[0:09] Good morning everybody. I'm Lynette
[0:11] Wendel. I'm the vice chair of tier one.
[0:13] Thank you for coming today. We're going
[0:15] to call our Thursday, May 28th, 2026
[0:18] advisory boards orientation to order.
[0:22] Um and then do you want me to do the
[0:24] floor right now?
[0:27] >> Okay.
[0:29] So, I believe we have only one
[0:34] person online and one person excused.
[0:35] So, I'm just going to go ahead and read
[0:37] our order for names, their district, and
[0:40] the city. So, we have Amy McKay Butler,
[0:42] District 2 with South Jordan City. We
[0:45] have Andrea Mitchell Hansen, who I
[0:47] believe is online, District 6 in Sandy.
[0:51] Peter Clling is our chair. Uh he is from
[0:55] district three Murray City and he is
[0:57] excused today. Amanda Mullia is here in
[1:01] person. District 6 from Sandy City.
[1:04] Heidi Proop is here district one in Salt
[1:07] Lake City. Myself, Lynette Wendell. I'm
[1:09] district three in Taylorville. So you're
[1:12] sitting in my hometown. And then we have
[1:14] Rita White uh Wright who's district for
[1:17] the city of Holiday is in person as
[1:20] well.
[1:22] We'll turn to our tier two folks.
[1:23] >> Um, welcome to the uh tier two board
[1:26] members and anyone visiting uh we can
[1:29] open this meeting and we're going to
[1:30] also do the acknowledgement of our of
[1:32] our members. Um, we have so you'll just
[1:35] wave so we can know who you are. Um,
[1:36] we've got Alex Aman in district one from
[1:38] Salt Lake City and she's a new board
[1:40] member. Welcome. We have Brian Vanosel
[1:43] District 6 from Midale City and he is
[1:46] online. So, hi Brian.
[1:48] Welcome. He's also a new member. Um, we
[1:52] have Mayor Burton. Mayor Jerk Burton
[1:54] from West Jordan City representing
[1:56] district five. He
[1:58] >> must have
[2:01] he'll be back. Um, we have Mayor Dustin
[2:04] G from District 3 Midbell City and he's
[2:06] excused. We've got Cheryl Jillian from
[2:09] District 4 from Salt Lake City. She's
[2:11] also excused. We've got Kaylee Helm from
[2:14] District 2. Magma, welcome.
[2:16] >> Hi. Um, we have got Patty Hobo, District
[2:20] 6 from Sandy. We've got Katie, is it
[2:23] Musl Muslim?
[2:25] >> It's just a muscle.
[2:26] >> Muscle. Okay. Sorry. Katie Muscle from
[2:28] District 6 also from Sandy City and
[2:30] she's new. Welcome.
[2:32] >> We have uh David Pat. He from West
[2:34] Jordan district 5. Uh Sarah Pierce from
[2:37] District 4, City of Holiday. And you're
[2:40] also new. Welcome. Uh myself, I'm Paul
[2:43] Pearson. I'm the vice chair and I'm from
[2:45] Herman City in District 2. And we have
[2:47] Ryan Riches from District 5, City of
[2:49] South Jordan. Um, and Ryan,
[2:52] >> there you go. And that's it. So, welcome
[2:53] everybody and we'll turn the time back
[2:55] over to
[2:57] the chair, the
[3:01] » staff. Staff. Okay.
[3:04] >> Great. Well, I would love to welcome the
[3:05] board members, too. It's been really fun
[3:06] um to have existing board members and
[3:08] new board members meet and start
[3:10] talking. It's going to be a really great
[3:11] year and the whole team is is quite
[3:13] excited. Um, besides welcoming you, I
[3:15] also want to uh recognize the team so
[3:17] you know where everyone is. Cody gets as
[3:20] grants mostly tier two and then Kelsey
[3:24] Ellis, she handles our capacity
[3:25] building, so the impact program. We'll
[3:27] talk about that. Dustin, you guys
[3:29] probably get all your great invites to
[3:30] all the events. Dustin's really and then
[3:32] our intern who just started last week um
[3:35] who is here for the mayor's full work
[3:36] program and he'll be here with us for
[3:38] the summer special projects. And then
[3:40] Craig uh you guys all know Craig comes
[3:42] every year. He's from he's a senior
[3:43] district attorney and he opens.
[3:47] Just want to say hello to everyone. And
[3:49] then uh one more thing is uh I was out
[3:50] you all know I was out for about six
[3:52] weeks and um the team really put a lot
[3:55] of this together all on their own
[3:56] without me and they did a great job
[3:58] while I was going. I just want to
[3:59] recognize really today is brought to you
[4:00] by the Zach.
[4:07] » Um we learned our own way. If you want
[4:08] to stand up, you want to walk around,
[4:10] you want to raise your hand, you want to
[4:11] speak out, however, you want to do
[4:12] things is fine today. You can do
[4:13] something for freshman or the bathroom
[4:15] or you can do that at any time. Um, if
[4:18] there's discussion items that we don't
[4:19] really fit in for today's meeting, but
[4:20] you don't want forgotten, we have uh
[4:22] these are called parking lot post-its.
[4:24] Put them on here and give them to
[4:26] Dustin. He will record the parking lot
[4:27] items, put them on a list, and then
[4:29] we'll use them this summer. Um, as you
[4:30] know, we're going to be doing a little
[4:31] bit of um policy updates and board
[4:34] practices this summer. separate than
[4:36] this kind of function of the reviews.
[4:38] Um, and I'll talk more about that later,
[4:39] but those things will go in that parking
[4:41] lot item.
[4:43] Couple items. We mostly use Robert
[4:44] Robert's rules of order when we conduct
[4:46] our meetings. Um, I just want to share a
[4:48] couple things that we um sometimes need
[4:50] to correct each year, which is chairs
[4:52] can call for motions. They cannot make
[4:54] motions. So, if you're waiting for your
[4:55] chair to do that, they're just going to
[4:57] call for it. We're not able to do that.
[4:59] Um, and then when you adjourn a meeting,
[5:01] you don't need to wait for a second. And
[5:03] with um it's just one person So, those
[5:05] are a couple of small items that we kind
[5:07] of hiccup on a little each year and I
[5:08] just thought maybe bringing those to
[5:09] your attention would be helpful as we
[5:10] get going.
[5:12] I'm going to go over your agenda really
[5:14] quick. If you want to open your
[5:16] beautiful binders to the very section,
[5:19] the tier 2s have a tier 2 binder. The
[5:21] tier ones have a tier one binder. You
[5:23] have separate agendas. They're quite the
[5:25] same, but I'll just go over that really
[5:27] quickly. Um, after I speak, we're going
[5:29] to open up the public comment period and
[5:31] then we're going to take a couple small
[5:33] action items on the meeting minutes from
[5:35] last year. Each year at this
[5:36] orientation, we approve the last year's
[5:38] board meeting minutes. We then will move
[5:41] into an election process for the tier 2
[5:44] and I'll talk more about that when we
[5:45] get together. And then Craig Craig will
[5:47] chat with us for a few minutes about
[5:49] some things going on at the county
[5:50] related to open and public meetings.
[5:53] Just remember one important thing when
[5:54] it comes to public meetings.
[5:57] It's being recorded. Just a thought to
[6:00] be very generous with your words and
[6:02] corrective in your meetings and your
[6:03] intentions and purposes because it is
[6:05] being recorded and we do share this
[6:07] online for all of our grantees to learn.
[6:09] So, or the public course.
[6:12] I will go over the board manual in just
[6:14] a minute uh in a few minutes. And that's
[6:16] where we really get into the thick of
[6:17] things. That's where we're really
[6:18] warming is that section there. And then
[6:20] we move into some board practices. the
[6:23] board uh last year, earlier this year
[6:25] did some working groups separately from
[6:27] the reviews asking for some updates to
[6:30] the way that they all grant money. And
[6:31] so we're going to talk through those and
[6:32] then vote on those. Then we're going to
[6:34] do an engagement activity photos on a
[6:36] break and then at about 3:30 we are
[6:39] going to break up tier one. Please
[6:41] follow me upstairs to the boardroom.
[6:43] Tier two will remain in the centennial
[6:45] room to finish board separate breakout
[6:47] session. So um that's the agenda for
[6:51] today. Okay. Any questions on the agenda
[6:52] before I move on?
[6:54] >> Okay, great. Logistics. Oh, we can open
[6:59] that.
[7:05] » Oh, yeah. Just one second. I'm I'm
[7:07] almost there. I'm almost through your
[7:09] binders and then we totally can. Okay.
[7:11] So, the binders, uh, as you notice your
[7:13] agenda is the first page. After the
[7:14] second tab, you'll want to move to that.
[7:16] That's all the rosters. everyone's
[7:18] contact information and connect with
[7:19] each other and for y'all to get to know
[7:21] each other a little better. It's a way
[7:22] to kind of get started off on a a better
[7:24] clip than just names and districts. So,
[7:26] you'll see both boards contact
[7:28] information and bios.
[7:30] After the second tab, you will see the
[7:32] minutes from the last meeting. Again, we
[7:34] emailed these to you. You should have
[7:36] seen them online, but we did provide a
[7:38] paper copy for you for tier two and tier
[7:40] one to improve in just a few minutes.
[7:43] The third tab is capacity building.
[7:45] Again, this is Kelsey's work. This is
[7:47] the impact program. Um you'll see this
[7:49] here of some things coming up uh right
[7:52] around the corner that K's got interest
[7:54] form open. She has a virtual workshop in
[7:56] June and an inerson workshop in July.
[8:00] The fourth item if you're tier one you
[8:03] have one sheet of paper in there and it
[8:06] is for your proposal of your board
[8:07] practice update. If you're tier two you
[8:10] will have four proposals for change
[8:13] updates. So if you don't have those
[8:16] right board, let us know. We're happy to
[8:17] give you those pages. But again, that
[8:19] was act of the fourth tab.
[8:25] » Um after the fifth tab is the manual.
[8:27] It's all the same. It's everybody manual
[8:29] is the same for tier one and tier 2.
[8:31] Again, this is where we'll be spending
[8:33] the bulk of our time is walking through
[8:34] the manual. Some pieces there. And then
[8:36] the last item, as I was mentioning to
[8:39] Lynette earlier, this is an ancient
[8:40] Chinese area for you right here. These
[8:43] are the board bylaws from about 2011 for
[8:46] tier one, probably late 2012 for tier 2.
[8:49] And is one thing we'll be working on
[8:50] this summer is do we need to update
[8:52] these make sure the membership number is
[8:54] right, the obligations are correct, the
[8:56] roles and responsibilities and
[8:57] expectations of a public servant in
[8:59] there. So I just wanted to provide these
[9:01] as what we have right now, but just know
[9:03] we'll be refreshing these this summer
[9:04] because they need a little bit of
[9:05] adjusting of anything the county has
[9:06] updated and we haven't.
[9:09] So that is all on my section. Any
[9:12] questions on that?
[9:18] » Okay. Um we will open for public comment
[9:22] regarding tier one and zoological.
[9:24] >> We have here we have anybody online.
[9:29] >> Okay. Then I'll close the public comment
[9:31] for tier one and zoological.
[9:32] >> And I'll open it for tier two for public
[9:34] comment. If there's anyone visiting that
[9:36] would like to make a comment, please do
[9:37] so now.
[9:40] and we'll close the public comment
[9:42] because there's no public here.
[9:44] >> Thank you.
[9:45] >> Okay. And now tier one, if you will take
[9:47] a look at the last set of minutes that
[9:49] we had. Um I believe that's behind the
[9:51] second tab.
[9:54] >> And uh I hope you all had a chance to
[9:56] look at those. I found two things that I
[9:59] would like to note for correction. In um
[10:03] paragraph three, we have in the first
[10:05] sentence um or I guess it would be the
[10:07] second sentence, Miss Thurmas
[10:09] highlighted the detailed edits made by
[10:10] staff and from advisory staff that needs
[10:13] to be corrected to advisory board. And
[10:16] then under section five, um when Miss
[10:19] Wendell asked the advisory board to
[10:20] double check all the scores for NHMU,
[10:23] this came as a surprise to Miss Wendell.
[10:25] We had a bit of a system error if you'll
[10:27] recall where we um had an incidental or
[10:30] accidental zeroing out of one reviewer
[10:34] um that should have just been out but
[10:35] that was remedied and all scores should
[10:38] be reflected accurately in the history.
[10:40] I just felt that that remedy needed to
[10:43] be noted in the minutes. Is there any
[10:45] other comments, questions, corrections
[10:47] from the tier one board? If not, I'll
[10:50] accept a motion to approve.
[10:55] Okay, we've got a first and a second
[10:57] from um Amanda and from Rita. Well,
[11:00] Rita, we can't have you because she
[11:01] didn't attend the meeting.
[11:04] >> I'll do a motion to approve.
[11:06] >> I know you're so excited though. Sounded
[11:08] so good. Can I have a different person
[11:09] second, please?
[11:10] >> Amanda,
[11:11] >> I can.
[11:12] >> Oh,
[11:13] thank you so much. Okay, minutes are
[11:16] approved from our meeting on November
[11:18] 17th, 2025.
[11:20] >> And tier 2 held a meeting on uh
[11:22] September 9th, 2025. It was a virtual
[11:24] meeting and uh we discussed several
[11:27] items about funding finalization. The
[11:29] only edit that I would have to the
[11:30] minutes is my name got spelled wrong in
[11:32] number three.
[11:34] >> But besides that, that's all I saw. Is
[11:36] there anybody who attended the meeting
[11:37] who has any corrections?
[11:41] Okay. Then I will accept a motion to
[11:43] approve the minutes from people who are
[11:44] there.
[11:45] >> Dave
[11:49] Burton seconds.
[11:53] Second.
[11:54] >> Uh, okay. Well, now I call for a vote.
[11:57] Right.
[11:57] >> All in favor of uh approving the minutes
[11:59] as with the minor correction. Uh, please
[12:02] raise your hand. Any opposed?
[12:05] >> Thank you.
[12:06] >> Is that a minor correction or major?
[12:09] >> Well, that's just my spelling of my name
[12:11] and I don't I'll answer to anything
[12:13] really. So,
[12:17] weren't
[12:17] >> you in charge of proof reading the
[12:18] minutes? So, um that
[12:24] Um the the next item is at the very
[12:26] bottom here. I think it's forward to the
[12:28] sorry I have a facilitator agenda. It is
[12:32] towards the middle agenda and the
[12:33] election of the tier 2. It's item number
[12:37] six. Um we had some changes uh between
[12:40] cycles. So between the last board
[12:41] meeting at the end of the year and this
[12:43] first orientation meeting um we had some
[12:45] conflict of interest with our two board.
[12:48] Um and so uh we have a couple members
[12:50] who are no longer being the board uh
[12:52] partly due to complications and one of
[12:54] them is due to uh personal obligations.
[12:57] It was just tough to continue. They've
[12:58] already served on the board for a term
[13:00] and we're already in their second term
[13:02] which is difficult. So Bren and Gina um
[13:05] aren't with us this year um and so they
[13:07] are no longer that board and so um we
[13:10] need to have an election so that we have
[13:12] a chair to help the staff and to move
[13:14] things forward and and a vice chair. Um
[13:16] Paul was already vice chair and was
[13:19] probably going to be moving after chair.
[13:21] He was nominated and then Patty's the
[13:23] immediate past chair before
[13:27] Gina. Um and so we we uh had a
[13:30] conversation about her being nominated
[13:31] and she was willing to uh take that on.
[13:34] But are there any other nominations you
[13:36] want to make for yourself or for others
[13:38] with the tier 2 board leadership?
[13:42] >> I would I actually have 18 more months
[13:45] to ser on the board. Actually, I could
[13:46] serve in that seat next year.
[13:50] >> Um, interested in uh the chair or vice
[13:52] chair.
[13:52] >> Vice chair.
[13:57] » Um, are there is there any discussion or
[13:59] questions? Again, if you want to talk
[14:00] offline, you want to learn more, I can
[14:02] share that with you, but it's not for
[14:04] public consumption. Um, it wasn't
[14:06] anything negative, but uh it's it's just
[14:08] a change. So, we normally don't have
[14:10] that of a change. So, we want to make
[14:12] sure we get leadership in place. Any
[14:14] other nominations,
[14:16] questions, conversation?
[14:18] Okay. I don't know if we want to hold a
[14:19] vote or we want to have a conversation
[14:21] around um I guess for chair you as the
[14:25] nominee two nominees have a conversation
[14:28] Paul or what you want to do.
[14:30] >> Oh, what you mean for next year?
[14:31] >> For next year.
[14:32] >> I'm so sorry. I apologize. Okay. So, we
[14:34] have just one each. Okay. Wonderful.
[14:37] Well, great. So, um let's go ahead and
[14:40] consider uh I think the chair first
[14:42] probably there. I mean the vice chair.
[14:45] Um so it's vote and no I'm on the board.
[14:48] I'm usually position. Um let's call for
[14:52] a vote for the tier 2 board um to have
[14:55] Paul become the chair as of this year.
[14:57] It'll be one calendar year. He can renew
[15:00] for one calendar year. That's how we run
[15:02] the cadence of this board. So if we run
[15:04] for this calendar year or this grant
[15:05] cycle essentially. Um and then we'll see
[15:08] if Patty wants to move back up chair or
[15:10] if she wants to do something different
[15:12] for now. help us out. We'll just have
[15:13] that conversation, but she would also be
[15:16] here to help us.
[15:19] So, let's start with Paul. Um, I don't
[15:21] know for a vote or how we do this.
[15:24] >> Well,
[15:26] for let
[15:29] you know that the vote is not electronic
[15:34] attendees, then you must do a local
[15:43] Okay. So, I'm gonna call for a vote for
[15:46] Paul to be chair of the cheer to
[15:48] advisory.
[15:50] All in favor?
[15:54] » Any opposed?
[15:58] » Brian, would you mind speaking one more
[16:00] time?
[16:01] >> Yeah, that was an I or a vote for yes.
[16:04] Sorry.
[16:05] >> Great. Thank you. Having served on the
[16:07] Salt Lake County Performing Electronics
[16:09] Board as a chair for a couple years, um
[16:12] it seemed like we actually had to do a
[16:14] roster. Well, literally had go, you
[16:17] know, and ensure that everyone had an
[16:19] opportunity to vote I seemed like we did
[16:22] that, but did we follow policy?
[16:25] >> More complicated than that.
[16:27] >> Uh this is a statute, okay, that came
[16:29] out during the pandemic,
[16:31] >> right? and basically said if it's not
[16:35] unanimous.
[16:36] So if one person objects you you've got
[16:39] to do a roll do okay that's
[16:42] >> it does not apply to unanimous vote.
[16:46] So this was just fine.
[16:49] >> So let's just be unanimous so
[16:50] everything.
[16:53] >> You know a lot of people don't uh
[16:55] realize it. So I just wanted to clarify.
[16:57] >> That's why
[16:59] you
[17:00] >> I don't know if I call for a post but if
[17:02] I didn't
[17:04] >> you did great. Sounds like it carries
[17:06] unanimously.
[17:08] >> Yes. Great. Congratulations.
[17:16] All right, we'll do the same round for
[17:17] Patty. Uh, Patty, vice chair, tier 2
[17:19] advisory board for this year. Um, all in
[17:23] favor
[17:25] >> I
[17:29] opposed.
[17:31] Great. Congratulations, Patty. Carious.
[17:36] » Great.
[17:38] Alrighty. Um,
[17:41] next
[17:43] I think Craig this is you. You already
[17:46] started. We've already learned a couple
[17:47] things today.
[17:49] >> This is your annual open meetings
[17:51] training
[17:53] uh public policy statement. The board
[17:55] exists to conduct people's business and
[17:59] it should take actions openly and
[18:01] conduct deliberations openly.
[18:06] The definition of a meeting is a forum
[18:08] present being expressly for the purpose
[18:12] of acting as a public body
[18:16] and to receive public comment,
[18:19] deliberate about and take action on
[18:22] relevant matters within the scope of the
[18:25] board's authority.
[18:27] As a general rule, meetings are open to
[18:29] the public unless there's a legal basis
[18:32] for closing.
[18:36] However, the uh public is not allowed to
[18:40] interrupt the meeting or uh interfere
[18:44] with its
[18:48] includes workshops, executive sessions
[18:51] of which a forum is pre present.
[18:55] Prior to the meeting, public notice must
[18:58] be published, including the agenda,
[19:01] time, date, and place of the meeting and
[19:05] published on the Utah public notice
[19:06] website not less than 24 hours before
[19:09] the meeting.
[19:11] Topics must be provided with reasonable
[19:13] specificity
[19:15] that puts the public on notice what's
[19:17] going to be discussed.
