Arts Commission - Regular Meeting

Drew. Check

your email. I resent it as an attachment, but you'll be able to see it on screen. I hope I just was

Okay.

Wanted you to also have it

in hand. Hi, Melissa. Okay. Okay. Welcome, everybody. It is 603. And as the vice chair, will call this meeting of the Cultural Access Advisory Board to order. Thank you to those of us joining us on Zoom and here in the room. We will do a roll call first, which Mary Grace will take care

of for Everyone is here. Great. Congratulations.

Thank you, everybody. We'll we'll do some introductions here in just a few minutes. We do have approval of the agenda next up, and I would like to move that we add a new business item. It will be item 6A, which is a consideration of an appeal by an applicant organization that was determined ineligible for Inspire Olympia funding. And so we have some new information to share on that, and that would move our funding recommendation discussion to 6B.

So I'll look for a second on that motion. So moved. Any discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Great. New agenda is approved. Look for approval of the minutes from our last meeting, which was in January.

Those are in your packet if you needed to look at them, but they're pretty bare bones.

I move adoption of the January minutes.

Thank you, Paul. Who's I second?

Used to be someone who was there. Oh gosh.

Sorry. Think I'm good to have you. Who was in the room.

Someone Somebody was at the meeting? I thought he was there. Thank you. Any discussion on the minutes? All in favor of approval are submitted. Any post? Great. Minutes are approved. Public comment. Do we have anyone from the public? No. Our room is empty. Seeing none. We will move on to announcements. And I will I get the honor of introducing our two new board members.

I have a brief bio that I will read. I'll let you each have a minute to introduce yourselves as well, and we'll do big roundtable. But let me begin, by introducing Nick Howard. Nick and his partner moved to Olympia from Kansas City a year ago after thoughtful research and exploration of the PNW, and you explored communities from Oregon to Alaska.

Yep.

So we're we're we're honored that you fell in love with Olympia for its sense of community, aligned with a shared set of values that are important to the two of you. Nick is a brand strategy director in the advertising industry working globally and nationally. He works on award winning campaigns ranging from men's hygiene to hospitality and theme parks to tires. And, Subaru is a current client. His work has earned him an immense appreciation for the impact that arts and artists have on us culturally and collectively.

Nick's volunteer work has included local food banks, after school mentoring, and voter registration. He studied journalism, economics, and philosophy, and his interest includes writing, cooking, running, the arts, travel, animals of all kinds, mentoring, and teaching. Welcome Thank Nick and Genevieve. So I have the pleasure of personally welcoming, as we have worked and circled around this town together for many years. Genevieve recently served on the city's Social Justice and Equity Commission and expressed interest in joining the Cultural Access Advisory Board as a way to continue supporting the city's efforts to advance social justice through diverse cultural programs that encourage sharing and create a sense of belonging.

Genevieve works as editor as an editor and grant writer and has worked as marketing and communications VP at St. Maarten's and a communication manager at Hands On Children's Museum, among other professional roles. Her educational background includes an English degree from Stanford and an MFA in creative writing from University of Michigan and Harvard. Genevieve is a past board member at South Sound Reading Foundation, a current bank director at OLIFED, and volunteers for the Asia Pacific Islanders Coalition. So

What's your last name, Jen?

Oh, Kenseko Chan, c h a n.

Do you do you like to use the whole hyphenated last name? Prefer.

Okay. But when space if space allows. So it's good to know. Yeah. I will note that.

All of the characters. So I would love for the rest of, my fellow board members to do a brief, introduction so that you know who this this amazing group of people that you have joined. Again, we're really grateful for both of you. Anne Larson, I am the vice chair. I currently work at the University of Washington in Tacoma, but I've worked at SPSCC here in the Washington Center and the Hands on Children's Museum, which is where Genevieve and I met a hundred and seventy years ago.

I've been on tons of boards, lots of volunteer experiences around town. I am the token person on this board who has zero artistic ability. My fellow board members are creative and produce amazing work, and I just get to sit back and appreciate it all. I would love to kick it off to our chair, Melissa, on Zoom, and we'll do a little popcorn around Zoom, and then we'll circle around the room.

Hi, everybody. I'm shoving my gob a little bit over here. So

I'm eating while I'm talking to you.

Greetings from Pasco, Washington, where I spent all day at a very contentious meeting of the articulation and transfer council of Washington State. It's about the degree of maintenance. But, anyways, inside baseball. I'm really glad to be with you, though, tonight. Okay. So I am Melissa Mead. I'm the dean of arts and humanities over at South Puget Sound Community College. And before that, I was professor of media studies and women and gender studies at Colby Sawyer College in New Hampshire, and I write about gender and psychoanalysis and media. Nice to meet you. Welcome. And I'll pass it to Paul.

Hi. I'm Paul Parker. I've lived in Olympia well, I've lived in my house in Olympia for thirty five years. Currently, I'm in Portugal, where my wife and I are exploring the possibility of moving here. So we're we're renting an apartment for a year and seeing how this works, but we'll be we'll be back home in Olympia June for the summer.

I have dabbled in many of the different arts, culture, heritage topics that are covered here. I've been on stage, like, 10 times performing in Olympia in in in plays, and I've been, I've displayed at a couple of arts walks, photography, and a little bit of painting. And, I recently left the board of the Olympia Historical Society, but I'm on the board of the Washington State Trust for Historic Preservation. And I will pass it on to Justin.

K. Can you guys all hear me?

Yes. Yes.

Okay. I'm kinda doubling up and cutting from meeting to meeting here. I'm Justin McCoyne. I'm a teacher librarian at Jefferson Middle School, and I am the elected Washington Education Association political action committee chair for WH NAEP. It's like the US UNISERV in the state of Washington. I'm actually here at our exec board meeting right now, and I'm doing double duty, but we're about to wrap up. So I'm really excited about what we're doing here and being employee of the Olympia School District, trying to find avenues we can connect people to be able to just have access through what we're doing here in Inspire. So super stoked to be here. Is there anything else I had to say?

That's good. I thought we'd

have Cool. Right on.

Yeah. Kick it over to Brett.

Yeah. It's your turn, Brett. Justin's also a musician.

Hi. I'm Brett Anderson. I'm a retired teacher and school administrator. My wife and I have lived in Olympia since 2011. We take part in as many of the cultural aspects as we can. She's a storyteller. We both play in a bluegrass band. I volunteer as a tutor. Toby's a wall climbing taiko drummer. So, we're deeply invested in self realization.

And, I'm so glad to be part of this group because I'm learning so much about Olympia, which turns out to be an even more interesting place than I thought.

Yeah. Thanks, Brett. Thanks, Brett.

That's well said, Brett. I've I've I've felt the same.

Do you wanna do all the rest of the board members onto staff?

Yeah. Let's do that. Yeah.

Okay. I'm Diana Fairbanks. I'm a retired college professor in communications and fine arts and now direct my own studio around the East Side. And, I want to I was just saying when I got here that this process has has been a delightful reason to believe in the possibilities in all new. I've seen people passionate about things that I didn't even know existed, but they look like fun. So so I was happy to do this work, and that's about it. Love it.

Yeah. So,

Mariela. My name is Mariela Louise. I use theythem.

I'm a full time ceramic artist. I've lived in Olympia for thirty years.

Also, I'm I'm a music participant. I don't play music, but I worked for a record label for about twenty years. And I also put on a music festival out in Oyster Bay, and, yeah, been part of this community since we started, and it's great to be here. Love to hear from the two of you.

