting this together and going through it page by page. I think it's very helpful not only to us, but to the public as well and to our our attendees online as well to have a better understanding. It was very transparent, and I and I appreciate that you welcome all feedback. Right? So that's that's really good. So so thank you for that. Yeah.

Just to go and turn the call to

thank you for taking the

time and explaining everything line by line or page by page in

this case. I'm looking forward to hearing what I'm pulling back. Okay.

Well, that concludes my presentation and this item. So I'll turn back to you.

Thank you. So now we will move on to hearings. If you haven't filled out a card yet and you wanna make a comment on the presentation that you just heard, I would suggest that you fill out a card now and get it up here, please. We're gonna move on to hearing ID number 26Dash485. Hearing to receive public input on expanded access to arts and cultural grants program for cycle three. Would any member of the public like to make a comment regarding this item? You will have up to three minutes, and I do have some parts up here. The first person I will call will be Steven Wilson.

Evening, chair McCoy, commissioner Trio. I'm Steven Wilson from Fresno, Phil Pramonic. I guess, first of all, I wanna thank Shelby and her team for the amount of work you guys have done already on this and also the the sense of urgency that I'm certainly hearing from you. That's really appreciated. Time is late.

The calendar is moving. And I just wanna let you know that's really appreciated. I'll save detailed comments for the written comment period. What I wanted to this is in part a question as well as a comment, and it relates to page seven, the timeline. Understanding that you say the the notice of the notice of asking for applications has to go out by June 30.

Is it possible to have asynchronous application deadlines and review periods even if they're announced at that time? Like, for example, that general operating grants could be the first ones rolled out than project grants. It strikes me that cycle two funded activity through 06/30/2026, and you're setting forth a timeline in which notice of funding for cycle three would be made in October 2026. So that's the second quarter for organizations like mine that are on their July 1, June 30 fiscal year. And then funding is actually received in 2027, not '26, as stated here.

So that's halfway through the fiscal year. So wondering if, you know, I think for project grants, if you're if you're thinking about projects that would be happening between July 1 and December 30, they've already missed funding. So maybe if it's possible to say the first round of grants are for general operating organizations operating on a July 1, June 30 fiscal year, then calendar year 2026 for projects happening in the year 2027, and then possibly another if there are other organizations on different fiscal years. It's it just strikes me that that might be worth considering because then also, you would be dealing with many fewer applications at each time and also needing fewer panelists to be recruited all at once. And it might then allow, you know, contracting, payment, everything to just move out more in alignment with when the activity is happening.

And so if that is at all possible, I that would be a very strong recommendation. The only

everything else would

be unright. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next speaker will be Johannes.

Just a quick point of order. Is this meeting being recorded? I don't see it on the Citi YouTube Live.

Just a quick question.

I thank you for actually holding the diverse set of methods to get feedback, portal and then this and everything else. I have in my hands a line itemized edit of this draft that you'll receive from me, you know, through the correct portal. And I I encourage my fellow community members to do exactly the same. And most importantly, I hope that you and the subcommittee and those in the commission will actually listen to this feedback from your your constituents. I wanna thank the assistant director McNab that statement about giving feedback early and giving it giving it as much as possible.

There's a lot of things that I really love about this draft. So I'll put that in writing, like, I'll just for time, I'll put shortly the the things that I think are absolutely necessary to add or to fix. Otherwise, this will be a deliberately inaccessible program. And then we'll just have a repeat of the of the bad faith actions and the downright manipulation that was perpetrated by Fresno Arts Council in the previous cycles. Number one, the fiscal the fiscal sponsor cap, and and just the way the fiscal sponsor is as written at the moment, it's very it's deliberately inaccessible.

