[2:29] Today is wednesday, october 30. This is the

[2:34] social services ad hoc committee.

[2:44] we are a couple minutes late. We just had a

[2:46] fire alarm, luckily a false fire alarm.

[2:49] we have our fantastic fire chief here joining us.

[2:51] so

[2:54] we are ready to start the

[2:56] meeting. To be have public comments?

[2:59] >> no public comments. >> great. So we will be

[3:02] discussing the community assistance grant funding

[3:09] current and future needs and

[3:10] recommend changes. Me we have a report,

[3:12] please?

[3:13] >> yes, tbyte. I will kick

[3:14] it

[3:15] off briefly. We have been working over the last

[3:18] year or so

[3:19] and looking at our community assistance

[3:21] grant

[3:24] fund program, as

[3:27] well as social services

[3:28] in general. Things have really changed

[3:29] over the past few years, particularly

[3:32] related to social services. The council

[3:33] has

[3:34] committed millions of dollars to a

[3:36] number of social services

[3:38] program such as housing, homeless programs

[3:40] for those that are disadvantaged,

[3:45] and as a result we

[3:47] have been working on reconfiguring our community assistance

[3:51] grant fund program.

[3:52] we made changes for this current fy

[3:54] and

[3:55] we are here today to talk about further

[4:00] possible changes to make in light

[4:01] of the programs and resources that

[4:03] the council has set

[4:04] aside in other parts of our budget.

[4:09] with that I will hand it over to

[4:12] >> no. For. >> thank you.

[4:15] good afternoon

[4:20] . We were in front of you in june

[4:21] of this year. We were seeking

[4:22] authority to approve the 2024-2025

[4:24] cagf

[4:27] slate of recommended grants. At

[4:30] that time we talked about making

[4:33] some changes for this year's

[4:38] process. Yourself and full council

[4:39] approved the changes in late

[4:41] june. To just review where that took us,

[4:45] and

[4:47] you can also follow along with attachments a or b

[4:51] in your packet.

[4:54] so, at the start of

[4:56] this year we were recommending bifurcating the

[4:57] cagf

[5:00] process into two different

[5:02] categories, one being the traditional

[5:03] grant

[5:06] and the other being a contracted

[5:09] critical service provider set up.

[5:12] the chart here

[5:15] lists all of the 2024-25

[5:18] cagf grants.

[5:21] there were 23 organizations

[5:26] funded in the amount of 1.1 million. We also recommended

[5:29] converting five of the grantees into a critical

[5:34] service provider agreement in which

[5:36] we would contract with them for the

[5:37] same

[5:38] amount as the previous cagf award,

[5:39] but it would be for as needed

[5:41] based on services rendered. They would

[5:47] invoice after the service was rendered,

[5:48] only for what they actually produced

[5:49] or

[5:50] performed. The amount is 1.292 million.

[5:54] if we look at the bottom chart

[5:55] here, the total combined traditional

[5:57] cagf

[6:00] coupled with the

[6:03] critical service agreements for these five organizations

[6:06] brings us to a total of

[6:09] $2,406,144

[6:12] for the current fiscal year.

[6:17] recognizing as the city manager said

[6:18] that there are

[6:20] changes in the community currently and will

[6:21] king

[6:24] at the future and participating

[6:26] additional changes, we would like

[6:27] to really make this

[6:30] program more reflective of the

[6:33] needs of the community.

[6:35] is the city manager mentioned we have invested

[6:38] a great deal of funding, the council has approved

[6:42] over $3 million

[6:45] in homeless specific

[6:48] funds

[6:50] directly. It can be broken down through

[6:51] looking at the step

[6:54] up on second agreement,

[6:56] there is a software system, the apricot

[6:57] system,

[7:00] we have the

[7:06] p.a.t.h. Shelter beds at 138,000,

[7:07] providing five beds

[7:08] every day of the year. We also have

[7:14] partners such as the all saints episcopal

[7:15] church, they assist with the home

[7:16] again program.

[7:18] there is safe parking l.a.,

[7:20] and our new partner healthcare in action.

[7:24] I do want to note that in terms

[7:27] of services to the un-housed,

[7:30] and as

[7:32] a result of looking at all of the

[7:33] different service providers, we have

[7:36] to find a more cost-effective way of

[7:39] dividing the same level of service

[7:42] to how it relates to the unhoused

[7:43] hotline,

[7:44] as well as the ability to transport

[7:46] a

[7:47] person to a motel in the middle of

[7:48] the night, should they request such

[7:52] assistance. Working with the

[7:55] police departments current

[7:57] providers for supplemental services, that company covers

[8:01] six, they

[8:04] have agreed to take on this

[8:06] service at no additional cost. Effective

[8:08] this past monday, the 28th, we were there

[8:13] and able to end our

[8:16] relationship with nass tech

[8:17] , they were providing the service

[8:19] in a customized package,

[8:24] in an amount that the city should

[8:25] be able

[8:26] to realize in future savings is $930,000.

[8:28] and by eliminating that

[8:30] $930,000, that does reduce the total

[8:34] annual spending on

[8:36] unhoused services, to 2.1 million.

[8:38] now, also looking forward to the future,

[8:43] there were other needs that

[8:44] come up that both the community service

[8:47] department and human services division have

[8:51] identified. Some have been providing

[8:52] behavioral

[8:55] services to some of the youth

[8:58] in the populations that

[8:59] we serve in our school programs. Such as

[9:01] the afterschool adventure camp.

[9:04] that is just one example of how

[9:05] some of these funds could be repurposed.