Sure. Yeah. I'm happy to go first. Yeah.

Nice staff here.

Relatively new to the area, as Ann mentioned. I grew up in Texas originally, so you'll probably hear me sound like a heck when I say a couple of choice words. I won't tell you about the area, and you'll probably discover them organically.

Oh, I wanna hear them.

I grew up in a family of artists. My mom is a painter. My dad does sculpture and is an architect. My sister is also a painter. I got none of those genes and was very good at writing as a child. So that's how I got into the career that I'm in now. I also played the trumpet for like twenty years trying to learn the piano. So music and writing was sort of my entry to the arts, but I'm an appreciator of all of the things that people use their talents for and I'm very excited to learn more about what people in the community are doing. That's one of the reasons why I wanted to join, so thanks for having me.

And I'm Genevieve Kenseko Chan. Again, thank you so much for welcoming me onto the board. I think one of the things I'm really passionate about is the youth education part of our process here and how we're trying to encourage this appreciation of the arts from a very early age. And that, again, opens up so many doors and optimism and hope, in our community. So thank you for, for emphasizing part of that, the grant money towards that. And

none none of this work would be possible without our amazing staff members. They are the the wind beneath our wing.

Start me

going first. My name is Amelia Layton. I grew up in North Seattle. My husband's Olympia, born and raised, so that's kinda how we ended up. During the pandemic, we moved down from Tacoma where I had been working as the out of school time intermediary for Pierce County.

So I was building after school programs and connecting cultural organizations into those programs. And then before that, I was an education director at the Spokane Art Museum and public programs manager there for a number of years. And before that, I was just a starving artist. So I have a master's in painting critical theory and a bachelor's in painting and printmaking. And I'm just really excited to be able to, like, do this work, and it's a joy to see what this community is doing.

And I could I second the feeling of building arts appreciation in kids and arts experiences can ultimately save lives and can change the future for the better. So it's a good place to be right now,

and I'm happy to do it. Right on. Right.

I hit the jackpot when Camille walked in the door. Yes. And I've been grateful every day for the way that she helps to keep this program up in its tracks in the nitty gritty ways, you know, as well as doing such a great job working with our organizations, people interested in applying and walking through the application and just all that hand holding. It's been amazing. I'm Mary Grace Gudeau.

I'm the program manager, and I came to the city about six years ago now with a background in historic preservation as well as arts conservation management. Moved to Olympia in 1991. Started a family here, raised three kids, moved to school districts, you know, and volunteered in the community in various ways, but worked at the state capital for most of

my career here in Bolivia, all of it, until I came

to the city where I was doing historic illustration and caring for the artwork there. So I was building at the same time a bridge to the city because I served on the city arts commission and, you know, was deeply invested in the community as as, you know, it's my home. So when Inspired when they came around, it was a perfect transition back into a combination of arts, you know, agriculture, and heritage for me. So that's where I am. And I just feel grateful for this board and people who have served on it previously too.

I just have had fabulous people step up, and I think it's a testament to the kind of people who care about the arts, tend to be really thoughtful, community committed. Yeah. It's an amazing group of people that we gather. Okay. Are there any other announcements?

South Sound Studio Tour is coming up. Okay. My studio will be on the map. Come on over. Great.

Great. Any any announcements from Zoom Lands?

Melissa, do you have any new gallery show? Anything happening at SBS?

We always do. We

have what is it right now? The Southwest Jury Show. Yes. It's a really nice show that's up. And and then we have the student art exhibition at the end of the month, I guess, coming up, yeah, which is always a favorite. And then we have we have a musical based on Lizzie Borden

called Lizzie. And

that'll be opening in a couple of special. Exactly. Exactly. The director says this is a good time for feminine rage. So you know? No. No. Then we have the choir and the orchestra and the jazz shows coming up too. So there's a lot.

Yeah. You're a fun. Yeah. Great.

You know, this this show, Lizzie Borden, it sounds weird, but I know two of the actresses in it. It's going to be amazing. I'm so sorry I'm gonna miss it.

Yeah. And We should go. We'll try to go Yeah. Wanna take a little

field trip.

Tell you about it.

Yes. Any other announcement?

No? Okay.

Okay. Well, we are gonna scooch our way into, the the meat of this, meeting, having come off of our separate review panels and kinda parallel tracks, and we're coming coming together, back as one board to review the recommendations, and talk about some issues, from the review panel and then, move forward from there. So I, we added an agenda item, which was a consideration of an appeal for an in a an eligibility determination. So this discussion is going to, revolve around South Puget Sound New Horizon Band. This is not a group that we, reviewed, so I'll just ask before we talk about them if anyone has a conflict of interest and, would need to be recused from this discussion.

Good. Okay. Hearing none, I will turn this over to Mary Grace to talk to us a little bit about the appeal process in general, how we arrived at this, and then we'll get into some specifics of this appeal. Thanks.

So we had a total 70 applications. And Amelia and I do a kind of a triage of all the incoming applications, and we pull those who simply don't meet our eligibility criteria. There were seven that did not. There was one who later withdrew, so a total of eight that didn't move forward into the scoring process. We sort of held on informing them until the review process was complete and then realized that we would be publishing the list for this meeting of the sport applicants and that they would perhaps see that they were missing.

We were gonna wait until all the announcements were made. But then we realized they might see that they were missing and wonder what was going on. So I notified each of them of that they were ineligible and gave them a reason why that may have found them ineligible. But I offered that if they disagreed with that conclusion that they may want to appeal, and and we got one callback. The New Horizons band is so just quickly, the seven who we found ineligible, four of them with the ineligibility was related to a failure of their primary mission to be fully aligned with the advancement or preservation of arts, culture, heritage, or science.

One of them, for instance, was more focused on fitness and health. Yes. They do art and cultural activity as part of, but their main mission was really fitness and health. Another the main mission was really around volunteerism and social service. Three of them, however, were ineligible due to location, geographic location issues, and this is one of them.

So the the band is their IRS registration lists them with a Lacey address. And their application didn't include enough information for us to tell whether okay. So if a program is not physically located in Olympia, they may still be eligible according to our guidelines if they if the majority of their programming is done in Olympia and primarily for residents of Olympia. Okay? Or sorry.

Or primarily for residents of Olympia. So we went to the application to see if we could glean that much information, and we couldn't. So given that, we, you know, arrived at the decision that they were not eligible. So I spoke to Bob Wharton on the phone, and I explained this to him, and we talked about

it a bit.

And what I I talked to the chairs too about kind of the process. And what I did was I emailed Bob a list of such straight up questions about their location for me to answer and for you guys to consider. So that's what this is. It's the email that he you know, just signed it around. That my email out to him is at the top of the page.

You guys got this in your email. Had a chance to look at it. My outgoing response to him is, you know, to explain there's a follow-up with a few written questions for them to respond to to focus in on the information needed for the advisory board's consideration. It's important that you guys focus only tonight on the location issue, the eligibility around location, and not think about merit, value, programmatic content, intent, audience, any of that because that's part of their application, which would be scored should you choose to include them. K?

So these questions are strictly limited then to the issues around their location. So I've highlighted the things I asked him to respond to. One, the fact that the organization is currently registered with the IRS in the city of Lacey. And as you can see in his response, he shows their form nine ninety. Their mailing address is Lacey, but they also have their principal officer's address, Bob Warden, in Olympia.

