back to advisory board

County of Volusia
Children and Families Advisory Board
Minutes
Thomas C. Kelly Administration Center
County Council Chambers, Room 204
123 West Indiana Avenue
DeLand, FL 32720
Wednesday, June 8, 2007 5:30 p.m.

Call to Order
Edward L. Jasper called the Children and Families Advisory Board meeting to order, Friday June 8, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.

Roll Call
Melinda Crowe roll call and introduction of current board.

Item 1
Overview of Community Assistance and Introduction of CFAB support staff.

Edward L. Jasper, Community Assistance Director, welcomed all to first meeting and explained how the process will normally work. Once a Chair is elected then the Chair will at that time take over the meeting.

Edward Jasper explained that this meeting will be combining some items that are not usually combined; this is being done due to the newly appointed board, and there is a very short window for what needs to be done and are we already behind.

Item 2
CFAB orientation

Edward Jasper commenced review of the orientation manual.
Peggy Johnson reviewed the application process; review process and how scoring is completed.
David Kerr questioned the process for new agency.
Peggy Johnson explained a new agency can only have a max of 4.0 because monitoring has not yet occurred.
David Kerr also inquired about the program classifications on 9a on the application and how it distinguishes the County’s need for service from the United Way and asks if there is a reason it is distinct.
Edward Jasper explained that his question would be addressed during the second half of the orientation.
Dr. Kimmons questioned how Geographic Consideration was determined.
Peggy Johnson explained a study was done in 2000 coordinated by County Council.
Dr. Kimmons stated that this has been seven years ago and needs to be reviewed.
Dr. Kimmons also asked for clarification of conflict of interest due to his being on several other boards. Mr. Jasper explained that he can participate during presentations but must not engage in discussion and/or vote for those agencies.

Item 3
Elections of CFAB Chair
Nominations
Motion to close nominations
Discussion
Action

Dave Evans made motion to nominate Carrie Garnett for CFAB Chair
David Kerr seconded the motion
Carrie Garnett willing to accept
Karen Bourbannais stated Carrie would be an excellent chair and she is new to the board but not to the community and process; the board would be well served.
Motion unanimously accepted.
Edward Jasper turned meeting over to Carrie Garnett, Chair

Item 4

Election of CFAB Vice Chair
Nominations
Motion to close Nominations
Discussion
Action

Karen Bourbannais nominated herself for Vice Chair
Dave Evans then nominated Karen Bourbonnais for Vice Chair
Dr. Kimmons seconded motion
Nominations closed
Motion unanimously accepted
Karen Bourbannais elected as Vice Chair

Item 5

Election of Budget Sub-Committee Chair

Nominations
Motion to close nominations
Discussion
Action

Karen Bourbannais nominated Dave Evans
Dr. Kimmons seconded motion
Nominations closed
No discussion
Motion unanimously carried
Dave Evans elected as Budget Sub-Committee Chair

Item 6

Election of Budget Sub-Committee

Nominations
Motion to close nominations
Discussion
Action

Carrie Garnett questioned how many members will be needed
Edward Jasper explained a minimum of three members including the chair.

Dr. Kimmons nominated himself to be on the budget sub-committee board
David Kerr questioned the role of the budget sub-committee.
Dave Evans explained that it is to review the budget applications and make the recommendations to CFAB for funding, each year there is a parameter of what we have to work with and based on scoring the budget committee makes that work together, and there are two to three meetings in addition to regular board meetings.
Carrie Garnett also nominated herself to serve on the committee.
Dave Evans made motion for Dr. Kimmons, Carrie Garnett and David Kerr to serve as the budget sub committee.
Dr. Dewees seconded the motion
Motion unanimously carried.

Item 7

Order of Business
Open Public Hearing
Staff Report – Diana Phillips
Public Participation
Close Public Hearing
Board Discussion/Action

CFAB Meeting schedule

In accordance with Resolution No. 2007-73, Section V, Item (c) “ the Children and Families Advisory Board shall establish a regular meeting schedule. Meetings can be called and scheduled at the request of the Chairman or a majority of the members of the board.”

The board previously has met quarterly, the fourth Wednesday of the month.

Requested Action: Establish meeting schedule

Diana Phillips reviewed the resolution regarding establishing a meeting schedule, there is no minimum or maximum and gave historic meeting schedules. Diana noted that the first order of business after funding allocations will be to review and revise the consolidated application with United Way.

Karen Bourbannais stated that the 5:15pm times seem to work well for agencies
Carrie Garnett recommended the first Wednesday of the third month of the quarter beginning in October. Carrie Garnett suggested there may need to be a meeting prior to October for the next funding process.
Dr. Kimmons clarified that the schedule would be October 24, January 23, April 23, and July 23.
Dr. Kimmons motioned to approve the recommended dates for meetings
Dave Evans seconded the meeting.
Motion unanimously carried.

Item 8

11:00am – Matt Greeson, Deputy County Manager
Charlene Weaver, Chief Financial Officer

Discussion of Volusia County budget restrictions.

