HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-01-23 Housing & Human Services PACKET
Ashland Housing and Human
Services Commission
January 23, 2014
4:30 – 6:30 P.M.
Council Chambers –1175 East Main Street
1. (4:30) Welcome and Introductions (20 min)
2. (4:50) Commission Business Discussion (15 min)
Meeting Date/ Time/Location discussion-Binder review
3.(5:05)Interim Chair and Vice Chair election (15 min)
4.(5:35) Social Service Grant Project Overview and Discussion (30 min)
Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist
5.(6:05)Community Development Block Grant Overview and Discussion (10 min)
6. (6:15) Liaison Reports/ Discussion/General Announcements (5 min)
Liaison Reports
Council(Pam Marsh)
Staff(Linda Reid)
General Announcements
8.(6:20)Check in and meeting wrap up (5 min)
9.(6:25)Agenda Items for next meeting/Commissioner items suggested(5 min)
Quorum Check – Commissioners not available to attend upcoming regular meetings
should declare their expected absence.
10.(6.30)Upcoming Events and Meetings
Next Housing and Human Services Commission Regular Meeting
TBD
11. (6:30) Adjournment
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900).
Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure
HHoussing andd HummanServvicess
CCommmisssionn Memmo
TTITLE:Coouncil Request regardingg Social Servvices Grant and Social SServices Graant
Hiistory
DDEPT: CoommunityDDevelopmentt
DDATE: Jaanuary 23, 20014
SSUBMITTED BBY: Liinda Reid,HHousing Proggram Speciallist
th
AAt their reguular meeting on Decembeer 17, 20133 the City Coouncil approoved a motion to “requesst the
nnew Housingg and Humann Services CCommission to conduct aan analysis oof the currentt social service grant
pprogram, foccusing on whhether grantss are targetedd to the rightt areas and wwith the apprropriate allocations,
tthen have theem bring thoose findings to a discussiion with the Budget Commmittee.”
TTo address thhe Council’ss request the Housing annd Human Seervices Commmission couuld evaluate tthe
ffollowing quuestions to innform their aanalysis of thhe City’s exiisting social service grannt program:
Whatt is the historry and backgground of Ashland’s Soccial Service Grant Progrram?
oo What are the goals offthe Social SService Grannt Program?
oo Are the prrogram goals being met??
Whatt is the application proceess?
oo Is the process of solicciting and scrreening grannt applicationns efficient aand effectivee?
oo Is the process of awarrding grants efficient andd effective?
oo Could thee award and reporting processes be immproved?
oo Should thhe Housing aand Human SServices Commmittee have a role in thhe process?
oo What are the follow-uup reporting requirementts on outcommes?
oo What is thhe assessmennt of the proocesses by prrior granteess?
Howis the Ashlaand communnity benefittinng from the grant awardds?
oo Is this thee most efficieent and effecctive use of tthe funding??
oo Is the funding leveragging additionnal investmeents in the coommunity?
oo Are there efficienciess to be gainedd by awardinng fewer orgganizationsllarger grants?
Shouuld the criteriia for award target particcular commuunity needs?
oo How wouuld any fundiing criteria oor priority neeedsbe deterrmined overr time?
oo Should thhere be fundiing restrictioons?
IIncluded as aattachments are documennts which mmay shed somme light on thhe questions stated above and
pprovide assisstance to the Commissioon as they annalyze the cuurrent social service grannt process.IIn the
eevent the Commission’sanalysis inddicates that thhe current awward processs is not the mmost effectivve
approach in targeting awards to best address community needs, the Commission’s findings will be
provided to the Budget Committee for discussion.
Housing and Human Services Commission recommendations are scheduled to be brought before the
Budget Committee sometime in May. Staff will take Commissioner feedback and draft a report for the
Commission to approve at a subsequent meeting in advance of forwarding the analysis to the Budget
Committee.
Attachments:
Council Direction:
12/17/13 City Council Meeting Minutes
Social Services Grant History/Background:
Human Services Grant History
June 1986 Report of the Community Health Care and Future Social Needs Committee
Ashland Strategic Plan Social and Human Services Element (2000-2002)
05/07/02 Report on Health and Human Services Plan compiled by the ad hoc human services
committee
08/15/00 City Council Meeting Minutes
Social Service Grant Documents:
Social Service Grant Application
Social Service Grant Application Checklist
Sample Social Service Grant Agreement
2013 Grant Process Documents:
03/20/13 Budget Committee Meeting Minutes
03/21/13 Budget Committee Meeting Minutes
Proposed Social Service Award Allocation for 2013-2014
MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING
ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL
December 17, 2013
Council Chambers
1175 E. Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Stromberg called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council
Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Councilor Voisin, Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Rosenthal, and Marsh were present.
MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS
City Administrator Dave Kanner commended City employees that worked on the streets
during the recent snowstorm and shared staff experiences. Mayor Stromberg voiced
appreciation to all staff during this time.
Mayor Stromberg announced vacancies on the Tree, Public Arts, and Firewise
Commissions and on the Band Board.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The minutes of the Study Session of December 2, 2013 and Business Meeting of
December 3, 2013 were approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS - None
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Acceptance of Commission minutes
2. Endorsement of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday Celebration for the
purpose of hanging a banner
3. Appointment to Housing and Human Services Commission
4. Appointment to Transportation Commission
5. Request for a contract amendment exceeding 25% of original contract with
Roxy Ann Rock
6. Approval of a special procurement with JACO Environmental for
refrigerator/freezer recycling program
7. Klamath County Intergovernmental Agreement for building inspection
services
8. Special procurement for the purchase of a Schwarze Street Sweeper
9. Establishment of and appointment to Ad-Hoc Recycle Center and Waste
Reduction Committee
Staff recommended pulling Consent Agenda Item #6Approval of a special
procurement with JACO Environmental for refrigerator/freezer recycling program
for clarification. Management Analyst Adam Hanks noted an exhibit attachment was not
included in the packet information.
Councilor Morris pulled Consent Agenda Item #8Special procurement for the
purchase of a Schwarze Street Sweeper for further discussion. Public Works
Superintendent Michael Morrison addressed the asterisk on line five of the Special
Procurement form and explained the Public Works Department added a cushion to
vehicle replacement estimates when they did their budget to cover price variances that
might occur during the fiscal year. What was before Council was approval to use a
specific Contractor to purchase the Schwarze Street Sweeper.
Councilor Rosenthal/Slattery m/s to approve Consent Agenda items. Voice Vote:
all AYES. Motion passed.
PUBLIC HEARINGS - None
PUBLIC FORUM - None
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1.Discussion of future planning initiatives
Planning Commission Chair Melanie Mindlin explained the Planning Commission heard
Land Use Actions, planning for areas in town, and currently were working on the Normal
Avenue Neighborhood Plan. The Planning Commission also held public hearings on
legislative issues related to land use and made recommendations to Council. Chair
Mindlin went on to describe various projects the Planning Commission worked on.