[9:07] or they could be

[9:09] used for future needs. It is also our understanding

[9:13] that we are looking at

[9:15] various departments looking for additional

[9:16] ways that the

[9:17] city can reduce expenses. And one proposal that

[9:22] we have is additional changes to

[9:25] the grant process. Actually

[9:28] placing the grant

[9:32] process on hiatus for the 2025-26

[9:34] year, which is the fiscal

[9:37] year that would start

[9:39] july, 2025. And we are looking for the specific 12

[9:41] , technically 13, I will actually

[9:43] not momentarily, putting these

[9:46] organizations on hiatus.

[9:49] doing that would provide

[9:51] savings of approximately $370,000.

[9:58] the last item that you see on

[10:00] the bottom of the chart is the westside

[10:01] food bank. I indicated that there

[10:02] is

[10:04] recommended savings of $200,000.

[10:06] their current agreement is for $250,000.

[10:07] we are recommending

[10:10] is

[10:13] still awarding $50,000 contract,

[10:16] that would help provide,

[10:19] as well as just regional food

[10:20] pantry support, direct deliveries

[10:22] to our housing program for the formally

[10:25] unhoused.

[10:26] we set that up at the beginning of

[10:28] this year and they

[10:31] are receiving weekly deliveries.

[10:34] um, what we

[10:37] are also recommending is

[10:39] to create a new category called community service

[10:42] providers. Much like the critical

[10:43] service

[10:45] providers, they would be not to exceed

[10:46] a mount with services

[10:48] paid for as they are rendered. And

[10:49] we took a look

[10:52] at 11 of our current

[10:55] cagf organizations. We

[10:58] identified some of these that could

[10:59] be

[11:00] important to have for the community,

[11:01] but we are not sure if

[11:07] it is needed to be

[11:09] funded at this full amount or if it

[11:10] would be more appropriate to be

[11:13] funded based on invoices

[11:14] submitted for work performed. Another

[11:15] concern that comes up regularly with

[11:16] the

[11:19] cagf ad hoc of both

[11:24] the council members, as well as human

[11:25] relations commission and charitable

[11:26] solicitations

[11:27] commission, is, are we certain that

[11:29] beverly hills residents exclusively

[11:30] are receiving this financial and if

[11:31] it through these grants?

[11:35] in some of these organizations that

[11:37] we are recommending placing on

[11:42] hiatus, it is hard to quantify because

[11:43] they do serve the region.

[11:46] whereas, some that

[11:49] we are recommending as

[11:51] community service providers, we know

[11:52] their services are more concentrated

[11:55] to beverly hills but not quite at

[11:56] the level of

[11:57] the critical service provider, which

[11:58] would be this group.

[12:01] if we were to

[12:02] discontinue funding this group of

[12:04] riders, we would

[12:06] see detrimental impacts in the community.

[12:10] so,

[12:13] in

[12:14] conclusion what we are recommending

[12:16] is

[12:19] contracting with the 11

[12:22] groups at a cost of

[12:25] $535,000, continuing to

[12:27] contract with the five critical service

[12:28] providers at

[12:34] $1.2 million, for a total of $1.8 million. By

[12:42] leasing the 12 organizations on hiatus,

[12:43] that would generate a savings

[12:46] of about $578,000. So

[12:51] this is the recommendation before

[12:52] you. We are here to

[12:53] answer questions you may have.

[12:54] >>

[12:55] great, thank you so much. Councilmember?

[12:56] please go ahead.

[12:58] >> it seems a bit

[13:01] extreme to put them all on

[13:04] hiatus. I think we need to,

[13:06] I mean some seem obvious. But I do

[13:07] believe others do provide

[13:10] services

[13:12] for the residents. I am wondering on what

[13:13] basis

[13:15] is the recommendation being made.

[13:19] >> this recommendation is being made

[13:28] based on us looking at the quarterly

[13:29] reports

[13:30] from the previous fiscal year end

[13:31] identifying the services that were

[13:32] rendered to beverly

[13:33] hills residents in particular. Or

[13:34] if the

[13:37] contract or agreement was

[13:39] effective, generally speaking. The affordable

[13:43] living for the aging,

[13:46] they enrolled 63 new participants.

[13:49] they did 13 home visits, and

[13:52] 870 email inquiries

[13:56] that they fielded.

[13:58] but the number of beverly hills residents

[13:59] in that group

[14:02] was only 10.

[14:03] another organization we could look at

[14:08] -- exactly.

[14:14] tower cancer.

[14:15] let me pull up my data on that one.

[14:16] so approximately 10% of program services

[14:18] are utilized by the beverly hills

[14:19] community. I think in the report.

[14:25] >> 10% of overall services? Because

[14:26] $50,000

[14:29] is not going to fund

[14:32] a lot. I

[14:33] mean if they are saying 10% of the

[14:34] total volume is beverly hills residents

[14:35] and

[14:36] they have 10,000 people, that is 1000

[14:38] people, a significant amount.

[14:40] >> they say 10% of the grant amount

[14:43] goes directly to ph eight beverly hills

[14:47] residents.

[14:50] the other percentage would

[14:53] --

[14:54] >> I guess what

[14:56] I would say is I would contact each

[14:59] of them and let them

[15:01] know that there would be the hiatus,

[15:02] allow them to come to

[15:05] us and try to explain that

[15:06] they understand that this is to serve our residents.

[15:11] and why

[15:12] either they accept it, or why we should reconsider.

[15:16] I would say, you know, because knowing

[15:17] that we

[15:18] expect that if we are providing x

[15:20] amount of dollars and only

[15:22] 10% of those dollars are being used for our residents,

[15:25] that is something that we are not

[15:26] going

[15:28] to be able to continue to support,

[15:29] because

[15:31] we have many other needs for our residents.

[15:32] >> but how

[15:35] would they be able

[15:36] to change that? If that is the number

[15:38] of residents that are

[15:41] coming to the organization.

