Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHCDC Packet - September 2022If you will need disability-related accommodations to participate in this program or event, please contact Brianna Thul at brianna- thul@iowa-city.org or 319-356-5230. Early requests are strongly encouraged to allow sufficient time to meet your access needs. Upcoming Housing & Community Development Commission Meetings Regular: October 21 / November 18 HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (HCDC) September 15, 2022 Regular Meeting – 6:30 PM The Center Assembly Room 28 S Linn Street AGENDA: 1.Call to Order 2.Consideration of Meeting Minutes: July 28, 2022 3.Public Comment of Items not on the Agenda Commentators shall address the Commission for no more than 5 minutes. Commissioners shall not engage in discussion with the public concerning said items. 4.Consolidated Annual Performance & Evaluation Report (CAPER) and Update on City Projects and Programs The CAPER is a required document that is submitted to HUD within 90 days of the fiscal year end which concludes June 30. The CAPER draft is online at www.icgov.org/actionplan for review and comment. Staff will provide an overview of the plan as well as an update on City projects and programs. At this meeting, HCDC will consider approving the document for submission to HUD. 5.Legacy Aid to Agencies Next Steps – Q&A Session Staff will explain next steps in the funding process for Legacy Aid to Agencies and introduce memo on upcoming Q&A process. 6.Staff & Commission Updates This item includes an opportunity for brief updates from staff and Commissioners. Commissioners shall not engage in discussion on updates. 7.Adjournment Housing and Community Development Commission September 15, 2022 Meeting Packet Contents Agenda Item #2 •July 28, 2022 Draft HCDC Meeting Minutes Agenda Item #4 •The FY22 CAPER draft can be viewed online at: https://www.icgov.org/actionplan. Agenda Item #5 •September 9, 2022 Staff Memo – Revised Questions and Answer (Q&A) Process for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) Legacy Aid to Agencies Agenda Item #6 •Resolution 22-215 (Revised HCDC By-Laws) MINUTES PRELIMINARY HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION JULY 28, 2022 – 6:30 PM FORMAL MEETING THE CENTER ASSEMBLY ROOM MEMBERS PRESENT: Kaleb Beining, Maryann Dennis, Jennifer Haylett, Elizabeth Marilla-Kapp, Nasr Mohammed, Becci Reedus MEMBERS ABSENT: Karol Krotz, Kyle Vogel STAFF PRESENT: Erika Kubly, Brianna Thul OTHERS PRESENT: RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends Council increase United Action for Youth funding from $30,000 to $45,000 with the $15,000 increase coming from the HOME-ARP reserve funds. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends Council approve the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan with the $15,000 increase for United Action for Youth. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of the FY24 Aid to Agencies Application Materials with the understanding that requested changes to Form A and Form B will be sent to United Way. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends approval of the ICHA Annual Plan to Council. By a vote of 6-0 the Commission recommends Council approve the amendment to the HCDC By-Laws as written in agenda item #9 with the addition that “nonprofit experience” be changed to “nonprofit management experience”. CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Beining called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: JUNE 23, 2022: Dennis moved to approve the minutes of June 23, 2022. Mohammed seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the minutes were approved 6-0. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR TOPICS NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. WELCOME NEW MEMBERS: Beining welcomed new member Haylett. Haylett noted she has lived in Iowa City for 8 years and she is an associate professor of instruction in the department of sociology and criminology. Agenda Item #2 Housing and Community Development Commission July 28, 2022 Page 2 of 8 2 OFFICER NOMINATIONS: Reedus nominated Dennis as Vice Chair, Marilla-Kapp seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Dennis nominated Beining as Chair, Reedus seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. DISCUSS HOME-ARP ALLOCATION PLAN AND CONSIDER BUDGET RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL: Kubly explained the City received about almost 1.8 million dollars in HOME-ARP funds through the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) but this isn't the ARPA funds that the City received this is a separate pool of money was received because the City is HOME funding recipients, but it did come out of the same federal act. Eligible activities are development and support of affordable housing, tenant-based rent assistance, provision of supportive services, and acquisition and development of non-congregate shelter units. Kubly stated when they do HOME projects such as a rental project they're typically serving someone under 60% of the area median income so they're looking at income as the qualifying factor that makes them eligible for the program, however these HOME-ARP funds have a phrase called qualifying population so it's not technically based on income but the eligibility is people experiencing homelessness, or at risk of homelessness, domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stopping