MINUTES OF THE INFORMAL MEETING OF THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:
JANUARY 18, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chairperson Stutsman called the Johnson County Board of Supervisors to order in the Johnson County Administration Building at 9:02 a.m. Members present were: Charles Duffy, Jonathan Jordahl, Mike Lehman, Sally Stutsman, and Carol Thompson.
Stutsman: I’d like to call to order the informal meeting of the Johnson County Board of Supervisors for Tuesday, January 18, year 2000. I’d like to remind people that this will be the last time for a period of time that we’ll be having the informal meeting on Tuesday. Starting Thursday, we’ll go to our new format of having informal and formal on the same day. Review of the formal minutes of January 13. I understand from Casie these were just sent up at 8:15, so I have a hunch that none of the Board members have had a chance to review them. If you have any changes or corrections, if you could get those to me before Thursday, otherwise we’ll just put those on for Thursday for final approval.
Stutsman: Item 3. Business from Jan Peterson, Decat Coordinator for Johnson County Decategorization Project. This is a discussion regarding the Decat Family Resource Center update. Cheryl Whitney, from the Department of Human Services is also here, as well as Linda Severson, Human Services Coordinator for Johnson County Council of Governments. Did you want to come up to the table too, Linda?
Severson: No thanks.
Stutsman: Oh, you’re OK back there. Thanks for coming in this morning.
Johnson County Decategorization Project Decat Coordinator Jan Peterson: Thank you for having us.
Stutsman: Giving us an update. I think, Jonathan, you asked for Jan and Cheryl to come in and give us an update on what’s happening?
Jordahl: Jan had a meeting of Decategorization last week. As you know, the funding for that program has kind of been, I guess it would be too mild to say inching down, but going down, over the last few years. This was an attempt to get out ahead of that process and ask what the implications would be of the future of that program as the funding gets lower and lower, what is the function of the program, what do we want to do with it? My question tossed into that mix was how does this fit together with the idea of Community Center Development. Because it seems like a lot of the same kinds of things that we would want to do in that area might fit well under Decategorization, but their funding is going away. If we’re going to put funding into Community Centers, maybe this is the place to put it and get it done that way. With that bit of a preamble, I think I’d better stop talking before my spin goes off into an entirely wrong direction.
Peterson: Well, we had also wanted to just give you some information as you’re looking at the Community Center concept, about where we fit into that, and some updates. First thing we wanted to do was thank you, the Board, for all your past support. Thank you for everything, and we’re very grateful. The handout you have, the blue sheets are our government structure, and some of you know this inside and out, some of you it’s kind of new to. The chart shows that our Executive Committee, we have 2 appointed representatives for each of those entities, Department of Human Services, Juvenile Court Services and the County. The Executive Committee is our decision making body. They get recommendations from the Planning Committee, and the membership of the Planning Committee is all listed there. The Planning Committee is our workforce group. They meet once or twice a month, and are responsible for all of the ongoing planning and implementation of the project, and making recommendations to the Executive Committee. The 3rd layer is our community structure, which has changed a little in this past year. All of those committees, these are not set membership. They’re open to the community, and there’s a lot of participation from agencies that aren’t necessarily receiving Decat funding, but participate in planning. The providers are agency administrators, and our mailing list is about 50 for that. The Line Staff are front line workers and agency staff people. We used to meet quarterly, the Decat Line Staff, and for the last 2 years, we’ve rolled that in with the Juvenile Crime Prevention Line Staff training’s and meetings. That’s worked really well. For consumer participation, up until this year we had a separate, standing Decat Consumer Committee, but they made the choice this year to disperse into the community. Everyone that was on that committee is currently serving some place else. We’ve got them on the Empowerment Board, on Empowerment committees. Some are on the Consumer Leadership Team with the Community Grant, and others are serving on other advisory groups throughout the County. We also have, for every Decat funded program, we expect significant consumer participation, and they all have advisory boards with consumers on them. There is a lot of consumer participation. The 2nd blue sheet, just a more detailed, the same stuff I just covered though. The cream sheets are Decat budget information, and the one that looks like a chart, I guess they both kind of do, but this one. The top one. These are the primary sources that we have for funding prevention and community based services in the County. The Decat budget, the first one, that’s our regular budget. There are 3 funding streams for that budget: DHS, Juvenile Court Services, and the County. It is primarily DHS money. The way that works, what we have for funding Decat programs is any money that we didn’t spend out of our child welfare allocation for Court Services. It’s not separate funding, well, there was $55,000 connected, but it’s primarily child welfare funds. There has also, for the last 5 years, been County money, and that’s the 2nd line there that says County funds. That is not additional money. I just put it out there so you could see it. It’s part of the total. Those are child care dollars that the County’s put into Decat, and they have funded Home Ties. But if you look across the line reading right to left, you see that decreasing. There are several reasons for that. Most recently, it is that there just hasn’t been carryover from the Child Welfare budget. The allocation’s been needed for Core Services.
