Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_SPCS_05.18.2017Notice of Meeting for the Strategic Partnerships for Community Serv ices Adv isory Board of the City of Georgetown May 18, 2017 at 4:30 PM at City Hall Main Floor Conference Room located at 113 E. 8th Street, Georgetown, Texas 78626 The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711. Legislativ e Regular Agenda A Call to Ord er--Suzy Pukys , SP CS Advis ory Board Chair B Ro ll Call --Suzy Pukys , SP CS Advis o ry Board Chair C Co nsideration and possible actio n to approve the Minutes fro m the Marc h 2, 2017 SP CS Advis o ry Board Meeting—Suzy Pukys , Ad visory Board C hair D Dis cus s ion and pos s ible actio n regarding any revis ions and /or updates to the C ity of Geo rgeto wn Evaluation Tool fo r us e during the FY 2017-18 Strategic Partnership s fo r C o mmunity Grant Ap p lication Cyc le. --S uzy P ukys , Board Chair E Co nsideration and possible actio n to s et any future d ates and times fo r Strategic Partnership s for Co mmunity Services Ad visory Board Meetings --Suzy Pukys Board Chair F Ad jo urn CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times , on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2017, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72 c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting. ____________________________________ S helley No wling, City Sec retary Page 1 of 15 City of Georgetown, Texas Strategic Partnerships for Community Services May 18, 2017 SUBJECT: Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion to approve the Minutes from the Marc h 2, 2017 S PCS Ad visory Board Meeting—Suzy P ukys , Advis o ry Bo ard Chair ITEM SUMMARY: ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Minutes for the Marc h 2, 2017 SPCS Ad vis ory Board Meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None SUBMITTED BY: Shirley J. Rinn fo r S uzy P ukys, S PCS Ad vis o ry Bo ard Chair ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Draft Minutes Backup Material Page 2 of 15 SPCS Advisory Board Minutes March 2, 2017 Page 1 of 5 Minutes of the Meeting of the Strategic Partnerships for Community Services Advisory Boa rd City of Georgetown, Texas March 2, 2017 The Strategic Partnerships for Community Services Advisory Board of the City of Georgetown, Texas, met on Wednesday, Thursday, March 2, 2017, at 3:50 p.m. Members Present: Suzy Pukys, Michael Douglas, Jaquita Wilson, Alexia Griffin, and George Porter Members Absent: None Staff Present: Shirley J. Rinn, Executive Assistant to the City Manager Guest Present: Larry Gambone MINUTES Legislative Regular Agenda A. Call to Order--Suzy Pukys, SPCS Advisory Board Chair The Meeting was called to Order at 3:56 p.m. B. Roll Call --Suzy Pukys, SPCS Advisory Board Chair All Members were present. C. Welcome and Introduction of New Board Members – Suzy Pukys, SPCS Advisory Board Chair Pukys welcomed the new Board Members, Jaquita Wilson and Michael Douglas, and everyone introduced themselves to each other. Former SPCS Advisory Board Member Larry Gambone, was also present to thank everyone for serving with him and wishing everyone good luck. D. Nominations and election of Vice-Chair and Secretary of the SPCS Advisory Board. – Suzy Pukys, SPCS Advisory Board Chair Motion by Griffin, second by Douglas nominate and elect Jaquita Wilson as the Vice-Chair and George Porter as the Secretary of the SPCS Advisory Board. (Approved 5-0) E. Review and discussion regarding the By-Laws for the Strategic Partnerships for Community Services and the City Council Attendance Policy for Board Members--Suzy Pukys, SPCS Advisory Board Chair and Shirley Rinn, Board Liaison Rinn provided an overview of the SPCS Advisory Board’s By-Laws as well as the City Council’s Attendance Policy for Board Members. Page 3 of 15 SPCS Advisory Board Minutes March 2, 2017 Page 2 of 5 F. Consideration and possible action to approve the Minutes from the January 19, 2017 SPCS Advisory Board Meeting—Suzy Pukys, Advisory Board Chair Motion by Wilson, second by Griffin to approve the Minutes from the January 19, 2017 SPCS Advisory Board Meeting. (Approved 5-0) G. Overview and review of the grant cycle timeline and review of the Policy, Guidelines, Application, and Evaluation and Recommendation Process for the FY 2017-18 Strategic Partnerships for Community Services Grant Cycle--Suzy Pukys, SPCS Board Chair and Shirley J. Rinn, Board Liaison Rinn went over the proposed timeline for the FY 2017-18 Grant Application Cycle with the Advisory Board. The Board was in general agreement with the timeline and decided to meet on May 4th to review grant applications for