human trafficking and other populations with high risk of housing instability. Some of the HOME rules are the same and some of them are very different so staff developed an allocation plan and that's what they must submit to HUD in order to get the funds. A portion of the money is going to be for the City staff who's administering the programs and then for the rest of it they did an application process for people to apply for those funds. Kubly stated they ended up getting four applications, Shelter House with supportive services for permanent support housing, Iowa Legal Aid for legal services to increase housing stability, Domestic Violence Intervention Program for construction of the shelter that they're building, and then United Action for Youth applied for their transitional living program. Staff scored the applications and made a funding recommendation which is within the allocation plan, staff is looking for a recommendation of the plan as a whole but also if the Commission has edits to the allocation staff is open to hearing about that as well. The process for this plan was staff had to do some consultation with agencies that serve the qualifying populations and they started at the local homeless coordinating board and talked to all those agencies and then had some consultations with various agencies outside of that. Staff also completed a needs assessment and gap analysis and identified what gaps there are in services and how they can fill those gaps. Kubly included the scoring criteria that staff used and how they got those scores and how they allocated it in the agenda packed. Cassie Gripp is administering these funds and she wrote a memo of the thought process as staff were evaluating the projects. The next step would be to take this recommendation from the Commission to City Council for approval and then submit it to HUD and with their approval the City could start the projects. Dennis asked if the budget received is set in stone because the amount that was budgeted for non- congregate shelter was $500,000 but DVIP applied for $750,000 so is that okay? Kubly explained their recommendation was $500,000 for that project based on the scores. Dennis acknowledged that but could they apply for $750,000 when there is only $500,000 in that fund. Kubly explained when they solicited the applications, they did not have the money into different categories, they did that after they received the applications. Kubly also mentioned they have about $300,000 in reserves because the State has HOME-ARP and they're offering if Iowa City organizations want to apply for State funding, they need to have a local match, so staff set aside money to leverage that State funding down the road. The state is not ready to do their process yet, but staff is thinking that an agency might need a local allocation to obtain that State money. Marilla-Kapp stated the only question she had was whether that was the reason for giving those two agencies with lower scores a percentage of their request, is that a standard way of operating that an agency would get a percentage rather than the total based on scores. Kubly responded if the City has Housing and Community Development Commission July 28, 2022 Page 3 of 8 3 the funds to use then and projects were eligible, they’d probably fully fund everything, they just also wanted to make sure that they had a sufficient pot to match the State money. Dennis asked if the applicants here could apply for State funds and Kubly confirmed that is correct, if it was a separate project that the City didn't already fund locally, they wouldn't be eligible unless the City gave them local HOME-ARP money. Reedus asked if both the DVIP and Shelter House are projects that the Commission funded just a couple months ago. Kubly believes so, the DVIP shelter construction was given $425,000 in CDBG money for the same project and for Shelter House this is for the 501 project for operational expenses. Reedus noted for United Action for Youth, she is a little troubled by them, number one they're the lowest score and they're only getting half their recommendations - $30,000. She understands that they scored low because they didn't specifically identify homeless youth as a subpopulation with greatest need, did staff reach out to them to ask if that was a mistake or is it that homeless youth are not going to be the population served. Kubly stated they would be serving homeless youth or at risk of being homeless youth but when staff did their consultation that wasn't one of the strongest needs identified. Mohammed asked why these applications are only graded by the staff and not by the Commissioners. Kubly replied because this is funding that the City doesn’t typically get, and it was more of a timing issue. It is a complicated program but if the Commission felt strongly about wanting to score these applications, they could defer this and do that process. Reedus asked if it would it be a problem if the Commission wanted to move United Action for Youth up to $45,000 and take $15,000 from one of the other large pots. Kubly noted they could do that, but staff cut it in half because they were doing two different properties and with half, they would be able to serve one property. She is sure that they could work with additional funds and maybe serve an additional household so that would be an option. They could take it from the