Department of Human Services Area Administrator Cheryl Whitney: We should mention what Core Service are, probably. Family, foster care, group care, family center services, family preservation services, child care services, are the primary Core Services that we must fund before we can fund Decat services.
Peterson: All right now, Cheryl’s projecting a deficit in her budget. Decat has a reserve from the very beginning. They’ve made a policy of keeping at least the equivalent of whatever our year’s budget is in reserve, so we didn’t end up all of the sudden with no money. Our reserve right now is about $400,000. Our projection right now for the deficit is about $290,000 something, isn’t it? The deficit will need to be covered with Decat reserve, so there is a possibility that a goodly amount of our reserve is going to go to Core Services this year, and that’s what, I think, Jonathan’s talking about.
Whitney: Our total child welfare budget exceeds 3 million dollars. When we look at just the special Decat funded services, we’ve always tried to look at a 2 year budget, the current year and then the following year, because we typically make awards for that. For instance, for 2001, we would typically be making those awards this spring, or kind of as you do, your budget cycle in 2001. We would be doing that for Decat. We need some assurance about how much money we will have, how much revenue we’d have.
Jordahl: I just want to make sure that everybody notices that the fiscal years go from right to left here.
Peterson: Sorry, it’s backwards. The other thing that I would mention about that that I think matters, is for all of the programs and services that Decat funds, we also provide oversight. We help with program development. They’re accountable to us. We get quarterly reports from everybody, we get year-end reports from everyone and we conduct site visits. For all the programs that we serve we provide support for them. I serve on all the advisory committees. We help them with their evaluation and development of outcomes. There’s a lot of management involved in all those programs, too, we don’t just hand the money out. That’s that. Do all the contracting and the billing. The family resource centers, on this 2nd cream sheet, I’m going to go back to that top sheet, but the 2nd cream sheet…
Stutsman: I’m sorry Jan, but do people in the audience have copies of this material?
Reverend Bob Welsh: Unfortunately, no.
Peters: Oh, I’m sorry, there were some extras, and here’s a couple more. Jan, give me a white one, and I’ll make more copies.
Stutsman: Thanks, Carol.
Peterson: I’m sorry, I didn’t realize…
Jordahl: How many of those do we need? Looks like 4 or 5.
Peterson: That 2nd sheet is the complete Decat budget for the last 5 years, so if you want to see what’s being funded and at what level from year to year, it’s on there. The family resource centers that we fund are on that detailed budget show as NCJC Clear Creek. That’s the one out in Tiffin and Oxford, North Liberty and Hills. We’ve got $85,000 funding those 3 centers currently. That line has gone down, but going back to that first cream sheet, there are other sources of funding for Decat projects. The 2nd line there is Decat grants, and these are grants that we apply for directly and get, and that, you can see, has gone up steadily for the last 5 years. In fact, it’s short. I realized in the middle of the night that…
Stutsman: Was it at 4:00, Jan?