His response to that was when we submit form nine ninety, we include both a physical address and a mailing address while the mailing address submitted is a lazy PO box of physical address. Actually, Olympia, I have attached a screenshot of the IRS nonprofit search results for our organization. Question number two, are the majority of your participants Olympia residents? Yes. We track dues paying members each quarter and keep a roster of all those who participate by playing an instrument in the band.

While the exact distribution varies from quarter to quarter, we find that about half of our 60 or so band members are slightly higher, live in Olympia. Number three, are your regular gatherings held in Olympia? Yes. For the last several years since the band resumed its activities after COVID, we have rehearsed at the Capital Vision Christian Church on New Avenue. Also, the board of directors holds monthly meetings at CVCC.

Are your performances held in Olympia? No. As I discussed with Mary Grace, the band has always held its performances on Wednesday mornings for a number of reasons, mainly so that our band members, many of whom are in their eighties and nineties, don't have to be out at night. The available venues on weekday mornings are limited. We have found the Worthington Center at Saint Martin's to be quite suitable, but would love to consider other alternatives.

I'm gonna skip the next part because it talks about their purpose. Number five, are you able to determine that the audience for your performances is primarily Olympia residents? How is this data captured? Unfortunately, no. We have not tried to capture test data.

Linda, who also is with New Horizons Band, then chimed in with the following. In support of Bob's response to data measurement, we measure through participation and attendance. Because we are a volunteer board, there are currently no formalized systems of evaluation beyond member feedback and attendance to our weekly rehearsals and our public performances. Once again, I wanted to share that our eligibility requirement is that organizations that are not located in Olympia may be eligible if a majority of their programming is within the city or primarily serves Olympia residents or Olympia School District students. The located in Olympia is something that we verify by looking at the IRS registration, and we look at the registered address.

Mhmm. Well,

we should put this on our list of things we need in Olympia, a museum, a small theater, a a place with wooden dance floor, and some place for these people to practice. We need more performance practice spaces. It's definitely a longstanding community need.

And they're yeah. Just let you guys have

the discussion. And also to clarify, if you if you choose to say yes, let's bring them in, then we would have at least three of you review their application based on the way you've reviewed previous applications, this session, and then their score would go into the rubric that we would discuss tonight. So we'd have

to put off tonight's No. We would go ahead and set up our funding plan. Uh-huh. And then once they're scored They would slot in. Oh, I understand. Based on their scores. Right? So they'll just get slotted in wherever they numerical thing anyways.

Right.

Yeah. So there's no guarantee that they would even get funded.

That's right. Mhmm.

I I mean, I'm kind of like, no. I mean, it says they say about half, maybe slightly higher with no performances on Mondays. I mean, I do have appreciation for a jam that is primarily made up with Isn't that cool? But if you all all of your performances are not in town and you don't track how many people are actually going there and you have 60 I mean, sometimes when we when we score, we're like, how many people are is this impacting?

It's true.

And it's 30 people in Olympia. I have no idea how much they asked for. Like, about 30 people in Olympia based on the number they're telling us for however much money. $30,000? That feels like I don't really I don't really need to read that application, especially since they're like if they were like, yes. We're we're the Southbound band. We are all Olympians. We practice in Olympia. We play in Olympia to all Olympians. I feel like, okay.

We should read your application. But, I mean, I I know that there were some applications, but, like, speaking of the address, there was, like, one that I read or that we read in our panel that was, like, based in Olympia, but the bulk of it didn't even actually seem like the bulk of their work was in Olympia. So I think that that's something that as a committee we should address in the future because it was they seemed like a statewide organization that technically was based here but not for Olympians necessarily. So I know that those sorts of boundary issues sort of come up. Mhmm. This one just feels like also, I don't know how the other panel was. Our panel was a bunch of hard asses.

And

so, like, we were just, like, so tough. And I'm like, don't make three people read this because no one's gonna yeah. Mhmm.

Well, and I think the question comes down to their programming for me because that's what the statute says. It's majority of their programming. And are they considering their programming their rehearsals, or is their programming their public performance, which is part of our metric is the public performance. And so that doesn't happen at all. Yes. Yes.

That's Yeah. In a way, it seems, I mean, it seems to me that the benefit that they provide to the community is the rehearsal time, the practice time. It's almost like social service oriented more than arts oriented to me. So I guess that's where I come down as it's not just a a locational aspect, but it's is it really is it really arts, or is it more social service, senior services? So I'm with I'm with Mary Ellen.

Other Zoom comment?

I am not particularly persuaded by their responses. So I would I lean towards going with the original assessment that they don't qualify based on location. And I guess I could say more. The it's the performance stuff for me. I mean, it's I I guess I echo what you all have said already.

Brett or Justin, anything new to add different to add?

Well, I kinda hate to pour water on a group of people who are making music.

I know. Know.

No. And

Yep.

In a sense, that's what they're doing. I mean, some of the other things are, you know, don't quite fit, but they are they are creating music. You know, it's part of the creative process.

Yeah. But that's not what we're that's not what we're debating. Right. Right? It's a location based eligibility. And it's hard to separate, but we have to determine a yes or no. Are they eligible?

No. Do they do they put on any performances in Olympia or not?

No. It's at St. Martin's. Yeah.

St. Martin's isn't in Olympia? No. Oh, I see.

So you are learning new stuff all the time here. Any other comments from the room? Okay. Would you like us to take a vote? Or

So if there's no members that wish to offer a motion to change the determination

that we

there's then no action needed. But if someone were to move, I have a motion prepared. But if there's no one who feels moved, then

there it is. Okay. So we will we will consider we've we've reviewed their appeal, and are continuing with our original ineligibility determination. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Good good conversation.

Yeah. And I wanna follow-up with just sort of a staff note that we can do a much better job of clarifying in our application guidelines and in the application itself that if you are not in Olympia, here's what you need to do Mhmm. In order to be eligible and make it crystal clear. We can also coach this group next year. Yes. Yeah.

Yeah. But just to in Olympia.

Yep. Yeah. Yep. And, honestly, that application was vague. Yeah. It was hard. It was like I wanted to pull this information out of the application, and I couldn't get there.

We couldn't get there. Yep.

Yep.

Also I also want if if if they wanted that emphasis again on the participants in the rehearsals, if there was also a little more of an explicit mission Yep. To recruit senior citizens within the Olympia area. Yes. And this is something that came up with a couple other organizations that we reviewed. Mhmm. Because the the the that membership, it could fluctuate. And then one year, they're eligible and one year, they're not. Unless they explicitly say that part of their intention is to is to encourage participation.

Yep. And the and the public performances that take place in Olympia and partnership.

Right. Yes. Yes. So Yeah.

That could be demonstrated by just, like, yeah,

working with certain So

they're they're close.

They're close.

I have full confidence in these two getting them over the finish line

Yeah.

Next year.

We hope to see their application next year. Yeah.

Yeah. And they are I I have used them at Christmas forest before, but they are a lovely group. They they really are. So it is, you know, it is hard to separate, and it's so fun to see the the elders.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. They they are lovely. Okay. We're gonna move

And I'll chime in with a side note that's not about Olympia. But my mother-in-law, my dear mother-in-law, who's 82, is in a band called the Klesbians, which are lesbian klesmore musicians. They're not all seniors, but she's a senior. And so I do have a great fondness for senior musicians. Yes. And if the lesbians come to town, I will definitely let you know.

Absolutely. That's right there. Okay. If there's no further discussion, we'll move on to newly coined six b, which is our funding discussion. Mary Grace will lead the staff report and brief us in preparation for that.