reserves and still have about $300,000. Marilla-Kapp asked if they have had other agencies reach out after this application process to suggest that they might want to pursue that reserve pool or is it just for in case they're not disqualified from the State. Kubly replied they did have a couple agencies reach out and if the City ends up not getting any requests for a local match with State funds, they could just do another funding round. Dennis noted DVIP has to raise a lot of money to do this project and so what's the timeline to commit the funds and then to have them expended for the HOME-ARP funding. Kubly stated they have until September 2030 to spend these funds, but the plan is to try to keep within the HOME statutory requirements of a two-year commitment and a four-year completion. Dennis stated she is comfortable with the staff recommendation and also supports adding $15,000 to UAY. She did ask with the UAY teen mom transitional housing aren't those residents of those homes considered homeless because it's really transitional housing. Kubly confirmed they would be homeless or at risk of homelessness, which shows a need and meeting the criteria and definitely be eligible for the HOME-ARP funds, but staff was trying to tie it the needs assessment to what they heard that was the greatest need in the community. Reedus moved to recommend that Council increase United Action for Youth funding from $30,000 to $45,000 with the $15,000 increase coming from the HOME-ARP reserve funds. Dennis seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Dennis moved to recommend that Council approve the HOME-ARP Allocation Plan with the $15,000 increase for United Action for Youth. Marilla-Kapp seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Housing and Community Development Commission July 28, 2022 Page 4 of 8 4 REVIEW AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF FY24 LEGACY AID TO AGENCIES APPLICATION MATERIALS: Beining noted the packet includes proposed application materials for FY24 Aid to Agencies and a staff memo on the upcoming process. Reedus asked if the recommendation was that they’re not going to make any changes to the Legacy Agency process this year. Thul confirmed the staff recommendation was to go through the process with the current scoring criteria once to see if there are flaws or things that they’d want to change in the future. Staff felt that the scoring process hadn’t truly been tested yet. Reedus noted this is a joint funding application and she knows recommendations have been made for United Way to change it and it never gets changed. Reedus wants to know if they are wasting their time by making recommendations and asked if the City has the ability to get the changes made to the application. Thul confirmed the City met with United Way and that they can make changes to the application itself. Reedus has two things on the application, on page 7, agency demographics, those should be program specific and there are some agencies that are so small that they only have one program that they're asking their money for because everything they do is dedicated to the one mission. An example of that might be Big Brothers Big Sisters or the Free Lunch Program. And then there are other agencies that are very large and have different programs they support, for example Community has one side of its agency dedicated to crisis intervention and the other side dedicated to food insecurity and then there's another side dedicated to financial assistance, so asking for agency demographics can be difficult. The information that's presented in an application should help the decision maker to make the best decision possible about how to allocate funds and if she sees that the numbers are substantially increased in a program that they've been funding because of specific need. Again, using Community as an example, right now housing and food insecurity are huge issues, the cost of groceries is going up and she is interested to see what they are are looking at in terms of numbers. And there may be another agency or program that they're funding that may be stagnant, or their numbers may be dropping and that's going to play a part for her and how she wants to recommend funding. Reedus feels they should be asking for program specific information and not for demographics on the whole agency, just the demographic for the specific project. Marilla-Kapp asked if, when they allocate the Legacy Agency funding, are they limiting the funds to certain programs or are they allocating to programs as they see fit? Reedus replied yes and no, an agency will ask for specific program requests and an agency like the Free Lunch Program that's basically all they do is do the lunch so it could go to operating expenses and it's fine to get statistics or data from the Free Lunch Program that's whole agency because that's what they're funding, but when they're funding a specific program within a larger agency - she would like to see the data from that specific program to see if the funding is going to make an impact. Kubly noted on the next page of the budget the applicant can select the level of the budget is agency level or program specific and then county specific. Reedus still wants to see program specific numbers, this application should be giving the information that's going to help the Commission make the best decision and if housing has become an increased need or