[19:20] Except for emergency circumstances, the
[19:22] board not may not take a final action on
[19:25] topics unless they've met the public
[19:28] notice requirement.
[19:32] Public comment county has an ordinance
[19:36] passed by the council requiring that
[19:38] each board have a public notice public
[19:41] comment period prior to the beginning of
[19:44] the meeting.
[19:49] Each meeting must uh be recorded and
[19:53] minutes must be taken.
[19:55] Once those minutes are adopted, they are
[19:57] in the official record of the meeting.
[20:02] You may close meetings,
[20:05] but only for the reasons specified in
[20:08] Utah code annotated 52-4-205.
[20:13] I used to uh list those out when there
[20:16] were six or seven of them, but the
[20:18] legislaturator has gotten really carried
[20:20] away with how many reasons you can uh
[20:22] close anything now. So if you can get
[20:25] that number again, I'll look it up.
[20:26] >> Oh yeah. 52-4-205.
[20:30] >> Thank you.
[20:33] >> You know, some of the reasons you could
[20:35] close is
[20:37] reasonably imminent litigation strategy
[20:40] sessions. uh
[20:43] discussions about security or
[20:46] discussions about real real estate that
[20:48] could hinder uh negotiations.
[20:52] Close a meeting. A quorum must be
[20:54] present and twothirds must vote in favor
[20:57] of closure and you must state the reason
[20:59] you're closing on the record.
[21:02] No votes can be taken in a closed
[21:04] meeting.
[21:06] You can't participate in a meeting
[21:10] electronically. If there are
[21:13] an anchor location and there is a policy
[21:16] in place that allows electronic
[21:18] attendance
[21:20] as I said is a not unanimous it needs to
[21:24] be roll up
[21:27] is that for any motion
[21:30] >> uh any motion is voted on
[21:34] let's see here
[21:38] the body may not act together outside a
[21:41] meeting in a concerted way, concerted or
[21:44] deliberate way to predetermine an
[21:46] action.
[21:48] Email and text between board members is
[21:52] not restricted
[21:54] uh
[21:56] but shouldn't do it during a convened
[21:59] board meeting and those emails are
[22:01] subject to ground.
[22:04] The penalties for violating the
[22:06] communities act is the action can be
[22:09] avoided
[22:11] but that mistake can be cured by
[22:14] remedial action. So if you want to vote
[22:16] on it again in a subsequent meeting
[22:18] that's been properly noticed you can
[22:20] cure that
[22:23] and knowingly in or intentional
[22:25] violation of the act is a class B
[22:27] misdemeanor.
[22:29] I've never seen anybody punch or
[22:32] prosecuted on that, but the attorney
[22:34] general can do that.
[22:38] That's the end of my presentation. Any
[22:41] questions?
[22:45] » Okay,
[22:46] >> this will be my last presentation.
[22:50] >> Two months I retired.
[22:53] >> So
[22:55] enjoy.
[22:59] You can come back cuz the public person
[23:08] » you lie about.
[23:12] » Thanks so much.
[23:23] Um, regarding the procedural things like
[23:25] what Craig chatted about is we usually
[23:26] look at the chairs and the vice chair to
[23:28] know that information. Um, and we we can
[23:30] develop a one pager for you. Um, what
[23:33] might be helpful as a guide for everyone
[23:34] else? Well, for the chairs, but for
[23:36] everyone else, would that be helpful if
[23:37] you have a little bit of that not the
[23:39] same training every year, but would it
[23:40] be helpful to have like a one pager like
[23:42] tips and then some of the Robert's rules
[23:43] pieces in there?
[23:46] Great. Thank you.
[23:48] Alrighty. Um, this is where we sit and
[23:52] hold on and go fast.
[23:55] Okay. I'm going to be talking for a few
[23:57] minutes and we're going to walk for it
[23:58] to everybody. If you want to get up, if
[24:00] you need a drink or whatever, um, I'm
[24:02] basically going to be walking you
[24:03] through the manual in some ways and
[24:05] chatting with you about some things.
[24:07] Cody is going to co-host this
[24:09] conversation. Um, make sure that I don't
[24:12] miss anything. But if you want to look
[24:13] at the manual, so they're after the buy
[24:14] tab five. Again, it's going to generally
[24:17] follow the manual. It won't specifically
[24:19] necessarily follow the manual, but um we
[24:23] might want to look at that.
[24:32] Great. So the agenda um is just to
[24:35] provide a little bit of information
[24:36] about the basics of the program, how we
[24:38] started, our history on the team. you've
[24:41] already been introduced, too. Um, and
[24:42] then we'll move into um advisory board
[24:45] overview, review and scoring criteria,
[24:48] board practice proposals, and then
[24:49] Cody's going to spend a few minutes just
[24:50] making sure everyone feels comfortable
[24:52] and submittable and answering any regard
[24:54] that. Um, today what we're hoping to do,
[24:57] so I think most of you have a base
[24:58] whether you've been here for a minute or
[24:59] two or you are a new member, we had new
[25:02] member orientation last week or have had
[25:04] a chance to maybe sit and talk. A couple
[25:06] things we want to make sure we have out
[25:07] of today. Uh we're here today to orient
[25:09] you for careful responsible review to
[25:11] make informed decisions about SAP. So
[25:15] understanding grant making basics,
[25:17] understanding how to move in submittable
[25:18] and feel comfortable and then
[25:19] understanding responsibilities with
[25:21] being
[25:23] those topics today.
[25:26] We've met the team already.
[25:29] All right. Okay. So you all know the
[25:31] mission is to enhance Salt Lake County
[25:33] resident visitor experiences through
[25:34] arts, cultural and recreational
[25:37] offerings. Um we do this in three ways
[25:39] in the board manual. You can look on
[25:41] pages uh three and four and we'll talk
[25:44] about that. Um grant making y'all are
[25:46] part of that we do every year and we'll
[25:49] talk about that first. Promotion is some
[25:52] of the items and awareness sorry some of
[25:54] the things that we do awareness destroy
[25:57] the values act taxpayers know where
[25:59] their dollar is going and we do that
[26:02] mostly promoting grantee events and
[26:03] happenings. Capacity building is a newer
[26:06] space for us. This is where Kelsey works
[26:08] for impact program and this is provides
[26:10] support mostly to tier 2s but also tier
[26:13] ones. Um she does everything from uh
[26:15] operations of an organization uh to
[26:18] actually what they do um as an
[26:21] organization their craft. So be from
[26:23] learning your financials doing marketing
[26:26] communications over to items such as um
[26:30] volunteer. How do you get a volunteer
[26:33] group together and um get them going and
[26:35] working for you?
[26:37] Zappa started in 96. Um so next year
[26:40] will be our 30th anniversary. We'll be
[26:42] doing some things around that. We're
[26:44] excited. Um and the first year grants
[26:46] were given out was in 97. So it's pretty
[26:49] cool. This last uh reauthorization we
[26:52] reauthorized by the voters every 10
[26:53] years was 79.33%.
[26:56] So nearly 80% of the voters in Salt Lake
[26:58] County that voted for it uh for
[27:00] approving it.
[27:03] This is historical funding. This will
[27:04] give you some perspective on your work
[27:07] this year. So we get about 36 million
[27:10] maybe just a north 36 million that's one
[27:13] cent of every $10 spent in sales and use
[27:16] tax. Um and so north 36 you can see how
[27:19] it is here. Uh tier one is the large
[27:22] organizations. That's 22. Those are the
[27:24] bigger um organizations in our valley.
[27:26] Parks and wreck doesn't do it through
[27:28] grants and we don't administer
[27:32] money. There we go. Um, uh, park uses it
[27:36] for operations. So, it's their parks,
[27:38] their trails, their open spaces, and
[27:40] their rec centers. Zoological is three
[27:42] organizations, an aviary, an aquarium,
[27:45] and a loop. Um, and then tier 2 is the
[27:49] smaller organizations in our community,
[27:50] usually the local organizations. And
[27:52] last year, y'all approved 108.
[27:55] So,
[27:59] » they're not busy at all.
[28:01] >> Okay, now here's the next perspective.
[28:03] Ready? This is as yesterday's stats. So,
[28:07] uh, yesterday's stats, uh, Cody went in
[28:09] the system and took a look. There are 26
[28:12] applicants, um, compending if everybody
[28:14] turns their application in by tomorrow
[28:16] at 5:00. Uh, there's 26 applicants for
[28:18] tier one and Zoologic plus 25 spots. So,
[28:21] that'll be interesting this year. Um,
[28:24] and then, um, the tier 2 folks, you're
[28:27] about running where you were last year,
[28:29] 214 applications, passing eligibility
[28:32] checks. Um, and then 21 new applicants
[28:35] so far, but there will be more new
[28:36] applicants. I think that's just a good number for us to have as of
[28:41] yesterday, but we're seeing Cody saw
[28:42] some volume um curve between last night
[28:45] and
[28:47] one last statement on
[28:50] >> Well, we'll have to see, right? We'll
[28:52] have to see.
[28:53] >> So, but that they probably passed
[28:56] applica passed eligibility checks,
[28:58] right? So, 14 that group is included in
[29:02] both. Correct.
[29:02] >> Yeah. Yes. Yes. That's a good point.
[29:04] >> Uh last year I believe your your budget
[29:06] uh for chair 2 was just over 3.4. Um so
[29:09] is that correct? 45. So this year you
[29:12] have 3624
[29:14] um for the budget for you to have. Um to
[29:17] give some perspective again this is
[29:19] current as of yesterday. Last year tier
[29:23] 2 had 5.5 million in requests and you
[29:25] had a $3.4 million budget. 331
[29:29] applications you received and you
[29:30] approved 218.
[29:33] Last year there were 28 applications for
[29:36] tier one and zoological and 25 approvals
[29:38] for about 20 $22 million.
[29:42] So busy year be great.
[29:45] This is what the cycle looks like
[29:46] overall. So not just the review cycle
[29:48] but the whole cycle. So at the beginning
[29:50] of year we start promoting it to get
[29:51] people to do eligibility starting in
[29:53] March. Um and get all those turned in.
[29:56] We do webinars. You all saw that we've
[29:59] published a manual for our grants. Then
[30:01] we move to the phase that we're in right
[30:02] now, which is the applications are open
[30:04] until tomorrow. Um, and then next week,
[30:07] of course, we'll be able to let you know
[30:08] what the specific numbers are of where
[30:09] you can get us some metrics on that. But
[30:11] it closes tomorrow and then we move on
[30:13] to the next phase, which is June through
[30:15] September. The advisory boards come
[30:17] together and do work and deliberations
[30:20] to have our bulk here is to have
[30:23] everything to council by October. Um
[30:26] some years are challenging and we have
[30:27] to do things separately or later. I know
[30:29] that tier one we got we did it in
[30:31] November uh just because they had some
[30:33] extra applicants. Um and then the last
[30:36] phase is really where um the board
[30:38] doesn't have to do any commitments in
[30:40] this area. This is where we um give
[30:42] official award notice and then we get
[30:44] their contracts ready for them and get
[30:46] them in the payment system for the next
[30:48] year. So that's really Cody and I are
[30:49] doing that at the end.
[30:59] Any questions?
[31:03] All righty. So we're going to move to uh
[31:05] talking more about the board. Um there
[31:06] are two main priorities of the board to
[31:08] do their work and it's to review all the
[31:10] applications with due diligence and then
[31:12] provide official funding recommendations
[31:14] in writing to council every year for
[31:17] their approval and consider
[31:18] consideration and approval. The
[31:20] composition um is right here uh seven
[31:23] members for tier one and super logical
[31:26] and they perform reviews at the all day
[31:29] together but during the summer where
[31:31] they spend their time is site visits
[31:33] going to meetings and going to
[31:34] performances. Um sometimes there's more
[31:35] than one site visit. Sometimes they go
[31:37] together. Some of the stuff they really
[31:38] do just spend their summer um going on
[31:41] site and on location more than one time
[31:43] to get to know the grantee to compare
[31:45] the application uh to what they're
[31:47] seeing on the county. Tier 2 can have up
[31:50] to 13 members. Remember we changed last
[31:52] year we read the code a little
[31:53] differently. We went from 11 to 13. Um
[31:56] we are down one this year. We're going
[31:57] to just go with 12 this year. It just it
[31:59] was taking We all know how long this
[32:01] took this year, right? Yeah. Okay. Okay.
[32:03] So, we just cut it off and said we're
[32:05] just going to go with 12 this year,
[32:06] which will help. Um, and then you'll
[32:08] review in the discipline subcommittees.
[32:09] Uh, Cody will talk to you in the
[32:11] breakout session about how he's going to
[32:12] break those up when your appointments
[32:14] are, which subcommittees you are on, um,
[32:16] and some of those details. But, um, he
[32:19] does give about a month to review those
[32:22] applications for each of those sub.
[32:24] Sometimes it's kind of weeks.
[32:26] Then, um, in August, we meet um, the
[32:29] tier
[32:31] ones meet in August. This is backwards
[32:33] from We switched it. Talk about why in
[32:35] just a minute. But the tier ones
[32:36] typically meet in September. This year,
[32:37] starting this year, we're going to meet
[32:38] in August. And the tier 2 typically
[32:40] would be in August. They're going to
[32:42] start meeting in September. We'll talk
[32:43] about that. But those all day reviews,
[32:45] hopefully we come out of those with
[32:47] official recommendations and don't have
[32:49] to do follow-up meetings, but sometimes
[32:51] we'll be follow-up meetings. We try to
[32:52] keep those virtual and not in person.
[32:54] So, it's a drain. But we have star
[32:56] students sometimes who show up in droves
[33:00] and we have a meeting on site.
[33:03] Um, okay. So, review practice guiding
[33:06] principles, these five principles. Um,
[33:08] oh, I'm sorry.
[33:09] >> Do you have the date for the all day
[33:11] meeting already?
[33:12] >> Yes. I'm sorry. I thought I put it on
[33:14] calendars, but I'm happy to do that now.
[33:16] >> Sometimes.
[33:17] >> Oh, you know what? You're right. I think
[33:18] we have to use the calendars, too.
[33:20] >> Yeah. Okay.
[33:21] >> So, um, in August, the tier um ones are
[33:24] meeting on the 27th
[33:28] of August from 9 to 4. If you don't have
[33:31] an invitation, I can send it back out.
[33:32] You can also send it in our followup
[33:34] email. Um, so everyone has it. And then
[33:37] if we need a follow-up meeting, y'all
[33:39] got if you didn't already get an email,
[33:40] you got last night.
[33:44] Um, oh, the bottom of your agenda.
[33:46] >> Yes, that's what I said. Was at the
[33:48] bottom of your last important dates.
[33:50] >> Important dates.
[33:52] But for the tier ones, we have a
[33:54] follow-up meeting. It is on uh the 10th
[33:57] of September. Great. And if we have a
[33:59] follow-up meeting for tier 2, your tier
[34:01] 2 meeting is on September 24th, 9 to 4,
[34:04] but if you have a follow-up meeting,
[34:05] that virtual 2hour will be on uh October
[34:08] 8th. Does that make sense? Again, we
[34:11] hope to not have those follow-up
[34:12] meetings, but you can look at the bottom
[34:13] of your agendas and see the primary
[34:15] ones. You move through this summer.
[34:16] Y'all can make a decision together if
[34:18] you want followup meeting. It's going to
[34:19] take more time than the all day.
[34:24] » Thank you. Of course.
[34:27] Can I ask
[34:30] you can skip it if you don't if we don't
[34:32] have time but um when you were talking
[34:34] about tier one and saying that extra
[34:36] applicant how do we deal with that then
[34:37] do site visits and then like figure out
[34:40] at the end like who kind of doesn't
[34:42] quite
[34:43] >> yeah I'll go over it quickly because
[34:44] we're going to spend a lot you're not
[34:45] we're going to spend a lot a little bit
[34:46] more time on that exact question in just
[34:48] a second but I'll go like this so
[34:51] typically I assign out the reviewer
[34:53] assignments to everyone so like Lynette
[34:55] got four um Amy got four because you're
[34:59] new. Um Rita did get three as well. Um
[35:01] so I I do them based on the current
[35:04] grantees. So 25 granties get I I give
[35:07] the reviewers out. Then I usually give
[35:09] the chair one last. So I give them
[35:10] three. So this year I gave Peter three.
[35:12] So whoever the new one is for tier two,
[35:14] I will give Peter that as review, but I
[35:16] won't start his review or do the
[35:18] introduction email to that organization
[35:20] until we know they've turned the
[35:21] application. They're not a current
[35:22] grantee. Right? Does that make sense?
[35:24] Then um let's say that um they don't get
[35:28] the money in tier one. They've already
[35:32] automatically applied through
[35:33] submittable. This year we fixed that
[35:35] loophole that if someone wants to apply
[35:37] to tier one or tier two. Um it
[35:40] automatically in the system will apply
[35:42] to both. Does that make sense? We had
[35:43] that loophole we've had for years. We
[35:45] think we've got it mostly fixed. Cody's
[35:47] probably going to give me a side eye,
[35:48] but it's mostly fixed. And so this
[35:51] person has both in.
[35:53] >> Sorry. Does that mean that all 24 or
[35:56] whatever applications are all they all
[35:58] have their tier two application in
[36:00] essentially as well?
[36:02] >> So I can start on that if you want me
[36:03] to.
[36:04] >> Okay. So we recommended the tier ones
[36:06] that were in the bottom 25 percentile.
[36:09] We know who those were last year. We
[36:10] identified this or they received a
[36:11] caution or warning letter from Zap about
[36:14] the performance or conduct. Um, we've
[36:16] recommended that they go ahead and
[36:18] answer the tier 2 application questions
[36:21] of how much money and what are you going
[36:23] to use it for. Again, that's that's not
[36:25] something they ask in tier one. So that
[36:27] the tier 2 board has that information.
[36:29] >> The reason we switched the board
[36:31] meetings was so that tier one can meet
[36:33] first and make their decision on who
[36:35] their 25 are and who isn't one of those
[36:38] 25. Then the tier 2 board can either
[36:41] look at it as, oh, this is a tier one
[36:42] coming back to tier two or this is just
[36:45] a normal tier two staying in tier two
[36:47] and you all can make a better decision
[36:49] because tier one uh tier one really
[36:51] wrestled with that last year with the
[36:53] three additional applicants from tier
[36:55] two. So hopefully that will both be
[36:58] >> but we'll talk more about that in just a
[36:59] couple minutes and see more detail if
[37:01] that wasn't.
[37:05] » Okay, so we have five guiding
[37:06] principles. Um we really um we all want
[37:09] your expertise from where you are in
[37:10] your experience in life. Um but we just
[37:12] want to make sure that those um deliver
[37:14] in the form of equitable and and um you
[37:16] know criteria based reviews and not not
[37:20] subjective to um kind of bias. I'll talk
[37:23] more about that just a second. OB
[37:25] objectivity. Um again we want to make
[37:28] sure that um we're not interfering in
[37:29] any applications programming applicants
[37:31] programming. So, if you're going to the
[37:32] board meetings, if you're going to their
[37:34] events or functions, um please just be a
[37:36] patron. Um and unless you're there on
[37:38] official visit, we wouldn't want it to
[37:40] be interrupted or any kind of changes
[37:42] forced upon by members. I haven't
[37:45] experienced that yet. So, that that's a
[37:46] good thing. Five years. That's great.
[37:48] Confidentiality. Um again, um any
[37:51] information that you're discussing in
[37:52] your meetings is not released to the
[37:54] public by you or by us until a
[37:57] preliminary decision by the board
[37:58] officially has been voted on and then
[38:00] allow staff to do that. So, we want to
[38:02] notify all applicants at the same time
[38:04] of the decisions. Um this stuff doesn't
[38:07] become public record until after council
[38:09] approves it. Then people can do a
[38:11] groundwork report. But please, if you're
[38:13] on a board with somebody, please don't
[38:14] share any kind of conversations for
[38:16] deliberations. If people ask you, please
[38:17] refer them to staff. And then conflicts
[38:20] of interest. Um, y'all saw the rounds of
[38:22] that this year. We wanted to really make
[38:24] sure we changed our process. We started
[38:26] asking for conflicts of interest at the
[38:27] beginning of the year instead of after
[38:29] you were put onto the board as new
[38:31] members. And then media inquiries. Um,
[38:33] please turn media inquiries to Zap. We
[38:35] do have to get county uh approval for
[38:37] that and then we can help you do those
[38:39] things. Sometimes we might contact you
[38:41] for media as well. If we need a quote
[38:42] from you, we might need a press release
[38:44] or do an interview, we will contact you.
[38:47] Okay. Okay, we're going to talk just a
[38:48] second about um I keep turning to what
[38:51] we want. So, let's go to page uh 22
[38:55] and 23 of the manual
[38:58] page numbers.
[39:00] 22 and 23.