[15:42] >> outreach. Or they just would not contest

[15:44] it

[15:46] and would say sorry, we are here for everybody. We cannot

[15:52] decide who comes to us. We understand. You know, ultimately

[15:53] they

[15:54] should understand that we are doing this

[15:59] , you know,

[16:00] there are resources for the county

[16:01] and other communities that they can look

[16:05] at, but

[16:06] we are doing this specifically for

[16:08] our residents and there are a lot of

[16:13] these. I would just give them the

[16:14] chance. I am guessing if

[16:16] they cannot back it up or say sorry,

[16:17] we don't have a lot of

[16:18] beverly hills residents that use our

[16:20] services, there is not a great argument

[16:21] to

[16:22] continue or not put them on hiatus.

[16:25] >> part of the reason we are starting

[16:26] this process really early, we are

[16:27] talking about grants that would take

[16:32] place, you know, seven, eight,

[16:33] nine months from now. It is so that

[16:35] we

[16:37] get some feedback from the ad hoc and

[16:41] we can let the organizations know ahead of time

[16:43] before the applications would normally have

[16:47] gone out, that we intend to put their grant on

[16:50] hiatus.

[16:55] we could certainly come up with some

[16:56] sort of process where they

[16:59] can submit a letter.

[17:00] >> or come here

[17:01] and

[17:02] explain and answer questions. But

[17:03] with those savings, shouldn't we

[17:04] be looking at reinvesting them in

[17:05] services that are

[17:06] residents actually take advantage of?

[17:11] >> yes, I think that is one of

[17:13] the things mr. Paulson was talking

[17:14] about. We are experiencing,

[17:20] maybe director harris can speak to

[17:21] some

[17:22] of the challenges we are having with

[17:23] the afterschool programming. Please.

[17:26] >> it sounds like, it is not included

[17:27] here,

[17:28] the 900 grand we are saving on nass tech.

[17:32] that is not included.

[17:33] >> it is imported

[17:38] --important to know

[17:39] that that funding was essentially

[17:41] one time funding that was taking us through

[17:44] december of

[17:46] this year. So it is not that it was

[17:47] ongoing funding. But it was not

[17:49] something that we have to find money

[17:50] for moving forward.

[17:51] >>

[17:53] briefly

[17:56] speaking to some of the new things

[17:59] we found, adventure camp program and

[18:00] afterschool

[18:01] programming, we are servicing about

[18:02] 430 students. Our universal tk program

[18:05] has brought in students

[18:08] as early as four years old now.

[18:14] so, really long days. We are

[18:16] starting to see students who are taking

[18:17] advantage of our programs until 5:00

[18:18] p.m. However,

[18:19] during the school day they have aids

[18:20] and during the adventure camp

[18:22] program they do not. Just because

[18:23] that is not

[18:26] something that we currently

[18:29] offer. Ideally we would like to bring

[18:30] in

[18:31] a partnership and bring somebody on any contractual basis

[18:35] to be able to provide continuous service to the students

[18:40] who need support for afterschool care,

[18:41] so they can successfully

[18:43] participate in our programs. That

[18:44] is what we were referencing in the

[18:45] report on

[18:47] some of new needs the community may

[18:48] have, that

[18:49] we did not necessarily have previously.

[18:53] >> to recharge for those fees, to have

[18:56] the aides?

[18:57] >> currently we

[18:59] do not have ability to

[19:03] provide the aides.

[19:05] >> but would it be charged for if

[19:06] we provided

[19:07] the service?

[19:08] >> we would have to work

[19:09] through the risk management and

[19:10] the a.d.a. Accommodation process.

[19:12] so there is the possibility of

[19:15] us to be able to

[19:18] recoup some cost.

[19:19] however, based on the a.d.a. Requirements, we would

[19:23] be able to support them if necessary.

[19:24] >>

[19:25] and that was one of my questions, with

[19:32] regard to the grant funding. So, this

[19:33] was

[19:36] not included in our jpa?

[19:38] is this part of the agreement we arty

[19:39] have in place? Or

[19:40] will this be in addition to that?

[19:45] >> so, yes and no.

[19:48] we use the school district

[19:55] properties for a variety of things

[19:57] because the jpa, which we pay a

[19:58] great deal of money for, and then

[19:59] we use their facilities for our programs,

[20:00] so

[20:01] for the afterschool programming for

[20:02] example, we use the school sites.

[20:04] so the children who are on campus

[20:06] during the day

[20:08] are currently able to stay, you know,

[20:09] until their

[20:11] parents are able to pick them up .

[20:12] having said

[20:15] that the programming itself , if you

[20:16] want to have your child participate in

[20:18] adventure camp

[20:21] after school, the daycare, and

[20:23] is a service that parents do pay for.

[20:24] we are

[20:27] in the process of looking at,

[20:28] making sure the program is at least cost recovery.

[20:33] and then as far as aides go, afterschool aides,

[20:36] I think

[20:39] that it would depend,

[20:41] as the director was saying, as to

[20:42] whether they are needed because

[20:43] of an issue, disability issue with the child.

[20:47] in which case that is something we

[20:48] are required to provide.

[21:00] as opposed to having some tk students,

[21:02] some that are four years old, at the

[21:03] site for five or six hours

[21:05] a day and then with us for three additional

[21:06] hours a day. It is leading

[21:08] to a new world of some challenges.

[21:09] those kids are tired.

[21:12] and they are needing a little bit

[21:13] more

[21:15] of staff to student ratio,

[21:18] lower staff to student ratio.

[21:20] >> got it, thank you. First of all

[21:24] I guess starting with controlling

[21:25] our

[21:26] cost right now we need to be mindful of our budget.

[21:30] I think it

[21:31] is important to go through this exercise

[21:33] and see where we land with it.