Community Development Director Bill Molnar explained over the past year the Planning
Commission and staff worked on the Unified Land Use ordinance and the Normal
Avenue Neighborhood Plan. Both projects would go before Council early spring 2014.
Councilor Rosenthal noted the priority project list and suggested adding a
reexamination to annex the area from North Main Street by the Rail Road bridge to the
intersection of Valley View Road and Highway 99. That area was the entrance to
Ashland and did not reflect aspects of the community.
Mr. Molnar explained in the past staff looked at creating an Urban Growth Management
Agreement that instead of annexing the property established a gateway overlay in
Jackson County where a certain level of city requirements would apply. However they
encountered issues with property owners. He confirmed part of the Regional Problem
Solving (RPS) agreement maintained a co-managed zone between city limits and the
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to create and maintain individual identity between
communities as well as ensure areas with the UGB did not continue to develop more
intensely under county zoning. There were also provisions prohibiting certain lot
divisions.
Mr. Molnar explained in the past staff looked at creating an Urban Growth Management
Agreement that did not annex the property but in Jackson County established a
gateway overlay where a certain level of city requirements would apply but there were
issues with property owners.He confirmed part of the Regional Problem Solving (RPS)
agreement maintained a co-managed zone between city limits and the Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB to create and maintain individual identity between communities as well
as ensure areas with the UGB did not continue to develop more intensely under county
zoning. There were also provisions prohibiting certain lot divisions.
Mr. Molnar went on to explain staff initially looked at parking management, circulation,
and deliveries and thought it was a good time to include areas in the parameter of the
downtown because of their impacts. Possible zoning code changes that might occur in
the future would provide additional techniques as they looked into parking management.
City Administrator Dave Kanner noted it was unlikely the Planning Department could
accomplish all the priority projects identified in the Council Communication and Council
should indicate their priorities on the list.
Mr. Molnar clarified the Railroad District Master Plan project would review remaining
elements of the plan not adopted and possibly allow greater flexibility for building design
in the district.
Councilor Marsh thought the zoning on Winburn Way was a priority and should be
included in the downtown project.
Mr. Molnar explained the first four projects on the priority list, the downtown parking
management and multi-modal circulation study, the downtown zoning analysis, the
Winburn Way corridor analysis, and the Historic Preservation Ten-Year Plan were top
priorities that addressed Council objectives. The Croman Mill opportunities analysis,
the Housing Element update, and the Railroad District Master Plan on the potential list
were less of a priority. However, over the next 18 months there would be opportunities
for staff to work on aspects of those projects to move them along.
Councilor Voisin wanted the code incentives for affordable workforce housing
considered a high priority. She was concerned the City was still looking into the
Croman Mill area and wanted the Housing Element Update set at a higher priority.
th
Colin Swales/143 8 Street/Agreed with suggestion to include the annexation of the
north end of town in the priorities project list. It was the gateway to Ashland and not
aesthetically aligned with the community. He thought the Downtown Parking
Management and Multi-modal Circulation Ad Hoc Advisory Committee are weighted
towards the business community and Chamber of Commerce members with no one
representing the people who live around the area. He wanted to see public outreach to
actual residential neighbors of the downtown area, with the meetings occurring in the
evening and a time for public input. He took issue with the approval criteria and review
process for non-structural exterior changes to historic buildings stating it created a huge
impact on property owners and was sure no one had informed the public on the criteria.
The current incentives for affordable workforce housing should emphasize more inflow
in the historic districts. He addressed Croman Mill noting Plexis Healthcare Systems
had pulled out of the development and questioned why Council was looking into urban
renewal when the developers showed no interest in developing the property or
contributing money to create the infrastructure like normal developers did. The City
should focus more on commercial development and creating a plan for the north end of
town.
Mayor Stromberg suggested discussing each project separately with a joint meeting
with Council and the Planning Commission prior to starting work on the projects.
Councilor Lemhouse suggested adding projects to the list then prioritizing them at the
joint Council-Planning Commission meeting.
Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to place Croman Mill opportunities analysis to
the list. DISCUSSION: Councilor Lemhouse thought the project was important and did
not think anything would happen until the City reanalyzed the plan. The Croman plan
provided an opportunity to establish commerce and housing and help with affordable
workforce housing and pocket neighborhoods. Councilor Slattery concurred and agreed
with a joint meeting to prioritize projects with the Planning Commission then delving into
each project separately. Councilor Voisin wanted Mr. Kanner to summarize a meeting
that occurred with the property owners regarding their interest in development of
Croman Mill. Mr. Kanner explained the property owners and their consultant would
come back with a proposal that laid out what they were willing to do themselves to
jumpstart development that the City would evaluate to determine the City’s role.Roll
Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Marsh, Rosenthal, Slattery, and Morris, YES;
Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Concern was raised that every time the City took on a project it created special districts
and rules. Question was raised as to whether or not a discussion needed to occur
regarding basic codes and building flexibility in the code so it is applied in varying
conditions. Mr. Molnar explained doing sub-area plans was a popular process in other
communities. Ashland traditionally used a form-based approach to planning and tended
to focus on the character of the different areas then created a sub-area plan to protect
those characteristics. Comment was made that everything seemed to take two years
and part of the issue was that the City was writing new code into the process. It might
be easier to have fewer zoning designations with a couple overlays than completely
different types of zoning.
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to add to the list of projects an assessment by the
Planning Commission as to the basic approach list in terms of complexity. Roll
Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Voisin, Marsh, Rosenthal, Slattery, and Morris,
YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Rosenthal/Voisin m/s to forward the list of future planning initiatives
including pursuing an urban growth management agreement with Jackson
County to a joint meeting of Council and the Planning Commission.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Morris wanted to see planning on Jackson Road. He noted
the current entrance to Ashland and thought the road and overpass needed improving.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Voisin, Marsh, Rosenthal, Slattery, and
Morris, YES. Motion passed.
2. Housing and Human Services Commission involvement in social service grant
screening
City Administrator Dave Kanner explained the four options Council discussed at the
November 18, 2013 Study Session:
1. Continue the social service grant process as it currently exists. (A subcommittee of
the Budget Committee reviews and makes recommendation on social service grant
applications.)
2. Have the Housing and Human Services Commission screen grant applications and
make a recommendation to the Budget Committee.
3. Have the Housing and Human Services Commission screen grant applications and
make a recommendation directly to the City Council.
4. Have the Housing and Human Services Commission conduct an analysis of the
current social service grant program, focusing on whether grants are targeted to the
right areas and with appropriate allocations, then have them discuss their findings with
the Budget Committee in June.
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to ask the new Housing and Human Services
Commission to conduct an analysis of current social service grant program,
focusing on whether grants are targeted to the right areas and with the
appropriate allocations, then have them bring those findings for a discussion
with the Budget Committee in June 2014. DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh thought
there was potential in having the Housing and Human Services Commission undertake
the high-level review. Councilor Slattery supported the motion but was not comfortable
with the June 2014 cut off.Councilor Marsh withdrew the motion.