[39:06] Okay. So, we're going to talk about bias
[39:08] just for a second. on something that
[39:10] other boards brought up last year and
[39:12] grantees especially brought up uh um
[39:14] just recently because we've had meetings
[39:16] with a few grantees about some things.
[39:18] Um there is a process for full circle
[39:20] feedback. So whatever y'all are sharing
[39:22] that you have observations of we do take
[39:25] notes of those. We make sure that you
[39:27] proof them, the whole board agrees to
[39:28] them and then we give them to the
[39:29] grantee so they can be they can um
[39:32] improve. Um what we don't want to see is
[39:34] comments that aren't with the scoring
[39:36] criteria.
[39:37] examples are their parking isn't good.
[39:40] Um things another example is they should
[39:43] be having a new audience with K through
[39:44] 12 and that's a very specific pigeon
[39:46] hole thing that might not be there. And
[39:48] so please make sure that your your
[39:50] feedback isn't personal opinions but is
[39:51] related to the criteria. Um and uh that
[39:55] is potentially accurate. That doesn't
[39:56] always have to be the case, but uh from
[39:58] an outside point of view, sometimes they
[40:00] really appreciate when you have
[40:01] something they can they can tick off
[40:03] their wisdom and prove right away.
[40:06] Did I forget anything around?
[40:07] >> Just want to say some of the things that
[40:09] we talked about um in the submittable
[40:12] onboardings where the strengths and
[40:13] weaknesses those bullet points are going
[40:15] to be really helpful for us as we're
[40:18] working to craft those official comments
[40:20] that you all approve. Um, so as you're
[40:22] mindful in doing your review, be mindful
[40:25] of of making those those straight to the
[40:28] point, actionable, and related to the um
[40:31] application scoring criteria um and even
[40:34] relating it to the category where you
[40:36] notice maybe a strength or a weakness um
[40:39] that that they need to look. That'll be
[40:41] just very helpful. It makes us when you
[40:43] know um we love when applicants come and
[40:46] check on their about their scores um and
[40:50] just talk, get feedback. Um, so but the
[40:54] more actionable and more direct that you
[40:55] can make it, that just makes it a lot
[40:57] easier for us to do uh that work.
[41:04] » We're going to talk to one process on a
[41:06] high overview area. You can that's on
[41:09] page 19.
[41:12] Um, and you it starts on it goes through
[41:15] one. I believe I sent this out
[41:17] separately. It was the um site visit and
[41:21] activities observation checklist for
[41:23] your site visits members. You do have
[41:25] this already, but we did put it in a
[41:27] manual so that everything's kind of in
[41:29] one collective place. But um the site
[41:31] list is the first time we've done this.
[41:32] We've been asked by board members and by
[41:35] applicants to have more of a framework.
[41:37] It wasn't it wasn't really a framework.
[41:39] And so we've also provided a version of
[41:41] this to the board or I mean sorry to the
[41:43] executive director. Um for so for tier
[41:46] ones you should know that this list that
[41:48] you have um there's a very similar one
[41:50] that applicants that you're going to
[41:51] visit have. If you want to see an exact
[41:53] copy of that it's in the grant manual.
[41:55] So a lot of things if anything's not in
[41:57] this manual here it's just because it's
[41:59] in the grant manual. you can access that
[42:00] online and we also sent that to so um
[42:04] couple quick things to think about is
[42:06] when you're on a factf finding mission
[42:07] to observe the organization and their
[42:09] activities um against their application
[42:11] and what you're saying there
[42:13] um and it's really an opportunity for
[42:14] you to assess um things for them and
[42:17] help them from the outside point of view
[42:19] with with the Zap um
[42:23] reviewing and sharing and synthesis is
[42:24] really important for tier one because
[42:25] y'all don't meet as a whole group for
[42:27] the entire summer so taking notes. Uh
[42:30] you can take them in um submittable if
[42:33] you'd like to. Uh you can take your own
[42:34] notes however you want. We have
[42:36] spreadsheets if that's easier for you.
[42:38] Just remember anything you put in the
[42:39] system can be grammar um and can be made
[42:43] public uh publicly available. Things you
[42:46] keep yourself um are not groundable. So
[42:50] I would keep your notes. Um we try to do
[42:52] what's called a mini SWAT. You don't
[42:54] have to be that like you don't have to
[42:55] take that manual and read it but but
[42:57] just two or three items that you found
[43:00] were really positive about the
[43:01] organization you found unique filling a
[43:03] gap the way they're serving the
[43:04] community some special thing they're
[43:05] doing or the opposite which is maybe an
[43:08] opportunity that you see a gap in the
[43:10] organization you don't feel like they're
[43:11] delivering in a particular area of their
[43:12] missions that they're delivering um
[43:14] write those down as well too because we
[43:16] will um talk about those with you all
[43:17] day. So keep keep your notes and be
[43:19] ready to really share um with the whole
[43:22] group so the deliberation can happen. Um
[43:24] we also don't want to regurgitate or re
[43:28] um
[43:29] you don't want to just restate the
[43:31] application restate the application but
[43:33] really your observations. Everyone's
[43:34] read the application in tier one and you
[43:37] tier one all all board members review
[43:40] and score all applicants and you
[43:43] profoundly review all day the ones.
[43:49] Oh yeah.
[43:51] >> And sorry to
[43:53] excited to be here. I'm Matt Mio with um
[43:56] the Salt Lake County Division
[44:00] team. I'm excited to see all of you
[44:02] again and many of you again and welcome
[44:05] some new faces here. Um just one quick
[44:08] thing um to add on the the site visits
[44:11] for the lead reviewers. One of the
[44:13] things that we've been really working on
[44:15] over the last few years is improving um
[44:17] the kind of ongoing feedback and
[44:19] monitoring of
[44:22] board concerns that are then shared with
[44:24] the organizations and then kind of
[44:26] monitoring those on an ongoing basis and
[44:29] I don't know Samantha you already went
[44:30] through this but we've um we we've been
[44:33] working really hard to synthesize your
[44:34] concerns your notes share those with the
[44:36] organizations and particularly those
[44:38] that have really significant concerns
[44:40] we've been meeting directly with them I think the the site visits are a great
[44:44] opportunity um for you as board members
[44:47] to kind of review what was shared from
[44:49] the board. There's concerns last year
[44:50] and follow up specifically on those and
[44:52] really get a good understanding of how
[44:54] the organizations are responding to
[44:56] those because I imagine
[44:58] that that will again become a
[45:00] significant topic of conversation as you
[45:02] all are reviewing the application.
[45:04] Sorry, just add that as something
[45:05] particular for those organizations that
[45:07] were in the pile of rankings last year.
[45:12] Just reviewing those notes and following
[45:14] up with those as part of your your
[45:16] cycles.
[45:21] » Couple things we're doing towards that
[45:22] area. We haven't completely closed that
[45:23] loophole, but a couple things we're
[45:25] doing is the mentoring this year is more
[45:27] official. I mean it's not we haven't
[45:28] solidified the process yet but we did
[45:29] assign board members to tier one to meet
[45:32] Lynette and Peter and others so that you
[45:34] can get crossover information
[45:36] crosspollinated. Um I also heard people
[45:38] talking in this conversation already
[45:40] about like let's link up even if you're
[45:41] not officially mentor let's link up and
[45:43] talk about I think that's a great way.
[45:45] Um, the other way is we'll share uh any
[45:48] caution and warning letters that went
[45:49] out last year so that you know which
[45:51] groups received those and what those
[45:52] concerns were. And then I just thought
[45:54] about this, but we could provide minutes
[45:56] from the meeting last year to the new
[45:58] members and actually everybody as a
[46:00] refresher for cheerle
[46:03] concerns were so you can see the
[46:04] official bullet points of the feedback
[46:06] of the board. That would be great. Let's talk.
[46:14] Do you want to like say hi or like
[46:18] there on track but
[46:20] >> like two minutes ago.
[46:21] >> Okay, great.
[46:22] >> I don't want to kind of disrupt the
[46:24] flow. So
[46:28] » Okay, great. All righty. So, let's go to
[46:30] tier two process overview.
[46:34] Um the tier 2 folks again will talk to
[46:36] you about these breakout sessions, but
[46:38] they group them by discipline. There's
[46:40] 18 ZAP disciplines. Um the subcommittees
[46:43] uh usually it's two disciplines per
[46:45] subcommittee. There's three or four
[46:46] subcommittee members um or sorry
[46:48] advisory board members on that
[46:50] subcommittee and y'all usually meet
[46:51] virtually for about two hours uh and go
[46:54] through those. Each of the subcommittees
[46:56] uh you'll you'll come out with
[46:58] preliminary information. This is our
[46:59] award amount and this is our score. How
[47:01] do we feel in that meeting? You can
[47:03] change scores. You can change
[47:04] recommendations depends on how the
[47:05] conversation goes and what you learn in
[47:07] that conversation. Um, and then when we
[47:09] have the all day, that's when we take
[47:11] those preliminaries to the whole board
[47:13] to review and have conversation about
[47:14] how how you all feel about them, what
[47:17] you think about them, if there's any
[47:18] kind of discussion that needs to be
[47:20] happening, particularly grantees that
[47:22] the whole board wants to talk to. Then
[47:25] you have circle back meetings that are
[47:26] held um after you have your subcommittee
[47:29] meetings. These are meetings for any
[47:30] kind of unresolved items. Typically in
[47:32] tier 2 in these subcommittee meetings,
[47:35] y'all do it's a request for
[47:36] clarification. You ask Cody, would you
[47:39] mind contacting this grantee? We just
[47:41] don't understand this piece. We're not
[47:42] getting a clear answer to response on
[47:44] this question or they made it more
[47:45] complicated than it needed to be. So
[47:47] then Cody uh emails uh the grantee or
[47:50] applicants, excuse me, and gives him 10
[47:52] business days to get back to you. If
[47:54] it's resolved and he feels like it's
[47:55] satisfactory, it's good, pulls the
[47:57] board. If it's got some other issues, he
[47:59] may talk to the board and tell them that
[48:01] information at the day. He has these new
[48:03] circle backs that are not just after the
[48:05] subcommittees but preparing you to give
[48:07] you that request for clarification
[48:08] information back so you can make
[48:10] decisions. Last year you spent time on
[48:12] this um with a couple grantees or
[48:14] applicants Sundance and Leonardo where
[48:17] you spent these full circle meetings
[48:18] saying you all wanted to chat through it
[48:19] in a little bit more detailed discussion
[48:21] manner.
[48:24] And I would say I think with our the
[48:25] application the system the way that it
[48:27] is um this year I think um that's going
[48:30] to hopefully reduce the number of
[48:32] requests for clarifications that you may
[48:34] need because we're getting the
[48:35] information right away with the
[48:37] application.
[48:42] » This is uh the new board members may not
[48:46] first I think rightations
[48:51] » must.
[48:52] >> Okay great. So, um, every two weeks,
[48:54] Dustin sends out the grantee activity in
[48:57] invitations. We encourage you to do this
[48:59] year round, not just your interviews,
[49:00] but you get to know the community or
[49:02] certain disciplines or certain locals in
[49:04] your community, however you want to do
[49:05] it. Um, and so Dustin sends those out
[49:07] every two weeks.
[49:09] >> I'll send one out tomorrow. So, just
[49:11] keep an eye out on your inboxes. It's in
[49:13] my to-do list for tomorrow.
[49:14] >> Awesome. Awesome. Great. Um and um when
[49:18] he sends that out, I think coming up
[49:20] soon will be the arts and culture annual
[49:22] report and then after that will be more
[49:23] information capacity building programs.
[49:25] But the point of this is is that this
[49:27] gives you a chance to go out see the
[49:29] grantees and understand the value in
[49:30] which they're using the zap funding that
[49:32] you've awarded. Um and we ask you to run
[49:35] that through us. So if you're going to
[49:36] request tickets, you can get two comp
[49:38] tickets um per organization per year for
[49:44] the respective board that you're on. So
[49:46] Lynette wouldn't request tickets to, you
[49:48] know, Odyssey Dance in tier 2 because
[49:50] she's not on that board. Now, if an
[49:52] event is free, have at it. Also, again,
[49:56] whether it's Dustin sending you invites
[49:59] to go to something and you do that on
[50:00] your own or you come in and request them
[50:02] like Peter, he comes in every year
[50:04] early. He already has his lined up. I
[50:05] want this, this, and this. So, he can go
[50:07] early and that's just the way he does
[50:08] it. So, it can go either way. It's
[50:10] reciprocal. Um, but we've just asked you
[50:12] to respect the rules of invitations and
[50:14] tickets. Um and then when you can um
[50:16] you'll see at the end sharing community
[50:18] impact photos or quote or comment um
[50:21] Mayor Burton does a pretty good job of
[50:23] this um on his Facebook page um for us
[50:26] to share that information and promote
[50:28] the grantees and the event that staff
[50:29] funded. I would love to help.
[50:31] >> I can comment to that too because I did
[50:33] attend um the Symphonic Winds here a few
[50:37] weeks ago and what was great is even
[50:40] though it's tier two, they acknowledged
[50:42] that a Zap board member was there and so
[50:45] it was just highlighting even further at
[50:48] the event that Zap was present aside
[50:50] from the additional or just the initial
[50:53] intro when they're talking about the
[50:55] event. So, and they were really
[50:57] appreciative of knowing that a board
[50:59] member was there. So I don't think it
[51:00] matters if it's tier one or tier two
[51:02] through Dustin. So those organizations
[51:04] know that you're coming and they see how
[51:07] much we really do care.
[51:10] >> In fact, if we get any complaints, it's uh the branches saying, "How come
[51:13] you have four members come?" Well, they
[51:14] don't always tell you. They're kind of
[51:15] secret shoppers. So you can do that as
[51:17] well. Be a secret shopper. Um some of
[51:20] them love. So if you want to shake their
[51:21] hand, we can always email them ahead of
[51:22] time and say, "Hey, they're going to be
[51:24] coming." And they like to shake your
[51:25] hand. And make sure they coordinate with
[51:26] us when they get there. So please let us
[51:27] know how we can help with this. Is this
[51:29] as part of process if you can build?
[51:35] All right, back to the manual. Okay, so
[51:38] we're going to talk about review and
[51:39] scoring criteria. We're not going to
[51:41] touch on eligibility, expenses, or
[51:44] definitions of disciplines today because
[51:46] we have gone over that in the grant
[51:48] manual and a new member orientation. If
[51:51] you want, you all have a copy of the
[51:52] grant manual. Um, you can look up that
[51:54] information. what we're going to spend
[51:55] our time on um is more of what your work
[51:58] is specifically going to be doing.
[52:00] >> That's page 16 in the board manual. If
[52:02] you like
[52:10] uh 13 through 15 um is what I'll be
[52:13] covering on this particular slide. So um
[52:17] is about the three buckets. So
[52:19] administrative staff 49 check
[52:21] eligibilities um for organizations. So
[52:24] you don't have to worry about checking
[52:25] eligibility. If you see something
[52:27] though, say something. If you notice
[52:29] something seems a little bit funky, let
[52:31] us know. Um, things that we check for
[52:33] that might be helpful for you just to
[52:34] know about is we want to make sure that
[52:36] it's a ZAP eligible expense expense that
[52:38] they're doing it not at a private party,
[52:41] but it's publicly available. Um, and
[52:43] that it's in Salt Lake County. Um, so we
[52:45] take care of those things, but if you
[52:46] see anything, let us know. Um, and then
[52:49] we also do the post spending report. So
[52:51] this year tier one and zool logical will
[52:53] do a post spending report. Previously it
[52:55] was inside theations just one or two
[52:57] questions but now we're doing a full
[52:59] post spending report. They have
[53:00] availability to see that information. We
[53:02] do check that as staff to make sure they
[53:04] turn it in. They also make sure that at
[53:06] the same time they said they were going
[53:07] to your contract spending of the money.
[53:09] Make sure that spent in the right
[53:11] direction. So you don't have to do this
[53:12] verification but it's good to know if
[53:14] you want to look at their post spending
[53:16] more than to do so if you have access to
[53:18] it. But we will take care of that. The
[53:20] advisory board reviews are in kind of
[53:22] two areas. One is the application and we
[53:24] do review and scoring
[53:28] my mouth. So put a quarter in the jar.
[53:30] Um and then uh the submittable internal
[53:32] form is some data. So we've got data in
[53:34] the system that we go through today to
[53:36] show you so you can look at other
[53:37] information. And then the third bucket
[53:39] of review roles is our CPA. We have a
[53:42] third party CPA firm who performs all
[53:45] the financial health tests and provides
[53:46] those results back to us. summary. Um if
[53:49] they see any anomalies as well, they'll
[53:51] let us know and then um they also do um
[53:55] qualifying expenditures worksheet. So as
[53:58] you know in tier one um it's ba the
[54:01] board amount is based on qualifying
[54:03] expenditures the qualifying expenditures
[54:06] worksheet. So there are some caps like
[54:07] on salary there's a cap I was a cap and
[54:10] things like that and so she does those
[54:11] calculations and cor makes any
[54:13] corrections that the applicant has
[54:14] turned in and lets us know. So she does
[54:16] that work too. All that we need to know
[54:18] and she reports that to us. So you don't
[54:20] have to worry about would like you to
[54:22] read the financials and be aware of them
[54:23] and we can look at the scores responses
[54:25] from her so that we can discuss it if
[54:27] there's an issue because she will bring
[54:29] it up in summaries for us. But she's
[54:31] doing all that work for me and the
[54:33] financial she performs those
[54:34] assignments.
[54:37] Anything else?
[54:41] Okay. New this year um we are providing
[54:44] a numeric um way to look at all of the
[54:48] descriptions. So exceptional, strong,
[54:49] adequate, weak and sufficient are have
[54:52] definitions and each definition is
[54:54] particular to that area of um scoring
[54:58] criteria. In the grant manuals on page
[55:00] 22 through 25, we don't have to look at
[55:02] it specifically too much today, but we
[55:04] wanted to mention this is how it looks
[55:06] for you. This is what you have available
[55:07] to score. The reason we changed this to
[55:09] a sporting system like this is so that
[55:11] you could make stronger decisions. Some
[55:13] of the grantes felt like they were in
[55:15] the middle all the time and they weren't
[55:16] able to figure out like some of the
[55:17] board members felt the same way that
[55:18] they weren't sending signals to the
[55:20] grantees or applicants about how they
[55:22] were doing. This really makes you have
[55:24] to make decisions and so the exceptional
[55:26] has a has a explanation. Strong has an
[55:29] explanation. This is all in the grants
[55:31] but we went over some of that already.
[55:34] You'll also see it in spitable footing
[55:36] is that these are right next to while
[55:38] you're looking at your application on
[55:39] the left. On the right is a nice panel
[55:41] that helps determine and describe
[55:42] everything. The numbers, the
[55:44] definitions, the descriptions.
[55:49] » Thank you.
[55:52] » That's been put work really hard on.
[55:55] >> Okay, so we have um four uh criteria u
[56:00] categories. Um this first one, this
[56:02] purpose used to be vibrancy. had a lot
[56:05] of feedback that maybe it wasn't um
[56:07] clear enough. So purpose is where we are
[56:09] for them to define the purpose of how
[56:11] they define themselves in that
[56:13] discipline. The next one is
[56:14] organizational stability. This one's
[56:16] really great because it pulls together
[56:18] personnel programming and partnerships
[56:20] all in one section to see how that
[56:23] organization is working within
[56:24] themselves and with the community to
[56:26] make things happen uh for the community
[56:28] and for the dollars that they spend on
[56:31] Zap. So really really like this new one.
[56:35] community engagement and public benefit.
[56:37] Uh this is where we want to make sure
[56:38] that they are approaching the community
[56:39] to connect with everyone in the
[56:41] community. Again, zap funding isn't just
[56:42] for certain sections, but all diverse
[56:45] groups, all areas geographic in Salt
[56:48] Lake County. So, this one's really great
[56:50] to make a measure of the community
[56:51] engagement and public benefits of the
[56:54] organization and money they're spending
[56:56] comes out. This fourth category is a new
[56:58] one. Um uh previously the board didn't
[57:02] have an available option to score and
[57:05] record their thoughts on concerns
[57:06] related to financial matters. It was
[57:09] just the accountant um doing the
[57:11] performing the test and then the board
[57:13] reflecting on that. This where it gives
[57:16] or the board can directly look at the
[57:17] information and has direct questions
[57:19] that we're asking so that we can get
[57:21] their accountability information. So
[57:23] this is a new category that we're very
[57:25] happy about um that we have. And so, um,
[57:29] the board can weigh in on this one right
[57:30] here.
