[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.