Okay. I'm just gonna do the boring thing and read the staff report because it's all here carefully worded, and it's important for the public to, you know, to have this in the public record. So just in terms of of well, let's see. I guess I should start with the funding. The recommended action tonight would be to approve recommendations to fund one year impact contracts for services from July 2025 to June 2026.

And also to to approve an annual funding level for cultural access programs in Olympia Public Schools from the Cultural Access Fund, this recommendation will be advanced through the community livability and public safety committee and onto city council. So as far as the background, city code established this board and among your duties are to review grant applications for programming that meet criteria for providing public benefit as provided in state law, and to review and recommend funding levels for grant applications to city council. Also, recommend the percentage of funds available annually to be reserved for cultural access in public schools, which is to increase opportunities for programming for public students. So two review panels were formed to review the 62 applications for InspireLink's twenty five twenty six Impact Fund grants. Each panel included six members, including board members, plus additional members of the public selected for their background and experience.

The panels reviewed for overall public benefit and alignment with INSPIRE LIPA funding goals and scored applicants in the areas of programming, merit, and value, community engagement and impact, equity and access, and capacity and feasibility. Those offering youth programming were additionally evaluated in that area. In group discussion, each panel developed a general funding recommendation for the group of applications they reviewed for consideration by this full board. And I just wanna if it wasn't crystal clear, those 62 applications got broken into two groups.

Yeah.

So each review panel saw a different group of applications, and this is the first time that you're gonna talk about all of those applications as body. And you will not see the names of the applicants. You'll just be looking at scores. So the purpose of this discussion is to develop a funding recommendation for one year impact grants for city council approval and the funding to be allocated for the public schools programming. Staff will brief the board on the cultural access fund balance and budget for 2025.

And the long term program budget and grant funding levels for future granting cycles will be discussed at the July meeting. But we will talk a little bit about what next year looks like in order to understand what this year needs to look like. We will not revisit the scores of individual applications that were reached by the review panel process. Members may discuss categories of applicants and how they are impacted by different fund scenarios and program parameters, but we're not gonna revisit scoring. Okay?

And that is stackable. Attached is a list of the 62 organizations and the citizen panelists and the cultural advisory board panelists that participated in the review. And I just wanna acknowledge that Genevieve, who's before she was officially a board member, volunteered to be a citizen panelist. We also had Linda Reed who is from Vancouver, the city of Vancouver, recently passed a cultural access program, and she is gonna be working to implement it. So it was a learning opportunity for Linda.

Likewise, Britt Bowman of Tumwater. She's staffed with the city of Tumwater and is advising the Tumwater city council on cultural access should they choose to pursue it for their community. We also had Leila Cross and Shailer Rad who helped out with those boards, and they were great. So thank you, all of you, for your thoughtful consideration on those review panels, including our citizen our additional citizen board members, We review panel members. Any questions about process?

Yeah. I guess. So after hearing, Mariel's comment about her group, the group that she was in being hard ass

Fair group.

I'm just cure

Fair group. I'm

I'm just just curious. Was was the scoring by the two groups relatively equal in in how how the groups got how the how the applicants got scored.

Right. Are all 30 of the applications that were scored by the other group gonna get funded and all 30 of the ones that we

reviewed not gonna get funded? It peppered nicely together.

Did okay.

So it did They blended. They blended well. I think there was some harsher folks on one side, but there was harsher folks on the other side too. And there and although you might have been hard asses, there was also some kindness in there too. There was a couple people. So there was a balance, I'd say. When I blended them together, though, it did kind of scatter amongst themselves. So Good. Yeah. I don't think there was any, like okay. All of panel ones with the top, and all panel twos with the bottom. It was

a polarized It wasn't like that. Yeah.

Okay. Well, that's that's kind of the answer to my question.

Okay. It's a tricky thing. We had a lot of conflicts of interest and refusals, and we had to kind of move People. People and and applicants to try to come up with Yep. The fewest number of recusals. And we also you know, we know your personalities, and we tried to balance a little bit, but then things got moved around again.

Yeah.

So, you know, we we as staff have talked about the process, and it's not ideal.

In a perfect world, you would see all of the impact.

Yeah. It's not ideal. Ideally, you would have seen all 62, but did you But would you want That's

a real review 62 something. That's

a conversation we'd be happy to talk about. I'm happy to joy.

No. No. No. No. No.

That's not that's not the that's not the question.

Yeah.

I was just wondering if the spread was equivalent. Yeah. And you answered that.

Okay.

Nicely. Yeah.

So, yeah, did you wanna talk about the process in

general? Yeah. I'd love to just hear feedback on the process, you know, be informative for you, Nick, just as you help me. As you roll into the upcoming upcoming year. You know, Melissa and I each, we separated our ourselves, so we were, each with a group of you. I will agree that our group, we we took some serious looks at applications that on the surface was like, oh, this is great work. Like, this this is cool. I'm glad this is happening in our community. This is a neat thing. This will add to our community.

But when you looked at the scoring criteria, right, there were some eligibility questions. There was, you know, some some actual mission conflicts. There you know, once you did that deep dive and and thank goodness we have the scoring criteria, and you really can, you know, balance. Here's the criteria. Here's the rubric.

And so everything seemed lovely. And if we had unlimited funds, I would want to give them all as much money as they needed to to do their projects, but really zeroing in. And last year, I was on the comprehensive review panel, so that was also a different experience for me to to look at more closely at programming and the the merit of the programming and kind of the nitty gritty rather than what what is this large group doing overall in our community. We also have feedback on the process. Well,

I'll talk a little bit about our panel and, you know, solicit comments from folks here too. But I thought when I was reflecting on what went well and what could have been improved with our panel, what went well in our group was that I thought everybody was really well prepared with notes. And so that really helped me, And particularly when our notes kinda corresponded, and it's like, oh, okay. You were thinking along the same lines. And then we had some real strengths in our group.

So we had some arts administrators, and so they could really speak to like, they they looked at it with that, you know, particular lens. And we had a budget person in our group, and so that was really helpful. So I felt like our we could balance each other. You know? So if I felt like I had some comments about one criterion but maybe didn't feel like that was my area of expertise. I could rely on my other panelists. So that to me, that was really effective. And we also helped each other see things in the application, so that goes that speaks to the being well prepared. So in other words, if we had a question of, like, well, what about this? And then somebody could say, well, here it is in the application.

Oh, okay. Got it. You know? And there was disagreement, but I felt like it was really fruitful. When I think about ways that we could improve the panel, the the one that the only one that really came to mind this last round was about about knowing that there's options for gradation and funding from the beginning. So in other words, I've kinda felt like the panelists felt a little bit black and white. Like, oh, okay. Am I saying yes to funding, or am I saying no to funding? Whereas, I mean, in this group, we're gonna talk about different gradations of funding. You know, maybe somebody gets 75% of their ask, some somebody gets half, you know, that kind of thing.

But I think in the panel, it felt a little we felt a little hemmed in, like or, like, we had to commit. You know? So, anyways, that could be something that we think about for next time. Yeah.

Actually, just to piggyback on that. So I'm just curious. Do we ever award more than is asked? Okay. So one of the one of trying to figure that out, like, Melissa was saying, would it be interesting to see who asked to divide applications based on asking the full 30 versus something less? Right? Because then that might affect out the way that we grade things. Right?

Yep. Yep.

And Although, year, I seem to I have a recollection. This could be inaccurate, but I have a recollection of of somebody asking for less money than they than we thought they should ask for and coming back and saying, ask for more. But am I misremembering that?

No. That happened.