[57:32] >> Will you go back
[57:38] to the purpose? Let me know if I'm
[57:40] getting a little bit out of order here,
[57:43] but I just I wanted to highlight that
[57:46] this is a change because in the past
[57:48] we've asked you to rate the artistic
[57:51] vibrancy of the organization,
[57:53] which is really challenging because
[57:58] That's a highly subjective
[58:01] rating, right? And it's also not
[58:03] necessarily our role to rate the
[58:05] programming quality per se of the
[58:07] organization, right? As a as a
[58:09] government organization. And so we
[58:11] switched it here to purpose. So that and
[58:14] what we're asking you really here to do
[58:15] is evaluate their mission, evaluate that
[58:19] it needs
[58:22] align with that, right? So not
[58:25] necessarily we want to try and stay away
[58:28] from oh we don't think the programming
[58:30] is innovative or we don't think the
[58:32] programming brings in the right artists
[58:34] or things like that right those are more
[58:36] programming
[58:38] subjective types of criteria and we want
[58:40] to stay away from that right and so
[58:42] we're hoping again it's still subjective
[58:45] right this is naturally a very
[58:46] subjective area right but we want to
[58:49] make it as objective as possible and so
[58:51] um the purpose here is really to try and
[58:54] ask you to look at the mission of the
[58:55] organization, how it fits in with the
[58:58] general public need
[59:01] and then how well their activities are
[59:03] meeting that mission. Right? So I don't
[59:06] know if there's any questions or I mean
[59:08] you all have been or many of you have
[59:09] been kind of living in this world of
[59:11] trying to figure out how to rate those
[59:13] types of things and so you have any
[59:16] thoughts or pointers or you know other
[59:18] staff as well. Um but I think this is a
[59:21] particularly challenging area so we're
[59:23] trying make this as objective as we can
[59:26] for something that's naturally very
[59:27] subjective. I do think that that it's
[59:30] been a conversation of challenge at
[59:31] least for us in tier one trying to some
[59:34] organizations
[59:36] really are acute right with their
[59:39] mission statements and then they execute
[59:41] those mission statements and they
[59:42] constantly correlate the execution to
[59:46] the mission statement and often times
[59:49] our lower scoring organizations are the
[59:51] ones who aren't even really sure what
[59:53] their mission is
[59:54] >> and then how to tie the execution the
[59:56] elements that they bring to the table
[59:59] back to that mission. So hopefully this
[1:00:01] helps um both us and the organizations
[1:00:06] help them get in line with who they want
[1:00:07] to be and demonstrating who they want to
[1:00:09] be and executing that as to the best of
[1:00:12] their ability.
[1:00:13] >> And in tier two what I always focus on
[1:00:16] is the balance between the mission
[1:00:18] statement and their community outreach.
[1:00:20] Does it match? are they doing what they
[1:00:22] say they're doing, you know, based on
[1:00:24] their performances, based on their
[1:00:26] niches, their various niches they have
[1:00:28] within the community. So, I mean, that's
[1:00:30] my personal focus.
[1:00:33] >> On page 16 of the manual um is where it
[1:00:36] really further definition. Um I think
[1:00:38] Matt hit the nail on the head on a few
[1:00:40] different things. I appreciate that. For more information, you can see page
[1:00:45] 16 through
[1:00:49] » about 18. um where it breaks it down on
[1:00:52] the four categories. Um and we'll talk
[1:00:55] about the fifth in a second, but yes,
[1:00:57] purpose and their discipline and
[1:00:58] defining how they're in there is really
[1:01:00] the way to go. Not quality, but how
[1:01:02] they're meeting what they say they're
[1:01:06] right. So, we finished those.
[1:01:09] The fifth category um is only for those
[1:01:13] in tier 2 who apply for more than
[1:01:15] $22,000
[1:01:17] and tier one and zoological. So again,
[1:01:20] uh I think last year we had 218 that you
[1:01:24] approved and only about 29 or 30 of
[1:01:26] those were over 22,000. So the majority
[1:01:28] of folks don't have this fifth category
[1:01:30] that are in tier 2. We changed the way
[1:01:33] the scoring rubric works. Again, I will
[1:01:35] work more with tier one because majority
[1:01:38] of it is in there and Cody will chat
[1:01:40] with his teams that are looking at one's
[1:01:42] order. But uh we did it negative. I
[1:01:44] don't know if you can tell that. I've
[1:01:46] noticed that.
[1:01:47] Um, if you have a particular score and
[1:01:50] you're doing really well on your
[1:01:52] financial health test, your score
[1:01:53] remains the same. The board is really
[1:01:55] saying your score. At the end of the
[1:01:56] day, it's the board who's telling you
[1:01:57] your score. If you aren't doing well,
[1:02:00] you can see how it moves down. Um, and
[1:02:02] as time goes on, it puts a negative in
[1:02:05] there. So, it does affect the score from
[1:02:06] the board is the way we're doing it. Um,
[1:02:09] if you fail two of the financial health
[1:02:10] test, I'll talk about what they are in
[1:02:12] just a second or more, you fail the
[1:02:14] whole financial health, six tests, um,
[1:02:17] if you fail two or more. If it's a going
[1:02:19] concern, it's automatically um, a
[1:02:22] negative or going concern forces when
[1:02:24] um, the firm uh, that's doing the audit
[1:02:27] forms and those comments in there
[1:02:29] regarding the health of the organization
[1:02:31] and it future in the next year or so.
[1:02:35] >> Y
[1:02:39] We'll be back in just a second.
[1:02:42] Okay. Board practice proposals. This is
[1:02:46] a couple of action items on the agenda
[1:02:48] coming up. Um, so I will cover uh them
[1:02:52] and then if I forget anything, please
[1:02:53] let me know. But you're welcome to go
[1:02:55] look into your binders under the fourth
[1:02:59] tab. See them again. For tier one,
[1:03:03] there's just one. For tier two, there's
[1:03:05] four. Start with tier one. Okay. So,
[1:03:09] last year the board was really clear
[1:03:12] that they wanted staff to handle the
[1:03:15] majority of this work and present them
[1:03:18] the summary and findings from the
[1:03:19] account. Typically, they get more
[1:03:21] involved and we vote on each one
[1:03:23] individually or we vote on them
[1:03:24] together. But a related party
[1:03:25] transaction is not something that we shy
[1:03:27] away from. It's Zap. You can according
[1:03:29] to 1031 have a winged party. So,
[1:03:32] examples could be a board member um gets
[1:03:35] you a discount on a video videograph.
[1:03:39] Yes. Um or rental space. And that's
[1:03:43] okay. Up to about $5,000. You can have
[1:03:45] it and the accountant takes care of
[1:03:46] that. The board didn't want to spend
[1:03:48] time deliberating. It makes sense. They
[1:03:50] these are allowed. The accountant double
[1:03:52] checks them. The staff checks them. The
[1:03:54] board will still um vote on them. But it
[1:03:56] won't be a whole presentation, a whole
[1:03:58] discussion and debate. It'll be staff
[1:04:00] checking it. uh the chair is checking
[1:04:02] make sure that's correct uh based on the
[1:04:04] CPA's response and so uh we drafted
[1:04:07] earlier this year a proposal for the
[1:04:09] board um and we did it through a working
[1:04:12] group and the working group agreed with
[1:04:14] the language that we used in there. So
[1:04:16] basically it is to change it for a long
[1:04:18] term that um the staff is um doing a lot
[1:04:21] of the work and presenting that work to
[1:04:23] the board and then the board makes a
[1:04:25] decision rather than the board being
[1:04:26] part of that work if that makes any
[1:04:28] sense. Um and so you'll see here that um
[1:04:31] it's not too complicated. We do have
[1:04:33] examples. Um last year typically each
[1:04:35] year we have Tanner Dance does one. Uh
[1:04:37] Utah Symphony Utah Opera does one and
[1:04:40] the Utah Film Center does one. This year
[1:04:42] I expect those same three. Um and then
[1:04:45] after this year, maybe the following
[1:04:47] year depend uh UFC will drop off because
[1:04:49] they're no longer doing the related
[1:04:51] party transactions. They move buildings
[1:04:53] to a new place. They bought their own
[1:04:54] place. They're not renting in place. um
[1:04:56] one of their board members was able to
[1:04:57] get them a discount on the rental place.
[1:05:00] Um so that's what that one will be. That
[1:05:02] will be an action item that um Lynette
[1:05:04] will call on in just a couple minutes.
[1:05:06] Anyone have questions from tier one
[1:05:08] regard transactions or any comments?
[1:05:14] All right. Uh the tier 2 board, I'll
[1:05:17] give you a little bit of background in
[1:05:18] regard to to these. Um in 1031 again,
[1:05:21] which is our our bible, um it does say
[1:05:24] that we um the tier 2 board can um
[1:05:27] allocate money um for specific things to
[1:05:30] do specific things with that money. Um
[1:05:32] and so the tier two board um earlier
[1:05:35] this year had a working group and spent
[1:05:37] some time thinking about issues and
[1:05:39] issues with their allocations of money
[1:05:41] they hadn't previously and how to fix
[1:05:43] this. So for example, the tier one
[1:05:45] reserve talked about earlier which is
[1:05:47] what happens when a tier one doesn't
[1:05:49] make it and they're going to tier two
[1:05:51] because they swallow up all the tier two
[1:05:52] budget. How does that work? And so um
[1:05:55] one of the one of the areas to ways to
[1:05:57] do that is to put 5% of the budget. So
[1:06:00] five 5% of your 3.6 million um aside
[1:06:05] that you could potentially review for a
[1:06:07] tier one if it comes back down. Now if
[1:06:09] the tier one doesn't come back down
[1:06:10] obviously the money goes back out will
[1:06:12] give you more details on that. Then
[1:06:14] there's the outside of Salt Lake County
[1:06:16] um uh more uh Salt Lake County. I think
[1:06:19] last year we did 7.35% of the tier 2
[1:06:22] funding in Salt Lake County. There's um
[1:06:25] nothing wrong with bringing really great
[1:06:28] um features, artistic features,
[1:06:30] speakers, um all kinds of events and
[1:06:32] functions to our county um because
[1:06:34] that's bringing all over nationwide
[1:06:37] globally um from other places in the
[1:06:40] state. And so we wanted to set 5% aside
[1:06:44] so that um we're just allocating that
[1:06:47] much in 10 or 15 it starts to go go
[1:06:49] outside.
[1:06:51] Treatment of the new and returning
[1:06:53] organizations.
[1:06:55] This board practice uh was something
[1:06:57] like when I came in uh the board would
[1:06:59] say someone is new they get uh an
[1:07:02] average of about $1,500 for about three
[1:07:05] years. And that was really challenging
[1:07:07] for the board to have the ability to
[1:07:09] award organizations that really of the
[1:07:11] award. So, we decided to come up with a
[1:07:14] formula. And so, I'm going to just
[1:07:16] briefly describe it, but it should be in
[1:07:18] your binder. I think it's the third one.
[1:07:20] What do you have in order? Okay.
[1:07:21] >> Yep.
[1:07:22] >> Third one. Um the formula is going to be
[1:07:24] a little bit more generous, which is
[1:07:26] going to be great. So, the tier 2 board
[1:07:28] can give a maximum amount of um the
[1:07:31] formula that is based on the lowest
[1:07:35] threshold of the tier 2. So an example
[1:07:38] is in tier 2 you have to provide a
[1:07:39] certain amount of financial requirements
[1:07:41] up to 22,000. So it's based on the
[1:07:43] 22,000 percentile of uh the 2550 and 75
[1:07:47] you can see in there. So how is much
[1:07:50] more of a generous money to go towards
[1:07:52] them. So for instance instead of the
[1:07:55] 1500 or the 2500 you could give up to uh
[1:07:59] 5500 the first year. So it provides some
[1:08:02] gener but it's in a formula and it's
[1:08:04] based on scoring. So that this is the
[1:08:06] max. This is a cap for the board. It
[1:08:08] just has some guidelines. Um the tier
[1:08:10] ones don't have this in your packets.
[1:08:11] I'm sorry in the packets, but it just
[1:08:13] gives you an idea of how to distribute
[1:08:15] the money. They felt like it was taking
[1:08:17] too long. Some of the new organizations
[1:08:19] are returning to start to grow. Even
[1:08:21] though they were doing really good work,
[1:08:23] they weren't able to very frustrating.
[1:08:27] Uh formulas for unallocated or reduced
[1:08:30] budget. So, um, each year when you hear
[1:08:32] your deliberations over the summer, the
[1:08:33] tier 2 board usually has a balance at
[1:08:36] the end of how many you haven't because
[1:08:38] you try to conserve. We try to make sure
[1:08:40] that your board. So, it could be
[1:08:42] anything from, you know, 20 to 40,000 to
[1:08:45] 120 to 40,000. Um, at the end of the
[1:08:47] season, you all get together and, um,
[1:08:50] it's always been a very long hard
[1:08:52] conversation to have like who deserves
[1:08:54] the money, who gets it, and it's almost
[1:08:56] like starting over again with this extra
[1:08:58] money. And so last year there was a
[1:09:00] formula
[1:09:02] put together based on how they
[1:09:04] performed. So the board's already voted.
[1:09:06] They've already said how well the
[1:09:07] organization is getting. But if there's
[1:09:08] a little bit of leftover money on the
[1:09:10] balance, then you can apply it to those
[1:09:12] high scores versus what might be course
[1:09:14] training who wants who versus who and
[1:09:16] why. It's really based on you already.
[1:09:19] reviewed them. You already
[1:09:20] gave what you wanted. And so this helps
[1:09:23] you just identify at the end of the year
[1:09:24] that you'll do the same thing you did
[1:09:25] this last year which is depending on the
[1:09:27] balance that's left over and how many
[1:09:28] granties and what the budget is
[1:09:30] >> and what they're asking.
[1:09:32] >> Yes. And the request we have to max
[1:09:33] that's true the request has be maxed.
[1:09:36] >> Yeah. Um you can put the money back out
[1:09:39] so that it's not then we all sometimes
[1:09:40] would have like follow-up meetings after
[1:09:42] the all day. So this will help with
[1:09:44] that.
[1:09:45] >> Did you want to add anything before we
[1:09:46] get into details? Um, one thing that I
[1:09:48] will add related to the for the formula
[1:09:51] for unallocated funding is that again if
[1:09:55] there is no need for the tier one
[1:09:57] reserve funding in tier 2, it would
[1:09:59] follow a similar uh the similar pattern.
[1:10:02] It probably would just be one alto
[1:10:04] together in that regard. So um again if
[1:10:07] it's not needed it can still be used
[1:10:10] utilized in other ways um based on the
[1:10:13] formula. I will also say and highlight
[1:10:17] for the treatment of new and returning
[1:10:19] organizations for organizations that
[1:10:21] maybe take a gap year between you know a
[1:10:23] year or two um we did provide language
[1:10:27] on how we might um the cap for that
[1:10:30] which is around for example if an
[1:10:32] applicant was awarded 20,000 24 they
[1:10:35] took a break in 25 and then they come
[1:10:37] back to 26 um that it'd be a cap of that
[1:10:41] flatfunded um up to that 20,000 in 26 um
[1:10:47] in terms of their award and there of
[1:10:49] course that's the cap um if you felt
[1:10:52] like it didn't merit up to 20,000 you
[1:10:55] could decide otherwise. Um but just to
[1:10:57] give some more um guidelines um and how
[1:11:01] to navigate some of these funding uh
[1:11:04] recommendations. That's really what
[1:11:06] help you uh be able to do. I'd say
[1:11:10] anyone who's gone for three to five
[1:11:12] years, yes, is treated a little bit
[1:11:13] differently because you have been in
[1:11:15] Zap. If you've been gone for more years,
[1:11:16] you can probably in it, right? Um and so
[1:11:19] there is a little bit of treatment.
[1:11:20] You'll see it in that um proposal.
[1:11:22] Again, this was put together by the
[1:11:24] board's working group earlier this year.
[1:11:25] Paul will call attention to it. It's an
[1:11:28] action item for you all to vote on it.
[1:11:30] Um again, we don't have to vote on it
[1:11:31] all the time. Just in general, these are
[1:11:33] the practices and guidelines. And then
[1:11:34] all the language, we put motion language
[1:11:36] in there for you so you can motion it
[1:11:38] properly. We're some flexibility for
[1:11:40] you. If you decide one year is unique or
[1:11:41] funky, whether it's a budget, the
[1:11:43] economy thing, whether it's a new
[1:11:45] grantee coming in, it could be all
[1:11:46] different kinds of things that happen.
[1:11:48] It gives you that flexibility that you
[1:11:49] can adjust things and not have to vote
[1:11:51] again or start over, but you can just
[1:11:52] make adjustments as appropriate. Whether
[1:11:55] any factors,
[1:11:59] » let me ask a clarifying question up
[1:12:01] here. It says uh on the second bullet
[1:12:04] for organizations headquartered outside
[1:12:06] of Salt Lake County. The draft uh
[1:12:08] proposal does say that primarily serve
[1:12:10] Salt Lake County residents and visitors.
[1:12:13] How do we define if they primarily serve
[1:12:16] Salt Lake County residents and visitors,
[1:12:18] meaning the the the pro the what that specific programming does or the
[1:12:24] organization as a whole or like Sundance
[1:12:27] for example, right? like they like they they did a they had a program for
[1:12:31] helping um with was it literacy or
[1:12:34] something right and that program was bas
[1:12:36] was was basically in county right but
[1:12:39] the organization as a whole
[1:12:41] >> did not primarily serve Salt Lake County
[1:12:43] residents
[1:12:44] >> I I believe in that we had you know
[1:12:46] similar occurrence last year a couple
[1:12:48] that with a couple agencies and the way
[1:12:50] at least we worked through Cody you
[1:12:52] probably remember this actually we
[1:12:54] attempted to prorate how many activities
[1:12:57] were within Salt Lake County and how
[1:12:59] many activities were outside of Salt
[1:13:01] Lake County and then determine funding
[1:13:04] based on that. But you know there there
[1:13:06] are also agencies within Salt Lake
[1:13:08] County that mainly perform outside of
[1:13:10] Salt Lake. I think we had the same
[1:13:12] situation.
[1:13:13] >> The language in 1031 is a little
[1:13:15] squishy. We've been trying to solve that
[1:13:16] because it does say primary presence but
[1:13:18] then Sundance wasn't primary presence
[1:13:20] here. Um and so that's one thing I think
[1:13:22] we're going to work on this summer is
[1:13:23] how we better define it. whether it's is
[1:13:25] it really an HQ or is it really the
[1:13:26] primary presence right like and then is
[1:13:29] it for tier one more applicable tier two
[1:13:30] so I think those are one things we've
[1:13:32] got on our list to work on so I don't
[1:13:34] have a perfect answer for you but I know
[1:13:36] that you all do talk about it and really
[1:13:38] think about it really collectively and
[1:13:40] um very thoughtfully
[1:13:44] » questions
[1:13:47] on this
[1:13:49] we have our breakouts
[1:13:51] Yeah.
[1:13:52] >> Yes. Okay.
[1:13:54] >> Unless there's an issue over there, did
[1:13:56] you break out the agenda?
[1:14:00] >> I just want to I just want to read more
[1:14:03] because I'm like what you're saying and
[1:14:04] what is up there and what is here is all
[1:14:07] a little different. I just want to make
[1:14:08] sure I don't think I mean it's not
[1:14:10] nothing is new, but I just want to make
[1:14:11] sure that I have a chance to like ingest
[1:14:14] everything.
[1:14:17] >> Uh I we can do it now. We have a little
[1:14:19] bit of time on kind of schedule. I
[1:14:21] wanted to make sure the chairs are okay
[1:14:22] that I don't want anybody voting unless
[1:14:24] you understand we just try to put
[1:14:25] highlights up there the very the
[1:14:27] document that you see in front of you
[1:14:28] that's what the the um committees
[1:14:31] actually agreed to working groups agreed
[1:14:34] to um but we can walk through them I
[1:14:36] maybe we'll start with tier one and see
[1:14:38] if tier one wants any extra time to talk
[1:14:41] about the related party transaction
[1:14:43] piece
[1:14:45] we'll vote on
[1:14:48] oh you just need time to read a few too
[1:14:50] if you want. We're asking for just a
[1:14:52] reading just to read.
[1:14:56] » Um so um do you have any questions right
[1:15:00] now or you want to read it first and
[1:15:04] » we could take the break earlier
[1:15:11] » move it on the agenda to after.
[1:15:13] >> Yeah, we don't have to vote, right? So
[1:15:15] that's um maybe we'll just move into
[1:15:17] some some submittable and finish this
[1:15:19] portion of it and then we can kind of
[1:15:20] switch the schedule. How does that sound
[1:15:22] or everybody want to ask questions and
[1:15:24] read a little bit more?
[1:15:33] » Was there any overall questions?
