[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?

ZAP Annual Advisory Boards' Orientation May 28, 2026

Transcript