Deputy County Manager, Matt Greeson used a power point presentation to explain what the staff and County Manager are dealing with during the tax reform. He explained that the purpose is to give some background and context to the tax reform and wanted to engage the CFAB in some of the contingency plans. Matt Greeson reviewed how the process is completed and how the applications for funding for CFAB are considered. The Manager’s office is giving their best thought to the board and to Council and would like everyone engaged in an appropriate and fair way to administer reductions in funding.
Matt Greeson explained that there is no way for Counties to absorb the cuts, and at the scale the cuts will occur, it will affect services. Contingency planning is currently based on 10% and it amounts to 26 million dollars. At this amount service levels will be affected. Matt Greeson explained that plans need to be made for reductions even though we do not know how much we are going to have to reduce. In order to have the next years budget set, the County is facing a statutory time line with a lot of uncertainty. The cut could increase or decrease after the special session.
The legislative outcome is uncertain and all advisory boards need to be engaged in helping go through the reduction process, it needs to be approached in a way that is most invisible to the people in our community, but at 20% or more it will be hard to accomplish. Everyone will need to work together as all departments are in the same boat.
Dave Evans expressed appreciation for the presentation; and stated for the record, since there are several new members on the board; this board has suffered for several years, there has only been one inflation type adjustment in five years. The people this board supports are among the most needy in the County and while we appreciate what is going on at the State level, he hates to see the recipients of our services take even a bigger hit than they’ve been forced to take over the last 4 or 5 years already with constant belt tightening and other reductions and would appeal that this board not be given a larger cut than other sections of the government.
Matt Greeson responded, stating that at this time we are engaging the board in a 10% dialogue and have asked every department and division to come up with a 10% reduction; in the CFAB case how do you grade, rank and administer the grant process in a way that results in a fitting budget that is 10% less than the current fiscal year. All values judgments that go into budgetary decision making have not been made yet; in process of looking at department’s ideas and when the Manager’s working with the Council on developing recommended budgets, there are going to be some value judgments on whether or not certain things get funded or get cut deeper than those who may be viewed as a more core mission of County government. Tending the needs of our most vulnerable citizens is believed to be viewed as a core mission, social service agencies can not go unscathed. At this point everybody has to submit and come up with a way to get to 10% and by working through with Council those service value judgments as a decision is made in Tallahassee. The fact of the matter is that 10% may not be enough, and deeper cuts may occur.
Dr. Kimmons stated that monies are always going to be a factor and in addition to what Dave Evans commented on, most if not all of the agencies served have had considerable amounts of positive, productive growth. This is something that should be taken in consideration, sometimes we think when we cut that means we don’t have positive and productive growth.
Edward Jasper added that his upcoming presentation on item 10 would show our cuts are a little deeper than 10% because of the way the budget works and will be walking through the process so that the issue will be more clear.
Dr. Dewees stated her appreciation for Matt’s sincerity in his presentation.
Gail Camputaro-Executive Director for Council on Aging funded by CFAB. Tax reform ripple is significant right down to the meal delivered to a senior citizen. Our agency is already looking to be more efficient. To cut 10% the agency addresses a willingness to absorb their fair share. In regards to those agencies that match funds, thanks to CFAB a few years ago weight was added to those of us who use match funds. Our agency must raise one million dollars a year to draw down five million dollars in state and federal funds. The weighting needs to be readdressed especially in this time of changing tax reform for those who use match funds. Geographic consideration needs to be changed because where a senior lives is uncontrollable. Our services are divided almost perfectly by percentage on the east and west side. The other concern is prioritizing needs and the difficult task of having to prioritize the needs of the children vs the elderly. The Council on Aging keeps the elderly out of nursing homes so this saves the County.
Dr. Dewees questioned the prioritization of cities.
Gail Camputaro responded stating the agencies come to CFAB for funding and are funded through Department of Children and Families. Each city has a HS budget and they do the same process almost and they go before them and ask for money and they are all in competition with each other and proposed that the cities, counties and United Way get together and pool all the money and look at priority needs in order to fund and establish programs to meet the children’s needs, and the needs of the elderly. The Cities are also trying to prioritize which agency is more important. There is no Countywide guideline that can ripple down right to the City level and the United Way and One Voice have made a giant step in the right direction to begin the process to get us there.
Edward Jasper advised that the public participation needs to be held until the end of the agenda because some of the issues may be answered in the remaining segments of the agenda.

Item 9

Order of Business
Open Public Hearing
Staff Report- Peggy Johnson
Public Participation
Close Public Hearing
Board Discussion/Action

The Children and Families Advisory Board, per Resolution 2007-73, is responsible for making funding recommendations to the County Council for children and community programs. In order to assess each program, evaluation elements are established. The elements include the need for service, service expectation documentation, innovation incentive, operational and administrative capability, direct service to client, cost effectiveness/efficiency, geographic consideration, community based, and monitoring. Each evaluation item is assigned a point range and element weight. The total score accumulated from the evaluation elements is used to calculate funding recommendations. (See Attachment I).

Requested Action: Approve Evaluation Elements on Attachment I.