And and we won't we'll have a handful. We'll just have the established organizations apply. It's it's extremely dangerous and, again, liable for for lawsuit. And if there's a paradox of sustainability, it it calls out specifically that these emerging orgs should be encouraged to create a nonprofit for sustainability. But then it says, you know, you'll get a job when you have experience, but we're not gonna hire to get experience. We get a job around and around and around. I'm open to, like, a a a kind of a on ramp. I'm I'm certainly open to, like, encouraging and and and facilitating the fiscal sponsors to take on sponserees and then having, alright. Now you need to, like now that that was that was, like, that was your thing, and there's an eligible cost to build your your nonprofit. So now you're using it for that.

So like, yeah, you only have one successful award or or what have you. Or or like find some way to pay them pay them to apply it themselves and you have to form a nonprofit. Like one way or the other, they need to be on ramp. Otherwise, it's deliberately inaccessible and it's liable. Regarding the ARC review sessions, they must be public, they must be on Zoom, and they must be recorded.

That's an accessibility issue, both for people being able to attend and watch their item be recorded so we can have this transparency to fix the damage that was done by the previous proctors at Personal Arts Council. And and also for new people, how are the people supposed to know what they what needs to be done and how to do better if they're not able to see it? I acknowledge that there there's a fear of of too much sunlight, but I disagree with that. There's a way that we can make all the ARC members feel safe. There's a way we can make them feel heard. This is our community. They are our community and we are our community. There's a way for there's a way for that to happen correctly. I have concerns about the representation quotas. Seeking all those different expertise, I think that's wonderful and amazing.

The quotas concern me because again, the training is what is what should be important. Otherwise, it'll just be someone's bias in the first place. Thank you kindly. Thank you.

Next speaker, comment. Julia,

bro, you gotta talk or

I'm sorry. I just wanted to say that, like, your critical mindset is really needed here. There are no working artists on this, and you guys should have no working artists as a part of this. They keep a point of talking. Okay. I want to address the idea that artists, cultural, and arts based projects funded through measure p, EAAC, should work towards becoming a five zero

one c three

organization. While I understand the intention, accountability, and structure, this is not a best practices approach If the goal is to truly expand access to arts and culture for us, no. Okay. I wanna share my experience. Blue Step Front took six years to become its own five zero one c three. But long before that, I was producing arts and cultural programming as a teenager throughout my twenties and into my thirties. In fact, I was doing this work for about fifteen years before even creating Lucille Front. And to be real about it, we didn't start as a nonprofit. We started as a group throwing 21 and over parties in the club. That was our entry point into building culture, community, and creative space.

So over time, that work evolved into what is now a nonprofit, but I also had access to higher education. I earned a bachelor's in social work. I earned a master's in public administration with an emphasis in nonprofit management. And that gave me the tools to navigate systems and eventually build build a five zero one c three. Most artists in Fresno do not have that privilege or that desire, and they shouldn't need it in order to access public arts funding.

Requiring nonprofit status creates a barrier. It shifts the focus from creating meaningful community rooted work to managing compliance, boards, and administrative systems. It doesn't make the work more impactful. It just makes it more bureaucratic. There are already proven alternatives like fiscal sponsorship, re regranting models, or directly, funding artists.

That ensures accountability without forcing artists to become institutions. In Fresno, so much of our cultural work happens informally in neighborhoods, communities, grassroots settings. If we require five zero one c three status, we risk excluding the very people who are already doing the work and shaping the culture every single day. If the goal of measure p is to expand access, then we need to meet artists where they're at, not require them to become something else just to participate. So I urge you all to really rethink that because look where I'm at right now, fiscally sponsoring all these projects. This happened years ago. I'm 46.

You know what I mean?

It takes a long time,

so please think about that.

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, Tricia. I don't wanna butcher the last name. Faye Faiza?

Beza. Linda? Tricia.

Samuel Contreras.