Well, we

did do it after we didn't do it in the funding box, but we did it, like, on a one to one. Like, you you asked for this much, but you're eligible for this much. Why is that? And so they might have come back with a full s this year.

That's right. Okay.

The only thing that thoughts? The only thing that I'll add is, my my probably my biggest concern with applications, and I and I'll say this in the context of so many more applications this year asking for so much more money than we had last year. My concern is with the benefit coming to the people of Olympia since the money is coming from Olympia. And I expressed that many times during our discussion, and there was one application in particular where I I I felt like it was important that the benefit accrue primarily to Olympia school kids rather than kids from other parts of the area. So I think that's something that needs to be beefed up next year.

Thank you, Paul. Good. I'd say also and I don't know if there's a way to figure this out next year, but I think that for people who are on this committee, we have an awareness of how much work it is to be on a panel. And the two people, the committee members that were on our panel didn't do a lot of their work, and that was noticeable. Mhmm. And that not you know? I mean, I get it. You know, they're getting paid $200. It's gobs and gobs of work. Mhmm.

But that makes it so that they're they when they do contribute, they might have, like, a little thread that they wanna pull so that they're participating, but that's not even over all of the applications because they're not they didn't of the 30, they don't 20, which, you know, that's still a lot. Don't I'm not don't get me wrong. But then also and also their awareness of, like, their participation. I mean, just because you this is a small town. Mhmm.

So you're gonna know a lot of people. Mhmm. You know, just because you are friends with someone or you work someplace or you're unless it's, like, you or your partner, then even if you are you were asked to be, but you're not. You still have to you know? Yeah. So, I mean, I think that that is something that again, I I maybe they're like, they of course, it's very flattering to be, like, asked to be on a panel, but then it's just like, okay. We're not kidding. This is really gonna be Actually forty hours of work. Yeah. Yes.

And plus, you know, eight hours of paneling, they might be like, thanks, but no thanks.

But it was noticeable It was in our discussion. Yes. Yes. That there was just a little less Yeah. Mhmm. Discussion. Because I think

Well, I

one of

the things that happens sorry, Paul. I was like, one of the points of doing it in person and all of us coming with our laptops Mhmm. Is to discuss with each other, to, like, hear like, Melissa's, like, to, like, I missed this thing. Mhmm. Like, some of my notes were, ask everyone what they think. Totally. Yep.

Because I just wasn't you know,

like, maybe I was, like, my

brain was melting, and I was like Update after discussion.

Yeah. Joseph's killed it a bit Yep. Yeah. And there was a lot of that that happened. And so if you're not gonna, like, go back and change your sport or be willing to have that this that rich discussion Yeah. Then

We could have You're not coming with scored by robots.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

That is Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. And it was noticeable. I noticed

that as well. Thank you.

We were really fortunate, I think, in having, Linda from Vancouver and Britt from Tumwater because, they did do their work, and it was especially insightful, I thought, to have Linda from Vancouver because she doesn't know Olympia. You know? She doesn't know the procession of the species, for instance, and what, you know, what that means to Olympia. So we had somebody who was looking at applications really blind and just looking at the application and what was there. And that really made a difference, I think, in a lot of our discussion.

Mhmm. It wasn't so much the case with Britt because she's part of the community, but we were we were lucky, and I would I would encourage if, you know, if you've got the opportunity to get someone like that in the future to do that, Mary Grace and Amelia.

Agreed. It's a

great point. I especially appreciated Linda also looking at p and l. Like, looking at the the the financial part because I know that's something that we saw consistently was an area of weakness. Right? And so that that, again, having that particular expertise was good. Absolutely.

Absolutely. Great.

I will say that I and this could have been just the makeup of the the panel, so I don't know I don't know what the variable was, but I attributed it to your norming session or welcome session. Is that last year, I really did feel like it was hard to get us out of our we all know so many people. You know, we all have experience with these organizations. You know? Like, oh, I went to a great event there or I didn't, you know, and that kind of thing. And I felt like this year, there was a little bit of less than that, but maybe that was just our panelists. But it could have also been the the norming session that you held ahead of time because I thought I thought that was really useful.

Yes. Yep.

Good. Thank you.

Okay. I

just wanted to say that, this was the second time through, so I understood the process much better. Yeah. You know? And I I knew what to look for, and I was really grateful for the people on the panel. You know, I'd missed things in in in some of the write ups and stuff, and someone else says, oh, no. It says it here. You know? So I thought it would we work together much better.

Great. Don't wanna add anything else?

Sounds good to me. Yeah. Yeah. Covered it all. Okay. So

there was no consensus reached by either panel on whether any organizations should not receive funding. And so Mary Grace has some PowerPoint Mhmm. Presentation for it that slides. Will a couple slides. That'll give us give us kind of the big picture because, again, all of us have only seen half.

Mhmm. Yeah. She's gonna pull that up. So we we you guys weren't asked to really develop a kind of a funding recommendation, but we did specifically ask. So anybody in your in those that you reviewed that you really don't think should be funded? And that's where there wasn't anybody that you chose to lop off right off the top or recommend.

I thought there was somebody from our group that we lost.

It wasn't a consensus. Oh, okay. There was an agreement.

There was an f was in

the group.

We're in agreement. But, theoretically, their score might inform I'm not

sure where they would be in the group.

They would Where they will fall.

Yeah. That's that's what you all agreed to sort of rely on. Mhmm. And also acknowledge that you didn't have the full picture yet. Right? Mhmm. So just a quick summary of of our applicants this year. If you wanna bounce to that first slide. Is it not progressing? No. It's because it thinks I'm in

Zoom, and then there we go.

70 applicants, one withdrew, seven were determined ineligible. So of the 62 reviewed and scored, 24 were new to expire this year. 28 of them provide youth programming. At least four offer field trips. Most of our field trips are are coming out of our comprehensive fund organizations that are larger.

Of them are fiscally sponsored. So that's, you know, almost a full third of the organizations. What you see in that little table are twenty twenty five numbers in purple and then last year's cohort in black. Wow. So there were 38 or these are their self identified boxes.

38 were arts organizations. Five were primarily heritage, eight culture, 11 science, all numbers up from last year. Yay. And the request total just from these 62 that we reviewed is $1,600,000 or more. Last year, you funded this group of 40 applicants at 951, and this year, we're looking at 62. And we'll go to the next couple slides, and

we'll talk about

money. This is commitment pie. This is Olympia's commitment to voters as outlined in the initiative that was passed in 2022. We said that a minimum of 80% of each year's cultural access fund go directly to cultural organizations through contracts. And we said or it said that the community said, was told, agreed, that up to 10% would be for transportation support for field trips to Inspire Olympia hosted organizations and programs events.

The funding amounts between these categories will flex a little bit depending on how much field trip activity there is and how much contracted activity there is for buses, etcetera. 10% is reserved for administration. Next slide. Okay. Here's the nitty gritty. For 2025, if you remember from our discussion in January, and the next is brief, but Jennifer's may not be

able to. Funding

we the initiative was passed in 2022. Funding the revenue the tax went into effect January 2023. So we and then we didn't give out our first grant money until July 2024. So there's eighteen months of tax collection with no granting. Right? During that period, we spent funding on staffing and getting up to, you know, some administrative costs. But so eighteen months minus eighteen months of administrative costs. That's where that $3,800,000 at the top comes from. Okay? That is our sort of our carryforward money in the bank before this year's revenues get brought in.

This year's revenues are expected to be $3,200,000. That's up a little bit from last year. So our total revenue is $7,770,000. Our comprehensive contracts are two year contracts, and last year, we committed to those. So the funding level that's needed for those is $1200000.0.08 99.