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to request the Housing and Human Services
Commission to conduct an analysis of current social service grant program,
focusing on whether grants are targeted to the right areas and with the
appropriate allocations, then have them bring those findings to a discussion with
the Budget Committee. DISCUSSION:Councilor Marsh explained the Housing and
Human Services Commission would look at the process for social service grants and
come back with a set of recommendations. Councilor Rosenthal confirmed the motion
would have the Commission look at the grant process only. The Finance Department
would still initiate the process. Councilor Lemhouse supported the analysis and was
not ready for the Commission to have a larger role in the actual grant awarding
process. Councilor Voisin thought the Housing and Human Services Commission
should screen grant applications and make recommendations to the Budget
Committee. The Commission had expertise in social services and would understand
community needs better than the subcommittee.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Marsh, Rosenthal, Morris, and Slattery, YES;
Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Councilor Voisin motion that Housing and Human Services Commission screen
grant applications and make recommendations to the Budget Committee in 2015.
Motion died due to lack of second.
NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS
1. Acceptance of FY 2012-2013 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
Finance Director Lee Tuneberg explained the report showed improvement since 2008.
The City would have significant costs over the next 5-10 years and were taking steps to
meet those needs. The internal controls for the IT (Information Technology)
Department and Court were examples of new changes in the financial reporting
requirements from the Government Accounting Standards Board. The IT Department
and Court both received federal money that required comments in the report. IT was in
the process of working on establishing internal controls to support the utility billing
systems and would complete the task this month. Staff expected to clear the comment
on the report this year. Court required a segregation of duties relating to processing
payments that was difficult at times due to the small department size. Staff instituted a
tracking process where someone outside the department signed off on adjustments
daily. They expected this comment to clear during the current fiscal year.
Mr. Tuneberg explained the City saved $175,000 through refinancing water revenue
bonds. Staff also refinanced the Telecommunication debt from 7% to the 2% range that
would save the City approximately $1,700,000 over the next ten years. The $2,700,000
identified in Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liabilities for August 1, 2014 was unrecorded
funds because they extended over many years. PERS (Public Employee Retirement
Systems) was a good example of unrecorded funds.
City Administrator Dave Kanner clarified the Mayor and the Parks and Recreation
Commission Chair were reviewing a draft of the MOU (Memo of Understanding) and
would go before a joint meeting of the Council and the Parks Commission soon. The
MOU showed as a comment for the Parks and Recreation Department but not for the
City.
Mr. Tuneberg went on to explain the City set money aside yearly for the City funded
Internal Service Fund for post employment stipend instead of having a reserve. Mr.
Kanner added the stipend was a discontinued practice and there were 15 retirees’ still
receiving funds. Additionally, the new self-insurance did not affect the Post
Employment Health Insurance subsidy. Projections for the cost of healthcare in the
biennium included the cost of providing benefits to the entire risk pool including retirees
in the pool.
Councilor Slattery/Marsh m/s to accept the Audit Committee Report and the
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the fiscal year end June 30, 2013, as
presented. Voice Vote: all AYES. Motion passed.
2. Annual appointments to Citizen Budget Committee
City Recorder Barbara Christensen received three applications from Mary Cody, Karen
Clarke, and Joan Williamson. Ms. Christensen, staff and Council discussed
appointment options.
Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to appoint Mary Cody and Joan Williamson to the
Citizen Budget Committee with a term ending 12/31/2017 and to appoint Karen
Clarke to the Citizen Budget Committee if an opening should occur within the
next six months.
Councilor Voisin/Marsh m/s to divide motion. Roll Call Vote: Councilor Voisin,
Morris, Slattery, Rosenthal, and Marsh, YES; Councilor Lemhouse, No. Motion
passed 5-1.
Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to appoint Mary Cody and Joan Williamson to the
Citizen Budget Committee with a term ending 12/31/2017. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
Councilor Lemhouse/Marsh m/s to appoint Karen Clarke to the Citizen Budget
Committee if an opening should occur within the next six months. DISCUSSION:
Councilor Lemhouse explained there was substantial time provided for applicants to
apply and he thought the motion was fair and efficient. Councilor Marsh added this was
essentially an alternate position and would allow Council to fill a vacancy quickly.
Councilor Slattery would not support the motion because situations change and he did
not want to circumvent the appointment process currently in place. Councilor Voisin
would not support the motion either. She wanted to ensure anyone interested had an
opportunity to apply. Council could appoint a committee member within a month of a
vacancy. Additionally, Council had never done this in the past and it set a precedent
she would not support. Councilor Rosenthal thought if a vacancy became available in
the next few months he assumed Ms. Clarke would reapply. The motion set a
precedent going forward that might be difficult to undo. Mayor Stromberg would also
not support the motion.Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse and Marsh, YES;
Councilor Voisin, Morris, Rosenthal, Slattery, and Mayor Stromberg; NO. Motion
failed 5-2.
3. Council discussion of creation of a City beautification and improvement plan
and the use of transient occupancy tax revenues for City capital projects
Management Analyst Ann Seltzer explained at the November 4, 2013 Study Session
Council supported forming an ad hoc committee to develop a citywide beautification and
improvement plan and determine the use of Transient Occupancy Tax funds (TOT) set
aside for City capital projects. The Council Communication included membership
suggestions, a draft purpose statement, and a list of beautification projects previously
identified by citizens, staff, the Economic Development Strategy, and the Chamber
Downtown Task Force. Council set aside TOT funds for several budget cycles for Other
City Capital Projects that qualified. Resolution 2013-05 allocated an estimated
$128,500 for projects in the current biennium but did not address a process to
determine how to spend the funds.
Staff suggested membership consist of one member each from the Historic, Planning,
Tree, and Public Arts Commissions, two citizens at large, and two members from the
Chamber Downtown Task Force. Mayor Stromberg added Council would confirm a
Council liaison to the committee as well as the two citizens at large.
The committee would develop a cohesive plan for the beautification of the community
with a primary focus on the downtown core. Duties included:
Review the existing list of possible beautification projects and identify others;
Establish criteria by which a proposed project can be evaluated;
Evaluate how implementation of these projects will tie in with one another to
create a cohesive overall look and integrate the north and south entrances with
downtown;
Prioritize each project and develop a five year timeline for implementation of
beautification projects;
Seek citizen input on project ideas and concepts;
Reach consensus on a final draft plan;
Provide to the Council the committee rationale on its final decision and
recommendation to the Council.
City Administrator Dave Kanner clarified it was not an allowed use under state law to
use TOT funds to pave roads. He suggested setting aside a specific amount of money
dedicated for Plaza improvements each budget cycle. Alternatively, the committee
could review potential Plaza improvements and incorporate it as part of the plan. Ms.
Seltzer further clarified using the funds for marketing would only qualify if Council
changed the resolution and did not allocate the 11% for City capital projects. Staff
discussed a five-year plan similar to the structure of the Capital Improvement Plan.
Staff addressed the Pedestrian Lights Upgrade and explained a prior Council had
approved the Sternberg lights as city standard. Currently the downtown area had
Gothic style lights and the Plaza had Sternberg. Staff confirmed during a July 2013
meeting Council did not direct staff to change the pavers at the Plaza at that time. Ms.