Hello. Thanks so much for having me here. I just wanna echo kind of what other cameras have said about the the sponsorship as well. I said I'm very privileged that I actually started pursuing my nonprofit last year, but under the current guidelines, I cannot able to to be as productive as possible for anyone or for myself even. So I was, you know, thankful because of the sponsor. I really appreciate that. But at the same time, we have to revise, right, in which, you know, you have a question about, like, the city again and maybe changing, again, the policy. Right? Who qualifies to be a nonprofit? So I would like to be my big sponsor.

Right? Maybe in the right? Maybe for more like like myself that really started the nonprofit demonstrate the capable administrative funds, maybe open it up for those nonprofit that barely getting started. Right? When it comes to that, that demonstrate the capacity and the, know, integrity to punish their own funds.

So I think that would be something that would be beneficial to many of us and encourage perhaps in the future a lot of folks to start their nonprofit as well too. Another thing maybe I would like to also, you know, allocate for is for projects about in university campuses. As a professor from the state, I feel, you know, they had this notion that universities public universities and public schools have a lot of funds to do specifically art projects, and that's unfortunately not the case. So something, you know, perhaps we'd like to revise is that perhaps university campuses that doing our projects are able to do so.

Thank you. Next speaker, Smiley.

Hello. My name is Smiley, and I'm a Morty, AACC Morty, the second round. I just discussed. I wanna resonate with my peers here. All of them

will stand up front as

well because we we believe in this process, strongly believe in the community as cultural bears. I'm not speaking for them, but I know that we believe in transparency. I have to resonate with them. It's shocking that we would create a barrier to accessing these funds by making or requiring applicants to be five zero one c three nonprofits. Like Oman said, some people may not wanna be a nonprofits.

Some people may not know how to do it. How's the cost of money to do with that? So one of the questions I would have is if I had to become a nonproject to apply well, first, I couldn't even apply. But could I then take that money if I do get I do get funded to reimburse myself for the fees to become a nonprofit? That's a question. I just to think about. I just think it's really stupid. And I'm not gonna use any expletives. But if you go ahead with that, you definitely be stopping the funding to where it should be going, which is to the community. This

is

a lifeline for for artists that, you know, have to pick themselves up by their own bootstraps to have to borrow money to make an event happen. In effect, if this goes into play, only the establishment will get funding. And it it would be a shame if that because I would be totally against the community. So I definitely resonate with my peers here. That's a wrong direction.

It nullifies the whole purpose of this. I have a few more minutes. I wanted to talk about some of the things here that you all have discussed. The ineligible applicants, The idea about being in good standing with the city, I know you said that that's, like, a bit disenvironment and stuff like that. But what if I'm late with my water bill? Am I like, if I owe, like, you know, like, I'm unemployed and I'm trying to, like, pay my water bill and I'm delinquent. It's to say you're gonna look that up and say, hey. This guy has he owes $500 or whatever it is, so he's ineligible now. I think that these things are important. Look.

Artists don't have to be good standing people to produce good arts. Am I right? What are you what level are we trying to get us? We have to we have to go to church too? What do we need to do to get this funding? Thank you. Thank

you. Next speaker, Harvey O'Lee.

Yes, thank you. You could hear me right. On behalf of Iranian consulate or come up in Brazil, I would like to thank you for the invitation to this meeting. I appreciate it. I love those explanation.

And I have a feedback on the the quarterly funding is that I work with a lot of young people that they teach them how to do the, like, the Persian dance and then to perform during the cultural event. That most of the cultural event is from October to, like, April. It is not and they are not jammed every month. So every month, we have to learn, they have different learn dance, different customs, different things. So paying quarterly doesn't work for me.

And then another thing is that sometimes because it is the volunteer, they could take it after the daytime and sometimes on weekend to practice. I usually performing for the audience, and, usually, I give them price. I know that it says no cash and no no cash. And the thing is that I usually get them, like, $30.40 dollars once a noble gift card. I wanna know if it is a gift card.

It's okay. Or no. I could put it as a part of that. And another thing that I have a question that is concerning me because I was teaching in Fresno Unified for twenty five years, so I'd like to have everything out of place. For the cycle two, I know that the last two report or the quarterly report, it was due on June 15 January 15 that I sent it on January 10.