Peterson: …that I forgot that we have an additional $10,000 from a Federal grant for Children At Home, so the FY 00 amount is actually 236. The line after that is grants in the community that are directly leveraged by Decat matching funds, and that has also gone up for the last 5 years. 6 years. It’s now almost $500,000. Some of them we directly match, where the award that we make is for the match, like Juvenile Crime Grant. Some of them, it’s money that we’ve put into programs like out in Clear Creek, that they then use to leverage other grants. They have a school (inaudible) services grant out there, and a Juvenile Justice Grant. They would not have been able to get those without the Decat contribution. That is a loss, too, if we don’t have the funds to be able to do that. I added Empowerment on here because Decat is instrumental in our getting that grant. Both the designation as an Empowerment Area and also the actual grant funds. I guess I want to emphasize that Decat isn’t going to disappear. We have watched this happen in other counties, where they’ve been down to zero budget for a year or 2 and they’re still alive and kicking. There are a lot of things that we fund and do in the community that don’t rely just on that top budget. What that top budget is going to affect is the programs that we directly fund. I think that’s jeopardized for next year.
Stutsman: But the framework is still in place.
Peterson: Absolutely, yes.
Stutsman: The decision making, the framework. Even if we may not have as many dollars to use, and if and when that reverses, I think it’s really important to keep that infrastructure in place, as we’ve seen with Empowerment. You have to have that infrastructure in place to make the rest of it work.
Peterson: Yes. That’s the budget picture. Did you want to add anything else to that?
JCCOG Human Services Coordinator Linda Severson: I don’t think so.
Peterson: Does anybody have any questions about the budget?
Jordahl: I see Linda Severson here in our audience, and I’m wondering, Linda, if you have any thoughts about this you’d like to contribute, how this relates to your function in JCCOG, for example.
Severson: Well, I’ve been involved with Decat since I started this particular job, and I think that JCCOG and Decat and Empowerment all work pretty well together, and we’re aware of what’s happening and trying to utilize and maximize the dollars. But what’s happened is with the Core Services that DHS is responsible for, and Cheryl can give us specific numbers, but those numbers have gone up and we have to fund those things first, then the carryovers left for Decat. Our numbers, unfortunately, have been going up in foster care and family centered services, so that takes away from the dollars that we have to allocate for prevention programs, which is unfortunate.
Jordahl: Yes. Prevention is the important thing here. Go ahead, Sally.
Stutsman: The Board has had a request from the North Liberty Resource Center to put additional monies into that center, and we’ve talked about how to use the Decat framework to put those dollars in there. Can you maybe talk a little bit to the entire Board about how that would work if the Board decides to do that?
Whitney: Actually, it would be very similar to what you’ve done with the day care money, with Home Ties. We could do it different ways. With that particular line item, what we have done is at the end of the fiscal year, we have done a voucher. Johnson County has written a check that has been deposited in our Decat account. We voucher the money out from that account for that particular program. We could do something very similar if Family Resource Center, you wanted to put whatever amount of money in, that money could be written to Decat, and we could voucher the money out, do that contract, and do the follow up, as Jan talked about, that we do with all the other site visits. We would see the same responsibility as if it were the child welfare dollar, as far as the older site would go. Did that answer your question, Sally?
Stutsman: Yes, and that’s why it seems like it’s a much better approach for the Board, to have that money go through Decat rather than just us issuing a block grant to a resource center with no oversight, with no parameters about what we want the money to be used for.