[21:38] making sure that the services that

[21:39] are being provided,

[21:40] that are crucial to our community,

[21:41] I wholeheartedly support that. I think

[21:42] it is

[21:44] important. We don't want to have any

[21:48] gaps in our service

[21:54] ,

[21:55] providing our service. And then specifically

[21:56] caring for beverly hills residents,

[21:57] I think that

[21:58] is important. Any of our unhoused

[22:00] are kind of moving through different

[22:02] cities and we are providing a very large service

[22:12] to that.

[22:14] I guess it depends on how you look

[22:15] at it. These are taxpayer dollars.

[22:16] so while I do support giving services

[22:18] to as many people as possible, we

[22:19] do

[22:20] need to focus on our own community

[22:21] as well. So while I'll support our

[22:23] unhoused, I also think there are programs in here

[22:24] that

[22:27] are wonderful, really great

[22:29] 501(c)(3). But at the end of the day,

[22:35] or nonprofits, but at the end of the

[22:36] day we need to also focus on

[22:37] our own residents and providing the

[22:39] best level of service for that. I think moving

[22:42] human

[22:43] services department to the fire department

[22:45] has been a wonderful decision

[22:48] under the chief's leadership. And

[22:51] christopher getting a promotion,

[22:54] and we are really excited about

[22:57] the new level of leadership and everything

[22:58] you

[23:00] are doing with that.

[23:06] and this is part of that. Leadership

[23:07] is

[23:08] about making difficult decisions and

[23:09] moving forward with certain things

[23:10] that may not always be

[23:11] easy. I read some info in regard to

[23:12] p.a.t.h. That was

[23:15] concerning.

[23:18] and I want to know if,

[23:24] what information

[23:27] we have on that. We are working with

[23:28] an organization

[23:30] that --

[23:31] >> there were a

[23:33] few articles in the l.a. Times recently about

[23:35] p.a.t.h. And some of the loan programs

[23:36] that they have .

[23:39] as far as I am aware those

[23:42] issues do not affect

[23:45] the programs that we have with p.a.t.h...

[23:46] unless I

[23:48] am missing something.

[23:50] oh, I am sorry. It was step up on

[23:51] second. I apologize. Sorry.

[23:54] >> yes, that is correct. Nothing, there is

[23:59] nothing that has impacted beverly

[24:00] hills or that we have contributed

[24:01] funds to

[24:02] that is under scrutiny or in question

[24:03] as it relates

[24:06] to our relation with step up on second.

[24:09] >> great.

[24:11] that was the first thing I wanted to check on.

[24:14] and a lot of these programs, just

[24:15] for clarity, are payouts needed.

[24:18] --

[24:24] pay as needed. I know we know the

[24:25] answer to

[24:26] this and sometimes we just ask for

[24:27] clarity. [ laughter ] if we budget

[24:30] $100,000 for a service,

[24:33] what is that process? Can you walk

[24:36] us through it, please.

[24:42] when they are contracted.

[24:44] >> yes, so if we use the p.a.t.h.

[24:45] as a perfect example.

[24:48] it is $130,

[24:51] and I believe it is about $10 per night per bed.

[24:53] and we are allowed to reserve five beds.

[24:57] my math might

[25:02] be off. In order to guarantee we have

[25:03] five beds, we have to pay

[25:05] for the beds whether they are filled

[25:06] or not. We are

[25:09] paying 365?5, that comes to about $90,000,

[25:12] I believe it is actually 90,500.

[25:16] and then the additional 95

[25:19] 00 is

[25:22] additional to fund the grant.

[25:28] this

[25:29] year they sent the invoice, the report,

[25:30] they give the actual names of the

[25:31] unhoused

[25:32] person. John doe spent 34 nights in

[25:34] one of the beds. Then the

[25:35] bed was empty for 15 nights. Then jane doe spent

[25:39] 16 nights in bed number two and it

[25:40] was

[25:41] empty for three nights, for example.

[25:46] they give us the breakdown. And then

[25:47] of course in that situation we still

[25:49] have to pay for the bed, even when

[25:50] not used. So it is always there. That

[25:51] is what the invoicing looks like.

[25:55] if we look at the

[26:01] jewish family services of los

[26:02] angeles, for example, that is a large

[26:03] $500,000 agreement. They provide detail

[26:06] reporting each quarter of the different clients they

[26:09] serve and what type of service the client received.

[26:11] and what the service translated to

[26:14] in hours spent, like labor hours and

[26:21] what the cost is. For example, social

[26:22] worker provided

[26:23] 10 hours of in-home supportive care

[26:24] over the past month. That comes out to

[26:28] $800, for example.

[26:31] then times however many clients,

[26:34] they have about 30 to 40

[26:36] clients currently. In those 30 to

[26:37] 40

[26:38] clients are receiving a range of services.

[26:39] some folks are just getting occasional

[26:43] food gift cards,

[26:45] and others are receiving two, three, four

[26:49] days a week of supportive

[26:52] care, light cleaning, things

[26:53] like that. It runs the gamut of what

[26:58] the needs are. And they provide all

[26:59] the detail for us.

[27:00] >> thank you. That

[27:01] helps. [ laughter

[27:04] ] with regard to westside food bank,

[27:05] I see we are doing the $50,000 contract

[27:07] to provide

[27:10] fresh produce and food

[27:13] once a week to the residents in the city housing programs.

[27:16] have we asked our local

[27:19] grocers, for

[27:20] example beverly hills market, to make that

[27:25] ,

[27:27] to provide those services? That way

[27:28] we are

[27:29] supporting a local business as well as

[27:37] --it is closer. And for them

[27:38] to be able to provide those services

[27:40] to our residents.