completeness and either on June 29th or July 6th to review the grant applications and make recommendations for funding. She also provided an overview of the Policy, Guidelines, Application, Evaluation and Recommendation Process for the FY 2017-18 Strategic Partnerships Grants. Pukys will also put the notice for the FY 2017-18 Grant Application Cycle on her Listserve. Rinn also explained the history of how the funding was established for the grants, and how the current funding that is allocated in the budget won’t increase until the population growth catches up with $5.00 per capita. There was additional discussion regarding the need to have an extra meeting prior to the Application Review to allow the Board to vet the applications that are received for completeness so that if anyone questions who determined whether an application was complete that it would be the Advisory Board making that decision as opposed to city staff. The Board indicated that it wanted to do the Application Review either June 22nd or June 29th at 9:00 o’clock a.m. Pukys and Rinn explained to the new Board Members how the current Grant Application and Review Process was established. Pukys also talked to the Board about making some recommendations to improve the review process of the applications. We will discuss this at the next meeting. Rinn explained the Common Grant Application and let them know which other Funders in Williamson County (Georgetown Healthcare Foundation, Seeds of Strength, United Way, the City of Georgetown) utilize this application form and the reasons why it was established. She also explained to the Board and emphasized the importance of the agencies submitting a complete application or risk being disqualified. She also discussed the required Program Budget and the reasons why it was developed. She also discussed the importance of agencies submitting their Annual Reports because if they don’t it would impact whether they would be considered for funding in the next grant cycle. There also was some discussion regarding the types of agencies that meet the criteria for funding and how a lot of them tie into Health and Human Services, as well as the state statutes that provide the guidelines for the types of services that municipalities are allowed to fund. Page 4 of 15 SPCS Advisory Board Minutes March 2, 2017 Page 3 of 5 H. Overview and discussion of future review of FY 2015-16 Annual Reports and process regarding the future reporting format for the Annual Reports —Suzy Pukys, Advisory Board Chair and Shirley J. Rinn, Board Liaison Rinn told the Advisory Board that the Annual Reports they received for FY 2015-16 were not all in the same format and sometimes it was a little difficult to review them because there was so much information in them. She told the Board that there has been some discussion in standardizing the Reporting Format that will specifically tie into the things that we want and need to know – specifically what did the agency do with the grant funds, how did the agency spend them, and how many citizens did the agency serve. She told the Board that we have time to discuss and work on this prior to the Funding Agreements being drafted and approved for this cycle. The Board decided that they would like to discuss the Annual Reports at the next meeting instead of independently looking at them. She went on to explain to them that we switched from a bi-annual reporting structure to an annual reporting structure for the FY 2015-16 grant cycle. Because of that, the Advisory Board for the FY 2016-17 grant cycle did not have the Annual Reports to refer to as they reviewed those applications for that particular grant cycle because the Annual Reports were not due until after that review had occurred. This year we have the Annual Reports to refer to as the Advisory Board reviews the grant applications. She also indicated staff would need to tickle their calendars about a month before the due date to remind the agencies when the due date is for the Annual Reports and to remind them that they are a requirement of their Funding Agreements and it could impact their future funding if not completed. Rinn & Pukys also provided an overview to the Advisory Board as to the reasons for moving from a Bi-Annual Reporting Cycle to an Annual Reporting Cycle and that the primary purpose of the Annual Report is determining whether or not the agencies are providing the services they said they would with the grant funding. There was also additional discussion regarding the reasoning for changing the parameters of the funding range for individual grants from any amount to a minimum of $10,000 and a maximum of $50,000. One of the reasons for the change was the grant writing process itself. It takes time to write grants and by having a minimum grant level, the agencies really have to justify their program and make it worth their while to write the application. It is a lot of work to write a grant for $2,000. The reason for a maximum grant of $50,000 was provide the opportunity to fund more agencies. There was a brief discussion regarding the Evaluation Process as well. I. Review and discussion regarding City Lease Agreements to local non-profits—Suzy Pukys, Advisory Board Chair and Shirley J. Rinn, Board Liaison Rinn provided the Advisory Board an overview of Councilmember John Hesser’s visit to the last meeting where he asked the Advisory Board how it felt about the current SPCS Grant Funding process; “was it working?”, “does anything need to be changed, etc.?” During that discussion the Advisory Board discussed the Lease Agreements for city-owned facilities that the City currently has with other agencies. Mr. Hesser wanted to make sure that the SPCS Advisory Board were aware of Page 5 of 15 SPCS Advisory Board Minutes March 2, 2017 Page 4 of 5 those lease agreements so that the Board was informed as to whether or not any of the agencies that receive SPCS Grant funds also receives any in-kind services from the city such as rent or utility assistance. She also told them that there was a discussion regarding the maintenance of those facilities that are owned by the City but leased to others. Rinn provided a list of all of the city-owned facilities that are leased to other organizations. She provided an overview of the list and let them know that many of the leases were anywhere from 70-100 year leases and that even if the City wanted to do anything, they couldn’t because of the lease terms. She told them the list included the lease terms, estimated market rental values, etc. The Board discussed the agencies that have leases that also get SPCS Grant Funding. The Advisory Board appreciated having a listing of all of these lease agreements listed in one place so it is easier to monitor. Rinn also told them that couple of the Lease Agreements would soon be off the list. Williamson County has built more park facilities around the county and is terminating the Show Barn Lease Agreement so they won’t have so many facilities to operate and maintain, and the Rodeo Arena Lease Agreement with the Williamson County Sheriff’s Posse in San Gabriel Park is also expiring soon and Sheriff’s Posse will be moving to Taylor. The expiration of both of these lease agreements works well with the timing of the master planned renovations they are doing in San Gabriel Park. Rinn also provided an overview of the leased city-owned facilities that are also located on parkland, as well as some of the timelines and terms in those lease agreements. There was also a discussion about requests from arts organization. Rinn told the Board that those grants are administered through the Arts and Culture Advisory Board. Rinn also let them know that the Georgetown Heritage Society Lease Agreement is monitored by the Library Director as well as the Art Center with Georgetown Artworks. She also talked about the Shotgun House Lease Agreement and also mentioned that the Georgetown Cultural Citizen Memorial Association (GCCMA) in fact returned a grant one year because they weren’t able to do the project they wanted to do at the Willie Hall Center with the grant and felt it needed to be returned to the City. There was also a very brief discussion about Getsemani Community Center. Rinn clarified that every leased city-owned facility is outlined on the list that was provided to the Board, including economic development lease agreements and a transportation related one as well as non-profits. There was additional discussion regarding whether the Advisory Board needed to have any oversight of these Lease Agreements. Rinn told them that currently the Advisory Board’s charge didn’t include that oversight, but if they wanted to do that the Board would need to ask Council to amend their charge to include that as well. She also told them that city staff currently coordinated with each of the agencies with regard to the maintenance of the facilities and that anything that the City was responsible for the city maintained. As examples, she told them that the city’s facilities staff coordinates with the Heritage Society for the shared maintenance responsibilities at the Grace Heritage Church and also with the Chamber of Commerce for their facility. She also told them that some of the lease agreements were ground leases and provided an overview of how those