That's 38% of the this year's revenue just to kind of so you could track that. We plugged in $1,300,000 for this year's impact contracts. Think it's a good starting number, and I'll explain why with a little more spreadsheeting here. The CAPS program budget is expanded to the right under the green bar. It's $355,000 or 11% of the 2025 budget, and it includes $90,000 for transportation reimbursement to Olympia School District.

That is a big number. This year, it's at about we're guessing it's gonna end at about $25,000 ish for transportation just transportation. No. Is it more than that? Yeah. 60. Oh, okay. So it's not all in the spreadsheet yet. Okay.

No. We've we've received smart invoices.

Okay. But

we set aside 200,000 last

year. Yeah.

We set aside no idea how much that

was gonna cost. And that's yeah. So last year's budget was was bigger than this, and we're pairing it back because now we have a little bit of a a track record to go on it. So $90,000 for transportation reimbursements, a $155,000 would would be additional funding above their contracted amount that organizations can receive for hosting field trips. And then we're ready to hire a cultural access programming coordinator for schools.

Oh, great. Specifically Right. So that's what that $110,000 is for. It's for a third staff person that will be dedicated to the school programming. So in future years, we expect our caps budget to go up because that FTE is gonna be driving in, yeah, more

activity. Yeah. So exciting.

So this would spend amount would spend a 102% roughly of the of the $3,200,000 that's coming in in revenues in tax revenues this year. We the idea is to begin to spend down that $3,800,000, that eighteen months of revenue, right, and spend it down gradually over the life of the program. Doing that is gonna be a trick. We're just gonna need to monitor year by year, and and and we'll talk about that spend down in more detail in July. But to just look at, okay, '25, maybe '26, just to give you that picture.

I'm gonna go to the next slide. This one, it's goofy. Sorry. I'm spreadsheeting is not my strength. So if this seems idiosyncratic, that's why.

So you you have the budget that I just talked about on the left, the 2025 program budget. And then you have the 2024 in the middle and 2026 projection on the right hand side. So 2024 are by our expenses were around $2,900,000 in the end. We actually underspent a little bit from where we thought we would be because we didn't spend as much on schools and because we had budgeted budgeted to hire that FTE but weren't able to to do the trick until hopefully this summer. And our revenues were also just a touch higher.

So let's see. So that's and you can see we had $430,000 in there for the school programming, which was just more than a higher allocation than we needed. As we look ahead to if we spent 1,300,000.0 this year for impact contracts, And then we look ahead to 2026 with the intention of being remembered as a part of our goal and our mission statement is to be a sustainable stable force source of funding for organizations. We wanted stability is important. So what we wanna do is get ourselves into a position with this this funding here, 1.3 plus a projected amount for the comprehensive contracts, 1.45 ish, where we can sustain that amount for the next five years of the program.

Right? Does this making sense? Yep. Okay. So 1.4 is my projection for next year for comprehensive.

Actually, we may get we may get asked we may have many more applicants than than we're imagining. But if we get two more applicants asking for full funding, maximum funding at a $150,000, that would put us at Yeah. It's actually $1.04 $5.08 or something. That might be sustainable for another five years of the program if our economy is steady. If if we can count on a 2% increase growth in the Cultural Access Fund over five years, we're looking pretty good.

The program is authorized for seven years, and we're not banking on city council authorized reauthorizing it. We can't we need to budget as if that wasn't gonna happen at least until we get closer. If the if the economy remains flat and we and we stay at $3,200,000 every year, we're gonna have to cut back from that 1 point or $2,800,000 or $2,700,000. We're gonna have to we'll have less money to give out in contracts. So for that reason, we are recommending a staff that we not plan to spend more on impact than about $1,300,000 in this cycle.

And we can have a deeper discussion about that five year plan and a little more information about where the economy is going come July. And it's still a significant increase in what It's a significant increase. And you may decide you don't wanna use that much money. But I think it's it's not enough to to give everybody everything they asked for. So there's your starting point. Right. Did

you we went from was it forty, forty two?

Forty organizations last year that

we did 951,000. I'm just curious about the like, did did the percentages go up relatively? You know, if we go to 62 applications. Right?

You see what I'm saying?

Yeah. Are we adding twenty and thirty every year?

Is that SKU about the same percentage wise? With between comprehensive and impact? Or No. Just just just impact. Well, I don't think last year, wasn't it? Yeah. Last year, we we Okay. I will draw the question.

Well, we ordered yes. No. It

was 1.2 It's not really apples to apples. Comprehensive Yeah. And 900,000 for impact. Yeah.

Yeah. So you're just seeing 50. Yeah. The growth of one of those. Right.

Right. And in 2026, we'll we'll see the growth of other one. Two years ago. We're gonna have to hold Impact Yeah.

At 1.3.

Yep.

But I

mean, I don't expect a lot more growth in Impact if we do well, we can't we can't afford to fund it. Mean, I

guess I I don't expect to see a lot more growth in Comprehensive. Right. There's not really anyone

That's why I only put in two for

next year. Because there's no one from Impact that can really roll to that category. Is that true? There is at least two.

There's two. Two, is kinda where we pulled that number.

But it's not gonna be you know?

Those are

I don't think we're gonna see double the number of comprehensive

No. No. We will not see the same growth as we've seen in the impact. I think this is a reflection of the fact that our community is really rich in small cultural nonprofit agencies. Ridiculously rich.

And that said, we don't have the larger sort of anchor institutions that a lot of larger communities do. You know, we don't have an aquarium. We don't have a science center. We don't even have a history museum. Or an art museum. Or a permanent art museum. And maybe we'll see some of those things in the future, but our richness is not in large institutions.

I mean, we have great ones too. But

We have a few fabulous ones.

I thought. Do

is the vision to continue to support these nonprofits ad infinitum? Or do we see sort of a is there a life what is the what is the kind the of end goal? Are we trying to make them sustainable for a few years until they garner enough kind of a groundswell of community interest that they can start to privatize some of that? Or what is

I think we would love to see that happen. Yeah. We would also love to see the funding continue. Yeah. There is a risk that we have to think about of of the funding potentially not being renewed by city council. We, I think, are well on our way to making a strong case for them to say yes to. But if if they don't, then we also do wanna set up these orgs for success, and we'd obviously give them a gentle letdown with plenty of time to know the cliff is coming, but it's a little both.

Okay. If there's a lot of capacity building built in, we have $50,000 in our budget each year for training and support and help these organizations to to stabilize and be stronger. I think part of the vision for cultural access funding too is that it's a leverage point for organizations to match up for other

Yes.

Grants. Mhmm. And so the whole thing the idea is the whole thing gets stronger. Well, that's one of the

things we our panel discussed, like, there could be there was such a opportunity to to pair potential organizations up to have bigger, more

more in

complex exactly. More complex programming. Mhmm. That could then consolidate some of those smaller asks into a bigger ask. Right?

So Yeah. Exactly. And I do think that through the years, we will see a quality level up in some organizations, and that will naturally help us make Okay. Funding decisions as well.

And, Genevieve, I think to your point to that question too Yeah. There are some grants I mean, the key your own nonprofits, but some of these smaller organizations that, like, can't level up yet because they don't like, my my hope is that, like, at least a handful of these orgs will because of cultural access funding from last year, will be able to get accelerated funding this year. Yes. Or, you know, or maybe next year. Right. Because they can't they weren't able to because they didn't make enough money and hadn't been around long enough or whatever, then they start to have access to these other funds. This this grant

is like their qualifying grant, but they start to establish sort of

Yeah. Like yeah. So I

think it's I think that is why those hope you know, compared to, like, LTAC kind of grants where, you know, bigger, more established, they they just keep getting those those grants. But it's nice to see that this can be something that's kind of open to

all in a new kind of organization.