domestic violence numbers have increased, and they need more money, she’d rather be able to say ‘this is why’ she chose to give an increase to that agency and decrease another agency. It has never made sense to her why they do these agency wide demographics - plus some agencies have no ability or choose not to share that information. There's at least one organization that doesn't gather that kind of information. Again, citing Community as an example, if they ask for money for the food bank and they did agency-wide numbers they're going to see numbers that go up in the thousands not because of food bank but because of crisis intervention calls, so that information is absolutely useless if it isn’t program specific. Housing and Community Development Commission July 28, 2022 Page 5 of 8 5 Dennis asked if agencies often apply for operational funds. Reedus noted they can. Dennis asked then what budget they would use. Reedus noted something like Free Lunch Program would do their whole agency budget. Reedus also noted that it does ask applicants to identify budget type - agency level, program specific, or county specific. Maybe having those at the top of the agency demographics would be good too and an explanation that says to them - the Commission wants to see the numbers for the program which they are applying. Reedus also noted if they want to look at whole agency numbers, then they have to provide unduplicated numbers or raw data because not all agencies can collect the demographics. Reedus also wanted to know from staff knowledge, do all agencies provide quality indicators in both the application and the quarterly reports? Kubly stated everyone does the quarterly reports and staff reviews those, they do quarterly payments for the Legacy Agencies, and they review the first quarter report before doing the second quarter allocation. Reedus noted another area where information isn't gathered well - maybe because the agencies don't understand how to do it, or they just don't do it in a uniform manner. Page 6, which is the agency salaries and benefits. Reedus believes it would be helpful to see what agencies aren't paying livable salaries and feels that they should be asking the questions about why they aren't paying livable salaries. Also, not all agencies are providing benefits and that's a shame too because that just further pushes people into poverty. The objective is to fund programs to stop homelessness and poverty and some of the agencies are just pushing their people further into it. Thul noted if commissioners feel they need more information from the agencies based on the submissions received, they can always ask for follow-up at the q&a session. Reedus stated that she is not a fan of the application and feels that it is long and tedious. She noted it was her least favorite things to do every year when she was a director. Marilla-Kapp want to second the attention to the salaries and benefits, she thinks the direct service jobs in the community are some of the hardest and lowest paid. It's not just about quality of life for the employees, but it also impacts client care when there is so much turnover due to these not being sustainable jobs to stay in, and that's not good for the folks most impacted. Reedus also stated regarding budgets, she will be interested in reserve funds and if they have plans for those kinds of things. Those are questions she can probably ask either after she reviews applications or at the q&a. Dennis asked, when the applications are turned in, if an agency is only asking for money from the Iowa City - do those applications come directly to the City? Kubly confirmed they all go into an online system and the City can take out the ones that only apply to Iowa City. Kubly understand the reasoning of what they are saying but asked what specific change commissioners would like to see on the actual application. Reedus shared that agencies use the information submitted on this application to scan salary levels to determine if they are paying competitively. Boards use this information to determine starter salaries. When you don’t get all the information, it really skews the data. Reedus feels they need everyone to complete the form the same way. Dennis has an issue with listing the actual salaries - she would rather see a salary range because, for example, an executive director that's been there for a long time will likely have a salary higher than another executive director that was newly hired. Reedus noted a lot of agencies don't have ranges for those top positions. Reedus understands it could be a salary range - she is just asking to make it uniform so it's useful. It’s not useful as it is right now. Dennis agrees it's helpful for direct care staff and feels it would make sense to know if direct care staff are hired in at $15 an hour or whatever with no benefits. Reedus noted some agencies do averages and that's helpful, however, United Way has been getting Housing and Community Development Commission July 28, 2022 Page 6 of 8 6 these for a long time and it has never been applied consistently. Reedus feels that there needs to be added instructions or something that helps agencies figure out how to list this information. Or if too many agencies say they don't want to give those salaries out, then stop asking for it so because some agencies list salaries and others don't so it’s just not helpful. Reedus is not holding her breath