Peggy Johnson reviewed Resolution 2007-73 and requested action.
Dave Evans noted change to the prior set of rules, by moving the operational and administrative capability from staff to the board which is a good move. Also in the last couple of years the monitoring score was included into this which increases the weighting of it, which used to be almost non existent but is now up to 20% of the total score and would like to see this go up higher in light of the reduction in funding that we are facing. Decisions need to be based on effectiveness of the work being done and recommend an increase in the weighting of the monitoring score to double what it is currently.
David Kerr stated that monitoring is a very important aspect for agencies currently or previously funded in the new grant process and quality of services provided is determined by monitoring and with cuts potentially around the corner, does want to unnecessarily fund programs that are not top quality and an increase of the weight for monitoring would be supported
Carrie Garnett asked for suggestions where to reduce the weighting to compensate for an increase in the weight for monitoring. Question number one where it asks to subjectively score the need for service that list is probably ten years old. Of categories that people are identifying themselves being part of and it seems arbitrary unless data is used to tell what the community needs are verses opinions, suggest to reduce that since it is 25%
Dr. Kimmons concurred with the suggestion and suggested a reduction of 2 to 3 percentage points at the most, and verified that adjustments are being made to accommodate the other points.
Karen Bourbonnais stated it is still something that needs to be looked at and really make sure this is where the money needs to be spent and that these dollars are really doing what the community needs them to do and questioned where scoring is used in the agencies with match money.
Peggy Johnson stated agencies that receive matching state or federal funds are held harmless, which means that their funding will not be reduced.
Carrie Garnett stated that this is an issue to discuss, whether there should be a different process for those entities that are matching state and federal dollars.
Edward Jasper explained that all of this should make more sense toward the end of the presentation and one of the things we are proposing is that the agencies receiving matching dollars receive less of a cut and that percentage cut is 5% as opposed to beginning at 10%.
Carrie Garnett suggested that the presentation continue before they approve the instrument to get a clear picture so that they can vote on the item.
Edward Jasper explained that there are two separate items one is what the score is and what to do with the scores so they make sense.
Dr. Kimmons stated that the geographic consideration is old and outdated and felt that it needed to be expanded and in light of the presentation, needs to include other entities, one in particular is Daytona Beach.
Carrie Garnett agreed to take a look at that again. When looking at making cuts the board wants to provide the greatest good to the greatest number of people, which maybe doesn’t mean servicing Pierson or Seville as a priority as opposed to the more populous areas served and questioned when the areas were identified.
Dr. Kimmons stated the year 2000
Edward Jasper confirmed that is was in 2000
Dave Evans questioned if it was completed by action of County Council or this board
Edward Jasper stated it was completed by a study commission and it is not something that can be done within the time frame left to work with.
Carrie Garnett stated it can be placed on the “to do” list.
Edward Jasper clarified that an RFP would have to be put out and a company selected to come in and do the study.
Karen Bourbonnais questioned the 5% cut rather than the ten percent for matching funds and would like to have more information to understand that better to move ahead.
Edward Jasper explained that as far as attachment 1, the evaluation element is a separate document to consider if it is a fair way of evaluating each of the agencies. The only change made this year is moving the operations and administrative capabilities to the board responsibilities as opposed to staff responsibilities. It was a subjective score and staff does not need to be placed in the subjective scoring process.
Carrie Garnett clarified that the instrument just gets us to a ranking score.
Edward Jasper explained that this instrument gets you to the ranking score and the presentation gives you guidelines on how to use this score to make a fair and equitable decision.
Carrie Garnett questioned that none of the elements in the instrument relate to the way that the decisions are made once we have a score.
Edward Jasper explained that it does but it will be so minor that it will not make a big difference and reiterated to the board the voting can be postponed until the presentation is complete.
Karen Bourbonnais motioned to move forward with the presentation
Dr. Kimmons seconded the motion.
Motion unanimously carried.

Item 10

Order of Business
Open Public Hearing
Staff Report – Edward L. Jasper
Public Participation
Close Public Hearing
Board Discussion/Action

The Children and Families Advisory Board, per Resolution 2007-73, is responsible for making funding recommendations to the County Council for children and community programs. In order to allocate funding, the board establishes funding criteria. Due to the anticipated funding reduction for Fiscal Year 2007-2008, the attached funding criteria is recommended. (Attachment 2)

Requested Action: Approve Funding Criteria

Edward Jasper reviewed the budget and how the CFAB funding may be cut more than 10 percent as shown in attachment 2.

Edward Jasper noted that last year County went to roll back and no new agencies were funded. Need to have some type of mechanism in place to determine if any new agencies the board deemed would meet the criteria to be funded.

The first staff recommendation is to use the funding ranking method that is already established, which was tabled until after the presentation. Staff believes that this method is fair and equitable, it leaves little wiggle room to whether the agencies are operating the way they should be and the board plays a significant role in determining that. Once this is established the agencies will be making presentations to the board and the board is asked to categorize the agencies as set up by the United Way. All four categories are important and deserve to be funded equally.

Edward Jasper reviewed the contingency budget reductions in attachment 2, to be presented to County Council.

Staff proposes Cultural Arts programs should receive their funding only from the cultural arts board; and not funding city government programs unless there is no other agency in that geographic location to provide the services. One is Daytona Beach PAL program which is now almost an extension of leisure services, in Lake Helen they provide a service that only one other agency provides.

Carrie Garnett questioned whether CFAB also funds Children Medical Services which are a state agency.
Edward Jasper explained they were not funded then that service would not be provided in the community at all.
Carrie Garnett stated that if we cut others they may go away as well, so why would they be in a separate category.
Edward Jasper cautioned that before any decisions are made, be sure it is fully understood that if their role is to transport children with serious medical conditions and if they are not funded, then what will happen to the kids. No staff and admin funds are given, only the service of transportation for the kids.

If an agency receives funding from multiple programs in the same location only fund one of the programs. This should be looked at closely because agencies are receiving multiple funding for different programs that are different but may be something that can be consolidated.