[1:15:36] send this PowerPoint out to you um uh
[1:15:39] probably Monday or Tuesday and then we
[1:15:41] also have some other bills that we send
[1:15:43] out to supporting like you mentioned
[1:15:45] having the board comments from last year
[1:15:47] for tier one so you can see
[1:15:50] what has the same thing for tier two
[1:15:56] and tier two are using
[1:15:59] the same
[1:16:01] >> same
[1:16:02] Okay. Yeah.
[1:16:05] >> Just and just a question. We you had to
[1:16:08] put that sample organization in there.
[1:16:10] >> What are just like before we even get
[1:16:12] into anything like what what did you
[1:16:15] think of the scores that came back?
[1:16:18] Um I was I was delighted by the sample
[1:16:22] um some of the sample scores um
[1:16:24] especially seeing some of the review
[1:16:26] comments from folks um because uh there
[1:16:29] was some intentional um you know the
[1:16:32] finances were intentionally left blank
[1:16:34] and so hopefully you would have noticed
[1:16:36] that and and how you would have voted
[1:16:39] and and scored them based on that. So I
[1:16:42] just want to take a moment a little bit
[1:16:43] to kind of show you um
[1:16:47] good chunk of you have already completed
[1:16:49] the assignment of the going into
[1:16:53] submittable going to the zap sample
[1:16:55] organization um and completing your
[1:16:58] review. We did want to just hold a
[1:17:00] little bit of space here for to go over
[1:17:02] it again. Um and just if there's any
[1:17:05] questions for the group to um address
[1:17:09] that. Um
[1:17:12] the two major forms of course that
[1:17:14] you're going to be looking at um when
[1:17:17] you're completing your review um will be
[1:17:20] that additional form for the application
[1:17:23] whether that's for tier one and
[1:17:25] zoological or tier 2. that's the
[1:17:27] application that you want to be um
[1:17:29] reading. Uh the questions are organized
[1:17:32] by the categories as many of you of you
[1:17:34] have seen that already. Um and then just
[1:17:36] as a reminder um the internal form for
[1:17:40] tier 2 um this gives applicant history.
[1:17:43] So um that's going to include scores uh
[1:17:46] at least percentiles of where they
[1:17:48] landed in their pool from previous
[1:17:50] years. will also provide um award
[1:17:53] amounts that the boards have given in
[1:17:55] the past since you don't have that
[1:17:56] access um you know from the previous
[1:18:00] software.
[1:18:01] And then um if there are folks that have
[1:18:05] um completed a financial health test um
[1:18:09] those scores and whether they pass
[1:18:11] failed would also be in there for your
[1:18:13] reference. Um and that's for both uh
[1:18:17] programs. So when you're completing your
[1:18:20] review as um folks have already um done
[1:18:23] that um I just want to draw your
[1:18:25] attention to to again where
[1:18:29] to where you will be doing that. So um
[1:18:32] you will see your reviews here. So when
[1:18:34] you go ahead and do it, you click on
[1:18:36] your um the edit button by your name
[1:18:40] um and the review instructions will pop
[1:18:43] up. Um one thing that we have added um
[1:18:46] and this is by request of um some of the
[1:18:50] board members just issu uh indicating uh
[1:18:53] conflict of interest just in case um you
[1:18:57] if you happen to if you have a conflict
[1:19:00] of interest to notify it and then you
[1:19:02] know um in the system and so then to
[1:19:04] contact us if you don't have one you
[1:19:07] know you hit no and you do that right
[1:19:09] away up at the top. that was something
[1:19:11] that we had in the previous system that
[1:19:13] we just wanted to carry over um into the
[1:19:17] new system. Um then again the the review
[1:19:21] goes by the criteria and you can pull
[1:19:24] this menu if you haven't figured that
[1:19:26] already. You can pull it over so that
[1:19:27] you can see it a little bit easier.
[1:19:29] Again, um we have our anchor
[1:19:32] descriptions um four, three, two with,
[1:19:36] you know, except exceptional, strong,
[1:19:38] adequate. And then their descriptions
[1:19:40] are right below. You'll notice um
[1:19:42] probably that the descriptions for what
[1:19:44] a four is in criteria one versus a four
[1:19:47] in criteria 2 are different. So, just
[1:19:50] notice that the wording is is is
[1:19:53] tailored to each particular category.
[1:19:56] Okay. Um
[1:19:59] the same thing for um
[1:20:04] uh the gala application which we'll get
[1:20:06] to in our breakout session a little bit
[1:20:08] more. Um it will be done similarly in
[1:20:12] here. We'll give you a um a paper copy
[1:20:16] um to kind of jot down some of that. Uh
[1:20:18] because the way that the system works is
[1:20:20] you have to be in one review stage
[1:20:22] before you can move on to the next one.
[1:20:24] Um, and like I said, that's related for
[1:20:26] tier 2. Um, and we'll talk about that in
[1:20:29] our breakout session. Um,
[1:20:32] in terms of how you're going to filter
[1:20:35] um, the assignments um, once the cycle
[1:20:38] closes on Friday, we will be uh, tagging
[1:20:42] you. Um, we'll put we'll create a little
[1:20:44] label for you with your last name. And
[1:20:46] so then when you go um to filter
[1:20:52] um you'll be able to type in the label,
[1:20:56] you know, your last name and all of your
[1:20:58] assignments will come up. Um tier one,
[1:21:00] this is not going to be as much of an
[1:21:02] issue because you only have um you know,
[1:21:06] less than 30 applicant
[1:21:08] to to view. But tier two, um you have
[1:21:12] several different assignments. you will
[1:21:14] only be assigned and only be able to see
[1:21:16] the ones that we have assigned your
[1:21:18] subcommittee to. Um but for those that
[1:21:21] need to do lead reviewers, that will be
[1:21:23] um your last thing. So um
[1:21:28] uh the other thing that I just want to
[1:21:30] before I open it up for questions, um
[1:21:35] I just want to uh bring your attention
[1:21:38] to three different columns, three
[1:21:40] different columns over on the review
[1:21:42] side. So, we talked a little bit about
[1:21:44] your review um that you will put in. Um
[1:21:48] in terms of your activity, this is a
[1:21:50] spot if you want to type a note to your
[1:21:53] other um subcommittee members um to just
[1:21:57] say, "Hey, I you know, I noticed this
[1:21:58] part, you know, just to kind of alert
[1:22:00] folks um you can type that there." And
[1:22:04] so then your other members of the
[1:22:06] committee um will have access to that.
[1:22:08] They will be able to see that. Um,
[1:22:10] you'll also see it's also audit log. So,
[1:22:13] you will see all of the anything that
[1:22:15] staff have done in there. Um,
[1:22:19] if you want to message uh staff
[1:22:23] directly, you can um go to the messages
[1:22:27] um column and type a new message. Um,
[1:22:31] and that would be the preferred method
[1:22:33] is just to try to communicate through
[1:22:35] the system as long as it's related to an
[1:22:38] application. Let's try to keep it in the
[1:22:40] system as much as we can just so that we
[1:22:42] have um all of that there. Um
[1:22:47] any questions based on folks that have
[1:22:51] um
[1:22:52] already that have done the assignment,
[1:22:54] those that maybe still need some more
[1:22:56] time with it. Any questions at this
[1:22:58] point?
[1:22:59] >> Yes.
[1:22:59] >> Yeah.
[1:23:03] » Andrea, do you want to go first?
[1:23:05] >> Sure. Sorry about that.
[1:23:07] um for the it was just for the um
[1:23:11] messages to the staff. So just to
[1:23:13] clarify, so that would be like if we had
[1:23:15] a specific question about um an
[1:23:20] organization that we that that we were
[1:23:23] the lead reviewer on or could that be
[1:23:25] also just a clarifying question
[1:23:28] about a different
[1:23:31] organization? since um since you would
[1:23:34] be reading and reviewing all of them.
[1:23:36] Yes, it could be something that's not
[1:23:38] necessarily um a lead reviewer. Yes.
[1:23:46] » Read.
[1:23:47] >> And then are these messages uh can they
[1:23:50] be a grammar requested one too? The
[1:23:53] direct messages.
[1:23:54] >> Okay. And the second thing is as I was
[1:23:56] going through it the subheadings like
[1:23:58] the 1 A B C
[1:24:01] >> that would be helpful unless I missed it
[1:24:04] that both sides that where is the
[1:24:07] explanation and what we actually filled
[1:24:09] that out kinder that was I not fold it
[1:24:13] over enough to see that
[1:24:15] >> maybe not I can check with you on a
[1:24:17] oneonone and see what's going on and see
[1:24:19] >> okay what's going on
[1:24:21] >> is any of this uh viewable to be
[1:24:24] applicants
[1:24:26] maybe special.
[1:24:28] >> Uh no, no, not unless it's grandma. Okay.
[1:24:33] >> Um we will eventually some of the
[1:24:35] there's a spot that has strengths and
[1:24:37] weaknesses where you're bullet pointing.
[1:24:39] We will collect that information and
[1:24:42] formulate your official comments and
[1:24:44] draft those based on that information.
[1:24:47] Um so that's really where um we would
[1:24:50] end up sharing that information.
[1:24:51] Eventually the scores will be shared um
[1:24:56] with the the numeric scores will be
[1:24:58] shared with the applicants and we're
[1:25:00] still uh figuring out the best way um
[1:25:02] how to do that in an aggregate form so
[1:25:05] that it's just coming straight from the
[1:25:06] board. There's it's not identifiable
[1:25:09] which reviewer scored um provided which
[1:25:13] score. Does that make sense?
[1:25:16] >> Yes.
[1:25:17] Um, when you were just reviewing
[1:25:20] what we look at here, you were saying
[1:25:22] for us to focus on the additional forms
[1:25:24] and that internal form for their
[1:25:27] history, which totally makes sense.
[1:25:30] >> The first initial form
[1:25:34] >> um says like Zap's sample organization.
[1:25:39] >> Yeah. Should we not be review like I
[1:25:42] just I know that's kind of basic
[1:25:44] information but for the sample one I
[1:25:46] noticed like their genre
[1:25:52] » was architecture and that obviously was
[1:25:54] probably
[1:25:55] >> something that we wanted to notice. Um
[1:25:58] >> so what's the
[1:25:59] >> generally no generally no you don't need
[1:26:02] to look in the eligibility form or the
[1:26:04] initial forms. Um, the additional form
[1:26:07] is that tier two, that application that
[1:26:09] you'll want to pay attention to,
[1:26:10] >> right?
[1:26:11] >> They're not going to have that issue.
[1:26:14] >> I was going to say, we mentioned this
[1:26:15] earlier. I'm going to interrupt you, but
[1:26:16] go ahead. The eligibility, the two
[1:26:18] eligibility forms that are up there and
[1:26:20] a postspending report. You have access
[1:26:23] to those availability. You can read that
[1:26:25] content. It might answer a question you
[1:26:27] should answer. You know, it's part of
[1:26:29] the application, but you don't have to
[1:26:31] do anything. That's our responsibility
[1:26:33] to take care of. But if you want if you
[1:26:35] want you want to try to find some extra
[1:26:37] information that you didn't have
[1:26:38] answered in the actual direct additional
[1:26:40] form.
[1:26:43] » Yes. So um in Zoom grants as the
[1:26:47] subcommittees are reviewing there are
[1:26:50] there's um super basic information that
[1:26:54] I see um when like as one subcommittee
[1:26:58] that the other members have put
[1:27:01] something in like oh you know they're
[1:27:03] requesting 20K the average is 15. Yep.
[1:27:07] >> So do do we in this program do we get
[1:27:10] anything do I get to see like over here if other people have scored or
[1:27:16] >> so that I will be preparing reports for
[1:27:19] ahead of the the subcommittee meetings
[1:27:21] that's why and I'll talk about in our
[1:27:23] breakout while I why I will need scores
[1:27:26] and analysis ahead of time so that we
[1:27:28] can pull that report because no you
[1:27:30] won't see it
[1:27:31] >> we won't see any
[1:27:35] I wouldn't necessarily want opposite
[1:27:36] that might bias.
[1:27:38] >> Yeah, I I mean I don't think it in Zoom
[1:27:40] grants it wasn't enough to see anything,
[1:27:42] but I was like, "Oh, okay. That person's
[1:27:43] been in there. Okay, I should get on
[1:27:45] it." I guess
[1:27:47] >> this is the average that's, you know,
[1:27:49] the last one.
[1:27:51] >> Yeah,
[1:27:52] >> exactly right.
[1:27:54] >> You're just thinking, why is everybody
[1:27:55] wrong?
[1:28:03] » Any other questions?
[1:28:06] If you have some edible issues, again,
[1:28:07] Cody is always willing to do um times uh
[1:28:11] over the bump um whatever works for you.
[1:28:14] >> Yep. And it's a learning process for you
[1:28:16] as as much as for us, too. I'm just
[1:28:18] navigating some of the quirks of the
[1:28:20] system. So, if there's some don't, you
[1:28:22] know, feel bad if you have an issue with
[1:28:24] the system. It's something that we're
[1:28:26] just, you know, it's it is pretty good,
[1:28:28] I think, um having worked in in both
[1:28:30] systems, but you know, there's still
[1:28:32] always quirks to every system, right?
[1:28:34] Not that your sample wasn't good, but I
[1:28:36] was actually able to pull up Cal Center
[1:28:38] Theaters last night and see the full
[1:28:41] application, and it's mindblowing what a
[1:28:44] difference it is from our old
[1:28:46] application. Mind blowing.
[1:28:50] >> Yeah. And we hope to have all of the
[1:28:51] assignments by the end of the day uh on
[1:28:55] June 1st so that you have those so you
[1:28:57] can start digging into it um and getting
[1:29:00] going. So yes,
[1:29:02] >> this might be more tactical fair
[1:29:04] breakouts, but are we be able to talk
[1:29:06] through like the actual money
[1:29:10] designation a little bit more
[1:29:11] recommendations on like based on score
[1:29:13] or how
[1:29:13] >> Okay, we'll get to that in our break.
[1:29:18] >> I think um since folks want a little bit
[1:29:20] more time to think for a second do a
[1:29:22] timing thing that we are going to move
[1:29:25] the two action items that um number
[1:29:30] and 10 to be after
[1:29:34] um 11 and 12. It is about 2:40 now.
[1:29:42] So, um until
[1:29:54] activity
[1:29:57] breaks maybe
[1:30:10] » photo.
[1:30:13] So, um, does that look for the two
[1:30:15] chairs come back?
[1:30:19] » 250 to come back and then we'll take
[1:30:21] some other things and then we'll break
[1:30:22] up.
[1:30:38] » Um, the bathrooms are down the hall. If
[1:30:39] you can't see them, you passed them when
[1:30:40] you came in. Feel free to grab some more
[1:30:42] refreshments. Um, and water bottle
[1:30:45] filling is also near the restrooms of
[1:30:47] the water fountain.
[1:31:00] » Finish my water.
[1:31:05] » Can I show you? Yes.
[1:31:13] Template available
[1:31:22] to submission
[1:31:26] issue
[1:31:28] problem.
[1:31:34] Yeah.
[1:31:59] No, I appreciate
[1:32:05] Yes. So,
[1:32:20] » yeah.
[1:32:22] >> No ice cream.
[1:32:27] » So, here's my idea. So how does it work?
[1:32:31] Tier one has a bunch of
[1:32:40] based on their
[1:32:43] spendings
[1:32:49] or what if the spending spending
[1:32:52] organizations is a million dollar more
[1:32:58] » like we're going to cost
[1:33:02] or if it's5 million less than your
[1:33:05] budget.
[1:33:07] But you know what? reconcile the idea
[1:33:10] that money is spent or it's based on how
[1:33:14] much they spend. But you also very
[1:33:16] figure how much money.
[1:33:30] » Oh, interesting. But it's basically
[1:33:48] » I was just curious how that function. My
[1:33:50] other question was um
[1:33:52] >> I know
[1:33:54] >> made a comment about um not interfering
[1:33:57] in programming like if you were there to
[1:34:00] stop vote
[1:34:16] » so
[1:34:20] organizations
[1:34:22] want to
[1:34:32] clarification
[1:34:43] » like your criterion for
[1:34:47] to just simple quit doing it because the
[1:34:49] titles here are not aligning up here.
[1:34:52] So, you know where it's
[1:35:12] not. Okay.
[1:35:16] Sorry.
[1:35:19] Now my poop. Sorry.
[1:35:25] » So yeah. Okay.
[1:35:37] » Still not. Okay. So I was in that row.
[1:35:40] Okay. Got it.
[1:35:51] this time. So probably the link might
[1:35:56] ignore it because yeah
[1:36:00] » I'm on this one but I wasn't being able
[1:36:02] to cross
[1:36:10] my
[1:36:13] Good for you.
[1:36:17] I mean I teach her like
[1:36:39] I do the side planks, you know, multiple
[1:36:43] planks every
[1:36:45] been doing them for 30 years.
[1:36:49] >> My life was a bit different when I
[1:36:50] skipped one day.
[1:37:01] Start
[1:37:06] my morning with a large glass of
[1:37:08] chocolate about
[1:37:23] a lot of
[1:37:25] I'm glad this is called
[1:37:42] my submission. That's like
[1:37:51] » Uhhuh.
[1:37:53] You've been doing this while
[1:37:59] motivated you
[1:38:05] started or something
[1:38:08] that
[1:38:11] » pull up all
[1:38:15] it'll say complete.
[1:38:19] » Yep. Click on that.
[1:38:21] >> Yeah.
[1:38:23] And then it's going to give you all of
[1:38:24] the
[1:38:31] » correct. Yes. Correct. Yep. You don't
[1:38:33] have a following
[1:38:43] for years and years.
[1:38:46] That's how that's why
[1:39:06] » you'll start to notice
[1:39:17] nervous
[1:39:19] will probably really help
[1:39:34] different balance
[1:39:48] Let me go back to
[1:40:01] » Oh yeah.
[1:40:15] You're raising money.
[1:40:31] Yeah.
[1:40:48] » Not bad either.
[1:40:55] Really?
[1:41:04] They're so good.
[1:41:17] I'm taking my break.
[1:41:31] It's so good. The whole thing
[1:41:48] together.
[1:41:55] Yeah, that's big one.
[1:42:08] Yeah.
[1:42:21] I knew I was saw
[1:43:15] I like your Anybody
[1:43:23] want
[1:43:44] to be one of
[1:43:49] Yeah.
[1:44:08] » Hello. Hello.
[1:44:16] I don't know why
[1:44:30] » I know we've met
[1:44:33] Sarah.
[1:44:37] » Thank you.
[1:44:49] I've been
[1:44:59] together.
[1:45:29] Hi, good to see you.
[1:45:40] Yes.
[1:46:03] » I know. It just matters.
[1:46:13] » Yeah.
[1:46:39] 3.6 too far.
[1:47:15] organizations then attend lunch.
[1:47:28] We just talk about the nicer version of
[1:47:31] air. A little bell.
[1:47:49] » Midwestern
[1:47:59] segmented
[1:48:10] I have a question about this person that
[1:48:13] might be
[1:48:41] Okay, we're going to go ahead and get
[1:48:42] started. That's okay. Um, we're going to
[1:48:45] start with um the two items that each
[1:48:48] chair would call for vote for that. Want
[1:48:50] to spend just a couple minutes on
[1:48:51] discussion and Q&A feels comfortable and
[1:48:54] confident. Um, and then after the votes,
[1:48:57] uh, we're going to go ahead and take our
[1:48:58] photo and then we'll break up separate tears if that's okay.
[1:49:03] >> Great. Um, I think Patty had the first
[1:49:06] question,
[1:49:08] which is great.
[1:49:09] >> Um, you are too fast for me. Okay. Uh,
[1:49:12] oh wait,
[1:49:13] >> you want someone else to ask the
[1:49:14] question?
[1:49:15] >> No, no, no. No. I just This is my first
[1:49:17] question out of this one. Um
[1:49:22] so uh for tier two um this idea that we
[1:49:26] reserve about 5% for organizations that
[1:49:30] may not qualify for tier one and that
[1:49:32] drop back down.
[1:49:34] >> So when we are first given the amount of
[1:49:38] money that we have to allocate
[1:49:41] lump sum 3.6 million whatever that is.
[1:49:44] So is that not including the 5% or have
[1:49:47] we already reserved that%
[1:49:49] >> it's within the 3.6. So okay the 5% for
[1:49:53] >> 181,200
[1:49:54] >> yes it's within the 5% that's that would
[1:49:57] be the 5%
[1:49:58] um out of Salt Lake County that 5% of
[1:50:02] the tier ones that come to tier two. So
[1:50:04] yes subtracting from a 3.6
[1:50:08] >> okay so when we are in our subcommittees
[1:50:11] >> we would already have that data
[1:50:12] separated out. So it's that those
[1:50:14] calculations will be done. You'll know
[1:50:17] um where those buckets are. So that will
[1:50:20] be done for you. You don't have to
[1:50:21] remember these amounts in your head.