And for the next two quarter, I called Fresno Arts Council. They told me to contact you. I called the phone number that they provided, and I left a message. And then it was the email. They said that if the phone, they didn't answer, send the email. And I sent the email that the for the third and fourth quarter, when is the deal? When should I put the report for the cycle two? And I never got any answer. So I that's what I would like to be clear that when can I send the report the grant that I have already received? You know?

These kind of things sometimes, like, I feel like I am behind this. K. Thank you. Thank you.

Next speaker, Monica Sura.

Hi. So I think with all this messiness headache, we have a really good opportunity to reverse it and make things well, we can't go back in time and fix what they see. Right? But what we can do is now listen to the public and make things right, make things better. Right? So I think adding more creatives to the subcommittees and the new positions that are opening up to help us compete along. Even people that are other artists that are really real artists and creatives and understand our community. It would be really, really helpful and give that insight. I can't speak for all panelists, for all the mutual effort panelists. I can't figure out the panelists on the last run.

And the reason why I'm coming here and I'm doing all this not because I'm not an applicant. I'm here because what I saw and what I went through was wrong. And I saw how our merging projects really just got slapped around, and the established orgs were were favored. And it wasn't right. And I'm not here for my health. This doesn't make me happy. I I'd rather be home right after work. But it was wrong. And I'm going to apply again to be a panelist again. And what she said about compensation, I was very aware that I wouldn't get compensated. And I was very aware that would take a lot of my time.

But I did it for

my community, a community that I love. Most of these guys are my friends. If they're not my friends, I've definitely supported them in seeing their shows and enjoyed what Measure P can do. So I did do it out of the kindness of my heart. Now if you're telling me that you're gonna give me a little little bit of money, yeah, I'm gonna take it. But was it necessary? I would I would give that check back for more knowledge and more education, more transparency, to be honest. And that's just me. I can't speak for everybody else, but I would gladly be on a panel again just to have that transparency, that honesty, and that education. And

for people to show up be able

to show up in the process. It would have been a really big help to me if I have a question that I can ask you, hey, I have a question about this part in the budget. I'm not clear on it and I don't wanna make it up in my head. So I think maybe having a chance to address some of the applicants and ask them certain things that maybe you weren't clear on instead of just I think this is what they meant, and I don't like this. So I'm gonna give them a little score or I I just think that it

would have been a bit

nice to ask them questions and be more open and honest about that part. So that should come back. Thank you.

Next speaker, Linda Scambray.

I'm gonna shamelessly pass along some great information. Thank you. And I invite the audience to come and get some afterwards. My name is Linda Scambre, and I am working with Heritage Fresno, which is a local 5013C, which helps preserve buildings and treasures of Fresno's past. And as part of our grant, we wrote, or we produced a film called Saving the Past on Fresno, and it celebrates the Caglia family, pronounced Calia in Italian, who saved the Warner's Theater, which would now be a parking lot if it had not been saved by that family.

And also the arch sign welcoming people to Fresno, which is going to be moved again by the high speed rail near Chukchansi Park. So we'll get to see it again. It'll actually welcome people. And then also they saved the dome, the cupola of the courthouse that was knocked down in 1966. And I think that was a great lesson to Fred's room about don't knock things down.

You may regret it later, and that was a good model for the rest of us. And in this film, which you can see tomorrow night at Woodward Park Library, as you say, shamelessly advertising here. And, on mark on May 28, you can see the film at the Warner's Theater. And when you're in the theater, you'll be able to see some of the things that are talked about in the film, including the statues and the paintings that Frank Calia saved for Fresno. And that night, we'll be they will play the organ.

Sadly, the person who used to play it has passed away, but they have a new guy. Cactus Harris lives up to his name, and he describes where the organ came from, and he plays it. And if you don't play it, it gets arthritic, like all of us, if we don't use the joints. So it's an invitation that you shouldn't pass up. This is a great film, and it talks to young people, especially.