Dr. Kimmons questioned if they are required to reveal that information prior to submitting an application.
Edward Jasper explained that they are and if they have several programs they are listed multiple times.
Karen Bourbonnais questioned if they would be notified in advance should the decision be made to only accept one application.
Edward Jasper explained all of the applications have already been submitted, so it will apply and they will be notified as far in advance as possible, but there is a short time line and the advance notice could be in September.
Edward Jasper explained that the proposal is to present to Council the vehicle that will be used, there may be deviation but we will stay within the specified guidelines.
Dave Evans questioned new program scoring, since new programs will have no monitoring. It is impossible to have a score higher than 4.0. There would have to be change since no one could reach a score between 4.5 and 5.0 under the new program.
Edward Jasper explained there may need to be modifications but if new programs are below the recommended score, and they are in the area where we know that program is needed, and then the board has the option. Because of geographic location and if there is no other program in the area providing services so the agency will move up and you will be provided data needed to make that decision.
To ensure special consideration for agency sponsored programs that receive matching dollars from state and federal agencies staff recommends that no matter what their score they do not receive a reduction greater than 5%.
Special consideration for critical care agencies such as programs that received Medicaid cuts, it is recommended only a 5% reduction for those. The agencies have been told that their budget will be cut through Medicaid and we need these services to continue in our community.
Carrie Garnett questioned if a survey was completed on all the applicants to find out if there were significant budget cuts from their significant funders, to consider it in the same light as the Medicaid cuts or was it just a list. These agencies are anticipating or have had Medicaid cuts but there are many other funding agencies who have probably cut things recently as well.
Edward Jasper explained looking at this information received from DCF to identify those agencies because when you start looking at it, any agency can come in and say they had been cut by various agencies that they need to offset, this was based on federal or state mandated cuts.
Dr. Kimmons questioned how many new programs were submitted
Edward Jasper stated that 30 or 40 were submitted; it is quite clear that the requests out weigh the resources. Last year the number was close to the same and none of the new programs were looked at, due to roll back.
Dr. Kimmons questioned if new agencies should be told this up front
Edward Jasper stated our goal is to put the board’s recommendation on the agenda and allow Council to make the final decision and once that decision is rendered then staff can notify agencies. At this time we do not know whether all or some or none will be looked at.
Dr. Kimmons stated that giving up front notice would allow agencies to go elsewhere for funding.
Edward Jasper agreed and stated agencies are already asking the questions but at this stage no decisions have been made.
Carrie Garnett suggested asking questions regarding each element of the presentation.
Karen Bourbonnais asked for an example of contingency.
Edward Jasper asked Dave Evans for his input in answering the question and stated contingency is reserved for unexpected items that may come up through the year.
Dave Evans further explained it is unbudgeted funds, such as when money was used for the hurricanes as they were unexpected.
Edward Jasper explained that the contingency in the community is reduced by 33% and it leaves no room for contingency funds.
Dave Evans questioned if the funding recommendations are set in stone; concerned about community being cut 30% and the children only being cut 15%.
Edward Jasper stated it is the recommendation staff provided to the budget department and the County Manager. In order to meet the requirement, the County Manager had asked that each department come up with 10% reduction and it is not set in stone it is part of the manager’s budget to the council; the council can determine if they are going to add more or not touch it. Until they decide it is not set in stone. In order to achieve the task that was assigned, this is the only option we had.
Matt Greeson stated he can understand the community’s arguments in cutting social services; at this time it has not been evaluated and compared to other departments, still in the process of compiling the information the departments have provided, as earlier said the value judgments have not been made and the amount of the cut has not yet been determined, urged to focus on the grant criteria and realize that the number could go up in terms of what is available or it could go down.
Dave Evans stated his main issue was having a closer match between the children’s side and the community side.
Matt Greeson stated he would like everyone to get a sense of reality on what is happening.
Edward Jasper stated that it would need to brought to Council in order to determine lumping the two together; it was decided years ago to treat them separate so they could be sure the children’s priorities did not get caught up into other things. In the County budget structure, they are two separate divisions. They have to be looked at differently, we are hoping the method can be approved, the percentages may change depending on the ultimate outcome.
Carrie Garnett pointed out step two, the process involves putting each program into a priority category; however that is not a question on the application and questioned if it will be something where board will decide where the program fits.
Edward Jasper explained that it is not a question on the application because the application went out last year.
Carrie Garnett asked if it is done individually or as a board.
Edward Jasper stated as presentations commence, they will be ranked individually and then calculated to see where they will be placed as part of the individual process.
Dr. Kimmons stated the process is fair, want to be sure that the geographic consideration is re-evaluated and would like to keep that in mind so the process can be started.
Karen Bourbonnais stated geographic considerations in place for the first time. The concept of looking at where they fall according to the County, the quadrant concept and prioritizing based on is good. On the record, I feel the staff has done a great job making this fair and equitable and giving us some vehicle for which to make good decisions because we have to do that. Step two is a good step in the right direction.
Dr. Kimmons stated in seven years a lot of things have changed and geographic location needs to stay on the agenda, what was decided seven years ago is not what is going on today.
Carrie Garnett stated that is a separate issue and today a process needs to be decided upon. This may be a good time to establish a sub-committee to start working on developing priorities that are up to date and what the geographic survey tells us now so next year there will be a solid process with an instrument that can be used over several years, with update based on annual data.
David Kerr refers to cities in the geographical under served areas.
Carrie Garnett pointed out that there are two issues, a weighting for cities that are under served and also a process to look at where a program is in the four quadrants. The instrument and how the money is released, how applications are ranked, how new programs are considered, it is her opinion it needs to be worked on with United Way and other interested parties.
David Kerr suggested that the focus not be on cities, focus on zip codes and other geographically defined areas that are not designated as cities. Questioning conflict in the scoring process in not funding city government programs.
Dr. Kimmons asked how the cities were derived in the instrument for under- served areas and stated there had to be some criteria when they were derived at seven years ago.
Edward Jasper stated it was based on a study that was commissioned to take a look at the County as a whole, and those areas were identified in that study.
Dr. Kimmons emphasized not loosing site and keeping this on the agenda.
Carrie Garnett suggested a committee be established to re- evaluate.
Edward Jasper urged the board to complete the process first, many of the members have not yet looked at the applications and they are very lengthy.
Dr. Dewees verified next meeting dates and asked when would be the time to put new agendas on.
Diana Phillips stated the August 29th meeting will be to approve funding recommendations brought from the budget sub-committee
Carrie Garnett stated that new items will be addressed in Sept. or Oct.
Edward Jasper reminded the board that the new budget begins October 1st; however the board will need to approve the budget information in August so it can be placed on the Council agenda.
Carrie Garnett added that unless board is willing to put in extra time, they will not be able to effect the 09/10 year with a new process, the next applications will be released in December of 2007 for 08/09 fiscal year. So impact would not be until 09/10.
Edward Jasper reminded that what the board is doing is putting in a recommendation to Council, because they have to make the ultimate decision.
Carrie Garnett stated it needs to be started at some point, even if it takes two to three years to see the results, the longer it is put off, the longer it will take to make an impact.
Dave Evans questioned what is done with agencies that are Countywide.
Edward Jasper stated even though the agency is countywide the particular program may be in one area.
Carrie Garnett expressed concern that a lot of them could not be put in one quadrant and asked the board if the concept was acceptable. On the first spreadsheet there are proposed percentage cuts based on score ranges with an exception for those entities that are matched, maybe see the high scores only have a 5% cut verses a 10%, it is hard to cut 10% of a person.
David Kerr stated that this ties into the philosophical approach to enduring significant budget changes. Do you allow programs that are hanging on, historically, to remain hanging on with less or maximize the overall dollars to the programs that are doing well? Rather have higher quality programs operating at a maximum efficiency based on scores, monitoring and etc. with a true scientific approach to this, as opposed to lesser quality programs hanging on with less, and have less cuts for better programs.
Carrie Garnett stated that with the deep cuts, programs may not be able to operate at all. Can’t take a group that has scored and give them no cuts, everyone must be cut, already established 5% for some, and I propose 5% be okay for those with high scores.
Karen Bourbonnais questioned what the changes would be for the low scores.
Dave Evans explained that until you have the scores it can not be decided in advance, but could be used as a guideline of the type of thing to do, the math may not work.
David Kerr suggested raising the threshold for those not getting funding from a 3.0 to 3.49 may not be an appropriate group to fund at all, may find more appropriate levels of funding and with reductions built in to the others.
Carrie Garnett questioned if they could have scoring categories. In each scoring category will have a funding cut percentage and adjust the ceiling of funding as appropriate budget we have to work with.
Dave Evans stated that is what has been done in the past