that staff will be able to get any changes made to the application. Thul asked for clarification. Instead of the chart, are they are looking for a narrative answering those specific questions? Reedus confirmed they need added instructions and that they should be asking what kind of cost-of-living increases are they giving, what concerns do they have about staffing levels, what's the turnover, etc. Mohammed doesn’t understand how the salaries can affect the application and scoring. How much is a good salary that they can consider it on the application? Reedus replied it’s not what is considered a good salary, it’s more about if it’s being asked, it needs to be answered consistently. Marilla-Kapp noted it could affect scoring if they were paying their staff low salaries or a large disparity between the leadership staff versus other staff. Marilla-Kapp noted knowing the health insurance costs and what the total premium is relative to the contribution of the agency for both individual and family is good to know as well. Reedus agreed, first ask if they're offering insurance and then follow-up questions might be what the barriers are to doing that or if they're offering it what their plan is in terms of agency or employee contribution. Reedus noted often low- paying jobs get crappy insurance and that again pushes people further into poverty. Retirement is another issue; she is really impressed with Iowa City that the non-profits here encourage retirement plans, but it would be good to know if agencies participating in an IRA or 401K. Reedus believes this would be some really good information for not only this Commission to see, but also to pass on to City Council to push to increase that pot of funds. Reedus moved to recommend approval of the FY24 Aid to Agencies Application Materials with the understanding that requested changes to Form A and Form B will be sent to United Way. Dennis seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. REVIEW AND CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF IOWA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY ANNUAL PLAN FOR FFY22: Kubly stated this is a report from last year from the Iowa City Housing Authority and she will highlight a few things that are interesting. The Iowa City Housing Authority serves Johnson County, Iowa County and Washington County north of Highway 92. They have about 1500 vouchers or units that they provide, a majority of that is a standard housing choice voucher but they also have 95 veteran vouchers and 78 main-stream vouchers that serve non-elderly persons with a disabling condition currently experiencing homelessness. Last year they received emergency housing vouchers and for 69 of those the City partnered with Shelter House who selected those and make referrals through the coordinated entry process. The project-based voucher report reflects Cross Park Place, there are 24 vouchers for the residents in Cross Park Place and the City has added 36 project-based vouchers for the 501 Project which is the second housing first project at Shelter House. Kubly noted that's not in this report because that just happened this year. Moving on they have 86 standard site public housing units and then we have 16 City-owned affordable housing units that they operate similar to public housing but are not federally funded. 10 are out at the Peninsula and 6 are at Augusta Place which is on Iowa Avenue. 58% of the clients are disabled or elderly head of households. Kubly next highlighted the Family Self- Sufficiency Program explaining its benefit of being on a program, it acts as a savings account and as a recipient’s income increases and they can withdraw the funds for things, they set goals that they want to become self-sufficient and then withdraw those funds to reach those goals. For example, if a goal is to finish a degree but they need a laptop for class they can withdraw from escrow funds for that purpose or another common one is someone's goal might be to maintain employment but their car broke down so they could withdraw funds for car repairs. The average escrow savings account balance is $6370, she Housing and Community Development Commission July 28, 2022 Page 7 of 8 7 saw one recently that was like $55,000 which was really impressive. They also have a homeownership program so people who have a voucher and meet certain criteria and are in a position they could convert their voucher to homeownership, they’ve done 48 of those since 2003. The housing assistance payments which are the monthly rent payments that go to landlords, they’re expecting that to be about $8.3 million for the calendar year 2022. The total housing choice voucher program is almost $9.7 million for the year and then our public housing program is about $634,000. Marilla-Kapp moved to recommend approval of the ICHA Annual Plan to Council. Dennis seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. CONSIDER RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON APPROVAL OF HCDC BY-LAWS AMENDMENT: Beining noted this item was based on discussion at the June meeting motion to recommend that Council approve the amendment to the HCDC bylaws with the inclusion of the non-profit management experience. Thul noted that Krotz was not available to meet tonight, but that she passed her comments to staff. Krotz felt that the “nonprofit experience” requirement should be changed to “nonprofit management experience.” Reedus