terms worked. She explained that the Chamber of Commerce Lease was a ground lease. The City owns the land and the Chamber owns the building, but if they ever leave, Page 6 of 15 SPCS Advisory Board Minutes March 2, 2017 Page 5 of 5 the facility would revert to the City. She also clarified which Lease Agreements contained in-kind rental and utility assistance. Rinn also provided an overview and history of the Lease Agreements with Williamson-Burnet County Opportunities (WBCO) nka Opportunities for Williamson & Burnet Counties (OWBC), including the Mary Baily and Raleigh Elliott Head Start facilities and the Madella Hilliard Neighborhood Center. J. Consideration and possible action to set dates and times for 2017-18 Partnerships for Community Services Advisory Board Meetings--Suzy Pukys Board Chair The next meeting was scheduled for May 4, 2017, as well as the other meetings mentioned earlier in the agenda. Rinn also clarified with the Board to not “reply all” in e-mails to avoid walking quorums. K. Adjourn Motion by Douglas, second by Griffin to Adjourn. Meeting was adjourned at 5:09 p.m. Attest: George Porter, Board Secretary Suzy Pukys, Board Chair Page 7 of 15 City of Georgetown, Texas Strategic Partnerships for Community Services May 18, 2017 SUBJECT: Disc ussion and p o s s ib le ac tion regard ing any revis io ns and/o r up d ates to the City o f Georgetown Evaluatio n To o l for us e d uring the FY 2017-18 S trategic P artners hips fo r Community Grant Applic ation Cycle. --Suzy Pukys , Bo ard Chair ITEM SUMMARY: The Evaluation To o l that was utilized fo r last fis c al year's review is attached to this c o versheet. The p urpose o f this item is to review and disc uss the effectivenes s of the c urrent to o l and to determine whether any revis io ns and /or updates need to be made to it p rio r to the SP CS Advis ory Board's review of the grant ap p licatio ns rec eived fo r the FY 2017-18 Grant C yc le. FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A SUBMITTED BY: Shirley Rinn for Suzy Pukys , Bo ard Chair ATTACHMENTS: Description Type Evaluation Tool Backup Material Page 8 of 15 DRAFT/SAMPLE Total $ Requested $471,000 Total $ Available $400,000 Total $ Remaining $106,800 Applicants Score Funded? Y, N or P (Partial) % Funded $ Funded Total $ to Fund Amount Requested Notes Agency 1 Sample 5.58 P 60% $60,000 $60,000 $100,000 Duplication of Services Agency 2 Sample 4.27 P 82% $12,300 $12,300 $15,000 200k rev from own thrift shop Applicant 3 4.96 N 0% $0 $0 $50,000 National Organization; No Georgetown Boardmembers Applicant 4 5.66 Y 100% $18,000 $18,000 $18,000 Applicant 5 7 P 70% $17,500 $17,500 $25,000 Applicant 6 8.08 P 80% $40,000 $40,000 $50,000 Applicant 7 8.34 P 83% $24,900 $24,900 $30,000 Applicant 8 9.8 Y 100% $33,000 $33,000 $33,000 Applicant 9 4.9 P 49% $24,500 $24,500 $50,000 Applicant 10 6.32 P 63% $63,000 $63,000 $100,000 Input values in yellow cells only. Use blue cells to manipulate data. INPUT PERCENTAGE (%) Page 9 of 15 DRAFT Applicant Name Agency 2 Sample Score (1 - 5) Weight Weighted Score 1. Duplicate Effort?1 0.03 0.03 2. Other Funding Sources (total $)5 0.02 0.1 3. Rate the value of the service(s) described in this proposal to Georgetown residents. Consider value in the context of need, numbers served, and the potential impact of the service(s) to yield positive results.5 0.05 0.25 4. Rate how essential this organization is to its target population, the City of Georgetown's target population, and to the community. 4 0.15 0.6 5. Rate the impact of the funding. Are there specified measures (indicators) to be collected and a plan to do so?5 0.05 0.25 6. Rate the organization’s capacity to evaluate itself. Consider how the organization monitors progress in meeting its goals/objectives and accomplishing its mission.3 0.1 0.3 7. Rate the financial health of the organization, including the diversification of funding streams, cash reserves, budget(s), financials, and review of audit/990.4 0.15 0.6 8. Rate the proposal’s alignment to the City of Georgetown Policy and Guidelines. . Does it meet one or more of our strategic priorities (Public Safety, Transportation, Housing, Parks & Recreation, Veteran Services, and Safety Net)?5 0.15 0.75 Notes Input values in yellow cells only. Use blue cells to manipulate data. GISD, Georgetown Health Foundation, Seeds of Strength, Fundraisers Provide after school care Summary Request Notes Duplication of Services 5.58Final Score Name of other agencies doing duplicate services Page 10 of 15 DRAFT Applicant Name Agency 2 Sample Input values in yellow cells only. Use blue cells to manipulate data. 5.58Final Score 9. Rate the stability of the organization. Consider its lifecycle stage and ability to adapt to a changing environment. Is it a learning organization? What does staff and board turnover look like? Does it demonstrate an understanding of external forces that impact its work?3 0.15 0.45 Score (1 - 15) 10. Rate how strongly you view this organization and proposal overall. Clarify whether to fund, and to what extent. 