Edward Jasper reminded everyone that they need to provide to Council an instrument that will be used with an estimate to achieve the ten percent, and ask for the opportunity to be flexible in those amounts, that will be reduced based on the final numbers, provide an instrument to achieve fairness, but the numbers are uncertain, using the scores from last year there was only one agency that had 4.5-5.0, there were a host of agencies in the second category and there is no way to know where those agencies are going to fall this year.
Carrie Garnett verified that the board will have the flexibility to take the higher score to 5% and see how the math falls and establish a ceiling once the scoring is complete.
Edward Jasper stated the board needs to make a recommendation to Council saying this is the instrument we will use and we will come back once the scoring and ranking is done.
David Kerr questioned the programs scoring last year and how many fell into 3.49 to 3.0.
Edward Jasper stated there were twelve in that category
Dr. Kimmons asked how many programs failed to fulfill the application process and were eliminated.
Edward Jasper verified only one agency did not submit this year that submitted last year.
Dr. Kimmons stated there may be a percentage that do not fulfill the guidelines and eliminate themselves.
Edward Jasper stated only the new ones would fall in that category; there is only one agency that was funded last year that did not submit this year.
David Kerr pointed out that if all programs are quality and funded, then maybe we should raise the criteria for scoring.
Carrie Garnett concurred that would be a more effective approach to fund those efficient, effective programs that score higher.
Edward Jasper clarified in step one and two everyone is in agreement; it is a percentage reduction and funding level issue.
Carrie Garnett stated it seems like potentially changing the percentage cuts to a lower number but raising the ceiling, some programs will not be funded at all, but the programs with high scores will receive lower than projected cuts.
Edward Jasper restated that the board would be asking the council to agree that this is the process used to fairly determine where these agencies fall but when the final budget recommendations based on the amount of funding we have to work with, we will at that time determine where the cut off point will be.
Matt Greeson asked are we moving the percentages or the cut off.
David Kerr gave an example based on the information in attachment 2.
Dave Evans stated that the specific numbers would need to be changed to a range of percentage.
Carrie Garnett stated when an agency applies per program they tell you what it cost to run that program, if you cut them in half you end up eliminating them anyway, based on the true cost to run the program.
Dr. Dewees clarified it would be better to completely eliminate the bottom level.
Carrie Garnett stated the scoring instrument is not perfect and there is no time to change it.
Matt Greeson stated there are other grant programs where if they drop below a certain score you are not funded, that is not inconsistent with Council Policy, above that score there are groupings and depending on what the total budget figure is the percentage cut may be adjusted or make recommendations to council on what the percentage cut is within each of the groupings above the score.
David Kerr suggests taking out the lower quality programs and keep the higher quality programs.
Matt Greeson explained that performance oriented evaluation is being implemented; there will always be in any area, raise the bar and performance evaluation and it will help sort out non-performing agencies, to serve the most people and meet the highest needs.
Edward Jasper suggested Dave Evans offer the motion to approve attachment 2 with an amendment to the range of scores, and staff will let council know this is the instrument and anything below the low score will not be funded and other cuts will be based on the actual funding and using the appropriate percentage to achieve cuts. The new programs are not going to meet the threshold and the board needs to consider how they will handle those who are a critical service.
Dr. Kimmons motioned with budget constraints to eliminate any new program funding this year to give the existing programs fair consideration. Stating there is a time constraint and a decision needs to be made.
Edward Jasper reminded Dr. Kimmons to keep in mind that it was proposed last year and did not sit well with some of the Council members. This is the opportunity to make positive changes and status quo is not a step in that direction.
Carrie Garnett questioned that some of the new programs are an expansion of existing programs to meet community needs.
Karen Bourbonnais stated that they did not get an excessive amount of money and instead it was divided in some fair manner to everyone who submitted.
David Kerr suggested there may be a way to do that without eliminating any, by using a higher threshold to 3.5 to achieve new funding.
Edward Jasper reminded the board no new programs were considered last year; staff had to answer to the agencies that applied.
Carrie Garnett stated they are already at a disadvantage with not having the monitoring score and if they score high maybe they should be considered.
Dave Evans stated there was a different scoring method for new programs and last year several new agencies were recommended but Council changed at the last minute.
Karen Bourbonnais stated a motion to approve this or some variation of this be done so the work can be done considering short time frame, for now the board needs to support the incredible work the staff has brought before us.
Dr. Kimmons questioned how you lessen the pain when you already know the outcome.
Edward Jasper explained the board needs to have a provision so a new program can have a voice and then determine whether they are going to be funded.
Carrie Garnett stated that by changing the ceiling there may be money available for new programs.
Edward Jasper reminded the board two items need to be taken care of, the motion on the floor and public participation.
Dr. Kimmons withdrew his motion from the floor and allowed the new applications to be considered.
Carrie Garnett asked if a decision was made on the agencies that receive match dollars, by only giving them a 5% cut.
Karen Bourbonnais stated this is a good idea they will most likely score high due to the amount of resources.
Carrie Garnett supports the idea unless they score low.
Edward Jasper suggested that because the percentage reduction is not decided, he agrees that those agencies be given a smaller percentage.
Carrie Garnett questioned whether they get special consideration because of match dollars.
David Kerr suggested no more than 5% may be the way to go.
Carrie Garnett opposed special consideration for those with Medicaid cuts. There are other agencies with cuts and to set these aside as different from any other cut agency is unfair, all agencies should be able to report budget problems for the last year and be considered.
Dr. Kimmons stated it needed to be put in a motion.
Karen Bourbonnais questioned where the information came from.
Edward Japer explained information came from DCF.
Karen Bourbonnais stated we can’t be all things to all people, but if it is recommended we give them only a 5% reduction than she supports that.
David Kerr stated that it would be hard to accept that concept without tying it in to the overall scoring.
Dave Evans suggested they would have to fall in the top bracket of scoring before they were given only a 5% reduction.
Carrie Garnett called Victoria Starke from the Early Learning Coalition.
Victoria Starke stated they provide child care and developmental readiness services to low income and at risk children, formerly provided by Child Care Resource Network. If funding is cut, we will not be able to draw down school readiness federal funding, receive $16 for every dollar we gain in local match dollars, $359,000 requested from the County generates over 4.5 million dollars in Federal funding and allows us to serve over 1400 children and their families and we serve over 7,000 children. For every 180 dollars lost in local funding forces us to terminate a child and at 15% forced to terminate 300 and cut 5% terminate 100 children. In addition, parents who need child care could be forced to quit their jobs. Loss of local jobs could cause a greater burden on temporary assistance and resulting in children being disenrolled and increased to over capacity waiting lists. Currently there are 1,300 children on the waiting list. The return on the investment for the County is that if we were cut 5% the County would save $18,000 and would loose almost a quarter of a million dollars in federal funding, 15% the county would gain $54,000 and loose $678,000 in federal funding. Consider that our grant requests go for direct services there are no admin fees. Ask that the County not cut matching funds.
Steve Salley, Executive Director, House Next Door, applauded the board for looking at the scores, numbers and percentages and realizing it needs to be worked as a process. Important to look at the bottom line numbers so they do not continue to go in the wrong direction. Second, there are two items, a number of cuts that are not showing up that agencies have absorbed and the recommendation to poll the agencies as part of the process would be helpful, the match is important and should be a special consideration. There are other matches that do not appear and should be looked at. Recommended to the board to look at the match by program and not the match by agency. Our agency has some programs funded by the County that are matched and some that are not. Last, seventy five percent of our budget is people and when you have to apply cuts it is not easy to go 10% across the board, you can’t cut 10% of a person. How can we minimize what this is going to do to the community and give us an opportunity to tell you how we feel we can absorb it to have a minimal impact on the community?
Ray Salazar, Executive Director, United Way stated there is a long history with the County and together are continuing to move forward to score programs to be able to identify critical needs and score based on the highest need presented. The board’s task is to embrace a model to be looked at. Look at your world going forward while the County tries to figure out this other dilemma in a fair equitable way. The special consideration category, DCF special consideration on the Medicaid cut is the client and it is the most vulnerable client. There are not a lot of options for them. Present to Council in a way that is defendable; it must be clear measurable and functional in a model going forward, because their constituents will be tugging at them. My pledge is that I am available to help in any way possible and stand ready to assist this board.
Carrie Garnett stated attachment one is the evaluation instrument and there was discussion to increasing the monitoring item and taking away from item 1. Is there any discussion.
Dave Evans presented some calculations and increased the overall weighting of the monitoring from 1.0 to 2.0. Need for service could come down to 1.5 and service expectation documentation to .5 and innovation to .10 and direct service to .3 and the overall scoring would remain the same.
Karen Bourbonnais questioned if we have the ability to change the scoring.
Peggy Johnson stated that can be accepted as is or changes can be made.
Dave Evans motioned to revise scoring methodology to increase the monitoring score to 2.0 maximum and adjust other scores accordingly need for service 1.5 service expectation .5 and innovation .10 and direct service to .3 and adjust the related scoring within each item to mathematically work.
Dr. Kimmons seconded the motion.
David Kerr clarified the information.
Motion unanimously carried.