Seltzer clarified Council discussion at the November 4, 2013 Study Session Council
supported the committee having a blank canvas to come up with recommendations for
Council approval.
David Sherr/Diane Street/Read a comment from the petition regarding the Plaza
dissatisfied with the gray pavers. He had discussions with every Councilor, the Mayor,
and others and all but one claimed no prior knowledge regarding the gray pavers.
Citizens were shown a different color in the final approved renderings and completely
blindsided by the gray pavers. He stated the gray pavers were a colossal mistake.
People, including the former City Councilor Russ Silbiger were unhappy with the pavers.
Mr. Sherr wanted the pavers replaced with colored ones and more greenery added to
the Plaza. Over 500 petitioners signed a petition to restore the Plaza.
Cici Brown/171 Church Street/Equated the Plaza redesign to the Oak Knoll
neighborhood after it burned down. She was stunned the professional designers did not
envision how 4,000 plus gray pavers would affect the ambiance and historical
surroundings of the Plaza. She urged Council to set aside a portion of the TOT funds to
replace the gray pavers with warm friendly colors. She asked the Mayor not to appoint
any person, staff, or independent contractors that had anything to do with the look of the
Plaza as it was today.
Mark Brown/171 Church Street/Read comments from people who signed the petition
who disliked the gray pavers in the Plaza.
Rik Burns/249 Wimer Street #33/Commented on the Plaza’s lack of trees then read
comments from petitioners who disliked the Plaza redesign. He stated one reason for
the Plaza redesign was to discourage transients from using the area and noted
transients used it more than others did.
Doug Burns/249 Wimer Street #33/Thought a City staff person made the decision to
use gray pavers during a Public Arts Commission Subcommittee meeting regarding the
Plaza and intimated Council was possibly hiding something by not investigating why the
pavers were substituted with the ones the Council and public approved. He referenced
an email response from the City Administrator explaining he did not have the authority
to approve $250,000 project and questioned how a member of his staff that reported to
him did. He had issue with the Council and City Administration’s relationship with the
Chamber of Commerce and thought it affected the redesign and choice of gray pavers
for the Plaza.
th
Colin Swales/143 8 Street/Shared the same concerns expressed by the previous
speakers regarding the ad hoc committee. He noted the Chamber of Commerce was in
the proposed committee and how the Chamber was the defacto invisible government
that seemed to run Ashland. He also had issue with the citizen at large appointees. He
wanted the businesses to pay for improvements through an LID (Local Improvement
District), or utility surcharge. He also had issues with the Sternberg lights casting glare
at motorists and making pedestrians difficult to see at night.
Councilor Lemhouse/Slattery m/s to form an ad hoc Committee to develop a
beautification and improvement plan for the use of tourism related TOT funds for
City capital projects focusing on the downtown area. DISCUSSION: Councilor
Lemhouse noted staff suggestions to improve areas outside of the downtown. He had
concerns regarding adequate funding and wanted to focus on the downtown area.
Councilor Slattery agreed the committee should have a blank canvas to work with and
wanted the committee to address ideas about the Plaza.
Councilor Marsh/Slattery m/s to amend the motion that the Committee look at a 4-
year plan that potentially used funds from the current and next biennium.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh explained the money allocated for the current
biennium was clear, and the four-year plan would help the committee have a long-term
perspective. Councilor Lemhouse supported the motion, it added focus, and the plan
was not too far out that it became difficult to visualize. Councilor Slattery clarified it did
not have to be limited to TOT funds. Councilor Lemhouse confirmed if the committee
made recommendations, they would address what the TOT funds were available for
and make other recommendations that Council could take up separately. Roll Call
Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Slattery, Rosenthal, Marsh, Voisin, and Morris, YES.
Motion passed.
Councilor Lemhouse/Morris m/s to amend the main motion to add “or other
budgeted money as approved by Council,” to read “to form an ad hoc Committee
to develop a beautification and improvement plan for the use of tourism related
TOT funds or other budgeted funds as approved by Council for City capital
projects focusing on the downtown area.” DISCUSSION: Councilor Morris thought
the infrastructure requirements would exceed TOT money and they would have to use
other funds.Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Slattery, Rosenthal, Marsh,
Voisin, and Morris, YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Voisin/Marsh m/s the membership for the ad hoc committee have two
citizens at large with no specifications to their backgrounds or expertise.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Voisin wanted the committee to have citizens at large, not
citizens representing specific areas or with backgrounds in urban design. Councilor
Marsh thought the citizens could end up having those qualifications but it was fine to
keep it general.Roll Call Vote: Councilor Lemhouse, Slattery, Rosenthal, Marsh,
Voisin, and Morris, YES. Motion passed.
Councilor Voisin motioned to amend the main motion and in the draft purpose of
the committee “seek citizen input on project ideas and concepts,” replace that
language with “hold four public forums over a month before each
recommendation is taken to the Council.” Motion failed for lack of a second.
Councilor Marsh/Lemhouse m/s to amend the main motion to add to the
membership of the committee two downtown business or building owners in
addition to the Chamber Downtown Task Force representatives. DISCUSSION:
Councilor Marsh thought it was critical to have strong representation from stakeholders
who were downtown on a daily basis. Councilor Lemhouse would support the motion
and did not think it was too many people for a committee. It was important to have
individuals from the downtown involved especially if there was a fee that businesses or
landowners would have to pay. Councilor Voisin would not support the amendment.
Adding two additional downtown representatives was overkill and Council should
depend on the Chamber of Commerce to make those appointments.Roll Call Vote:
Councilor Lemhouse, Slattery, Marsh, and Morris, YES; Councilor Rosenthal and
Voisin, NO. Motion passed 4-2.
Councilor Marsh/Morris m/s to amend the main motion to reserve ahead of time,
monies to replace the hanging baskets in the Plaza in the coming year up to a
maximum of $2,500.
DISCUSSION: Councilor Marsh thought it may take a while for the committee to form a
plan and the infrastructure was already in place for the hanging baskets. Councilor
Morris agreed it was something that should continue regardless of what the committee
recommended. Councilor Voisin thought the committee should decide on the hanging
baskets and would not support the motion. Councilor Lemhouse wanted to avoid telling
the committee what to do, if it came to a point where the flowers were in danger of
dying, Council could take appropriate action. Councilor Slattery thought the Council
was already committed to the hanging baskets and was not part of what the committee
would work on.
Roll Call Vote: Councilor Slattery, Rosenthal, Marsh, and Morris, YES; Councilor
Lemhouse and Voisin, NO. Motion passed 4-3.
Councilor Lemhouse/Rosenthal m/s to call for the question. Voice Vote:
Councilor Morris, Lemhouse, Slattery, Rosenthal, and Marsh, YES; Councilor
Voisin, NO. Motion passed.
Mr. Kanner noted allegations made regarding Ms. Seltzer during public testimony were
grossly unfair and unwarranted. He commended Ms. Seltzer on her role in the
process. Mayor Stromberg added her behavior was ethical.