[27:42] >> so I think there is two answers to this

[27:46] question, I

[27:47] can answer the second part. We have

[27:48] not started reaching out to local

[27:52] agencies yet to see about the support.

[27:53] and

[27:54] I also just wanted to clarify. Currently

[27:55] out

[27:57] of all of the cagf recipients over

[27:58] the past years,

[28:01] what we did is these five listed here

[28:04] were the first rendition of

[28:06] service based providing three contract.

[28:11] so the level of invoicing is now coming

[28:13] in and they are paying for services

[28:16] rendered. Versus the traditional

[28:19] cagf program, including

[28:20] westside food bank. We have just been

[28:22] issuing the funds on a quarterly basis

[28:23] based on services they are providing.

[28:28] the goal would be to take

[28:30] some of these and turn them into a

[28:31] similar contract like we did with

[28:32] the

[28:33] initial five critical service providers.

[28:34] because they

[28:37] are not necessarily critical

[28:39] in the same fashion that we have called

[28:40] the others, we have

[28:41] deemed those to be community services

[28:48] partners. We would be transitioning,

[28:49] if this is supported, this next

[28:50] year into the model that you guys

[28:52] supported earlier this year for the first five.

[28:55] >> I understood

[28:56] that, that was clear in the report,

[28:58] that made sense. Thank you. But going

[28:59] back

[29:00] to my question, I think it would be

[29:04] interesting and nice to be able

[29:06] to, we want to be able to work together

[29:07] as a community. It would

[29:10] be a great way to ask our local grocers.

[29:13] I do not know if we have any

[29:16] besides beverly hills market,

[29:19] or whole foods, if they would be interested. Pavilion.

[29:28] >> -->> [ laughter ] I do

[29:30] not think that we could afford that.

[29:31] >> $15

[29:34] avocados that nobody buys.

[29:35] >> so,

[29:36] yeah, that way it is a strong partnership

[29:40] between

[29:41] our local businesses and supporting

[29:43] our neighborhoods and the needs of the residents.

[29:46] >> we would be happy to reach out

[29:49] and see if they are interested.

[29:52] >> thank you. There were four charities

[29:55] that I noticed that were cultural

[29:57] on the community service providers.

[30:01] and a few others that

[30:03] may be would even fall into that.

[30:07] >>

[30:10] [ inaudible ]

[30:11] >> yeah,

[30:12] so my question is, these are social

[30:16] services and those are cultural services,

[30:19] may be more appropriate for

[30:21] our arts and culture commission to look at.

[30:24] or something in the arts section.

[30:28] why are they lumped into social services?

[30:31] how does that justify? Can you explain that for me?

[30:34] >> so maybe five years ago

[30:37] , four years ago, I am

[30:39] trying to think now. They were embedded

[30:40] as part

[30:43] of the cagf program. At

[30:46] that time this was living

[30:48] with the human services division within community

[30:52] services and they incorporated this

[30:53] as part of

[30:55] their program. Happy to look at a

[30:57] process in which we pulled this apart

[31:01] and do the same sort of thing, take

[31:02] funding

[31:03] that has been allocated to this portion of

[31:04] the cagf

[31:07] program and make

[31:10] there be a new application and

[31:12] vetting process through the arts and

[31:13] culture commission, if that is the

[31:14] directive

[31:16] of the city council.

[31:19] >> would you be okay with that? Put

[31:21] your microphone on.

[31:22] >> there is not

[31:23] a separate budget for it. You look

[31:25] at the amounts, it is very small.

[31:26] I don't know

[31:29] that we necessarily want

[31:30] , you know, we may want to vet the

[31:32] cultural grants through the

[31:34] arts and culture commission, but I

[31:35] would not have

[31:36] them have a separate grant kind of thing.

[31:41] >> for example, I think

[31:42] the wallace already has a contract --

[31:46] >> they get a lot more money than that

[31:50] from us,

[31:51] but they need a lot.

[31:52] >> right, but

[31:53] I do not know that it is

[31:54] necessary for them to be here and

[31:55] there. It is doubling up services

[32:03] that are already provided. Nancy,

[32:05] maybe you could speak to that.

[32:06] >> the only other option would be

[32:07] to give arts and culture a dedicated

[32:09] budget each year that they then recommend

[32:10] for cultural institutions. And if

[32:11] we

[32:12] did that, you know, I would not have

[32:14] a problem with that.

[32:15] but we need to ensure that they have

[32:17] some funding each year to be

[32:18] able to share with the cultural institutions.

[32:23] >> 40 grand or something, maybe.

[32:26] but I don't

[32:29] know, whatever the amount

[32:34] , we can talk about that when we budget. But

[32:35] I think this

[32:36] is the time to have the conversation

[32:37] to just discussed separating them. John?

[32:41] >> as

[32:42] long as they have a budget. You know,

[32:44] it is 85 now for those four,

[32:47] I would suggest 100 or more. I think culture,

[32:50] I think these, theater 40 is

[32:53] so extremely important.

[32:56] they are so dependent

[32:59] cagf

[33:00] no cultural institution makes back

[33:01] the money through the box office.

[33:02] it is just

[33:03] not possible these days.

[33:04] >> okay.

[33:05] but don't you think that would be

[33:06] more

[33:08] appropriate to have in the

[33:09] arts and culture commission?

[33:10] >> sure,

[33:11] if we could give them a budget.

[33:13] yes.

[33:14] >> we can talk about it at the meeting

[33:17] with some

[33:18] kind of funds in the next --because

[33:20] we are discussing budgeting now for

[33:21] the

[33:22] next agenda. So those would be our

[33:23] recommendation, to remove the cultural component's

[33:26] from here.

[33:27] >> but replacing them

[33:29] at the arts and culture

[33:32] commission with a dedicated budget. Right?