I'd love to see high school and college age kids there so they can see what's missing in Fresno has been missed and what could be saved in the future and how they can contribute to that. It's been done by an immigrant Italian family who arrived here penniless and made a life in Fresno and made a contribution to the community, which they may be able to do too. Many of them know in their past that they came here. The first ancestor who arrived didn't speak English and didn't know what the culture was like, but had to learn it and do that. So please join us tomorrow night at Woodward Park Library at 6PM or on May 28.

This is down the street here at the Warner's Theater. And there's a suggested donation, but you don't have to contribute anything. And you'll see the film and the organ will be played that night as well. So please come and join us. And for the rest of you, here are some invitations for you as well. I'll hand these down this way. Thank you. It's free, yes. Thank you. If you would like to make a contribution, you want to The theater is in desperate need of restoration.

It has many

things that need to be fixed. If it's not being fixed, sooner or later, it won't be open to the public. So it would be a great thing if you could make a donation.

Thank you. Next speaker, Christine Parker.

I know. I okay.

I have two comments. One is there's no way to edit your comments online if your browser refreshes, and you can't even add more comments to it. So I have, like, one sentence of a public comment. It was supposed to be more thorough, but there was literally no way to add to it or edit or delete or anything. So that's my comment about the comments.

Next comment. In terms of eligible applicants, I think there's some clarity needed in ineligible applicants about nonprofit organizations that are, like, incorporated as safe based organizations. So I'm a 100% in support of, like, no prostatitis, no evangelism, all that other stuff. But I think we're missing out on really important parts of our cultural community at Fresno if the Buddhist temples can't apply, if our Afghan community can't apply, and if organizations like FIRM can't apply, so many of our cultural communities that are smaller don't are not yeah. So we can help them incorporate their own nonprofit that can be an arts and cultural official thing.

But until they're there, the organizations that they know and trust are going to be their temple, going to be, like, care. There's gonna be their mosque, or it's gonna be an organization like FERM, and we're also incorporated as a faith based organization. So I would personally love it if FERM was able to apply for these monies because we have cool ideas for festivals for specific projects that would be inclusive and representative and beautiful. But beyond that, I think you really need to worry about the impact of excluding all

of the fees instead of

doing what normally public funding does, which is exclude specific activities. So that's my public comment. I would have done it in writing. I couldn't. Now I'm gonna go home to

my baby. Thank you so much. Next speaker, Erin Got

it. You

got it? I got it. You got it.

Hey, guys. My name is Erin Bird. I'm the executive director of arts and enrichment for all. And first, I wanna start by saying today, we were able to celebrate with the Fresno Chamber and our community serving over 17,000 students in the last three years. And that was in part to measure fee funding.

The things that shifted last year with the guidelines didn't impact the growth though and the continued sustainability with changing the guidelines and saying that the activities cannot happen during the school day. If that is going to continue, my biggest thing is that needs to be consistent across the board. So if it's we can't go into a school site and do programming, then that also means that the school sites can't leave to go to a concert in the middle of the day or to the museum or whatnot. It needs to be consistent across the board. Something I wanna talk about real quick is fiscal receivership.

We are also a fiscal receiver or MetroP, and we have a variety of projects that we oversee and that we pour into in mentoring and helping them decide what their next path is gonna be. So So one of the things that I noticed on your timeline is there really isn't a lot in there about how are we identifying those physical receivers, what are the expectations, what are the trainings for the physical receiverships, and how are we ensuring that they actually do have all the guardrails, they have the systems in place to be an appropriate fiscal receiver? After the last meeting, I had people come to me who said, our fiscal receiver never told

us we didn't get our money. What do we do?