Roll Call Vote on amended main motion: Councilor Lemhouse, Slattery,
Rosenthal, Marsh and Morris, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS
1. Approval of a resolution titled, “A resolution accepting changes to the
financial management policies and accounting methodologies”
Item delayed due to time constraints.
2. Approval of a resolution titled, “A resolution authorizing the City of Ashland
to provide a city building for a winter shelter two nights per week through April,
2014, and repealing Resolution No. 2013-30”
Councilor Slattery received inquiries to extend the shelter to two nights per week. There
were enough volunteers to staff a second night and the best night the Parks and
Recreation Department could offer was Tuesdays. The proposed resolution was the
same as the Thursday night shelter only extended to Tuesday nights.
Fran Adams/292 Gresham/Supported the addition of a second City sponsored shelter
night on Tuesdays at Pioneer Hall. It reduced the risk of someone freezing to death and
left three nights not covered. The model of using volunteers, the City, and faith-based
organizations may not be expandable indefinitely and recommended possibly having a
temperature based model instead. CERT (Community Emergency Response Team)
provided four nights of emergency shelter last year when there were 14 nights at 20
degrees or below and 9 nights not covered by existing shelters. This indicated the
CERT emergency shelter was not working as well as planned.
Julio Delgado/Homeless/Explained he was houseless and a traveler who had spent
the past two weeks in Ashland. He was able to sleep in shelters Monday, Wednesday,
and Thursday. People referred to Friday as “Fend for Yourself Friday,” because the
library was closed and no shelter provided. He shared information on weather related
deaths explaining 700 people died from hypothermia yearly, and many more incurred
frostbite. Most deaths occurred between 30-40 degree temperatures.
John Wieczorek/165 Orange Avenue/Thanked Council for expanding the shelter
nights. He was the Chair of the Social Justice and Action Committee for the Unitarian
Universalists Fellowship in Ashland who collaborated with Temple Emek Shalom to staff
the shelter. Both organizations were interested in extending the shelter to a second
night. They also looked forward to working with the Housing and Human Services
Commission. He clarified the existing resolution included dogs and did not require
crates where the proposed resolution required crates. He urged Council to remove that
language from the proposed resolution.
Leigh Madsen/176 Orange Avenue/Shared his experience as a volunteer who hosted
a shelter night where 18 people attended, including two elderly and a toddler who
accessed the shelter when it had snowed 8 inches. Their feet were wet and they were
at high risk for freezing. Last week he saw the same people and had to turn them away
because there was no shelter. It was a heart breaking experience because he knew
they would suffer. An additional shelter night was great but he thought they needed to
work with the faith community to cover every night.
Councilor Marsh noted a conflict in the current resolution. The Council required people
to self-certify they were at least 18 years old and the proposed resolution had language
regarding families and children.
Councilor Slattery clarified the intent was the resolution reflect the current Thursday
night shelter and that included dogs and no crates. City Attorney Dave Lohman clarified
the resolution before Council was not the one they passed.
Councilor Slattery/Rosenthal m/s to approve Resolution #2013-37 authorizing the
City of Ashland to provide a City building for Winter Shelter two nights per week
through April 2014 repealing Resolution 2013-30 but retaining the language with
this addition. DISCUSSION: Councilor Slattery credited the people that made the
shelter happen. Councilor Rosenthal thanked Councilor Slattery for his compassion in
bringing the shelter forward. Councilor Lemhouse would support the motion but thought
crates were a good idea due to the risk.
Councilor Marsh/Slattery m/s to amend the motion that participants must self-
certify they are 18 years old. DISCUSSION:Councilor Marsh did not think the City
could protect children in a shelter environment. An alternative would have families stay
in motels or provide transportation to family shelters.
Councilor Slattery/Lemhouse m/s called for the question. Voice Vote: all AYES.
Motion passed.
Roll Call Vote on the amendment: Councilor Slattery, Marsh, Lemhouse, Morris,
and Rosenthal, YES; Councilor Voisin, NO. Motion passed 5-1.
Roll Call Vote on amended main motion: Councilor Slattery, Marsh, Voisin,
Lemhouse, Morris, and Rosenthal, YES. Motion passed.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL
LIAISONS
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
________________________________
_______________________________
Barbara Christensen, City Recorder John Stromberg, Mayor
MEMO
TO:AGENCIES WISHING TO APPLY FORFUNDING FROM
CITY OF ASHLAND, CITY OF MEDFORD,UNITED WAY
SUBJECT:2013-2015FUNDING APPLICATION
DATE:JANUARY2, 2013
DUE DATE:MARCH11,2013(EXCEPT CITY OF MEDFORD)
The above funders have agreed on common forms and procedures for the upcoming funding cycle.They are patterned
closely after several local foundations. Wehopeit makes this process more efficient for applicants. Enclosed are
application materials and information regarding requirements. Each application is processed completely separately by the
entity being applied to.The City of Medford application due date will be announced later in the year.
The application is available via email. Call or emailJan at 541-773-5339 or jan@unitedwayofjacksoncounty.org.The
application can also be found at www.UnitedWayofJacksonCounty.orgfollow the link“Funding” on the left menuof the
home page.
FunderContact Copies&Due Date
City of AshlandProvide 12 unbound,hole-punched copies.
Due Date March11,2013
Tami De Mille Campos,541-552-2012
campost@ashland.or.us
Note: Our funding cycle is for two years.
Community Development Block Grant funding is a separate application process. Please contact Tamifor more
information.
City of MedfordProvide 12 unbound, hole-punched copies.
DUE DATE TO BE ANNOUNCED.This application will be resent at that time.
Wait for that announcement before submitting applications.
Lynette O’Neal, 541-774-2089
Lynette.ONeal@cityofmedford.org
Note:Our funding cycle is for two years.
Community Development Block Grant funding is a separate application process.Please contact Lynette for more
information.
United WayProvide oneoriginal, signed, certified, and unbound application plus an electronic
version via email.
Due Date March11,2013
Jan Sanderson Taylor, 541-773-5339
jan@unitedwayofjacksoncounty.org
Note: Our funding cycle is for two years.
i
Application Check List
City of Ashland
City of Medford
United Way of Jackson County
This application for(select one): ___ City of Ashland ___ City of Medford ___ United Way
Mailed applications must be postmarked by the due dateto receive consideration by funders. The City of Ashland and
United Way have the same due date: March 11, 2013.The City of Medford will announce adue date later in the year
–you should wait for that announcement before submitting applicationsto them.Contact information for each funder
is detailed in the cover memo. Late and incomplete applications will be rejected.Use 11 or 12 point Times New Roman
font. Do not extend narrative responsesbeyond two pages including the three questions.Electronic version submissions
(applicable to United Wayonly)mustuse the fillable form ormatch this application form precisely.
Submit to the cities of Ashland and Medford(do not submit to Medford until you receive due date
announcement)twelve (12) copies of the entire application packet assembled in the order listed below
hole-punched, without coversandunbound. Please do not staple;a binder clip is acceptable.For United
Way, submit oneoriginalapplication, signed, certified,and unbound; also send electronic version of
application and attachments via email.