[1:50:23] >> Yes. Perfect. That that I guess that's
[1:50:25] just the
[1:50:26] >> So
[1:50:28] it says up to or up to or around 5%.
[1:50:33] >> Is this going to be done every year?
[1:50:36] >> Unless
[1:50:36] >> we'll have a vote every year on
[1:50:38] >> No. No. So this is how we'd like to do
[1:50:39] it.
[1:50:40] the board is you this year and then you
[1:50:43] keep that practice until
[1:50:46] you have a us working group and put it
[1:50:48] together. So if you say in the future we
[1:50:50] really want to do 3%. Because it's never
[1:50:52] happened before we want to fund more out
[1:50:55] of Salt Lake County like 10% okay
[1:50:58] organizations based outside of Salt Lake
[1:50:59] County that provide services inside. We
[1:51:01] want to build 10%. We change that and
[1:51:03] build on it again. But while this one is
[1:51:05] still lasting on Matt felt like it
[1:51:07] wasn't necessary it's a practice but
[1:51:09] it's not official like policy for
[1:51:11] changes. So you could this one change it
[1:51:14] two years from now change it.
[1:51:15] >> So my concern is that the draft language
[1:51:17] the motion specifically calls out 2026
[1:51:20] grant cycle year
[1:51:22] >> to start it.
[1:51:23] >> Well yeah the draft motion language
[1:51:25] suggests that we we allocate up to 5%
[1:51:28] >> of the 2026 grant cycle year. What
[1:51:30] happens in 2027?
[1:51:31] >> So we should just change that. That's
[1:51:33] what you're saying. That's what we're
[1:51:34] all
[1:51:35] >> if there's edits to the mountain
[1:51:36] language or the proposal.
[1:51:43] » Question
[1:51:44] for the segment outside Salt Lake
[1:51:48] County. Is that like a separate 5%
[1:51:51] bucket as well? We have like our or is
[1:51:54] that just
[1:51:56] we up to 5% of what?
[1:51:59] >> So I'll try to answer the same same
[1:52:01] window.
[1:52:02] >> 3.6 six when subtract
[1:52:05] 5% off
[1:52:07] >> you get 3.4 3.2 you have to do the math
[1:52:10] for that
[1:52:10] >> right
[1:52:11] >> but if you only find four five 4% for
[1:52:13] some reason you have that 3% to put back
[1:52:15] in
[1:52:16] >> okay
[1:52:18] >> but that's so that's a separate
[1:52:19] essentially
[1:52:22] 5% of 3.6 6 million
[1:52:24] >> could be for the year one drop
[1:52:27] essentially a different another 5%
[1:52:30] >> sorry yes it is a different type that's
[1:52:32] a good point that's what I was trying to
[1:52:34] yes I have a followup question about
[1:52:36] this as well so what is thinking of why
[1:52:40] we need to reserve 5% for outside
[1:52:44] of Salt Lake County because
[1:52:48] the way that I'm seeing it right now is
[1:52:50] that okay we have you
[1:52:53] 200 organizations that are all only in
[1:52:55] Salt Lake County. We have 13
[1:52:57] organizations that do that either either
[1:53:00] headquartered outside and that bring
[1:53:01] their programming here or vice versa,
[1:53:04] right? And so why would we not just take
[1:53:06] that on a case- by case basis like this,
[1:53:08] you know, organization A is requesting
[1:53:12] um $50,000 and 80% of their programming
[1:53:16] is here, but they want to, you know, go
[1:53:19] to Park City or something. I'll I'll
[1:53:21] take a stab at it first. Um uh it's
[1:53:24] grown a little bit over the last few
[1:53:25] years. I think the board had a little
[1:53:26] concern of like how big is that going to
[1:53:28] get how much money you're need to keep
[1:53:30] the money for mostly what organizations
[1:53:31] are located here they do facilities are
[1:53:34] here organizations here but they didn't
[1:53:37] I don't think board wants to cut that
[1:53:38] off. So in the past it has been a case
[1:53:40] by case basis right and it's grown from
[1:53:42] like six to seven 73.35
[1:53:46] I think it's a way to provide some rails
[1:53:48] of not giving too much money to people
[1:53:50] who aren't based in Salt Lake County. So
[1:53:54] you see this as a limit
[1:53:57] >> prevent us from overspending outside
[1:54:00] >> sort of it gives a guideline I think
[1:54:03] that's what the board you heard the
[1:54:04] board's concerns were that some of the
[1:54:06] money was coming out
[1:54:07] >> and I may say it's not a requirement
[1:54:10] >> that it be 5%.
[1:54:13] I guess my I think I'm getting confused
[1:54:16] because to me if if your organization A
[1:54:19] is asking for 50,000 and they have 80%
[1:54:21] in solid county we just say okay they
[1:54:24] get 40,000 or whatever like the portion
[1:54:26] that's in on like because of that's what they're asking for and
[1:54:30] that's kind of what Ryan was talking
[1:54:32] about.
[1:54:32] >> We do we do a proration.
[1:54:34] >> Yeah per what they're asking for I
[1:54:37] guess. So I don't understand.
[1:54:39] >> There was there was an organization two
[1:54:41] years ago though that their main
[1:54:43] activity it alternated between Salt Lake
[1:54:46] County and
[1:54:48] Davis County and the year that it
[1:54:50] alternated to Davis County we didn't
[1:54:52] fun.
[1:54:55] >> So So you're saying 5%.
[1:54:57] So if if organization A, you know, has
[1:55:02] 20% that's not in the county, they
[1:55:04] automatically get moved to this other 5%
[1:55:06] pool like holistically.
[1:55:08] >> That's where they're operating, where
[1:55:09] their organization is, where they hit
[1:55:11] the worker gap,
[1:55:13] >> right? But I mean this 5% I guess I
[1:55:15] don't understand why we're taking 5% of
[1:55:18] the whole budget. So last year it was
[1:55:21] seven it was 7.35% budget
[1:55:24] of the whole last year of what we gave
[1:55:27] away
[1:55:29] 3.4 million you had last year we gave
[1:55:31] out to anyone 7.5% of that was given to
[1:55:35] organizations that are not based in our
[1:55:36] county. So I think it's just a way to be
[1:55:39] careful of how much money we're giving
[1:55:40] to organizations that are not based in
[1:55:42] our community. Again we don't want to
[1:55:43] limit it too much. We want people to
[1:55:44] come in and do great things for our
[1:55:46] community, but that amount's starting to
[1:55:48] grow and organizations outside the
[1:55:49] county are starting to contact us quite
[1:55:51] a bit about applying. We're seeing more
[1:55:54] interest and programs are growing and
[1:55:55] becoming more popular and we just want
[1:55:57] to make sure that your budget doesn't um
[1:55:59] keep going into double digits um where
[1:56:01] it's growing in that area that we're not
[1:56:03] able to fund organizations that are
[1:56:05] based here in our community.
[1:56:07] >> Target 5%
[1:56:09] 3.4 million. That's the That's the
[1:56:12] proposal,
[1:56:13] >> right? Yeah. I think part of the
[1:56:15] discussion we had internally about this
[1:56:17] was um the the um the policy does say
[1:56:21] that generally like while we can fund
[1:56:24] organizations that are based outside of
[1:56:26] Salt Lake County but doing programming
[1:56:28] in Salt Lake County that staff is
[1:56:32] that generally the funding should be
[1:56:34] prioritized for organizations that are
[1:56:36] based in Salt Lake County because we
[1:56:39] haven't had kind of general guidelines
[1:56:41] about what that looks like in the
[1:56:44] questions as we're getting more
[1:56:46] interest. We thought this would be a
[1:56:47] helpful guideline to set. It's not a
[1:56:49] strict limit by any means. If there are
[1:56:53] overwhelming reasons or amazing
[1:56:55] application, we don't think we really
[1:56:56] want to do another percentage or right
[1:56:59] up to 7%, you know, you can do that. But
[1:57:01] we did want to create start to create a
[1:57:04] guideline around what that would look
[1:57:06] like because we do tend to get a lot of
[1:57:08] questions from the board, from councils
[1:57:11] and others about How are we thinking
[1:57:13] about prioritizing
[1:57:16] for those organizations that are facing?
[1:57:19] So really that's kind of the process
[1:57:21] behind it. We'll of course also see how
[1:57:24] it plays out this year and the
[1:57:26] discussions
[1:57:31] you can again we're just trying this for
[1:57:32] this year. If it's something that you
[1:57:34] like we're just going to keep going
[1:57:35] until you're ready to change together.
[1:57:37] If you feel like you find there are too
[1:57:38] many big kinks or like Matt said, some
[1:57:40] unique organization comes, you know,
[1:57:44] goes up in stature or they have some
[1:57:46] reason why they should increase in
[1:57:47] funding and it goes up that by
[1:57:49] percentage, it's fine. The motion
[1:57:50] language can be 5%
[1:57:52] and that gives you room for at least one
[1:57:54] to two.
[1:57:55] >> So okay, so that's making more sense to
[1:57:57] me now. But then with with my
[1:58:00] understanding now it seems like you'll
[1:58:02] be flagging these organizations saying
[1:58:04] okay
[1:58:05] >> yes
[1:58:05] >> you know this these guys are going to go
[1:58:07] into this 5% just so you know we can't
[1:58:09] really fun this without so that will be
[1:58:13] guided more by you. Yes.
[1:58:15] >> Be managing that bucket separately like
[1:58:17] the the bucket 5% for um
[1:58:20] >> tier one.
[1:58:21] um managing those buckets and
[1:58:23] letting you all know
[1:58:24] >> 5% for each district
[1:58:27] managing those.
[1:58:28] >> Oh yeah, sorry. That's Yeah, that's a
[1:58:29] good point. So Paul brings up a good
[1:58:31] point is um the the
[1:58:34] I want to say legislature, but that's
[1:58:35] for the county the council which is our
[1:58:37] legislature um a few years ago wanted to
[1:58:39] make sure that each of the six six
[1:58:42] council districts um received a minimum
[1:58:45] of 5% of the tier 2 budget. That's how
[1:58:47] we came up with that guideline at 5% was
[1:58:49] like, well, the council set this it's
[1:58:51] really a priority and important for
[1:58:52] them. They feel okay about this. Let's
[1:58:54] start there as a proposal and not be
[1:58:57] crazy. That's a good point to bring up
[1:58:58] is that's how we thought about this.
[1:59:00] Okay, this is a bucket. The council has
[1:59:01] said they've exercised the background
[1:59:04] information we gave you that it says in
[1:59:05] 1031 that the tier 2 can allocate money
[1:59:07] for specific things. It's local,
[1:59:11] but that's we started 5%.
[1:59:13] >> Is it still 5%.
[1:59:15] >> It is. That's And it's still a
[1:59:17] challenge. We'll have to turn it every
[1:59:19] year as you know.
[1:59:20] >> It's a challenge
[1:59:23] >> for this the language in this one. What
[1:59:25] I'm hearing you say it's helpful to
[1:59:27] understand too. Right now it's written
[1:59:29] as up to or around 5%. Are we limiting
[1:59:32] ourselves and should we change motion
[1:59:33] language to just say around instead of
[1:59:36] the up to? like are we gonna catch our
[1:59:38] like if for some reason we want to put
[1:59:40] 6% funds based on the applications to go
[1:59:44] outside.
[1:59:45] >> My concern with that would be that if we
[1:59:47] only wanted if the applications were not
[1:59:50] of a good enough quality and you only
[1:59:52] wanted to fund 1% of it.
[1:59:53] >> You'd be forced to then go up to three
[1:59:55] at least to be kind of around 5%. So up
[1:59:59] to let you be lower all the way to zero
[2:00:01] if you want.
[2:00:01] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But around what you
[2:00:03] kind of above it, I guess that's where
[2:00:04] I'm thinking of is up to or near.
[2:00:08] >> And I would say the draft motion
[2:00:10] language on that proposal, it should say
[2:00:11] to allocate up to or around.
[2:00:14] >> It should say it should say or around
[2:00:16] this.
[2:00:17] >> Whoever makes that motion that would be
[2:00:18] great that
[2:00:22] » correct
[2:00:25] >> other questions about tier two tier one.
[2:00:29] Can I just Sorry, I don't want to get
[2:00:31] hung up on this, but if you say up to or
[2:00:33] around 5%, you're saying we could go
[2:00:35] higher than 5%.
[2:00:37] Why would we why would we be so fuzzy
[2:00:40] about it?
[2:00:41] >> Well, I think it's like what Matt said a
[2:00:43] minute ago, like if if you had an
[2:00:44] extraordinary organization come in and
[2:00:46] you were kind of you were limited to
[2:00:48] that 5% around let you fudge a little
[2:00:51] bit more so you can if we had a bunch of
[2:00:54] organizations come in and they're all
[2:00:55] spectacular. if you look if you cap it
[2:00:57] exactly at 5%. And this gives you a
[2:01:00] little bit of room to wiggle a little
[2:01:02] higher if you need to.
[2:01:03] >> So seven considered around 5% because
[2:01:06] you're kind of getting back up to where
[2:01:08] you didn't want to be. You know what I
[2:01:09] mean?
[2:01:10] >> Yeah. It sort of sounds like I mean I'm
[2:01:11] not tier two but it sounds like you're
[2:01:12] creating a policy per se that's not
[2:01:14] enforceable.
[2:01:15] >> That's what I I mean
[2:01:16] >> and so you guys would have to decide if
[2:01:18] you wanted something. So I don't we want
[2:01:20] this to be a policy. It's just a
[2:01:22] practice guideline for the board members
[2:01:25] when they do their reviews.
[2:01:27] >> Um just like the uh the tier one um
[2:01:31] related to party transaction, that's the
[2:01:32] board's wishes for us to have a
[2:01:34] different practice internally. And so we
[2:01:36] will do that until he wants to change
[2:01:37] it. Same thing here. This is so when
[2:01:39] Cody's managing the budget of 3.4
[2:01:41] million, he has to split it between the
[2:01:43] 18 disciplines. Then he has to split it
[2:01:45] out of county in county. Then he has to
[2:01:47] split it local arts agencies. and he has
[2:01:49] to split it um in tier one and then he
[2:01:51] has to split it I can't remember the
[2:01:53] last one but it just helps so that you
[2:01:54] all know where your numbers are and you
[2:01:56] know how you can be flexible and where
[2:01:57] your balances are and you can make good
[2:01:58] decisions and then at the end of the
[2:02:00] year he really gives you a nice master
[2:02:03] spreadsheet that shows you things and
[2:02:04] then y'all can start talking about how
[2:02:06] do we feel about some of the things so
[2:02:08] again it's not a policy this is just a
[2:02:10] way for us to feel like we're being
[2:02:12] transparent the board and and the public
[2:02:14] about decisions the board is making kind
[2:02:17] of rails that we're trying
[2:02:20] give us a target to work with.
[2:02:22] >> Yeah.
[2:02:24] I was gonna say I wonder if um
[2:02:26] maybe some language you could consider
[2:02:28] is um up to 5% of the funding for
[2:02:33] organizations based out of solid county
[2:02:35] absent extraordinary justification for
[2:02:39] allocation
[2:02:41] and then of course what does
[2:02:42] extraordinary mean that would need to be
[2:02:44] in the discussion
[2:02:46] >> but I think that at least gets you So
[2:02:49] >> a basis for
[2:02:51] having a conversation.
[2:02:53] >> Okay. Then I have to play advocate. I
[2:02:56] guess
[2:02:57] >> how about we just say if we just say 5%.
[2:02:59] Sorry. Now I'm coming back around. What
[2:03:01] if we just say 5% because Z is for Salt
[2:03:03] Lake County.
[2:03:05] >> And it's a practice. If the board
[2:03:07] decides at the all day meeting they want
[2:03:08] to go higher, they can. Right.
[2:03:10] >> You can just change your practice. This
[2:03:12] is to guide the staff. Yes. For us the
[2:03:15] 5% rule last year. Sorry,
[2:03:18] >> we did use the 5% rule by district last
[2:03:20] year.
[2:03:21] >> Yeah, we do every year. Yeah. Yeah,
[2:03:23] >> that one is policy.
[2:03:24] That that one is
[2:03:26] policy that that the council did. But if
[2:03:28] this isn't comfortable, I mean, we can
[2:03:29] have another conversation, but we did
[2:03:30] work through this through the working
[2:03:31] groups. We spent a lot of time on this.
[2:03:33] We listened to the board and we're
[2:03:34] hoping this will help with our internal
[2:03:36] practices so that we can make better
[2:03:37] decisions with provided guide. Um,
[2:03:41] but they don't enforce that it's not. So
[2:03:43] when I see it as a guideline or a target
[2:03:45] that helps me be more comfortable about
[2:03:47] >> it's a practice.
[2:03:48] >> Yeah.
[2:03:51] » No, no. Again, you can change your book.
[2:03:53] But hey, you know what? Extraordinary
[2:03:55] circumstances and want to give 15.
[2:04:01] » I object to that.
[2:04:04] >> Um how about the other ones? Because of
[2:04:06] this 5% I'm just wondering are there
[2:04:07] other ones that you want to talk?
[2:04:08] >> Are they all they're all um proposals?
[2:04:11] Practice
[2:04:11] >> proposals. Just practices
[2:04:14] targets. Not
[2:04:15] >> Yep. We won't do policy anything until
[2:04:17] we draft it up and like Matt sees it and
[2:04:20] the summer.
[2:04:21] >> Yeah.
[2:04:21] The the board can't actually set
[2:04:24] policy, but any specific policies would
[2:04:26] have to be approved by the can of course
[2:04:28] recommend things and go through that
[2:04:30] process. But anything the board thinks
[2:04:31] actually is really
[2:04:34] >> I think that's sometimes something we
[2:04:36] forget to mention is that it's an
[2:04:37] advisory board, right? And any major
[2:04:39] policy things really does have to
[2:04:41] budgeted process internally the board
[2:04:45] has recommendations like what we'll do
[2:04:46] this summer take some recommendations to
[2:04:48] that that's a good point recommendations
[2:04:53] between
[2:04:55] >> sorry can you unless there's more%
[2:04:59] conversation
[2:05:01] >> they're always
[2:05:05] um just the tier 2 treatment of new and
[2:05:07] returning organizations
[2:05:10] can Can you just better explain to me
[2:05:12] that I understand the organizations
[2:05:15] returning after one to two years away
[2:05:16] but the new organizations and returning
[2:05:19] three or more years away. Can you just
[2:05:21] explain to me what is like 5500 25% 50%
[2:05:25] 75%
[2:05:27] >> I didn't have this for me. I apologize.
[2:05:28] >> Okay. I just don't know if I'm
[2:05:29] understanding it. So, um, in the past
[2:05:32] before I got here, uh, the board had
[2:05:34] determined they had a practice that they
[2:05:36] adopted every year that they for new
[2:05:40] applicants over you're basically after
[2:05:42] someone's fund where they're Yeah.
[2:05:44] >> Right. So, for new applicants, their
[2:05:46] work practice was to give an average of
[2:05:48] $1,500
[2:05:50] for the application. If the application
[2:05:51] wasn't that good, they didn't get a,000
[2:05:52] or 500.
[2:05:54] >> Even if they asked for 40 or 50 or
[2:05:55] 60,000.
[2:05:56] >> Yes.
[2:05:56] >> Oh, okay. So, they have to really
[2:05:58] >> Yes. And so, and then if they did really
[2:06:01] good, they might give them 2,00 2500.
[2:06:04] And so, you could imagine the board and
[2:06:06] grantees were very frustrated that the
[2:06:07] growth within the Zap program, even if
[2:06:09] you're nailing it, nailing their
[2:06:10] mission, wasn't happening
[2:06:12] >> because they also had a policy or not,
[2:06:15] they also had a practice where they
[2:06:17] would only give a 10% increase like
[2:06:19] average per year. So, if you only start
[2:06:21] at 2,000, you only get 2,200 next year,
[2:06:24] right? It's really hard to get to to go
[2:06:25] higher.
[2:06:26] >> Sure. So, we based these numbers. We
[2:06:28] thought the best thing to do is that
[2:06:30] there's thresholds within the tier 2. So
[2:06:32] at the levels of 22,000, 43,000, and
[2:06:36] 85,000, there's different financial
[2:06:38] requirements. So we started at the
[2:06:39] bottom one at 22,000. And we said, let's
[2:06:42] start with that framework because that's
[2:06:44] a mark index that we did. Um, and let's
[2:06:47] start with that framework and base it
[2:06:49] off that. So the year one, 25% of the
[2:06:53] 22,000 is 5,500. In year two, 50% of the
[2:06:57] 22,000 is 11,100. Does that make sense?