And I'm like, okay. That's not us, first of all. All of our projects are refunded. But those sort of things. What are we doing there before we release, hey, here's the notice of funding, or here's the news application's due, because we need to have all of that in place. So then projects and artists can come to the appropriate physical receiver who can actually mentor them well. I am not the person to help an artist who maybe is doing something with Hmong culture. That's maybe not my wheelhouse. Right? I wanna mentor projects that I know that I can add value to and it's not transactional.

And then the last thing that I wanna talk about really is when it comes to funding, looking at really isn't fair to have legacy organization maybe who has a $4,000,000 budget competing with someone who had a windfall or is just getting started who has a higher $50,000 budget. That really doesn't make sense. Right? That $50,000 budget line to kinda differentiate, it's not it. So we really need to look at that together and see what that looks like.

And then going back to that thirty, sixty, 90, I'm so glad that we're addressing that because, yes, we had people came to us and said, like, at 30%, I can't even do my project the way that was intended. And there's no way of scaling back. So do I just give my money back? And that's where we stepped in and said, well, here's what we can do to help you become sustainable. Learn about fundraising. Learn about these other areas. But at the end of the day, with the timeline given, it just wasn't feasible, right, to do it that way. So I would love for us

to look at that.

Thank you so much. Thank you.

Do I have anyone online? Yes.

We

have Alicia R. Go ahead.

Hi. Couple of things. I'm trying to there's a lot of that's first of all, I do appreciate that the process is so far seeming a lot less cryptic than the first two rounds. That being said, I do hope that there one thing that really was faltering in years was outreach in terms of I mean, we can't we gotta think outside of the box in terms of not everybody's on social media, not everybody is young, and not everybody is old. Not so, like, you know, I'm I'm from the nineties.

Physical flyers in very strategic locations were wondering why we're not getting folks from West Fresno and Southeast Fresno really showing up to apply. That's part of it. I grew up in Southeast Fresno, so it's like you gotta get to different demographics in much more creative and laborious ways. And so and then in that vein, I'm I'm just gonna say it. Like, we need to continue to zoom out and look at the framework that has to be as integris as what we're requiring of applicants.

And when we look at the conflicts of interest, I'm just going to say I'm I don't think that Laura Ward should be serving on the subcommittee after the affiliations with Fresno Arts Council and some of the behaviors that took place last round with namely trying to steer outcomes of meetings by contacting people privately with their legal business in the call ID. I'm not intimidated by those things, but I'm sure a lot of people might have been. And that's influence, and that's not really professional, and, you know, no animosity, but that's just not appropriate. And along and along those same lines, looking at the ethics of it and a couple of things with the compensation for for panelists, definitely, definitely love and appreciate that some of y'all are really committed and passionate. One thing I do think is is advantageous with that, though, is it opens it up to be more more accessible.

Marginalized folks don't have resource to feel passion all the time, so it it opens that door for more void more of a diverse panel because that's what's sorely needed. And I don't think anybody from outside of Fresno should be here because also if we're requiring applicants to be in Fresno and serve Fresno, then it's for us bias. We should we should be able to find folks in a bias, say, 500,000 people. And then just last point, echoing what Elaine said about

some of

us did start grassroots and busted our ass to get where we are. That is not accessible to everyone. And act the the literal purpose of this grant is expanding access. And in and having this mentality of, like, oh, we're gonna solve this independent artist problem. No. We're gonna make room for that because that's the that's the soul and blood of this city. Like, I'm I'm really tired of seeing that gate that gatekeeping. I'm a c three, but I don't believe that that's the only folks who should be able to apply. It it really severely limits not just access to applicants, but to Fresno audiences. They don't get to see those projects and experience that art that's from their own people. So that's just a we gotta rethink. We gotta think vision. We gotta quit holding and hoarding resources.

Thank you. That is your time. Next, I have Amy Kitchener. Hello.

This is Amy from

the Alliance for California Traditional Art. I just wanna say thank you again. There's a lot of good changes in here and streamlining and clarity that I really appreciate. I especially love paying the reviewers. I think that's really an equity issue as has been noted here. And it also brings more accountability to the process, and it it's value. You value money in

our in our society.