_____ Title, Certification(certification must be signed byexecutive director and board president ofthe
organization–for United Way the single original must be signed; electronic signatures on the fillable
form areoptional), and Summary (pages 1 and 2)
_____ Three narrative questions (pages 3 and 4)
_____Program Logic Models (one for each year)on provided forms(pages 5 and 6)
_____General financial information(page 7)
_____Organization annual budget for each year of funding cycle on provided forms(pages 8 and 9)
_____ Project/Program annual budgets on provided forms(pages 10 and 11)
_____ Most Recently completed year’s Client Demographic Profile on provided form (page 12)
_____ Agency Board Profile on provided form(page 13)
_____List of officers and board members with their affiliations and phone numbers(Attachment 1)
_____ 1 Copy of 501(c) (3) tax exemption letter from the Internal Revenue Service.(Attachment 2)
_____Audit and management letter, financial review, or 990 based onthe following outline. Provide the
annual auditand management letteror financial review if the Agency’s budget is greater than $250,000
or the Agency receives greater than $10,000 in funding. If the Agency’s budget is less than $250,000 or
the Agency receives less than $10,000 in funding, a copy of the 990 must be filed with the Funder.
Finally, if an Agency receives funding from another source with a higher reporting requirement, the
highest level of financial reporting is then required by the funding agency (i.e., if an Agency receives
funding from the City of Medford, a copy of the audit required by the City must also be given to United
Way).(Attachment 3)
_____ Check List(page ii)
ii
Funding Definitionsand Minimum Requirements
City of Ashland
Funding Cycle: two years
Short Term (Existing) Needs:
1. Health Care
2. Information and Referral Crisis Services with emphasis on coordination and communication
3. Domestic Violence and Mental Health
Long Term (Planning) Needs:
1. Information and Referralwith emphasis on on-going assessment of coordination. Consider
implementation of computerized resource guide
2. Enhancing the use of trained volunteers to improve cost effectiveness of service delivery
Minimum Requirements: 501(c)(3) nonprofit status
City of Medford
Funding Cycle: two years
Definitions: Deliver essential safety net health and human services and other programs promoting education, prevention,
intervention, and/or treatment, with emphasis on children, families, and seniors
Minimum Requirements: 501(c) (3) or other tax-exempt organization
United Way
Funding Cycle: two years
Definitions
Our Belief:At its core, United Way of Jackson County believes people are connected and interdependent. When we reach out a hand
to one, we influence the condition of all. We all win when a child forms healthy attachments through a loving family, when they
succeed in school, graduate and make a successful transition to adult responsibilities. We all win when families are financially stable,
when people have good health, and when people are engaged and connected. We all win when people have transportation to pursue
education, accessmedical services and work. Through our role as convener, facilitator and advocate, our goal is to create long lasting
change by addressing the underlying causes of problems. This belief forms the foundation for our strategies for education, income,
health and transportation.
Education–helping children achieve their full potential; Income–Increased financial stability and independence for families and
individuals; Health–improving health; Transportation–removing transportation barriers preventing people from accessing
education/training, medical appointments, jobs and activities in the creation ofa productive life for themselves and their families.
Your application mustaddress one or more of these strategies.
Minimum Requirements:
Be incorporated or chartered under federal/Oregon State statutes.
Be registered with the State of Oregon.
Be incorporated IRS 501(c) (3) organization or other qualified IRS tax exempt organization.
The agency must be primarily involved in providing program(s) and services that are health, education, personal
financial stability or transportation related and directly serve Jackson County residents and employers.
Have an independent governing body.
Maintain a nondiscrimination policy or plan that does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion,
gender, national origin, age, marital status, veteran status, sexual orientation or status as a person experiencinga
disability.
Provide United Way with the Agency's annual audit or financial review if the Agency’s budget is greater than
$500,000 or the Agency receives greater than $10,000 from United Way. If the Agency’s budget is less than
$500,000 or the Agency receives less than $10,000 from United Way, a copy of the 990 must be filed with United
Way. If an Agency receives funding from another source with a higher reporting requirement, the highest level of
financial reporting is then required by United Way.
Demonstrate adequate understanding of community needs in Jackson County and services currently being provided.
Demonstrate that there are adequate benefits to both the agency and the United Way from an affiliation.
Maintain policies and practices for the protection and safety of vulnerablepopulations (children, people with
disabilities, and seniors) served by agency.
iii
Agency Application and Forms20132015
(Revised December2012)
For applications to City of Medford, City of Ashland, and United Way
TITLE PAGE
ORGANIZATIONLEGALNAME________________________________________DATE:_______
OTHER NAMES ORGANIZATION KNOWN BY(DBA) _____________________________________
ADDRESS_____________________________________________________________________________
Street City State Zip
FEDERAL EMPLOYER ID NUMBER(FEIN)_________________________
PROGRAM/PROJECT TITLE ___________________________________________________________
AMOUNT REQUESTED from this funder for this program/project 2013-2014 $ ________________
2014-2015$ ________________
GRANT CONTACT(If not Executive Director listed below)
Name ________________________________________________________________________________
Tel _______________________________
E-mail: ___________________________________________________________
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR INFORMATION
Name___________________________________________________________
Email___________________________________________________________
Tel__________________________ Fax________________________
CERTIFICATION
The information contained in this application is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
________________________________________________________________________________
Signature of Board PresidentSignature of Executive Director/CEO
________________________________________________________________________________
Type NameType Name
1
SUMMARY INFORMATION
1. Program is:new established a pilot duration of pilot program___________
2. Primary geographic location and population program funding will serve.(For City of Medford and City of Ashland,
youmust track the number of city residents served for reporting purposes. United Way requires tracking to include
numbers for cities/towns in Jackson County.)
3.Total organizational annual budget thisyear: __________
Total program budget thisyear: __________
4. What will this funding enable you to do differently?
5.Number of volunteers this program will engage: __________
Number of paid program employeesthis program will engage:__________
6.Total number volunteersagency utilizes: __________
Total number of paid agency employees: __________
7. Describe the project/program including a brief timeline and expected deliverables.
2
AGENCY AND PROGRAM/PROJECT NARRATIVE
Answer all three narrative questions. Use onlythe space (two pages –including the questions) provided;
the amount of space you use foreach questionis your choice.
1.Description of organization(include inception date),mission statement,purpose(s)and how this program/project
fits with yourmission. What are your organization’s qualifications to accomplish these outcomes?Why is your
organization uniquely positioned to address the issues you have identified?
2.Whatissues(s) isthe project/program designed to impact and how will your outcomes produce your expected
impact?What evidence do you have that the project/program will be successful in the proposed setting? What
tools will you use to measure the outcomes and impact of this program?
3.How would the community as a whole benefit if your program receives funding? Also describe collaborationsand
integrationyou have with other organizations.
3
4
PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL
PROJECT PERIOD: July 1, 2013 to June 30, 2014
Agency Name: _________________________________
Program Name: ________________________________
If your document exceeds one page, use a copy of this page unless you are applying to United Way using a
fillable form. In that case, limit your answers to the space provided on the form.