15 0.15 2.25 1 Page 11 of 15 DRAFT Applicant Name Agency 2 Sample Score (1 - 5) Weight Weighted Score 1. Duplicate Effort?2 0.03 0.06 2. Other Funding Sources (total $)3 0.02 0.06 3. Rate the value of the service(s) described in this proposal to Georgetown residents. Consider value in the context of need, numbers served, and the potential impact of the service(s) to yield positive results.3 0.05 0.15 4. Rate how essential this organization is to its target population, the City of Georgetown's target population, and to the community. 2.7 0.15 0.405 5. Rate the impact of the funding. Are there specified measures (indicators) to be collected and a plan to do so?4 0.05 0.2 6. Rate the organization’s capacity to evaluate itself. Consider how the organization monitors progress in meeting its goals/objectives and accomplishing its mission.5 0.1 0.5 7. Rate the financial health of the organization, including the diversification of funding streams, cash reserves, budget(s), financials, and review of audit/990.2.5 0.15 0.375 8. Rate the proposal’s alignment to the City of Georgetown Policy and Guidelines. . Does it meet one or more of our strategic priorities (Public Safety, Transportation, Housing, Parks & Recreation, Veteran Services, and Safety Net)?4 0.15 0.6 Input values in yellow cells only. Use blue cells to manipulate data. Name of other agencies doing duplicate services 20k thrift shop, 20k fundraiser, 20k fundraiser, 10k donations, 30k Provide appropriate school clothing and shoes (partnership with Walmart) to qualified students, identified by the Federal Free lunch program Notes Summary Request Notes 200k rev from own thrift shop 4.27Final Score Page 12 of 15 DRAFT Applicant Name Agency 2 Sample Input values in yellow cells only. Use blue cells to manipulate data. 4.27Final Score 9. Rate the stability of the organization. Consider its lifecycle stage and ability to adapt to a changing environment. Is it a learning organization? What does staff and board turnover look like? Does it demonstrate an understanding of external forces that impact its work?3 0.15 0.45 Score (1 - 15) 10. Rate how strongly you view this organization and proposal overall. Clarify whether to fund, and to what extent. 9.8 0.15 1.47 1 Page 13 of 15 DRAFT Applicant Name Agency 3 Sample Score (1 - 5) Weight Weighted Score 1. Duplicate Effort?3 0.03 0.09 2. Other Funding Sources (total $)1 0.02 0.02 3. Rate the value of the service(s) described in this proposal to Georgetown residents. Consider value in the context of need, numbers served, and the potential impact of the service(s) to yield positive results.5 0.05 0.25 4. Rate how essential this organization is to its target population, the City of Georgetown's target population, and to the community. 5 0.15 0.75 5. Rate the impact of the funding. Are there specified measures (indicators) to be collected and a plan to do so?5 0.05 0.25 6. Rate the organization’s capacity to evaluate itself. Consider how the organization monitors progress in meeting its goals/objectives and accomplishing its mission.3 0.1 0.3 7. Rate the financial health of the organization, including the diversification of funding streams, cash reserves, budget(s), financials, and review of audit/990.3 0.15 0.45 8. Rate the proposal’s alignment to the City of Georgetown Policy and Guidelines. . Does it meet one or more of our strategic priorities (Public Safety, Transportation, Housing, Parks & Recreation, Veteran Services, and Safety Net)?3 0.15 0.45 Input values in yellow cells only. Use blue cells to manipulate data. Name of other agencies doing duplicate services Fundraisers, National Organizaation Summary Description Summary Request Notes National Organization; No Georgetown Boardmembers 4.96Final Score Notes Page 14 of 15 9. Rate the stability of the organization. Consider its lifecycle stage and ability to adapt to a changing environment. Is it a learning organization? What does staff and board turnover look like? Does it demonstrate an understanding of external forces that impact its work?3 0.15 0.45 Score (1 - 15) 10. Rate how strongly you view this organization and proposal overall. Clarify whether to fund, and to what extent. 13 0.15 1.95 1 Board Members are not residents of Georgetown Page 15 of 15