I do wanna comment on, the question about whether applicants should be able to apply for general operating and project support and say no. They should pick one or the other. And, this is a topic that, I've previously brought up over the first two years because there really wasn't enough money in the first year. And we saw the large organizations getting up to $500,000 in that first pool. And so we we need to spread the money so that it's more equitable.

And one way to do that is to have people select whether they're gonna do general operating or project support. I also want to, just flag again that these guidelines are largely silent on the review process. It it refers to scoring, which makes me concerned that you may be thinking of just a scoring only process where reviewers would just score by themselves, three of them, and then you just average the scores, and then that's the score. And I I really wanna strongly discourage that because, there's there's really no accountability in that. And, also, the knowledge base, and rationale for those scores cannot be understood or learned about from the other scores.

And just having three scores is not very many people, and those people need to have a broad experience. And they and and within that three, they also need to have some arts and culture, expertise. Also, the the the timeline and the outreach, I think it's critical that you have more than one month from the announcement of the grants to the eligibility screen. That that basically is gonna close your window right there. If people don't hear about it right in the beginning, they're not gonna be able to apply.

And I would recommend having at least eight weeks so that you could do the kind of in person outreach, with analog flyers and paper applications possible as needed. And that's that's all I'll say now, and I'll look forward to putting more online for you all. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Next, I have Yolanda Randall. Go ahead.

Okay. Great. Hi. Good evening, everybody. Yolanda Randos, director of the West Fresno Family Resource Center.

And so I guess, first of all, wanna thank Shelby and her team, Erin, for this process for allowing the community to have some input on cycle three. I think it's a great idea, and I'm just really hoping that you all would. I see you have a great notetaker and taking notes and really adhere to, what what the community is saying. So and I think someone said it earlier, and I'm trying to, go back and look at my notes, but I know the hour is getting late. But I our organization was a a grantee of cycle two, and still, we have no communication as to what's the next steps and what's happening.

And then also with that, with cycle three, like, would we be able to apply, you know, in the cycle three process? And, also, I don't I don't recall, is there a length? Like, is it a one year project or a two year project that, in the next cycle, that folks would be able to apply for? So that's it. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, I have Krista Aranda. Go ahead. Just to let you know, we cannot hear you at the moment. Hello? There you go. Hear me

now? Yes.

Okay. Hi. Hi. Thank you. This is Christa Aranda of K Paints. I just wanna let it be known that there has to be more of a bridge gap. We we we basically need someone on the panel who knows what it's like to be a struggling artist. I've seen that there are people who have education, which is great. But since this is taxpayer money for the community, some people in the community don't have access to that kind of education. So, again, to be able to make it more accessible for artists who are wanting to get into this realm of getting Measure p funds, there needs to be someone on that panel who understands their type of background. Also,

I did this in my train of thoughts.

Also Also yeah. So, for people who are not an established five zero one c three, whatever, again, for them to not be able to apply, I feel is is unacceptable. Not everyone is to that point. And, again, these are taxpayer monies. Artists pay taxes within Fresno City. They should be able to have some type of leeway to be able to apply for Measure p funds. Thank you.

Thank you.

That is that is everyone online.

Thank you. Whoo.

We had a lot of comments tonight, which were

really good. We used to think back. Will now go ahead and close public comment and bring it back to the commission. Do you have any questions?

No. I

don't have any questions. I I think I have some of the questions I needed to ask for now, but I will be submitting some written comments as well. And it is now 08:06, and I would like to adjourn the meeting in the memory of doctor Francine Aboule, who was a a a commissioner on the parks on the parks and arts and recreation commission who was deeply missed, I know that she would be so proud of us forming this subcommittee and opening it up to the public because she was a big art supporter. So thank you. God bless you. Have a good night.

There you have.