agrees with that and wanted to ask about encouraging diversity in appointments. Thul explained that all boards and commissions use the same application so if HCDC were to make additional statements like some of what was discussed at the last meeting, then they would need to ask additional questions on the application. For example, encouraging diversity in familial status was mentioned, but the application doesn’t necessarily collect that information. The language suggested was drawn from the Human Rights Commission as a template. Reedus moved to recommend that Council approve the amendment to the HCDC By-Laws as written in agenda item #9 with the addition that “nonprofit experience” be changed to “nonprofit management experience”. Seconded by Dennis. A vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. STAFF & COMMISSION UPDATES: Thul noted that there will not be an August meeting. By the September meeting, staff should have the Legacy submissions in then. In September they will also review the CAPER. Thul explained at the last meeting Commission members brought up travel reimbursements for board and commissions and staff dug into that. Staff learned that in the past, the City has reimbursed for things like events or trainings that are directly related to the work of the commission. At one point the Truth and Reconciliation Commission did make a recommendation to Council to do more reimbursements for things like childcare. Staff can put this on a future agenda if this Commission wants to do something similar and make a recommendation to Council, but the decision is ultimately up to Council. Finally, Thul noted there is another vacancy on HCDC because one of the new commission members resigned due to employment at the City so that vacancy is reposted. ADJOURNMENT: Dennis moved to adjourn, Reedus seconded the motion, a vote was taken and the motion passed 6-0. Housing and Community Development Commission July 28, 2022 Page 8 of 8 8 Housing and Community Development Commission Attendance Record 2022-2023 •Resigned from Commission Key: X = Present O = Absent O/E = Absent/Excused --- = Vacant Name Terms Exp. 7/21 Beining, Kaleb 6/30/24 X Dennis, Maryann 6/30/25 X Haylett, Jennifer 6/30/25 X Krotz, Karol 6/30/24 O/E Marilla-Kapp, Elizabeth 6/30/23 X Mohammed, Nasr 6/30/23 X Reedus, Becci 6/30/24 X Vogel, Kyle 6/30/23 O/E Vacancy --- --- Date: September 9, 2022 To: Housing and Community Development Commission From: Brianna Thul, Community Development Planner Erika Kubly, Neighborhood Services Coordinator Re: Revised Question and Answer (Q&A) Process for Fiscal Year 2024 (FY24) Legacy Aid to Agencies Purpose As we approach the FY24 funding cycle for Legacy Aid to Agencies, HCDC leadership has established a new process for the Q&A session. This adjustment is intended to gather the information required to accurately score submissions, while also promoting the effective use of time and resources for both agencies, and commissioners. Tentative Process Staff will send questions developed by commissioners to each agency ahead of the October meeting. Agency representatives will respond to questions from HCDC in writing. Staff will compile the answers for the meeting packet and HCDC will discuss them at the October meeting. Agencies are encouraged to attend the October HCDC meeting, but should be aware that the purpose of the meeting is for HCDC to discuss the written answers submitted in advance. Agencies will not be asked to present their application. Tentative Timeline The proposed timeline may be subject to change. September 15, 2022 Applications are due to United Way by 5pm. September 16, 2022 Staff will share the submissions with HCDC as soon as they are available from United Way – likely September 16, 2022. September 30, 2022 Staff will provide HCDC summary sheets with suggestions for questions (provides staff about 2 weeks to prepare). October 6, 2022 Written questions due to staff (provides HCDC about 3 weeks to review submissions). Questions should be relevant to the scoring criteria established in advance. October 7, 2022 Staff to compile and send questions from HCDC with written answers due October 13, 2022 (provides about 1 week for agencies to respond in writing). If HCDC does not have questions for an applicant, staff will inform the agency. October 14, 2022 HCDC packet posted with written responses from agencies (provides about 1 week for HCDC to review responses). October 20, 2022 HCDC Q&A Discussion Session. HCDC will discuss questions and answers for each agency. Following the October meeting, the tentative plan is for HCDC to score proposals between the October and November meetings. Should HCDC feel that more time is required to ask additional questions, scoring can be delayed one month with the understanding that a delay will reduce the number of meetings to discuss scores and funding recommendations from two meetings to one. Agenda Item #5 September 9, 2022 Page 2 Conclusion With 22 agencies now eligible for Legacy Aid to Agencies funding, staff support a structured approach to the Q&A process. The proposed process streamlines the Q&A session and will provide commissioners with consistent, written material to reference during scoring and deliberations. Agencies and commissioners will have the opportunity to submit feedback on the FY24 Legacy Aid to Agencies funding cycle at the conclusion of the process through a survey. Agenda Item #6