Peterson: Our contracts are rally specific about what we expect. They have not only service expectations but outcome expectations, which, if we can take a minute just to talk about what we’ve seen with these family resource centers, it’s been pretty amazing. I did not bother to write down all the little outcomes. They have outcomes specific to different programming that they’re doing in the different centers, but I have just been amazed, in a very short period of time of what’s happened in those centers out in the areas where we have them. There are things that are listed, bulleted, on the purple sheet. But the kinds of impacts that I think those centers have had out in the areas where we have them, that are most impressive to me. One is the community building that it creates in the area itself. People get together in the communities and start talking about what they need, what they want, what their issues are. They’ve put full resources, it’s just amazing. It makes a difference. Clear Creek, for instance, I think this year for the first time, they’re starting to talk about alcohol use and violent behavior, which I think, prior to now, just hasn’t been considered much of an issue. It’s just sort of something that is there, but they have, I don’t know, some way to focus, I guess, and bring those resources together. None of those communities have a lot of cash or a corporate base or some way to contribute a lot of dollars, but they contribute tremendous support. They blend things that are happening in the community with the things that are happening in the centers beautifully. One example is a church out in Clear Creek that agreed to have kids that aren’t members of the church come to their Wednesday night kids club thing, so they provided the space and the structure for those activities. The Family Resource Center provided additional staffing to take care of the extra kids. It’s happened primarily in Clear Creek and North Liberty. Hills is just kind of starting, and I think it’s different out there because they had the Department of Education grant. Their funding started out different and they had that cushion of that grant which is going away, so they’ve been a little slower to get the entire community involved. The school, of course, has been integral to it all along. But they’re working on it, and I believe that they will see the same thing that we’ve seen in North Liberty and Clear Creek. Just the bringing together of the resources that exist in the community and their own problem solving that they do is pretty incredible to me. Access to services, resources and activities. I think one thing we’ve learned is that the folks out there do not get to Iowa City for a host of reasons. Transportation is a huge one but it’s not the only one. When there are services available locally, they avail themselves of them. They also, after some time of being at the Family Resource Center, which isn’t a formal service place, it doesn’t have the stigma, it’s not a place for poor people, it’s not a place for families who are having trouble. They go there for things they’ve designed and defined themselves, is what they want. After a while, they will begin to ask for personal help. It takes a while.
Stutsman: But it’s building that trust.
Peterson: Yes. The first time we went out to Clear Creek, we had this whole beautiful program planned, you know, home visitation. Boy, we got nowhere. I think we had 2 families in the first year. They did not want us in their homes. Now those families are involved for a host of other reasons at the Family Resource Center, and will go to someone they know and say, could you help me out with this. That is huge to me. It takes a while. But the nature of what those centers are, I think, is fabulous. It seems to make a lot of sense.
Stutsman: You point out Clear Creek. I remember being on the Decat Board when that was being started. The primary thing when we first when in there was that, we will tell you what to do, and the community said loud and clear, uh-uh. That’s not how it’s going to work. Then when it was what the community wanted, then it just flourished.
Peterson: We learned so many lessons. We started with all these services we were going to pump out there, and ended up with finally going to them and asking what they wanted. The 3 things we had was a phone in a laundry room at a trailer park that people could use the phone, a stop sign, and services for the elderly, which is really different than what we usually fund with Child Welfare dollars, but they determined that, and since then, it’s become what it is.
Stutsman: From there you were able to build on other things, other needs that came to light.
Peterson: I just wanted to make that plug that I think it works.
Stutsman: Linda, you had your hand up.
Severson: Yes, I was just going to mention that United Way of JCCOG is doing a community capacity assessment. We’ve done a number of focus groups in the rural communities, and one thing that came through pretty clear is the desire and need for a community center. They’d expand a little bit broader than a family resource center, but an area that would be open to residents of the community that would offer positive activities for the youth, but also offer services for seniors. In our focus groups around the County, that’s come through pretty clear as a real desire, not a lot of concrete ideas on how to get it going or to fund it, but it seems like that’s been a need that’s been identified by a variety of people of different ages.
Peterson: I think you need a staff person. It doesn’t just happen.
Duffy: Staff person?
Jordahl: Do you mean a staff person on sight?
Peterson: Yes. I don’t think you necessarily need a building to start, but you need somebody who’s, like Pat and I are always out in Clear Creek, and we had Jo Winders out. Someone needs to be there who’s coordinating, listening, working to get things done.
Duffy: The $350,000 Empowerment Grant. That would have to be… Well, it wouldn’t have to be, but the Department of Economic Development would have a lot to say about that.
Whitney: There’s an Empowerment Board that was created, Charlie, and they were the ones who approved our proposal, who gave us the designation. It is a State funded grant.
Duffy: We’re talking about the (inaudible).
Whitney: Right.
Duffy: $350,000. OK, the grants other than paid for by Johnson County. Have they been going up? It looks to me like they have. Quite a jump from FY 1995, $426,790. Now it’s up to $393,545.
Whitney: Those are competitive grants that we apply for, Charlie, and they’re listed on that 2nd cream sheet down at the bottom, so you can see what those grants are and what the amounts have been over the years.