[33:33] >> yes.

[33:35] okay,

[33:36] let me see if I have any other questions.

[33:44] now, just out of curiosity

[33:47] , why are we

[33:50] not

[33:53] [ pause ]

[33:59] --

[34:02] so because we are

[34:05] contracting some of these major

[34:07] asks, would it not make more sense

[34:08] for

[34:11] some of the larger

[34:14] grants that we have here to also use

[34:16] those as a contract to see how it would

[34:19] work? Or is this temporary? What was the

[34:22] process to make the decision that

[34:23] these five would be

[34:26] contracted, versus the others getting a straight out

[34:29] grant?

[34:35] >> so I think, just

[34:38] to sort of

[34:41] , I guess take a step

[34:46] back, so I think where we will end

[34:47] up, if I understand correctly

[34:48] with the report today, groups will

[34:50] either be put on hiatus,

[34:53] or they will be put on contract.

[34:56] >> correct. >> we

[34:58] would not just be saying we think

[34:59] you are

[35:00] a valuable organization and we are

[35:02] going to give you a

[35:05] check, regardless of whether

[35:08] you serve our residents

[35:11] or any of those things. We would be

[35:12] moving

[35:14] everyone into a contract --

[35:16] >> that is not clear here. Here it

[35:17] says on attachment b

[35:19] that there is 11 items, community service

[35:23] providers. So we are

[35:24] putting all of them on contract as

[35:26] well? You are saying yes or no?

[35:35] >> yes, that

[35:37] is what we would be saying. If you

[35:38] look at attachment b, community service

[35:39] providers,

[35:40] minus the cultural ones at this point,

[35:41] is the recommendation. The remaining

[35:42] would move over

[35:43] to mirror the way we started with the critical service

[35:47] providers. These would

[35:48] be contractually based agreements

[35:50] for services rendered is what is paid for.

[35:56] >> now I will say we are working through

[35:58] a little bit of what we mean by services

[35:59] rendered with some organizations.

[36:01] so we would have to, like the folks

[36:02] did with the other

[36:05] organizations, work out what the reporting

[36:06] would look like

[36:08] and the invoicing, so that

[36:10] we know what we are being charged for.

[36:11] >>

[36:17] all of these items are going to be contracted.

[36:18] >>

[36:19] the five previous. Yes . And the 11

[36:20] would be contracted.

[36:26] the others would be put on

[36:28] hiatus.

[36:29] >> right, correct. So that

[36:30] is what I was

[36:32] saying. The hiatus ones, people

[36:34] are used to getting the same amount each year,

[36:38] a little bit more

[36:40] they ask for. And when they don't

[36:41] they will probably be upset. I think

[36:42] that

[36:44] is why they are bringing it to us

[36:46] now. We will be prepared, if they

[36:47] want to make an argument as to why

[36:48] they should continue, again understanding

[36:50] that they all do great work, we are

[36:53] insisting that it be

[36:56] tied

[36:57] to our residents with services. They

[36:59] will have to then come and explain either

[37:01] why they already do serve the residents

[37:02] in the figures do not reflect

[37:05] it. Or

[37:07] what they will do to ensure we are getting that

[37:13] value for life.

[37:14] >> and this was under which commission?

[37:16] >> human relations commission. >>

[37:17] okay. My other thought

[37:20] is that we have

[37:21] a commission for charitable contributions

[37:23] .

[37:27] with they

[37:30] be able to, would we be

[37:31] able to put all of this into that box?

[37:37] and is it a commission or a foundation?

[37:39] >>

[37:41] it is a foundation.

[37:42] >> so not as it is

[37:45] currently

[37:46] configured today is the answer. We

[37:47] are talking about the beverly hills

[37:48] community charitable foundation. This

[37:53] is essentially a separate arm of the

[37:54] city, it

[37:57] is its own 501 c3 with its own

[37:58] board that can accept donations from whomever.

[38:01] to benefit city programs. The current

[38:06] structure of the community

[38:07] charitable foundation is to take in money.

[38:09] accept

[38:12] it.

[38:15] and then essentially transfer it to

[38:16] the city. The city then cuts the check.

[38:20] or the city does the bidding, procurement.

[38:26] the community charitable foundation

[38:27] as

[38:28] of today does not have the ability

[38:30] to write checks, does not have a treasurer.

[38:31] I guess it has a treasurer but does

[38:33] not have --I am sorry.

[38:36] I apologize. As a board. Yes.

[38:42] >> I am just trying to figure

[38:43] out ways we can utilize it. I know

[38:45] that it may not be structured today.

[38:47] but I think that is also an area that

[38:48] I would

[38:49] recommend revisiting or visiting to begin with.

[38:53] and then see if that portion of it, because it this

[38:57] point our

[38:59] charitable commission, where is that right now?

[39:00] >>

[39:03] charitable solicitations commission

[39:04] is the commission that has been in

[39:06] existence since the 40s. And

[39:09] they have

[39:11] a few things that they are responsible for.

[39:15] but they

[39:16] sort of vet organizations that are doing fundraising

[39:18] membership drives and

[39:21] something else.

[39:24] how their funding is spent.

[39:27] at this time

[39:30] a lot of the information

[39:32] that was not available in the 1940s,

[39:36] postwar fundraising, is now available online.

[39:39] you can find

[39:41] form 990 on the irs website and such.

[39:45] not to say we are not concerned

[39:48] about ensuring the people

[39:51] who are raising funds in our community

[39:52] are legitimate

[39:53] and using the funds for proper purpose.

[39:54] so we would still

[39:57] issue

[39:58] charitable solicitation permits. But

[39:59] as far as a commission and all of

[40:00] the overhead

[40:01] that goes with the commission, overseeing that process,

[40:11] we will be sunsetting that commission.