Carrie Garnett addressed agenda item 10, attachment 2.
David Kerr clarified that under the existing programs for children and communities the range and not the percentage recommended, create the cut off for being able to achieve successful funding to 3.5 and above, the ranges that are indicated on attachment 2 would remain the same 3.5-3.99, 4.0-4.99.
David Kerr motioned to accept the above range cut off.
Dr. Kimmons seconded the motion
Motion unanimously carried

Dave Evans discussed that having a precise number of 10% makes it hard and ranges may work better, 0-10, 10.1-20, 20.1-30, without having any data it makes it difficult.
Carrie Garnett asked if specifics are needed.
Edward Jasper reminded that this information needs to be clear to Council and the method used to determine the percentages needs to be in place.
Carrie Garnett asked if there’s a need to be specific about the ranges for Council.
Edward Jasper stated we can determine the percentages once we know what the final number is and let them know what the percentage range will be. Then the agencies will know that it will be somewhere in that category.
Dave Evans motioned amending attachment 2 excel spreadsheet to change the precise reductions to a range of reductions.
Dr. Kimmons seconded.
Motion unanimously carried.
David Kerr motioned that the programs that draw down dollars which County dollars are utilized as match, their reduction be no more than 5% with the understanding that the percentage reduction would apply if they scored 4.0 or higher.
Dr. Kimmons seconded.
Motion unanimously carried.