Resources/Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Goals/Impacts
Certain resources are If you have access to If you accomplish your If you accomplish your If these benefits to
needed to operate them, then you can planned activities, then planned activities to participants are
your program use them to accomplish you will hopefully extent you intended, achieved, then certain
your planned activities deliver the amount of then your participants larger changes in
product and/or service will benefit in certain organizations,
that you intended ways communities, or
systems might be
expected to occur
PROGRAM LOGIC MODEL
PROJECT PERIOD: July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2015
Agency Name: _________________________________
Program Name: ________________________________
If your document exceeds one page, use a copy of this page unless you are applying to United Way using a
fillable form. In that case, limit your answers to the space provided on the form.
Resources/Inputs Activities Outputs Outcomes Goals/Impacts
Certain resources are If you have access to If you accomplish your If you accomplish your If these benefits to
needed to operate them, then you can planned activities, then planned activities to participants are
your program use them to accomplish you will hopefully extent you intended, achieved, then certain
your planned activities deliver the amount of then your participants larger changes in
product and/or service will benefit in certain organizations,
that you intended ways communities, or
systems might be
expected to occur
General Financial Information
1.For most recently completedfiscal year:
a. Fiscal Year (mm/yyyy –mm/yyyy) _________________
b. Total organizational budget: $ _____________
c. Administration & Fundraising amount:$______________________%
Administration & Fundraising (expressed as percent of total budget -also known as management and
general, that portion of your expenses not dedicated solely to program or services) must be calculated
directly from your IRS form 990. Add part IX (Functional Expenses), line 25 columnsc + d. Then divide
that total by Part VIII (Statement of Revenue) line 12 Total Revenue, column a.
d. Total expenses:$ _____________
e. Total financial support (revenue):$ _____________
f. Sourcesof support:
Memberships/individual contributions$______________________%
Fundraising activities$______________________%
Government $______________________%
Foundations$______________________%
United Way$______________________%
Fees for Service$______________________%
Other (reimbursements, payments,$______________________%
bequests, etc.)
g. Totalprogram/projectbudget(enter NA if new program):
$______________
2.Briefly describe your sustainability plan for the project in the future.
7
ORGANIZATION BUDGET 20132014
PROJECT PERIOD July 1, 2013to June 30, 2014
RECIPIENT AGENCY _________________________________________________________
AGENCY FISCALYEAR (mm/yyyy –mm/yyyy) ____________________________________
Pending
REVENUESecured Commitments
Commitments
City of Medford Funds$$
City of Ashland Funds$$
Jackson County Funds$$
Other State or Federal Funds$$
United Way Funds$$
Other Funds (identify)$$
$$
SUB TOTALS$$
TOTAL REVENUE(Pending & Secured)$
EXPENDITURES
A. PERSONNEL SERVICES
Total Salaries$
Total Benefits$
$
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES
B. MATERIALS & SERVICES: (please detail other major budget categories)
$
$
$
$
$
$
TOTAL MATERIALS & SERVICES$
C. CAPITAL OUTLAY(must constitute part or all of funded public service activity to be eligible expense)
Equipment$
Furnishings$
Other capital expenses /Identify:$
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY$
TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Sum of A, B & C)$
8
ORGANIZATION BUDGET 20142015
PROJECT PERIOD July 1, 2014to June 30, 2015
RECIPIENT AGENCY __________________________________________________________
AGENCY FISCALYEAR (mm/yyyy –mm/yyyy) ____________________________________
Pending
REVENUESecured Commitments
Commitments
City of Medford Funds$$
City of Ashland Funds$$
Jackson County Funds$$
Other State or Federal Funds$$
United Way Funds$$
Other Funds (identify)$$
$$
SUB TOTALS$$
TOTAL REVENUE(Pending & Secured)$
EXPENDITURES
A. PERSONNEL SERVICES
Total Salaries$
Total Benefits$
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES
$
B. MATERIALS & SERVICES(please detail other major budget categories)
$
$
$
$
$
$
TOTAL MATERIALS & SERVICES
%!
C. CAPITAL OUTLAY (must constitute part or all offunded public service activity to be eligible expense)
Equipment$
Furnishings$
Other capital expenses /Identify:$
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY$
TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Sum of A, B & C)$
9
PROJECT BUDGET20132014
PROJECT PERIODJuly 1, 2013to June 30, 2014
RECIPIENT AGENCY__________________________________________________________
PROJECT NUMBER ______________PROJECT TITLE __________________________
AGENCY FISCALYEAR (mm/yyyy –mm/yyyy)____________________________________
Pending
REVENUESecured Commitments
Commitments
City of Medford Funds$$
City of Ashland Funds$$
Jackson County Funds$$
Other State or Federal Funds$$
United Way Funds$$
Other Funds (identify)$$
$$
SUB TOTALS$$
TOTAL REVENUE(Pending& Secured)!%!
EXPENDITURES
A. PERSONNEL SERVICES
Total Salaries$
Total Benefits$
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES
$
B. MATERIALS & SERVICES(please detail other major budget categories)
$
$
$
$
$
$
TOTAL MATERIALS & SERVICES$
C. CAPITAL OUTLAY(must constitute part or all of funded public service activity to be eligible expense)
Equipment$
Furnishings$
Other capital expenses /Identify:$
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY$
TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Sum of A, B & C)$
10
PROJECT BUDGET 2014-2015
PROJECT PERIOD July 1, 2014to June 30, 2015
RECIPIENT AGENCY __________________________________________________________
PROJECT NUMBER ______________PROJECT TITLE___________________________
AGENCY FISCALYEAR (mm/yyyy –mm/yyyy): ____________________________________
Pending
REVENUESecured Commitments
Commitments
City of Medford Funds$$
City of Ashland Funds$$
Jackson County Funds$$
Other State or Federal Funds$$
United Way Funds$$
Other Funds (identify)$$
$$
SUB TOTALS$$
TOTAL REVENUE(Pending & Secured)$
EXPENDITURES
A. PERSONNEL SERVICES
Total Salaries$
Total Benefits$
$
TOTAL PERSONNEL SERVICES
B. MATERIALS & SERVICES(please detail other major budget categories)
$
$
$
$
$
$
TOTAL MATERIALS & SERVICES$
C. CAPITAL OUTLAY (must constitute part or all of funded public service activity to be eligible expense)
Equipment$
Furnishings$
Other capital expenses /Identify:$
TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY$
TOTAL EXPENDITURES (Sum of A, B & C)$
11
Current Clientele Demographic Profile
(For City of Medford and City of Ashland, clients must be residents of respective city)
Agency Name: ____________________________ Program Name: ___________________________
Use absolute numbers only –no percentages.