Stutsman: Jan is very modest, and Cheryl, but they have just been terrific at pursuing these grants and writing these grants. Like I said, they’ve said they are competitive, and to have that many grants come into the community is just great.
Thompson: Are the grants time limited or will they continue?
Whitney: Time limited. They come and go.
Thompson: They always are, aren’t they. We liked it that when the North Liberty people came in to talk to us, North Liberty said that they would match the money that they asked us to put in. Would Decat be able to accommodate some kind of matching arrangement with other communities?
Whitney: Now, how do you mean that, Carol? Would we be able to accept money?
Thompson: And do agreements with other places besides North Liberty for a match?
Whitney: We could do it in different ways. I don’t know that North Liberty will… They’ll probably want to give their money directly. They could give the money to Decat, we would be willing to accept it and then management. They may wish to do it just directly to this center.
Thompson: I wasn’t so concerned with where they put the money as that they were willing to put in an equal amount.
Whitney: Right. I would think that we could… I mean, we’ve worked with lots of different communities, lots of different programs. The thing about Decat is the flexibility to a large extent. I would think that we could do that.
Stutsman: I know in the past we’ve always kind of had an RFP process for these grants. I wonder if that could be part of the RFP, that we have a block of money that we allocate to resource centers, and if a community wants to access those monies, then part of that RFP would that they would have to match, or some kind of match.
Whitney: Certainly. We could build that in.
Jordahl: I’m wondering about the stigma aspect of this that you’re referring to in a way, earlier, when you talked about the first effort to go out to Clear Creek. Nobody is eager to have themselves as I am in need. When you talk about family resource centers, to me there’s still an overtone of I go there because I am in need. It sounds like there’s less of that under the way that it’s currently being worked out. But I’m reminded of Joe Gjovig, who was in here last week, talking about the Senior Center. People don’t want to be identified as Seniors, and what other word can we use, and he suggested community, as a Community Center instead of a Senior Center. I’m wondering if there’s a gap between the notion of funding family resource centers and funding community center. A community center might have more, for example, bouncing basketballs, and a family resource center might have more social workers. Is there a gulf between those 2 concepts, and can we bridge it? Do we want to?
Peterson: I think they’re the same concept. We have a lot of bouncing balls and services. It’s not like going to an agency. I don’t know if you’ve been out to this center at all, but they have libraries and they have activities for kids. It does not feel like a place you go because you need something, and I don’t think the communities perceive it that way. It is a place they can go if they need something. Out in North Liberty, a lot of the direct stuff, they have their clothes closets and food banks. They have some of the food and clothes available at the Center, but there are also other locations around the community. It’s a joint thing. That’s an I need help. But it’s not the flavor of the centers, Jonathan. In my mind, there’s not a different between a neighborhood center, a family resource center and a community center. The concept is still that it’s a place where the community comes together and decides how they meet the needs of their citizens.
Whitney: As opposed to us, that’s sort of state, we’re here to help you kind of concept.
Jordahl: Right.
Thompson: How do you coordinate between the centers that are run by neighborhood centers, and the ones that are run by the schools?
Duffy: That’s what I was going to say.
Peterson: Well, it threw me for a loop because I just don’t make much distinction. The location makes some difference. Clear Creek, I think, was a lot more community-based from the beginning because they weren’t in the school, but North Liberty is very, very community based, and they are located in school. For us, though, Carol, it doesn’t really make any difference. We do the same management functions and the same oversight regardless of the location of the center.
Whitney: One of those, Site Coordinators, have gotten together. Are they still doing that, Jan, I know early on they met as a group.
Peterson: Yes, I think they still do together. (Inaudible) used to do that under Decat.
Stutsman: OK. Different resource centers around the County get together.
Peterson: We had meetings quarterly. I haven’t done that for about a year, but they talk to each other all the time, I know. There are some differences about how they function, but fewer than you would imagine.
Duffy: Clear Creek and North Liberty are fairly close together. 6 or 7 miles or so. Could children and families from Clear Creek go to North Liberty, or do they have to stay in their own backyard?
Thompson: Some of the children who go to the North Liberty Center probably go to Clear Creek schools, so there could be some overlap there because of that mixing of school districts.