[40:12] >> and this was under

[40:14] their approval. That is why I am suggesting

[40:15] that there be some oversights

[40:18] to make sure that there is

[40:21] some balance,

[40:24] that there is some kind of

[40:29] --instead of a commission there is

[40:30] also community members

[40:32] on that committee. To just kind of assist

[40:42] the community with

[40:43] the process.

[40:44] >> okay. We understand

[40:45] the concept. We are not set up to

[40:47] do it today but it is something we

[40:48] can work towards.

[40:49] >> no. I just

[40:50] wanted to put it on your radar. I

[40:51] think it would be a good balance

[40:52] based on the decisions made regarding

[40:53] the charitable solicitation commission.

[40:56] all right. So those are my questions.

[40:57] do you have any others?

[41:02] >> no. I think this is a bit of a

[41:03] major move where we have

[41:05] so many organizations that have been getting

[41:09] funding and have been doing good

[41:11] work. But I guess it is to focus on

[41:12] the residents, they just

[41:15] have not been providing that.

[41:17] I would absolutely set something up

[41:18] to allow them to respond,

[41:21] to make their arguments.

[41:23] it again, lay it on the line. We love

[41:24] the work you do,

[41:27] unfortunately your facilities

[41:30] are not buying used by our

[41:33] residents and therefore that is the

[41:34] basis of our

[41:35] judgment. We have to allocate resources

[41:36] to

[41:37] services that our residents are using.

[41:42] I think being very straight

[41:43] about that but having the ability

[41:45] for them to come to us and talk

[41:47] to us, that is fine. There is time.

[41:48] and I

[41:50] like the suggestion to give funding to

[41:54] the arts and culture commission,

[41:57] to allow them to

[42:00] separately give grants to cultural institutions.

[42:06] >> I don't know if we would do a whole

[42:07] process

[42:08] that they would come to us. I think that I would

[42:15] --

[42:16] >> there is public

[42:17] comment. And they have come to us

[42:18] in the past when we have said sorry,

[42:20] no. We have to expect that. They are

[42:21] allowed to do that. But

[42:23] I would actually, to save them time

[42:24] and whatever, I would lay it on the

[42:26] line. This is what we are looking

[42:27] for. And you only have 10% of

[42:30] the money we are giving you going

[42:31] to our residents.

[42:33] that is just not an efficient

[42:41] allocation of resources.

[42:42] >> I want

[42:43] to just add that part

[42:44] of the, like a six month long cagf

[42:45] process, echoes through the early,

[42:46] late

[42:48] winter, early spring. We do get an ad hoc of

[42:51] two commission members

[42:53] entered will commission members that join the

[42:54] human

[42:57] services staff to conduct interviews

[42:58] with all new applicants

[43:03] , as well as any applicant that was

[43:05] existing and maybe we have questions

[43:06] about or would like to see performance

[43:07] change or

[43:08] that we had questions about their data.

[43:15] we have been thinking about this and

[43:16] hearing the commissioners

[43:17] over the past two years talk about

[43:18] wanting to bring the impact directly

[43:19] to

[43:20] beverly hills residents. Those were

[43:22] some of the

[43:23] questions we asked. I hate to pick on

[43:28] an organization, but as

[43:30] an example safe parking l.a., last

[43:31] year they

[43:32] were funded for $50,000. This year

[43:34] they were funded for $10,000.

[43:40] when we met with them in the

[43:41] spring, we said look, you have not

[43:42] provided us with data that shows x

[43:43] amount

[43:44] of vehicles that were parked in beverly

[43:46] hills with

[43:49] someone unhoused living in them

[43:51] and then went to one of your parking

[43:52] lots.

[43:53] >> that is

[43:54] because it is pointless. We have ordinances

[43:55] in place that there is no overnight

[43:56] parking in our city.

[43:57] >> absolutely.

[44:03] but there are still folks that might

[44:04] parked here during

[44:05] the day and then park in front of

[44:07] a park in a park ranger

[44:08] can see that they are back, the backseat

[44:10] is completely full of personal

[44:13] belongings. That would be

[44:16] a recommendation. If you

[44:17] do not want to dispose of your vehicle

[44:19] and come inside to a shelter,

[44:20] you could go there. When we pressed

[44:21] safe parking, we asked how many vehicles,

[44:24] it was exactly the answer that we

[44:25] knew it would

[44:26] be, which was zero. They say but we

[44:33] service hundreds of people from spa

[44:34] 5, that

[44:35] includes l.a., santa monica, culver

[44:37] city, and unincorporated areas. None of those from

[44:40] beverly hills.

[44:43] I say this to say that

[44:45] from staff and commission's perspective,

[44:46] we

[44:49] were driving the organizations

[44:51] to provide the data in the spring.

[44:52] those that were

[44:53] able to provide compelling data are

[44:55] on the list that is recommended

[44:57] to be contracted for. And those that

[44:58] could not provide data

[44:59] or could only speak to generalities

[45:04] --

[45:05] >> that is fine. You will tell them

[45:07] that they are on hiatus,

[45:10] they will say geez,

[45:13] they know that they

[45:14] can come to us if they want.

[45:15] >> I

[45:16] support the staff decision. It looks

[45:17] like you have done your due diligence

[45:18] and have asked those questions. And

[45:19] that

[45:20] is why these recommendations were

[45:21] made in the first place. With regard

[45:22] to decreasing it

[45:25] from 50, to 10. So

[45:27] that was kind of a here, we are letting

[45:28] you

[45:29] know, we will still give you a little bit

[45:36] more. But I support the staff's decision

[45:37] on that. The only thing

[45:38] that I was going to recommend additionally

[45:40] when I was listening, on your application

[45:43] ,

[45:46] formally

[45:47] there should be a place that says

[45:49] how were the funds used? Was

[45:54] it for what you described in the first

[45:55] place? What

[45:56] percentage of the funds were used?