Well, and the and the workshops and the and the cohort kind of coming together and learning, right, grant writing classes, that's those are all skills that these little baby bird nonprofits can take out into the world too Yeah. And and look for additional funding and just be that much stronger.

The fact is too that some of our organizations are perfectly happy doing exactly what they're doing They're very happy.

Doing it with

the volunteers that don't wanna become nonprofits necessarily. Don't wanna hire staff. Example of that. But they can do more for the community, and they can do it for for lower cost. And it's really about lowering barriers as much as it is growing more quality,

more stable, virtual organizations. Yep. Encouraging them to to expand that that public programming. Questions on Anything. The budget?

No. I think I

think you laid it out.

The thing the thing that I like about this slide is that the impact share is greater this year than the comprehensive, payout. I like that. I don't like seeing what I see in the 2026 projection with regards to that. But just dealing with 2025, the good news to me is the 52% for impact contracts.

These are great discussions to carry into our retreat in July.

Yep.

Kind of

what's the right Balance. Ratio and balance between impact and comprehensive for our community. And

Take a note.

Take a note for July.

Yeah. And and what's our vision? Our long term vision for organizations organizations who receive funding year over year. I mean, those are great things to talk about. Mhmm. Mhmm. Okay.

Before we move on to the funding, discussion, we did have three applications that did not show the required matching funds, which is a, which is a requirement. They, either didn't provide a budget or provided incomplete budget information. And Amelia can share some finer details on that.

Sure. Yeah. So we have our budget workbook, as many of you saw, for those of you that didn't. There's a budget workbook, and it shows expenses and income. Some organizations choose to give us a different form of that, but we can glean information from it, and that is okay.

It's not ideal, but it's okay. Three organizations gave us a different workbook that didn't include any income or volunteer measures, or donated goods or services measures. So in the past, we've had organizations who maybe their ask isn't reflected in the one to one match shown on their budget. Well, then we just know to lower their funding amount that they could be possibly eligible for to 25,000 instead of 30,000 or or whatever to match what they have shown. These three organizations, we don't have anything to go on to get them to funding.

And so we need to know what to do with them. And in the future, whatever this panel decides tonight, we would Mary Grace and I would catch that, and it wouldn't be reviewed. Could be part of the eligibility review in the future. Mhmm. There's no match. If there's no match

We can't

move forward. We can't.

And that's straight out of our Good. Requirements. Yeah.

So for impact funded organizations, they must show a one to one match. And that can be all volunteer time, but it needs to be shown. That could be donated goods or services. Again, it needs to be shown. These ones, we don't have that. We know how much it's gonna cost to do their thing.

One simply didn't do a budget. One provided only expenses and no income information, and another one provided their own budget.

It was all their own budget. Yeah. Okay. And all of them did we saw expenses, but we couldn't glean Right. Volunteer hours. Or I thought there was at

least one in our group that didn't do anything at all.

I think there was one. It might be the one that we're talking about didn't do Didn't do anything.

Yep. Yeah.

So So

we need a motion to either include or exclude these, three applicants, because we do not have, the matching budget information. So we need to make a determination on how we'll move forward.

I have I have a question. So one of them is blank with no information. One of them shows expenses. Of show expenses, but no match. Mhmm. So they don't show any income. Mhmm. I see. Yeah. I

think because our instructions were clear, we must exclude them. Are you making a motion? I so

You have a second?

I'll second it.

Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Okay. Well, staff will, not include those three. They will, of course, be provided with oodles of feedback, opportunities to, and they were offered. All of our applicants were offered, many opportunities for group workshopping, private consultations, Zoom lessons.

There was there was a a lot of education offered, and, hopefully, they can take advantage of of that next year. So I'm gonna turn it back over to Amelia to review our to share our review panel scores and initiate the funding discussion. Okay.

I'm gonna take one second to get my spreadsheet right for y'all.

If you don't exclusions. Anybody can we do some restrooms? Yeah.

I can take you time for

a while. Room is right here. The men's room is a little bit further. Actually, men's room is right there too. Yeah. No?

Okay. I'm the Okay. Because I don't think can go till eight or till nine.

Good. Yeah.

It goes as long as we need it to go.

How long is it scheduled for?

It it doesn't have an

end time. It doesn't have an end time.

It just has a start time on the

We used to be, like, six to eight,

six to nine. I think we're six to eight technically, but we knew this might be longer. So I think we did go to nine. Okay. So as I pull this up on the screen, there were quite a few applications. So we're gonna look at a very long Oh, you would. And so as we play with that, my apologies for just the way this is gonna have to go.

Let's make it big for folks in the room

and share my screen.

Okay. So now I can

make it. So as I was saying, this is a long Woah. And I'll wait for Mary Grace to really get back here before we start discussion so she can be a part of it. But so what you see is the score in a percentage. And the reason that is, is because as we mentioned, some applicants are doing youth education programs.

So their number that we came up with of an average score was based out of 50 points possible or 40 points possible. Looking at that is confusing, but seeing a percentage standardizes that. This is how we can toggle and play around with everything. Let me get that clear and just say we're gonna fund our people. And then we have our funding request, and then this changes based on what you all decide. And so we can start to play around. So let me make this a little Bigger. Extra bigger. Yes. Yeah.

No. I but just knowing that I'm gonna have to go up and down. Right. So starting at the top here, our our best score got 90% down through the eighties. A lot hanging out in seventies.

A lot hanging out in the sixties. Men. Fifties. And then there's a jump from 52 to 48. And as you can see, if we wanted to just fund everyone at their full ask, it would take, 1.62. So that's a lot. And so

what, yeah. Paul?

Amelia, does that include the three that we just

No. The three have been removed.

Yeah. Okay.

So

this doesn't include anyone deemed ineligible and now those those three that have been deemed ineligible due to incomplete application.

So that's why are we at oh, 60 because there's probably a lot

Can we drop the bottom three? You got less than 50%?

Yes. Can we drop the bottom three at less than 50%? Yes. We can see what that does.

Mean, I know that that's not gonna get us to 1.3, but, like, then That's

a good starting point? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Gets us to one five four nine. We do everyone in the fifties. Yeah.

There's one more you can drop here.

Well, there's

a couple.

Well, so everyone in the fifties

Everyone in the fifties could be Below 60. Yeah. Any anyone in 50 to 60 could be That's

gonna write these down. Half. Yeah. Half.

50%? Let's see that. So

Well, the first suggestion was under 50 not

funded. Yeah.

And then every the amount that that leaves us at?

It was 1.5.

$1.60. 1.5.

So roughly, yeah, was 1.5. Okay.

So we're still at 1.4.

And then we put everyone in the fifties. At half. At point five, so at half. And that got us to one four. What about everyone in fifty and sixty?

Yeah. Point five.

There's a lot of 60. There's lot of things. Boy.

Yikes. We we it wasn't just us. No.

No. That's really We're gonna go Once I blended those two, it It would If you draw one

One point four.

It's just 1.4.

Getting there. How about

55. 65.

Can you can you scroll up

a little bit? Mhmm. How many? Is it, like, 10 or 15? Whatever.

Lot of things.

It looks like browsers.

Sixty five sixty five and under?