[2:07:01] So can they can move up faster? That's a
[2:07:03] max cap. Yeah.
[2:07:04] >> Um so that uh the board can feel more
[2:07:07] generous and they're rewarding the hard
[2:07:09] but they still want to build that
[2:07:10] relationship. There is a policy that um
[2:07:12] people do need to have a relationship
[2:07:14] with Zach for three years to get 22,000
[2:07:17] or more or even apply for tier one. So
[2:07:20] this helps the board be more generous in
[2:07:22] a formulaic type rails kind of way
[2:07:26] >> versus
[2:07:28] there was a situation few years ago
[2:07:30] where the opposite happened where it was
[2:07:33] a grantee that has been a grantee from
[2:07:35] years they left um they had their own
[2:07:39] reasons and it was a number of years and
[2:07:41] then they came back expecting to be just
[2:07:43] at the same level right they still ask
[2:07:46] asking for tens of thousands of dollars
[2:07:49] and the board gave it.
[2:07:51] >> Yeah. There was a whole other
[2:07:52] conversation about like, well, you can't
[2:07:53] just disappear. Sure.
[2:07:54] >> And then suddenly be like, hey, I'm
[2:07:56] back. Give me all the money.
[2:07:58] >> So, it's it kind of goes, right?
[2:08:01] >> I am very glad you clarified this.
[2:08:03] >> Yes. But I just want to say Ryan and
[2:08:04] Patty were were really helping us
[2:08:06] understand this is frustrating to have
[2:08:08] people come and go and be expected and
[2:08:11] the board is obligated to give back and
[2:08:13] then vice versa that you're not able to
[2:08:14] be generous when you know somebody's
[2:08:15] really doing good for the community.
[2:08:18] Okay, that's
[2:08:26] » okay.
[2:08:28] Tier one, let's look at the related
[2:08:30] party transactions. Does there need to
[2:08:31] be any more discussion? Otherwise, I'll
[2:08:33] entertain a motion.
[2:08:37] Okay. Is it they may want to make a
[2:08:38] motion?
[2:08:39] >> A motion.
[2:08:40] >> Thank you, Amanda.
[2:08:42] >> Second.
[2:08:43] >> Okay. And all in favor?
[2:08:46] I have to specify what the motion is.
[2:08:48] >> Oh yeah, maybe read the motion. I'm so
[2:08:50] sorry. Yes, you have a draft. You can
[2:08:53] read the edits in
[2:08:55] >> I feel like we've already done that
[2:08:55] because we've had so much conversation.
[2:08:57] I'm so sorry. Go ahead to approve the uh
[2:09:01] proposal. No edits.
[2:09:04] >> Um you want to go ahead and read the
[2:09:06] full motion language that they had on
[2:09:07] the last paragraph, the second page
[2:09:09] there,
[2:09:12] >> just so it's really clear for the
[2:09:13] record. Um
[2:09:17] Yeah, go ahead.
[2:09:18] >> Okay. Um, a motion to delegate the
[2:09:21] review and understanding of related
[2:09:23] transactions to the staff administrative
[2:09:26] staff. Zap staff are expected to report
[2:09:29] to the advisory board recommendations to
[2:09:31] allow or disallow transactions and any
[2:09:34] noteworthy information from the
[2:09:36] consultation.
[2:09:37] >> Thank you. I just wanted that clarity
[2:09:39] with all the other conversation and do
[2:09:41] we I'm sorry. I didn't read the second
[2:09:43] on that. Okay. Um, All in favor?
[2:09:46] >> Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. Thank
[2:09:50] you.
[2:09:51] >> So for tier two, we have four. Let's
[2:09:53] start with the first proposal in the um
[2:09:56] binder. It's the proposal for tier one
[2:09:58] reserve allocation within tier 2. Do we
[2:10:01] need any further discussion or otherwise
[2:10:02] I will take I will accept a motion.
[2:10:05] >> I just like to clarify this one does say
[2:10:08] up to or around. So are we beeping are
[2:10:11] we going with that language? I know this
[2:10:13] is a different
[2:10:15] >> It's still same percentage
[2:10:18] between what you're saying.
[2:10:21] >> Yeah.
[2:10:23] >> Are we making out the 2026
[2:10:27] specifically
[2:10:31] » change it to for each annual grand
[2:10:33] cycle?
[2:10:37] » Okay. So, I think we want what we're
[2:10:39] saying we don't want to say the 26
[2:10:41] piece, right?
[2:10:43] currently
[2:10:45] >> and then
[2:10:47] >> ongoing for more than one year until
[2:10:49] you're ready.
[2:10:50] >> And then we want to change the language
[2:10:51] around up to five
[2:10:54] um or around to
[2:10:57] five and then extraordinary
[2:10:59] circumstances comment. Is that
[2:11:01] >> up to five?
[2:11:06] » So not the around five. That's what
[2:11:07] we're agreeing to
[2:11:09] what you're saying. Tier four, tier two.
[2:11:12] after the discussion passes
[2:11:21] the way it is
[2:11:30] discussion or are we ready to motion?
[2:11:33] >> I accept a motion.
[2:11:36] >> I'll motion
[2:11:39] >> to
[2:11:39] >> I'll motion to
[2:11:42] The tier 2 advisory board motions to
[2:11:44] allocate up to or around 5% of the tier
[2:11:47] 2 budget for the ongoing grant cycle
[2:11:49] year and make funding recommendations
[2:11:51] accordingly as outlined in the tier one
[2:11:53] reserve allocation within tier 2
[2:11:55] proposal.
[2:11:56] >> Is there a second?
[2:11:58] >> I second.
[2:12:00] >> Brand will take a vote. All in favor?
[2:12:03] >> I.
[2:12:05] >> Any opposed?
[2:12:07] The motion passes. Go to number two. the
[2:12:11] proposal uh tier 2 treatment of new and
[2:12:14] returning organizations. Is that the
[2:12:16] second one? Just kidding. The second one
[2:12:18] is outside Salt Lake County tier. I'd
[2:12:20] already turned the page. The outside
[2:12:21] Salt Lake County tier 2 allocation. Is
[2:12:24] there any sort of discussion we'd like
[2:12:25] to do on this proposal?
[2:12:28] Kind of beat that one to death. Right.
[2:12:31] I'll entertain a motion on this
[2:12:32] proposal.
[2:12:34] >> Motion is right.
[2:12:36] >> Yeah. Okay.
[2:12:37] >> Um a motion. Okay. The tier 2 advisory
[2:12:40] board motions to allocate up to or
[2:12:43] around 5% of the tier 2 budget for the
[2:12:45] ongoing grant cycle year and make
[2:12:47] funding recommendations accordingly as
[2:12:49] outlined in the outside Salt Lake County
[2:12:52] Tier 2 allocation proposal.
[2:12:54] >> Thank you. Is there a second?
[2:12:56] >> I second. Brian, we have a vote. All in
[2:12:58] favor?
[2:12:59] >> I opposed.
[2:13:03] The motion passes unanimously.
[2:13:05] >> Think it'd be fun to replace the word
[2:13:06] funding with the word fun.
[2:13:12] Our third proposal is the tier 2
[2:13:13] treatment of new and returning
[2:13:14] organizations proposal. Um any we'd like
[2:13:18] any more discussion on this one.
[2:13:22] Okay, I'll accept the motion.
[2:13:26] Anyone on chair two can motion?
[2:13:33] » Pass it over.
[2:13:37] » It's up to them
[2:13:41] page.
[2:13:41] >> Okay. The tier 2 advisory board motions
[2:13:46] to utilize the presented set percentages
[2:13:49] formula based on the lowest threshold
[2:13:51] the financial requirements for
[2:13:52] determining maximum potential award
[2:13:54] amounts for new and returning
[2:13:56] organizations depending on the
[2:13:57] applicant's quality and or other factors
[2:13:59] related to the applicant pool and
[2:14:02] >> so this one is as written do we have a
[2:14:04] second
[2:14:06] >> just to clarify rightly clear that I
[2:14:08] don't
[2:14:08] >> that's true we made no changes
[2:14:10] >> we made no changes
[2:14:10] >> no changes
[2:14:11] >> I'll
[2:14:12] Patty a second. Vote. Uh, all in favor?
[2:14:15] >> I
[2:14:17] >> Any opposed?
[2:14:19] Passes unanimously.
[2:14:21] Number four, the tier 2 advisory board
[2:14:23] practice proposal formula for
[2:14:25] unallocated or reduced tier 2 budget
[2:14:28] funding. We did not discuss this one.
[2:14:30] Does anyone have any questions or
[2:14:31] discussion on it?
[2:14:34] >> I have no concerns.
[2:14:36] >> This is mostly
[2:14:38] formula.
[2:14:39] >> Okay. hearing. None. I'll accept a
[2:14:40] motion.
[2:14:43] >> I move as previously written.
[2:14:46] >> Is there a second?
[2:14:47] >> I second.
[2:14:50] >> We have down there too.
[2:14:51] >> Katie.
[2:14:52] We'll do Katie.
[2:14:54] >> Okay. All in favor?
[2:14:56] >> I. Any opposed?
[2:14:58] It's a unanimous motion passes. Thank
[2:15:01] you.
[2:15:04] » Okay. A time check. Time check. 3:24.
[2:15:08] Okay. So, we were going to do a little
[2:15:09] activity.
[2:15:12] where we're going to like ask each other
[2:15:14] questions um to each other. But I
[2:15:16] actually am thrilled with the
[2:15:17] conversations have been happening. I
[2:15:18] have to be honest. We all have been like
[2:15:19] from the bathroom to the water fountain
[2:15:21] or the hallway to in here. So, um we're
[2:15:23] a little short on time, so we won't do
[2:15:25] that exercise each other. But, if you
[2:15:27] wouldn't mind if we could move to the
[2:15:29] stairs like when you first come in that
[2:15:30] main set of stairs. We're going to take
[2:15:31] a couple photos and then you come back
[2:15:33] and get your things tier one and join me
[2:15:34] upstairs. And tier two you can stay
[2:15:36] here. And again, you can take a break
[2:15:38] after the photo or get something to eat
[2:15:40] or whatever.
[2:15:43] >> What time is 3:30ish?
[2:15:48] >> So, we got five minutes.
[2:15:49] >> So, we got to do photos in a break in
[2:15:51] five minutes.
[2:15:53] Let's go.
[2:16:11] You know what I mean?
[2:16:29] play some tennis.
[2:16:30] >> You like
[2:16:35] » I do.
[2:16:51] Honestly,
[2:17:03] » we are together internship because
[2:17:12] » Yeah, we're doing pictures. So, come
[2:17:13] this way.
[2:17:17] » You or where are you coming? Yes, I'm
[2:17:19] studying music composition at
[2:17:20] university.
[2:23:41] everybody else.
[2:23:45] I don't want to be the person that you
[2:23:46] know there's a chatty box
[2:23:49] watch, you know. Well, I'm glad I'm glad
[2:23:51] you can make it. I'm glad it's going.
[2:23:53] >> It's great.
[2:24:11] these three people
[2:24:13] that
[2:24:18] » exactly
[2:24:27] wants to go straight from the conference
[2:24:29] room to your
[2:24:30] >> Andrea.
[2:24:32] any public on the phone? We're
[2:24:34] going to go ahead. The tier ones are
[2:24:35] going to depart the tier 2 meeting and
[2:24:36] we're going to go upstairs and start the
[2:24:38] WebEx to the tier ones.
[2:24:39] >> We Okay, sounds great. So, should I just
[2:24:41] clock log off here and get the new
[2:24:43] >> link on the bottom of the page?
[2:24:48] Okay, I'll do that. Thanks.
[2:25:05] I know it's always
[2:25:31] Yes,
[2:25:54] » looks like everyone's all
[2:25:58] >> gonna bring us up, So if you miss
[2:26:03] » is it Brian who's online?
[2:26:06] >> Yes, Brian is still online.
[2:26:14] » Perfect. And then Andrea, there is
[2:26:16] another link uh for the tier ones and
[2:26:19] logical. They are switching to a new
[2:26:21] link. It's at the bottom of the agenda.
[2:26:28] Great.
[2:26:30] Um,
[2:26:33] before we get started, I just want to
[2:26:35] hold space for if there's any follow-up
[2:26:37] questions from just previous part of the
[2:26:41] meeting that you've had that you wanted
[2:26:42] about any part of the process that some
[2:26:45] of the slideshow, anything that um want
[2:26:49] to get into
[2:26:50] before we kind of discuss more about
[2:26:52] what a subcommittee process exhibit is.
[2:26:57] » Yeah. As usual,
[2:27:01] We're in trouble.
[2:27:04] >> Only one.
[2:27:06] >> Um, and maybe
[2:27:09] I'm just going to throw it out there. We
[2:27:10] don't have to discuss it now, but
[2:27:12] >> parking lot if we need to.
[2:27:14] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, because it might
[2:27:16] be more relevant later on in the
[2:27:18] process. Um, but I feel like this
[2:27:20] happens year after year and maybe
[2:27:22] something to be done about it and maybe
[2:27:24] I don't know, it doesn't matter. about
[2:27:25] um something about the some of these
[2:27:28] action items that we just voted on about
[2:27:30] um maximum um aotment after coming back
[2:27:33] or being new, right? These kind of
[2:27:35] number these number maximums
[2:27:38] >> which makes me think about um the the
[2:27:42] issue of organizations like asking for
[2:27:46] the moon, right? Like
[2:27:47] >> sure,
[2:27:48] >> they will be a first year organization
[2:27:49] like we need $50,000, you know? So, and
[2:27:53] I think and this has come up in the
[2:27:54] past, but since we're putting some like
[2:27:56] guidelines around these things,
[2:27:59] one are organizations going to be um
[2:28:02] informed of this and so can we then say
[2:28:05] you know the rules and now you're just
[2:28:07] being unreasonable. Can we dock them on
[2:28:09] that? like you know that your max is
[2:28:12] 11,000 like you know what I mean like
[2:28:14] 50% of your um of the money coming in
[2:28:18] you know is do you have a lot of that
[2:28:21] >> we can only fund 50% of their full
[2:28:23] budget
[2:28:23] >> so they aware of this right now
[2:28:25] >> they're aware of the 50% that you know
[2:28:27] zap funds cannot fund more than 50% of
[2:28:29] their organization um I wouldn't
[2:28:32] necessarily per say maybe dock them for
[2:28:35] asking for what they because what
[2:28:37] they're ask maybe is over the might be
[2:28:39] seen like over the moon because of what
[2:28:41] the budget has available for it might be
[2:28:43] what they need to ask for. But I think
[2:28:45] as we as this practice is you know you
[2:28:48] try this out this year um this is
[2:28:50] something you know if it's being
[2:28:51] consistent it's something we can have
[2:28:53] discussions with um grantee you know
[2:28:55] applicants u when they do have that type
[2:28:58] of question you know and again this is
[2:29:00] it be it's a guideline for you to kind
[2:29:03] of make that decision um again I think
[2:29:05] it's when you're um you're considering
[2:29:10] uh the criteria it's you know
[2:29:13] you want to score based on the criter
[2:29:15] criteria, right? And you want to like
[2:29:16] financial accountability. Um, it doesn't
[2:29:19] necessarily relate to how they they're
[2:29:21] asking per se, but it's how they how
[2:29:23] they're stewarding their finances and
[2:29:24] how well they're demonstrating that
[2:29:27] stewardship of of the finances for the
[2:29:29] organization. So, um, hopefully that
[2:29:32] kind of answers that question.
[2:29:34] >> Um, and you know, and honestly, it might
[2:29:36] be moot now that we have kind of a
[2:29:37] revamped financial
[2:29:40] >> assessment, you know, in submittable.
[2:29:42] So,
[2:29:42] >> right. I mean if it's if it's something
[2:29:44] like if it's more than 50% of their
[2:29:46] obviously that's not something we can do
[2:29:48] right um and they are aware of it it's
[2:29:50] in the application it's in the it's in
[2:29:52] the forms itself so um I think that's
[2:29:55] definitely going to
[2:29:57] >> hopefully
[2:29:58] >> so less
[2:29:59] >> you're so if I'm if I understand you're
[2:30:01] saying that organization first year
[2:30:04] organization request $20,000
[2:30:07] >> they could still get a full 15 points
[2:30:09] because they don't get deducted for
[2:30:10] having asked for more,
[2:30:13] >> but that you just know that you couldn't
[2:30:15] fund that.
[2:30:16] >> Or if they if their if their if their
[2:30:18] total budget for the year is 20,000 and
[2:30:21] they ask for 15, we don't dock them
[2:30:24] points anywhere for asking for 15. We
[2:30:27] you just keep track of the fact that it
[2:30:28] can't be more than 10.
[2:30:30] >> Correct. Does it say anything in the
[2:30:33] grant manual about
[2:30:36] as a first year or returning applicant
[2:30:38] after many years like there needs to be
[2:30:41] an established relationship between Zach
[2:30:43] or like often or typically in that first
[2:30:45] year you
[2:30:46] >> one of the things that it does yeah one
[2:30:48] of the things it does talk about is
[2:30:49] funding history so the decisions are
[2:30:51] made based on the history so it kind of
[2:30:54] addresses some of that but I think again
[2:30:55] with establishing more of these
[2:30:57] practices that's something that can be a
[2:30:59] bit more articulate
[2:31:00] in you know subsequent manuals. For
[2:31:03] sure.
[2:31:03] >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm just saying
[2:31:07] >> for sure
[2:31:10] document it.
[2:31:11] >> Yeah. Right. Right. And when we do have
[2:31:13] questions and kind we've kind of alluded
[2:31:14] to that a little bit in our
[2:31:16] conversations with folks, but now that
[2:31:17] it's a little bit more of a practice,
[2:31:19] that's something we can stand on more as
[2:31:21] the app and kind of say, hey, this is
[2:31:23] what they voted on and and the typical
[2:31:25] direction that they take. So, you might
[2:31:27] want to consider
[2:31:30] and why.
[2:31:36] » I want to know what you're gonna say. I
[2:31:39] just don't know that I really like in my
[2:31:42] experience I don't know that I I
[2:31:44] understand the need for a relationship
[2:31:46] with Zap, but I don't really necessarily
[2:31:48] understand why a new grantee should be
[2:31:51] essentially penalized just because
[2:31:52] they're new if they're doing board work
[2:31:54] and they maybe didn't know about the
[2:31:55] organization before. But
[2:31:57] >> but
[2:31:59] I also don't know that I fully
[2:32:01] understand the full landscape of
[2:32:02] everything. So I don't think that's but
[2:32:05] that's what I
[2:32:07] >> actually you're more flexible here than
[2:32:09] we have been in the past.
[2:32:10] >> I think that's and that was kind of the
[2:32:11] point was to make
[2:32:12] >> 1500.
[2:32:13] >> Yeah. Yeah. I'm hearing the history and
[2:32:15] hearing what these kind of new
[2:32:17] guidelines are.
[2:32:19] >> Yeah.
[2:32:20] And I would answer that question by
[2:32:22] saying we're limited to how much money
[2:32:24] and when a new one comes in think they
[2:32:26] bought it's going to be one money away
[2:32:27] from the other.
[2:32:32] So it's got to have that taken into
[2:32:34] account.
[2:32:36] >> It's like my city every time I do a rope
[2:32:37] project that is I can't be there.
[2:32:40] >> Yeah.
[2:32:41] >> Love the questions but I do want to be
[2:32:43] mindful of just the time that we have.
[2:32:45] We'll have to make sure we get through
[2:32:46] everything. And again, we have questions
[2:32:48] come up um or we have time at the end,
[2:32:49] we can continue having the conversation.
[2:32:51] I one thing that I do want to just kind
[2:32:53] of mention as you start your reviews,
[2:32:55] you want to this is just, you know,
[2:32:58] basic strategies and reminders on on
[2:33:00] reviewing. There's a lot of
[2:33:02] applications.