[45:58] a lot of times organizations do not use

[46:01] all of the funding.

[46:03] that is good for us to know as well.

[46:06] and, you know, what percentage of

[46:07] it

[46:09] was used for the city of beverly hills residents specifically.

[46:13] so I am sure that you

[46:16] have that but just to

[46:19] clarify and make sure. You could also

[46:21] look at the form that the beverly

[46:22] hills rotary club has.

[46:24] a lot of the questions for their grants

[46:28] that they offer for repeat

[46:30] groups have a lot of those questions on

[46:33] it, just to clarify and make sure

[46:36] that the money went where it was supposed

[46:37] to go in

[46:38] spent how they said it was going to

[46:40] be spent. In the utilized

[46:43] all the money that was spent

[46:48] that we provided. What do you do if

[46:49] someone says I did not

[46:52] use all of the

[46:55] , where

[46:56] does it go?

[46:57] >> the current process

[46:58] where it is grant funding, there is

[46:59] absolutely nothing we can do if they

[47:01] are not using it directly for services.

[47:02] >>

[47:03] but that is taxpayer dollars that

[47:04] were not utilized in the way that we originally

[47:07] --

[47:08] >> have you

[47:09] let them know they will be on hiatus?

[47:10] >> not yet. >> okay. Once you

[47:12] do some of them, again, these are

[47:13] public meetings and anyone can come

[47:14] and

[47:15] speak and ask, and they can. But if

[47:16] they

[47:19] want [ pause ]

[47:22] if they want

[47:23] to be heard or taken seriously or

[47:25] have any hope for a change, they are

[47:27] going to have to answer those questions

[47:28] and have to say

[47:31] , either give a plan or say that the figures are

[47:36] incorrect, or something. I will agree

[47:37] with the vice mayor. I think it

[47:39] behooves you to let these people know

[47:43] , unless it needs to go to the

[47:44] council first. But probably not. That

[47:46] they will be put on hiatus.

[47:49] now. Soon. So they can,

[47:51] if they want to, either respond or

[47:52] not. I would get

[47:57] that taken care of soon.

[47:58] >> we absolutely

[47:59] will councilmember. And

[48:01] with the timing it will give them the opportunity to

[48:04] make their case or reach out.

[48:07] may I ask a clarifying question?

[48:10] so, what I heard was that

[48:13] we are interested in

[48:14] moving the arts and culture grant

[48:19] funding to the arts and culture commission.

[48:22] I

[48:24] just want to clarify that we still

[48:25] intend for that funding to be

[48:27] used for the grant program. Is that correct?

[48:31] >> oh, oh! Otherwise it was

[48:34] going to be a [ pause ]

[48:37] I need to think about that.

[48:43] >> as

[48:45] opposed to what? Yes, it would be

[48:46] used.

[48:47] >> no. We were going to recommend

[48:48] for them to be contractual. As opposed

[48:49] to grants. Is that

[48:52] what you are saying?

[48:54] >> it is actually a two-part question.

[48:55] yes, we were intending for

[48:58] them to become contractual. So what

[49:00] I was saying earlier was still working through some

[49:04] of what the reporting will look

[49:07] like. So, how much do we give

[49:10] to theater 40? 50,000?

[49:15] >> 50,000. >> I am sure that the seizing

[49:16] costs more than 50,000. Right? We

[49:18] have to think through what that would

[49:19] look like. But the intention

[49:22] here was to move those four organizations into a contractual

[49:25] basis. So

[49:29] that is question one.

[49:31] >> I would support a contractual service. Adjust,

[49:34] I do not know if it will make more

[49:35] work or

[49:38] if it would help

[49:41] . I just thought if something is

[49:43] cultural, arts and culture, it should

[49:47] be in that division.

[49:49] but if it is too complicated and easier

[49:50] to

[49:51] have it all in one place, I am fine

[49:53] with putting it in

[49:56] . I think it is fine to make all

[49:59] of these contractual right now.

[50:00] >> yes, and that is entirely, you know,

[50:02] we will do

[50:03] whatever it is that the council would like to do.

[50:08] so it is a question

[50:11] to you. If that is

[50:12] the case, if we want to make them

[50:13] contractual, then I don't know that

[50:19] there would be a role for arts and

[50:20] culture.

[50:21] >> you

[50:22] are right. I didn't -- again, this

[50:23] was

[50:24] before I realized that all were becoming

[50:27] contractual. In that case I would

[50:29] keep it where it is.

[50:32] and

[50:34] let's try it and see how it goes this

[50:37] year with that process.

[50:38] >> we will

[50:39] still move it to

[50:40] community services, which is where the

[50:42] arts and culture funding , the larger

[50:47] program for the city

[50:49] is located. But they would be contractual

[50:50] just under community

[50:53] services, then under fire.

[50:56] >> well, would you agree

[50:59] with that?

[51:00] >> yes. Yes. >> I just

[51:01] think that we are providing services,

[51:02] I mean

[51:03] this is a beautiful service to give

[51:05] arts and culture

[51:08] to the community, but I

[51:09] think we have different budgeting issues.

[51:14] like set aside for that.

[51:15] >> yes. Okay. That is helpful. To

[51:17] I.

[51:18] >> thank you for clarifying.

[51:20] that

[51:21] was helpful. Anything else from you,

[51:22] sir? Okay. Thank you for being here.

[51:26] and the meeting is adjourned.

Beverly Hills City Council Liaison / Social Services Ad Hoc Committee Meeting

Agenda

Transcript