Duffy: Well, they probably would, but I’m just saying that…
Stutsman: I don’t think there’d be any saying they couldn’t, but I think the idea of these are neighborhood resource centers, so that they’re close by. You can walk to them. I think we kind of defeat our purpose if we start going across those neighborhood lines. I mean, that’s my personal opinion, or feeling about them. It’s to build community within a neighborhood.
Jordahl: Not to say that someone would be restricted. If someone from Tiffin showed up, they wouldn’t be thrown out the door.
Stutsman: No.
Peterson: People tend to go where they identify as this is my home community. They would go to that center.
Whitney: For instance, in Oxford, the school has made a building available, so that’s a contribution that they are making, and families can go to that geographic location. North Liberty people go to the school, and there is space there, and then it extends from that. At Tiffin, they rent a separate space. They have been able to do that. But it is, people very much go where they feel that their community is, and they make that choice. For instance, we’ve probably had some kids who are open enrolled from the Clear Creek area into North Liberty. Those families may very well want to go to that North Liberty site as opposed to the Clear Creek site.
Jordahl: I’m just wondering whether it would be the same thing to you if we said let’s put any money for this kind of thing in a budget line that said Community Centers as opposed to Family Resource Center. It shows up a distinction that a community might want to come in and say here, match our funds because we want to build a swimming pool or something. Not result in a family resource center with it’s associated library and functions of access to counseling and feeding into the social services system and so forth. It might just be a swimming pool. Are those at cross purposes?
Peterson: No.
Stutsman: I think some of these details can be worked out through the process that we have with the Decat Board. You know, 2 Board members serve on the Executive Committee. Any RFP that comes through we have to approve. I think those are some of the details that could be worked out so we have a clear understanding of what the Board wants these funds to be used for.
Jordahl: But that’s the kind of thing that I think the Board has to at least review and make a statement about as a policy statement. I like the idea that this isn’t something that the community can work up on its own, and the Board could state, we wish to have the community work this up on its own, for example, as a Board policy. But what are the parameters of that?
Peterson: It’s a new thought to me to… Decat has never funded bricks and mortar. It’s funny to me to think of Decat funding a swimming pool.
Stutsman: I don’t think we want to do that.
Thompson: Good reason for putting money in Decat.
Stutsman: Well, and that’s a Board policy decision that has to be made. But I guess I would be hesitant too about bricks and mortar and getting involved in Capital Projects in these different communities.
Peterson: Having the center, though, might allow them to get together and say look, as a community, what we really want is a swimming pool and then proceed from there. We have never funded a building. Although they need a space, and in fact that’s going to be a pretty critical issue out in Tiffin really quick.
Jordahl: How do they get a space if they don’t have a space?
Peterson: They rent or they share. For a while, Clear Creek’s space was a van. Then it was a laundry room. Now they’re renting a space that’s falling apart.
Jordahl: But we don’t fund that, the community would fund that.
Whitney: There was a line item in the budget for rent. It was pretty (inaudible) that was needed in order to just to thwart what they were doing rather than the opposite. I think the impact of family resource center, there’s some sort of core components to a community center or family resource center that we could identify we really didn’t do that for this morning. But as opposed to this is a swimming pool, this is a community center that supports families and adults. Some real core things would be access, like VNA, for instance, goes out and does the flu shot and the blood pressure check and immunizations. They’re not going to do that at a swimming pool, but they would do that at a community center. That’s a really easy way.
Jordahl: I think if we look at our motivation for funding this kind of thing, it’s coming out of a variety of areas, from Juvenile Crime Prevention including Public Health as a central way of making sure that County services are available in an equitable way throughout the County. Then it’s easier to make an argument for calling it Family Resource Center. It does come down to details, but it is an important policy discussion, because I don’t think it’s unlikely that we would get a proposal for a swimming pool, for example, to come in. We’d have to be clear about what it is we do want to fund and why.
Whitney: We’ve learned a lot through the years about how we write RFPs and how we review them and details. When I think about where we were 7 years ago, what I personally have learned about this process and continue to learn, I have to say.