Let's try

it. Yeah. 65 and under. I'd

put Start there.

One more.

So 65 counts at 50. Okay.

50. Yeah. 66 would go up to one. K.

On the net worth? 67.

Oh, $11.50. 50.

At 50%. Yeah.

Guess $1.02 $7.02. Wow. I like it.

We're geniuses. We

are. We're also, like, 09:00.

Yeah. Right outside. Okay.

We're exhausted.

That's 38.

Yes. I wanna turn the screen. Know. I'm sorry.

I actually did start making the spreadsheet that did that, and it makes no sense. Oh, I do. Like, your brain will start

to pop.

That's the 30 that's 37. Or is it do do

we start number one? That's 36 orgs funded fully. Yeah. That's right. That's right. And it is 56 orgs funded at all at all.

That's awesome. I think that's great.

It's a nice number keep you posted. Were gonna do that. Right?

So many times. Yeah.

The 16 orgs, the more than

last year. Mhmm. Right? So

what do you two think about that?

What is So I I think that there's an issue maybe of expectation that we need to think about since there were groups last year. A lot of them got full funding, and I think that there's probably an expectation that they would get full funding again this year if they, had an equally good application. Some of those groups are only going to get half under this proposal that's before us right now. So I would be interested in seeing if some of these in the sixties would be at maybe at 75% or

So And if that

5%?

And if that's if that's going to bump us over the 1,300,000.0, I'm comfortable in having that discussion about whether we should do that this year.

Okay. So, Paul, if we change the ones in the sixties that we just did from half to 75, see what that does?

Yeah.

And and, Paul, I'm gonna just say as, like, someone who works

Sixties is

65. Is 60 to 65.

Works in a works in a nonprofit? Five. Oh, that's only 45.

The area. The area.

Well, but maybe you go maybe you take the rest of the 60 percents and drop them to 75. Sorry. Yeah. Just just I wanna hear what you're yeah.

But, like, I don't think anyone guarantees funding. I think you apply for funding, and you know it's competitive. Anyone that asked me this year, me personally this year, oh, wow. How about Inspire? I'm like, it's got it got competitive.

Yep. Because there

could be more more again, like, more complete applications. Shouldn't just be a legacy Yes. Expectation

kind of thing. Oh, yeah. All sixties. If Oh, that's

Nothing. Nothing. 50. 60 is 65 at 75%.

No. All 60. This will be now.

60 Yeah. 69. Yeah.

69. And what's what's happening with That Okay. Fifty to sixty? What's happening with fifty to sixty?

That's 25. Fifty to fifty nine is 25.

Fifty fifty

Fifty nine. Yeah.

They stayed at

50%. 50%. Yeah. And that touch that's empty. Everybody else is 100.

That's basically 1.3.

Oh, wait. I'm I there's 4. 66 say that one needs to be point 75. So it'll So, actually, we got that. Let me double check because, again, long little screen. Yeah.

Mhmm. 1.

So so 70 is 1. Yeah. 69 down. 60. Is 75. 50 anything under 50 is not funded. That gets us to 1292123. And and, know, Paul, I think this is also, like, to your point that, like, this for next year and the years after, for

orgs to know that there will be for for those reading grants and for those getting money to know that there is a will be a tiered funding. Mhmm. So that, you know, if you put in a really great grant and you're serving lots of folks and you're gonna get fully funded, and if you don't, then you might still get something. Because I bet some of these organizations because there's a lot of first timers

great. They they're gonna be

to get $50.

Yeah. And last year, we did fund a lot at half. Yep.

I I believe the cutoff was 60% and below about half. Yep. So This is a

little more generous in some ways.

Yeah. In some ways. Yeah. With the bigger pool. Will you scroll up down a bit just to

review that? Well, in in right? 70% less than 70 is not the same as 90%. Yeah. I mean, it it's not the same in any capacity. Nowhere in the world are those Right. Yeah. Things the same.

It's a little bit like grading on a curve, which I think is equitable. Like,

Yeah. Yep.

Yep. And

and if you scored 65% in a in a room full of Nine. Of people versus a grant application that that met criteria, a third higher. I mean, that those are financial

for next year.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Mhmm.

I bet I

bet you those people that also only got half funded. Maybe they'd be more inclined to go to one of those programs. Maybe they

Right. Right. And if the and there is still I mean, it's not like we have five different tiers. It's three. Right? It's 50%, 75%,

and then fully funded.

So Mhmm.

Yeah.

And I I don't I don't think we're peanut buttering anything too much to offer half of it. $15,000 is still a good

That's a good job.

Absolutely. And I'll just

say too, after, like, our grant read for the state Mhmm. And $15 was, like, the max Mhmm. Anyone can get. Yeah. Our city is just like you know, now you can apply for those grants for the state for, like, admin funding, and they're $6 for two years. I'm oh my gosh. Yep.

So For printer paper. It's okay.

That's why

it's not it's not even worse.

After these tariffs. Yeah. Yeah. Cool. Okay.

Any other ways you'd like to see it?

I actually feel more comfortable that we've we've divvied it up at the 10% you know? Mhmm. As opposed to, you know, kind of doing the half of a 60, you know, 60 to 65. Yeah. This feels

a little more comfortable to it feels justifies good. Yeah. It's an easier Yeah. Transition for those perhaps who aren't gonna get full funding. Right. The folks in the middle who scored okay.

You know, they're doing

Well, especially since there was a 65, a 66, and a 67%

Mhmm. Score, and it's just like it's a little it would have been

a little hairier. Mhmm.

Yep. Yep. Okay. Any other comments? I would look for a motion to approve this funding recommendation. We can have Mary Grace restate

Hold on.

I'll I'll do my best.

Restate from the notes.

Okay. So does somebody wanna I'll make a motion. She's gonna make a Okay. And I'm gonna read the see if I can get this. So the proposal is that the there would be no funding for those who scored less than a 50% who scored less than 50. For applicants scoring between fifty and fifty nine, they would receive 50% of the funding amount that they requested. Those scoring between sixty and sixty nine will receive 75% of the funding that they requested, those scoring 70 or better would be funded at 100% of their requested amount.

Thank you. We have a motion on the table. Do we have a second?

I'll second.

Lots of seconds. Lots Any of

further discussion on this motion, the spending level?

So who was the second for the record, Paul?

Pick somebody. Yeah. There were lots of hands. Saw some We

like it. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Motion on the table has been seconded. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. Any

opposed? Congratulations, team. It is not

9PM. So how many were fully funded?

So that makes 27 fully funded. Nice. And Math. You have to and 57 funded. Okay.

So 30 or 30. Okay. How

many got 75% of their funding?

Well, I don't know that. No. That's a much harder

thing to ask. Sorry. That's a math.

Wait. Wait. Let me see.

How many rows is that? How can

I tell how many are? 19? Do you see? Like, the little thing at the bottom. Oh, like, she can count. Count where. Learn that. Oh, yeah. It's just how you're

married by the same watch.

I can't. I'm putting pencil on the screen. And then Nine. Nine. Half was nine. Yeah. Just here. Right.

And how many did not receive? Three with zero.

K. Well, six. Six.

Six. Yeah. Because they

were three that were no. It's three on a Three three more.

Yes. Plus three. Yes. Okay.

Thank you. Okay. I'm gonna stop sharing. Can stop seeing my shaky aunt dart all over the place. Great.

See our see our friends? Okay. Well done. Amazing. Amazing. Yes. Great great job, Amy, everybody. Any other items for discussion? You got a list