[2:33:03] Um please review a few applications each
[2:33:06] day once you get them. Do not wait until
[2:33:08] the last minute. folks have um some
[2:33:10] folks have been working on it for months
[2:33:12] and so we just ask that you take the
[2:33:14] time uh you know to read it. Pace
[2:33:17] yourselves um so that you're not
[2:33:18] overwhelmed by the time uh we get to um
[2:33:22] subcommittee reviews which actually I
[2:33:23] want to hand out um just a really quick
[2:33:25] um you've received this by
[2:33:28] um uh this is a
[2:33:32] um a schedule for when the subcommittees
[2:33:34] are going to be hosted. So, we will be
[2:33:36] hosting them uh the first two at the end
[2:33:39] of June on the 29th and 30th. Um and
[2:33:42] then the the first full week of July, 6 uh through the 9th. Um it's
[2:33:48] pretty packed. Um as as you can see, um
[2:33:52] and I want to point out one of the
[2:33:55] really important things is that we do
[2:33:58] really need your scores and your reviews
[2:34:01] in by a particular date. So find your
[2:34:04] name and make and find when you're
[2:34:06] planning on uh when you're scheduled to
[2:34:08] review. Um and just mark the date um
[2:34:12] that I need those in there. Some of the
[2:34:13] analysis that you're talking about. If I
[2:34:16] don't have your scores in, I can't
[2:34:19] complete the analysis that you need in
[2:34:21] order to further the conversation in our
[2:34:23] subcommittee. So getting that in is
[2:34:27] going to be really um you know, really
[2:34:30] crucial. And like I said, we are getting
[2:34:31] them to you by the end of the day on
[2:34:33] June 1st. So, you should have them that
[2:34:35] you should start being able to read
[2:34:36] them. Now, you don't know exactly which
[2:34:38] subcommittee you're on yet. We do have
[2:34:40] um just kind of a draft, but we're
[2:34:42] waiting until the cycle closes immediat
[2:34:44] closes and then we will um make the
[2:34:47] assignments out um on that. You're all
[2:34:50] going to get something you have
[2:34:51] requested. Um and I appreciate those
[2:34:54] people who are like, I'll review
[2:34:55] anything um because you were able to
[2:34:57] schedule a little bit easier. Um there
[2:35:01] are
[2:35:01] >> I feel guilty.
[2:35:03] >> I know.
[2:35:05] >> I have feel good for you though.
[2:35:06] >> So
[2:35:09] >> and I just re just remind you all that
[2:35:12] this is a competitive process. You know
[2:35:15] when you're making these decisions you
[2:35:17] know yes you're considering funding
[2:35:19] history you're also considering
[2:35:21] application quality. So that's why it's
[2:35:23] really important to to consult the
[2:35:26] review and scoring criteria. Um and and
[2:35:30] one of the other things that I have in
[2:35:31] our in our binder that I want to pull
[2:35:34] your attention to. So this is in our
[2:35:36] binder um in the board manual. So if you
[2:35:41] will go to
[2:35:43] the fifth tab
[2:35:47] um
[2:35:49] fifth tab and then I want you to turn to
[2:35:51] page uh 24.
[2:35:56] One of the things that we want um you
[2:35:59] know folks to kind of start aligning is
[2:36:02] with our scores and recommendation
[2:36:04] amounts and and what you decide to do
[2:36:07] with that. And this chart here on page
[2:36:09] 24 kind of gives you an idea. This is a
[2:36:12] generalization. It's a guide. Um you
[2:36:15] still need to use of course your
[2:36:16] professional judgment or you know for
[2:36:19] other um as a as a framework. Um but for
[2:36:24] example, if your if the total
[2:36:27] application score across a few different
[2:36:30] um board members is between four to 16,
[2:36:32] I mean really that's an exceptional um application and you probably should
[2:36:39] just go ahead and fund them. Yes. And
[2:36:42] the recommendation type you might want
[2:36:43] to consider between, you know, maybe
[2:36:46] flat or increase. um you know that that
[2:36:49] person that application is doing a
[2:36:51] really good job because they're scoring
[2:36:54] high across all categories. And then as
[2:36:57] you see the chart it kind of goes down
[2:36:59] where you know by the time we get to 9
[2:37:03] through 11 that's kind of your adequate
[2:37:04] that's kind of middle of the road and
[2:37:06] probably yes there's going to be some
[2:37:08] you would fund that you're meeting
[2:37:10] baseline expectations across most
[2:37:12] criteria where we do want to have a
[2:37:15] little bit more discussion in the
[2:37:16] subcommittee meetings is when when folks
[2:37:18] start scoring things you know between
[2:37:20] the one and eight range that's when we
[2:37:22] need to have the discussions about um
[2:37:26] how and if you're funding the request,
[2:37:28] right? So, this is kind of why I need
[2:37:30] the scores in sooner because then I can
[2:37:33] um we can kind of sked schedule the the
[2:37:38] discussions. So, we'll the folks that we
[2:37:40] need to have some more time to discuss
[2:37:42] uh we'll start with those first, right?
[2:37:44] And those lead reviewers will go first
[2:37:46] and they will talk about what they are
[2:37:48] seeing the strengths and weaknesses. And
[2:37:50] for those that you know what you all are
[2:37:52] agreeing that like yes this this um
[2:37:55] they're doing great. We don't you know
[2:37:57] we yes obviously have the comments but
[2:38:00] the the amount of time that we're able
[2:38:02] to devote to them might be just a little
[2:38:04] bit um it might be more succinct. Does
[2:38:07] that kind of make sense on how we're how
[2:38:10] we're
[2:38:11] >> I have a question?
[2:38:13] >> Yes.
[2:38:13] >> Of course I have a question. Um, so in
[2:38:15] years past we have looked at people who
[2:38:17] request flat funding and treated them
[2:38:20] differently. We just basically say if
[2:38:21] they request flat funding and their
[2:38:23] scores are they're fairly good, we just
[2:38:25] approve them at flat funding
[2:38:27] >> without much discussion. Are we
[2:38:29] >> So at this point you're going to be
[2:38:31] starting to discuss
[2:38:32] >> flat funding. It's not
[2:38:34] >> discuss y
[2:38:35] >> because there might be a deck for that.
[2:38:37] >> Yeah.
[2:38:37] >> So funding.
[2:38:39] >> Yes. Well, I'm not lead reviewers are
[2:38:42] being it's they're assigned. I'm not
[2:38:43] taking the flat funders out. Everyone's
[2:38:46] going to be assigned um a reviewer. So,
[2:38:50] there will still be discussion around
[2:38:51] flat funding. David, did you have a
[2:38:53] question? Oh, I was just going to
[2:38:55] comment that I I I really like this
[2:38:57] rubric here because uh I guess just an
[2:38:59] analogy is I I teach for quite a few
[2:39:02] different universities at different
[2:39:04] levels, associate, bachelor, master,
[2:39:07] PhD, and I might be grading for one
[2:39:09] school that's saying, "Hey, we just need
[2:39:11] to get these students through, be more
[2:39:13] lenient." But then over here, well, this
[2:39:16] is their MBA capstone project. You need
[2:39:18] to grade it more strenuously. So what I
[2:39:21] found in previous cycles is
[2:39:24] I I believe that we're all grading the
[2:39:27] uh or assessing the individual entities
[2:39:31] um in a manner that is consistent, but
[2:39:34] one reviewer might be grading more
[2:39:36] lenient, one might be more stringent. So
[2:39:39] across the board, it still kind of
[2:39:41] averages out with that particular
[2:39:44] reviewer. Everyone's equitable. But but
[2:39:46] I really like this where the fund
[2:39:48] request is correlated to the store. I
[2:39:51] think that that might lead to more um
[2:39:55] let's say a better average of how
[2:39:57] everybody is assessing even though we
[2:39:59] have our own independent size and
[2:40:02] thoughts on what a strong application is
[2:40:05] versus a weak one. Probably be more
[2:40:07] consistent.
[2:40:08] >> Yes, that's correct.
[2:40:09] >> Can you remind me I think we went over
[2:40:11] this when we did the submittable
[2:40:12] tutorial. There is a place to These are
[2:40:15] last year's funding. So
[2:40:18] >> that's the internal form
[2:40:20] >> way down at the bottom.
[2:40:22] >> Very last thing
[2:40:24] >> I can show you. I can show you and if
[2:40:26] anyone has like after the meeting has
[2:40:27] concluded if you have submittable tech
[2:40:29] questions that you're like I don't I
[2:40:32] don't know where to go. I can we can
[2:40:34] look at your computer and see.
[2:40:37] >> Yeah. Okay. because I
[2:40:39] >> don't want to cut the conversation
[2:40:40] short, but I know it's 30 minutes and I
[2:40:42] do want to give time for Kelsey to talk
[2:40:44] a little bit about what the grants for
[2:40:45] advancing local arts agencies, the gala
[2:40:47] application is all about. Any other
[2:40:50] questions about funding recommendation
[2:40:51] by score guideline
[2:40:54] >> is that the the flat funding
[2:40:57] conversations they're asking for flat.
[2:40:59] Are you saying the conversation might be
[2:41:01] taking them above what they asked for?
[2:41:03] No, never above. Okay. But but in the
[2:41:06] past we've just not really discussed
[2:41:07] them. Like you look at them like they
[2:41:08] have threat requesting flat funding
[2:41:10] scores are fine. We move on to the next
[2:41:12] one and now we're going to discuss it.
[2:41:15] >> Any other questions about this
[2:41:18] particular guide?
[2:41:23] » Hearing none. Um I'd love to turn a
[2:41:25] little bit of time over to Kelsey to
[2:41:26] talk about the goal.
[2:41:28] >> Yeah. So, um this is not technically new
[2:41:33] funding. It is new grant opportunity. Um
[2:41:36] the funding for this program, just so
[2:41:38] you're aware, does come from the tier 2
[2:41:40] reserve fund. So, it really still
[2:41:42] follows all the same guidelines and
[2:41:44] eligibility uh criteria for reviewing.
[2:41:48] So, I just kind of want to set that as
[2:41:49] an awareness that there's it's kind of
[2:41:52] still a tier 2 application, but we're
[2:41:53] reviewing it a little bit differently um
[2:41:56] in what we're looking for in the
[2:41:57] application. One thing that is a little
[2:42:00] different this year for local arts
[2:42:01] agencies, um I don't know if you've
[2:42:03] talked about this, but we have asked for
[2:42:05] organizations who are applying as a
[2:42:07] local arts agency to supply a
[2:42:08] designation form. um they can use the
[2:42:12] Utah Division of Arts Museum's already
[2:42:14] an existing local arts agency
[2:42:16] designation form and it's signed by the
[2:42:18] municipality saying yep this
[2:42:20] organization is doing LAA work on behalf
[2:42:22] of the city or in partnership with the
[2:42:24] city. Um and then Zap created one as
[2:42:27] well so that if they don't have that one
[2:42:29] they could get this one plus the same
[2:42:31] signatures basically the same
[2:42:32] information. Um again that's just more
[2:42:35] of an awareness. It's not something that
[2:42:36] you need to review but you might see
[2:42:38] that in the form and it is that we have
[2:42:40] asked for this year.
[2:42:42] And um so a few things. If you are on
[2:42:46] the local arts agency discipline review
[2:42:49] um committee,
[2:42:51] I would ask that you review the um the
[2:42:54] gala guidelines. Um if you were not on
[2:42:57] that one, it's probably just something
[2:42:58] you might want to skim through because
[2:43:00] you might be on that committee next
[2:43:02] year. And um we do have funding for this
[2:43:04] for five years. So that in our
[2:43:08] >> we don't know yet. No. Okay. Know on
[2:43:11] Monday.
[2:43:12] >> No, the link
[2:43:13] >> the guidelines.
[2:43:13] >> The link for the guidelines. Yes. So, I
[2:43:15] think it's a link in the manual. It is.
[2:43:18] Okay.
[2:43:18] >> But it's not here.
[2:43:20] >> No. Okay.
[2:43:22] >> Um, but also happy to send that to you
[2:43:23] if you want.
[2:43:25] >> So, one of the things Cody did mention
[2:43:27] this already if you want to bring up can
[2:43:30] you look at the guidelines really
[2:43:32] quickly and I just want to show you
[2:43:33] what's in there. page 12
[2:43:38] reference link there
[2:43:42] >> and I'm going to share them on up here
[2:43:44] just
[2:43:49] » um okay so this is what they look like
[2:43:52] um if you want to scroll through the
[2:43:54] only thing to really I want to say call
[2:43:56] out for defining local arts agencies
[2:44:00] um what the intention of this program is
[2:44:03] and so specifically what we're looking
[2:44:04] for with the goals for this funding. It
[2:44:07] is again specifically for local arts
[2:44:09] agencies with the intention of them
[2:44:13] strengthening or increasing their
[2:44:15] community participation,
[2:44:17] diversification, reach, engagement, and
[2:44:19] or impact. It's intentionally a little
[2:44:21] bit more flexible because not every LAA
[2:44:24] can expand to more, right? They can't
[2:44:26] always have more people. Sometimes they
[2:44:28] might want to have a bigger impact or
[2:44:31] again diversify their audience. So
[2:44:33] that's why the goal is not just more.
[2:44:36] It's not just growth, but it's growth in
[2:44:38] different ways for each organization.
[2:44:40] There are a couple of possible projects
[2:44:41] here. And again, the intention is to say
[2:44:44] growth might look different for each
[2:44:46] organization. So we've given them a few
[2:44:48] ideas, but they can also go um propose
[2:44:51] something that's not on this list. So
[2:44:54] again, I don't want to spend too much
[2:44:55] time on it. You have this information
[2:44:57] and with the same document, it has the
[2:44:59] application questions and the review
[2:45:01] criteria. So, a quick thing on the
[2:45:03] review criteria, we'll pull up that
[2:45:05] other document.
[2:45:08] Okay, so you're also going to get this
[2:45:10] if you are on the LA subcommittee.
[2:45:13] Um, as Cody mentioned, you can't have
[2:45:16] two review documents in submittable up
[2:45:18] at the same time. Um, so you're going to
[2:45:21] review the local arts agency tier 2
[2:45:23] application. You're going to score it in
[2:45:25] submittable. on submittable, you'll see
[2:45:27] their grants for advancing local arts
[2:45:29] agencies responses, but you won't have a
[2:45:33] window to do that in. So, you're going
[2:45:34] to do it in this um PDF document and
[2:45:37] have it ready so that when we're done
[2:45:39] with the conversation of the LAA tier 2
[2:45:42] application, we can close it out and
[2:45:44] then input the numbers and your scores
[2:45:46] in the system during that same meeting.
[2:45:49] Um we will start with the tier 2
[2:45:51] application review and then in the
[2:45:54] second part of the meeting we'll talk
[2:45:55] about the gal applications.
[2:45:57] >> The purpose of this so we can award
[2:45:59] additional funding outside of gap
[2:46:02] outside of zap or within zap.
[2:46:05] >> So the funding for this um it is still
[2:46:08] tier 2 funding but it's our reserve. So,
[2:46:10] there was a um spend down plan for our
[2:46:12] reserve funds and part of that was to
[2:46:14] potentially designate this for our local
[2:46:16] arts agency capacity building. Um we do
[2:46:20] have $50,000 a year that the council
[2:46:23] approved for us to spend specifically on
[2:46:25] this grant category. We don't have to
[2:46:27] spend the full 50,000. If we don't spend
[2:46:29] it, it kind of will carry over to the
[2:46:30] next year. So, for five years, we have
[2:46:32] $250,000 total.
[2:46:34] >> Are they limited by their exact tier 2
[2:46:37] grant asking?
[2:46:38] >> No. The only thing that I will say is if
[2:46:42] they are currently asking for tier 2
[2:46:44] funding and they are uh recommended at
[2:46:47] 20,000 and they're asking for another
[2:46:50] five and it puts them over that 22
[2:46:51] threshold, they do still have to submit
[2:46:53] the same financials that they would for
[2:46:56] tier 2. So that is definitely in their
[2:46:59] manual. We've made reference to that.
[2:47:01] But I do think that's a note that that's
[2:47:02] something I'm going to look at and
[2:47:03] they're going to look at with the
[2:47:05] submissions that come in tomorrow. Will
[2:47:06] you be flexible if they miss the
[2:47:08] deadline because of that specific
[2:47:10] >> I think that can be a request for
[2:47:11] clarification and
[2:47:14] >> yes
[2:47:16] um so that's just an awareness for you.
[2:47:19] We only have three criteria for this one
[2:47:22] but it's the same you'll see it's worded
[2:47:24] in a very similar way. So if you just
[2:47:25] want to kind of scroll down um
[2:47:29] we still have the same kind of guiding
[2:47:30] language to what exceptional, strong,
[2:47:32] adequate means. The three categories are
[2:47:35] sorry what's the first community impact
[2:47:38] I think is the first one. So community
[2:47:40] impact and value
[2:47:42] um and then we have
[2:47:44] partnership and collaboration and then
[2:47:47] the last one is on um financial
[2:47:49] financially sound and and uh
[2:47:51] demonstrated need. So you will find more
[2:47:55] information in the guidelines as well as
[2:47:57] in this document. So if you want to
[2:47:59] spend a little more time once you get
[2:48:00] those assigned to you to look through
[2:48:02] what the kind of criteria is for that
[2:48:05] and the only other thing I will say is
[2:48:06] that so right now we have three
[2:48:08] submitted. I suspect we will have three
[2:48:10] more by the end of day tomorrow. So
[2:48:12] we'll probably have six g applications.
[2:48:15] Um the funding can be used for more than
[2:48:17] one year but we do only have $50,000 a
[2:48:20] year to award it. So I know that's like
[2:48:22] a super fast overview but I don't want
[2:48:24] to spend too much. So if they got
[2:48:25] $50,000, they can use 25,000 this year
[2:48:28] and 25,000 next year. Or is that 25,000
[2:48:30] next year affected by next year's
[2:48:32] budget?
[2:48:32] >> No, it would be like they can use it for
[2:48:35] up to five years.
[2:48:36] >> Okay.
[2:48:37] >> But it would come out of our
[2:48:38] >> this year's a can up to five years, use
[2:48:42] this year's budget.
[2:48:42] >> Correct.
[2:48:43] >> Yes.
[2:48:46] » Any other questions? I know that again.
[2:48:49] We we will be sending emails with very
[2:48:52] specific details for each subcommittee.
[2:48:54] So like if you're on the LAA uh
[2:48:58] subcommittee, you're also going to be
[2:48:59] reviewing the gala applications. We will
[2:49:01] provide again some of more of these
[2:49:03] resources in those emails once um with
[2:49:05] those assignments so that you feel
[2:49:07] comfortable like you have all the things
[2:49:08] at your disposal to to do the reviews
[2:49:11] successfully.
[2:49:12] >> And this is this GA is only for LAAR,
[2:49:15] correct? They've all been this is
[2:49:17] something that is possible.
[2:49:19] >> Yes.
[2:49:20] >> Yeah. And I I keep sending out emails
[2:49:22] and now the fact that I'm in house six
[2:49:24] and I was excited to have three. I
[2:49:26] probably with House six, I'm like maybe
[2:49:27] I spoke too loudly. I don't know. So I
[2:49:30] think we're definitely going to go
[2:49:31] through the budget this year. Um I know
[2:49:33] some of the applications or at least
[2:49:35] proposed applications and they're good. I like I really think
[2:49:39] they're using it in the way that was
[2:49:40] intended for this funding. So I'm
[2:49:41] excited about that. Um, the only other
[2:49:44] thing I was going to kind of point out
[2:49:45] that if you are the lead reviewer for
[2:49:47] somebody that submitted their tier 2 and
[2:49:49] or their LAA application and the gala,
[2:49:52] you'll be the lead reviewer for the gala
[2:49:54] as well. So,
[2:49:56] >> one final question. Only one
[2:49:58] organization can get the money.
[2:49:59] >> No, you have to split the $50.
[2:50:02] >> Yep. However, however you choose to.
[2:50:04] >> Okay. What if it's not fun the project
[2:50:06] they want to do? Um, so they are aware
[2:50:10] of the limitations in the funding and if
[2:50:13] we if maybe we see one that has like a
[2:50:16] lot of merit and you'd like to keep a
[2:50:18] majority of the budget and there's not
[2:50:19] enough left to fund all of them, I'm
[2:50:20] going to encourage them to apply again
[2:50:22] next year. Um, because I would love to
[2:50:24] fund all of the leas at some point with
[2:50:26] this funding
[2:50:27] >> and they once they get the an award they
[2:50:30] can they can apply next year. How long
[2:50:31] until they can apply again? It's not
[2:50:32] that they can't, but we're going to put
[2:50:34] some pretty strong language around if
[2:50:35] you've been funded, you likely will not
[2:50:38] be funded before. We will prioritize
[2:50:40] those that have not yet.
[2:50:41] >> Thank you.
[2:50:43] >> Get out of
[2:50:46] >> So, if you win a prize on KSL, we can't
[2:50:50] for the next prize.
[2:50:54] » Any other questions?
[2:51:05] We covered the deadlines for us.
[2:51:06] >> You did,
[2:51:07] >> dude. It's four.
[2:51:08] >> Is there any Is there any other business
[2:51:10] for the committee?
[2:51:12] >> I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.
[2:51:16] >> Okay, we are journed at what their time
[2:51:18] is right now. 4:00.
[2:51:20] >> Wow, that's impressive.
[2:51:22] >> That's amazing.
[2:51:23] >> When are we going to get our student?
[2:51:27] If anybody needs to do an event,
[2:51:30] >> what are you doing?