Stutsman: That’s why I feel so comfortable having Decat, tapping into that process that’s been laid out for Decat. Through trial and error, a lot has been learned, and I’ve observed the progress along the ways. It’s all been very constructive learning. I think it’s proved itself. I think it’s worked very, very well for the community. The community identifies their needs, Decat helps to address those needs as long as the dollars are available, with a good process to get all kinds of community input. We’re going to have to wind up. Just because I say that, don’t scatter. Any other additional comments? Bob, you had your hand up.
Welsh: 2 comments. The Governor’s Committee on Early Child Care and Early Education is proposing throughout the State community centers at this point. One of the things being presented in Child Care and Early Education is working with parents. The other is, in relation to this, bricks and mortar type of thing, a reminder of the Community Development Block Grant funds which are accessible through counties. I gave you all material that I’ve gotten through the State on that. Last year, a predominate amount of money that was given was for communities to develop day care setups for family group setups. That’s where brick and mortar were going to come in through that Community Development Block Grant fund.
Thompson: Do we apply for that?
Welsh: If not, I gave you all the material from that. I think the ones (inaudible) was the 41% of the population needs to be low income.
Thompson: 41%?
Welsh: I think that’s the figure, Carol.
Stutsman: It’s pretty high.
Thompson: You mean the population that are using the service you’re going pay for or all the County.
Welsh: No, of persons using that facility.
Thompson: OK.
Welsh: Some place in my file I’ve got that material and took a quick look at it again and give that all to you. I think that’s (inaudible) brick and mortar. At the end, those that offer matching schemes will be funded more than those who do not offer it.
Jordahl: That’s the aspect of this that I would throw into the mix, not necessarily for thorough discussion this morning, but for recognition by the Board that it has to be discussed at some point, is what level of funding are we interested in putting into this? Are we interested in putting more money into Decat generally than just the neighborhood centers/community centers/family resource centers notion? What availability of matching funds would there be for that? We’re looking, on the one hand, at a jail project where people have been tossing out numbers that are colossal. I’ve heard of figures as high as 25 million dollars for that. Here, we’re talking about the kind of family nurturing community building that is the very essence of crime prevention. We’re talking about a mere pittance of money by contrast to what we’re asking for the jail. If we believe that prevention works, and if we believe that it’s a more economical way of putting money into our community in a more positive way. Then we ought to ask ourselves what level of funding this program ought to have in the overall perspective of the health of the community. I think the answer to that, at least for me, is a fairly substantial one.
Stutsman: That’s something that we will be discussing during the budget process. This is one of the items that’s been proposed, and we will have a discussion about that. Any other final comments? Linda?
Duffy: Bob, would you repeat that about… Did you say 41% was…
Welsh: That is my memory, Charlie. Sometimes my memory’s good and sometimes it’s not good.
Duffy: The 41% low income families to use this, or what did you say? I didn’t get all of it.
Welsh: What I said was to be eligible for Community Development Block Grant Funds, from my understanding. (Inaudible) the population being served by that project, there was the restriction of 41%. I could be wrong on that. I don’t know whether any of you on the Board remember that, but I duplicate all that.
Stutsman: But it seems like I did some looking into Community Block Grant, and it seems like the County applies for them, but the City allocates them. I don’t know, Linda, if you have any more light on that.
Severson: There are 2 different types. One is Entitlement, which is communities of 50,000 or more get entitlement for community development, and then there’s also State Community Development dollars that municipalities or counties can apply for. I think JCCOG and ECICOG and also the community development staff at the City would be glad to offer resources and assistance and knowledge and experience and mistakes if we were to pursue that. But to me that would seem one way to look at bricks and mortar dollars and add County dollars if you can’t (inaudible) operational.
Stutsman: That’s a discussion for another… Thank you, Linda, for that information. I just didn’t want to go into another lengthy discussion about looking at those dollars. Linda, did you have another comment?
Severson: No, that’s it.
Stutsman: OK. Thank you for the update. This is real valuable information as we go through the budget process. We have a clearer picture of how we can maximize these dollars if we decide to go that route. Thank you.
Severson: Well, give me a call if you have any questions.
Stutsman: All right. Thank you. Any other questions that the Board has? If not, thank you again.