Dave Evans suggested a motion to correct the scoring on new programs, it is impossible for a new program to score 4.0
Mike Kneivel suggested during earlier discussion on how to handle new programs, it became apparent that there was an alternative, could do a presumptive value for monitoring that would be no higher than monitoring scores for other agencies, that way no adjustment would have to be made. It would be an average, not the highest, but neither rewarding nor penalizing them, just giving an average of a monitoring score. Would be using all of the other elements as stand alone and a presumptive value on the monitoring as an average.
Carrie Garnett discussed providing separate process for new applicants; at best they would get 80% of what they ask for and asked for discussion.
Karen Bourbonnais questioned what the process is. There is only so much money and are new programs told how much they can ask for.
Peggy Johnson stated existing agencies have max 5.0, new agencies have a max of 4.0, have handled them differently so they are not penalized and there is no limit on how much they can ask for, only constraints on what we fund based on our funding.
Carrie Garnett suggested to either giving a score value that is an average number so they can compete more fairly with the new agencies, but separate that would not have to be done, should the new programs compete with existing or have a separate process where they get up to a percentage of what they ask for.
Dr. Kimmons stated it may be difficult for new agencies to compete based on the scoring, recommended to keep them separate.
Edward Jasper proposed to amend what staff is recommending, if they are kept separate the score of 4.0 to 3.5 up to 80%, 3.49-3.0 up to 70% and the minimum will be 3.0.
Carrie Garnett discussed how this would be feasible based on coming to the magic number.
David Kerr stated it may not work, if programs fail to meet 3.5 there may be more money than needed to fund the 100% requests for funding.
Dr. Kimmons stated it would put new programs into the competitive mode and they will cancel themselves out.
Dave Evans stated the scoring for existing programs had been changed to a minimum of 3.5 for funding and new program scoring should not be less than 3.5, which would basically give only one category for new programs.
Dave Evans motioned for new programs only be considered if score between 3.5 and 4.0 recognizing there will be no monitoring score.
Dr. Kimmons seconded.
Motion unanimously carried.

Carrie Garnett focused on the community funding on the second spreadsheet on attachment 2.
David Kerr proposed motion to raise scoring range for receiving the county funding to 3.5 as a minimum and dropping the range 3.0-3.49.
Dr. Kimmons seconded.
Dave Evans asked if it would apply to both existing and new
Karen Bourbonnais suggested it be one motion.
David Kerr amended the motion to include both new and existing agencies
Motion carried unanimously

Carrie Garnett stated the board needed to address the cut range for community programs
Dave Evans suggest 0-25,0-30 and 0-35 percentage cuts and new programs would be up to 65%
Dr. Kimmons seconded.
Motion unanimously carried.

Dr. Dewees questioned if a motion is needed for agencies with Medicaid cuts and match dollars.
Edward Jasper stated that a discussion is needed to determine how that will be handled.
Carrie Garnett disagreed and does not feel it is the same issue
David Kerr asked the original motion on the match encompassed both children and communities.
Carrie Garnett clarified it is the three agencies that have had Medicaid cuts.
David Kerr stated part of the discussion was that the recommended maximum be up to 5% if they score 4.0 or above.
Karen Bourbonnais stated under impression board had agreed that it would be the same as long as those programs scored in the high range.
Carrie Garnett stated they are high scoring agencies and will probably fall in the high category anyway and didn’t think it is a fair issue to have on the table, DCF was involved in the process, but no other agencies have been checked.
Edward Jasper clarified it is not the issue that they have been cut, it is the nature of the client, these are the clients that have severe disabilities and they have no other resources in the community, the issue is not federal or state cuts, it is who benefits from this and if this is cut where do these clients actually go in the community.
Carrie Garnett questioned if that could be addressed through the scoring tool on need for services, people with disabilities is not specified as a priority on that list.
Dave Evans reminded that each agency will have the opportunity to present to the board the current status of their budget
Carrie Garnett stated it seems to be a priority that one entity has put forward without a broad process to look at all potential priorities and it is not a population that is listed on the tool that was approved under community.
Edward Jasper stated they would fall in priority three.
Carrie Garnett stated question 1 on the scoring tool, is where individual members would express whether they think it is a service priority, individually could emphasize those individual in the scoring.
David Kerr questioned that this group of current providers and applicants in this process, if they fell in the 4.0 or higher would fall into the no more than 5% reduction.
Carrie Garnett stated these are in community so it would not be not less than 25% cuts, which is why this is proposed because that is the category that is cut the most.
Karen Bourbonnais stated it should stand, it is in the community money and does not affect the larger pots where there are more applicants, can look at their scores and allocations, but if it is recommended to limit the funding cut to 5% then it should be done.
Karen Bourbonnais motioned to leave the agencies in the community funding division that the County recommends giving special consideration and limit their cut to a maximum of 5%; these are programs that have received Medicaid cuts.
Dr. Kimmons seconded the motion.
Dr. Dewees asked if it is contingent on them being in the high score.
Carrie Garnett stated that was not included in the motion.
Karen Bourbonnais stated for match agencies to be held harmless they had to score 4.0 or above and asks if willing to amend motion to have the same.
Karen Bourbonnais amended the motion.
Dr. Kimmons seconded.
Motion unanimously carried.

Carrie Garnett opened discussion of cultural arts programs receiving money from CFAB, recommendation to not fund them out of two County pots.
David Kerr questioned how many programs are in that category.
Karen Bourbonnais responded four, and those few really struggle.
Carrie Garnett stated administratively it is double the work for staff, to monitor them and extra work for the agency to be receiving funding from two pots within the County.
David Kerr motioned to accept the staff recommendation to not fund cultural art programs receiving county funding through the CFAB.
Dr. Kimmons seconded the motion.
Motion unanimously carried.
Carrie Garnett discussed the issue of CFAB funding city and government programs. Some could potentially have other funding or there are other people providing those services, but in some cities if not funded there would be no program presumably.
Dr. Kimmons stated that most of the programs are in Leisure Services
Edward Jasper stated we know that the United Way has struggled with this, PAL program is now an extension of Leisure Service, so there has been question on whether they are falling under the PAL program or Leisure services, Lake Helen has a program and they are the solel source in the community. In the city of Lake Helen they have a choice between God’s covenant and the City program.
Carrie Garnett stated it is a hard decision; how is it determined that no one else can do it?
David Kerr agreed, either don’t fund the municipalities because the exception may be hard to support.
Carrie Garnett stated board still scoring and through individual scoring process the issue can be understood and potentially score one of the city applications lower or higher.
Karen Bourbonnais asked how many cities we fund
Edward Jasper responded two and the thing to consider if God’s Covenant does not score in the area and funds are eliminated to the city altogether and the only other entity in that area does not meet criteria then there is no program.
Carrie Garnett stated we have not said we want a program in every area, providers have come to us and tell us where they are and what they are doing, there are probably other areas where there are no programs.
Edward Jasper suggested keeping in mind that there is a County Council representative from Lake Helen and we do not want to put him in a position to have to say the board has eliminated all programs in your area.
Carrie Garnett suggested it should be left like it is and see where they fall in the scoring.
Karen Bourbonnais asked if there’s a question on the application to find out if there are any other programs in that area.
Peggy Johnson stated it is included in the monitoring.
Carrie Garnett stated it is not simple and it may be best to leave it as it is and not pass a motion related to this issue.
Dr. Kimmons concurred.
Karen Bourbonnais requested it be included as a question in future applications
Carrie Garnett stated another issue is to decide if an agency receives funding for multiple programs in the same location only funding one program and look at each program individually and not exclude agencies from being funded for more than one program.
Karen Bourbonnais asked when they apply is there separate applications for every program.
Carrie Garnett questioned staff’s intent with the recommendation.
Edward Jasper stated that it is something to consider. As you can see this is a very tough decision.
Carrie Garnett stated it would need to be done in the application process, because agencies can lump them together.
Dave Evans stated in many cases the distinction to the programs is more important to the agency and there would be less paperwork if we consolidated some of those programs.
Carrie Garnett asked if there are any other issues that need a motion and have all items been addressed.
Edward Jasper stated they had addressed all items.

Adjournment

Dr. Kimmons motioned to officially adjourn the meeting
David Kerr seconded
Motion unanimously carried
Adjourned at 1:36:10

back to advisory board

 

Comments or questions?
E-mail the