I.Gender IV.Residence*
Female__________Ashland__________
Male__________Central Point__________
Other__________Eagle Point__________
Gold Hill and
II.Age* Rogue River__________
Jacksonville, Ruch,
Infants 0 to 4 years__________ and Applegate__________
Youth 5 to 17 years__________Medford__________
Adult 18 to 39 years__________Phoenix/Talent__________
Adult 40 to 64 years__________Shady Cove, Butte
Adult 65 and over__________ Falls, Trail, Prospect,
Unknown__________ & other Upper Rogue__________
Total__________White City__________
Other__________
Unknown__________
Total__________
III. Race*
African American/Black__________
Caucasian/White__________
Hispanic Ethnicity__________
Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano__________
Puerto Rican__________
Cuban__________
Another Hispanic?__________
American Indian or Alaska Native__________
Asian Indian__________
Chinese__________
Filipino__________
Japanese__________
Korean__________
Vietnamese__________
Native Hawaiian__________
Guamanian or Chamorro__________
Samoan__________
Other Pacific Islander__________
Other__________
Total__________
*at point of entry for service
12
Agency Board Profile
(For City of Medford and City of Ashland, Board must have residents of respective city.)
Agency Name ___________________________________________________ Date _____________
1.Number of board members required in bylaws?Minimum ____ Maximum _____
2.Number of board members currently active? Voting _____ Vacancies _____
3.List various board, advisory and ad hoc committees and the number of people on each.
CommitteeNumber of Members
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
____________________________________________________
4.Characteristics of Board of Directors at time of application:
RaceMaleFemale Other
African American/Black_______________
Caucasian/White_______________
HispanicEthnicity_______________
Mexican, Mexican American, Chicano_______________
Puerto Rican_______________
Cuban_______________
Another Hispanic?_______________
AmericanIndianor Alaska Native_______________
Asian Indian_______________
Chinese_______________
Filipino_______________
Japanese_______________
Korean_______________
Vietnamese_______________
Native Hawaiian_______________
Guamanian or Chamorro_______________
Samoan_______________
Other Pacific Islander_______________
Other_______________
Total_______________
ResidenceMaleFemaleOther
Ashland_______________
Central Point_______________
Eagle Point_______________
Gold Hill/Rogue River_______________
Jacksonville, Ruch, Applegate_______________
Medford_______________
Phoenix/Talent_______________
Shady Cove, ButteFalls, Trail, Prospect,
Other Upper Rogue_______________
White City_______________
Other_______________
Total_______________
Application Check List
United Way of Jackson County
City of Medford
City of Ashland
Date and Time Submitted: _______________________________________________
Organization Name: ____________________________________________________
Contact Person and phone number: ________________________________________
Submit twelve (12) copies of the entire application packet assembled in the order listed
below, without covers, and unbound. Please do not staple; a binder clip is acceptable.
_____Check List
_____Application
_____Annual budget for each year of funding cycle for agency on provided form (2 pages total)
_____Project/Program annual budget on provided form (2 pages total)
_____Logic Model for each year on provided form (2 pages total)
_____Agency Board Profile on provided form
_____Most Recently Completed Year’s Client Demographic Profile on provided form
_____List of officers and board members with their affiliations and phone numbers
_____Audit and management letter, financial review, or 990 based on the following outline.
Provide the annual audit and management letter or financial review if the Agency’s budget
is greater than $250,000 or the Agency receives greater than $10,000 in funding. If the
Agency’s budget is less than $250,000 or the Agency receives less than $10,000 in
funding, a copy of the 990 must be filed with the Funder. Finally, if an Agency receives
funding from another source with a higher reporting requirement, the highest level of
financial reporting is then required by the funding agency (i.e., if an Agency receives
funding from the City of Medford, a copy of the audit required by the City must also be
given to United Way).
_____1 Copy of 501(c) (3) tax exemption letter from the Internal Revenue Service
Social Services Grant Presentations
Minutes
March 20, 2013 6:00 pm
Civic Center, Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
The Budget Subcommittee Meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Committee members Morris, Marsh, Runkel, Heimann and Voisin were present. Staff present; Administrative
Assistant, Tami De Mille-Campos & Administrative Services & Finance Director, Lee Tuneberg.
ELECTION OF A CHAIR
Heimann/Voison m/s to approve Morris as chair. All Ayes.
PUBLIC INPUT
None.
STAFF REPORT AND REVIEW:
Tuneberg spoke to how the Social Service grant process works. The budgeted amount for year 1 is $127,588 and
year 2 is $130,100 which includes $2000.00 into the Traveler’s Aid Fund. The amount to be allocated to the
applicants is $125,588 for year 1 & $128,100 for year 2. He spoke to the difference in presentation style by the
applicants based on the request of the subcommittee. Voison stated that the presentation style works better than just
a Q&A. The committee agreed to how each applicant would give a presentation in less than 3 minutes and then
answer any questions that the committee had for the applicant.
GRANT REVIEWS
Children’s Dental Clinic of Jackson County- Deb Silva, Clinical Director. Deb spoke to how the organization was
started in 1958 & is almost entirely volunteer run. Local dentists provide local services and volunteer at the clinic.
They offer anything from preventative care to restorative care. They also offer free consultations for orthodontics.
They distribute over 22,000 applications through the schools each year. Marsh questioned how they specifically serve
the 17 kids of Ashland. These are children who list Ashland as they address and attend Ashland schools. It is on a
first come first serve basis and each patient must meet the income guidelines which are up to 200% of the federal
poverty level and be uninsured. Runkel asked how they work with La Clinica. Deb answered that they collaborate
quite a bit, their main focus is school aged children who are not insured. They refer kids to them who don’t qualify
through Happy Smiles. Voison asked if Deb thought that the new health care reform will allow more people to be
covered under OHP. Deb stated that she wasn’t sure what would play out. Under the new health care reform
H.O.P.E. Equestrian Center-Not present
St. Vincent de Paul- Chicky Cutting, President. Chicky said that 12 volunteers run the Ashland branch. The total
budget was $124,000 last year & of that $33,000 was from the city of Ashland. 1,361 people received assistance.
Last year they made 526 home visits. Each Tuesday volunteers go to the Tuesday meal service and through the
outreach they have assisted 3 families in obtaining housing. For many of these people they need assistance because
their unemployment has run out or maybe they have experienced unexpected medical bills. Voison asked what the
organization adds to what is received by the city. Chicky answered $57,000.
Family Solutions- Leslie Kurlan, Clinical Director. Leslie stated they are a local non-profit mental health agency. This
funding is for their Client Assistant Program (CAP) which is for children and families who are not covered under
private insurance or Oregon Health Plan and do not meet the sliding scale fees. They have offices in Medford &
Ashland. The program offers 6 therapy sessions with the option of expanding that. This is not a volunteer run
organization as they consist of Masters level therapists, several of which are licensed. They have been in the valley
for 32 years. Marsh questioned how is the city of Ashland’s money is leveraged. Leslie stated that they also apply for
grants through the City of Medford and Ana May. Voison asked how the school district provides funding. Leslie said
that the money that is provided by the school district goes towards day treatment.
Community Health Center- Peg Crowley, Director. Peg has been with the organization for 25 years. The organization
has been in Ashland for 40 years. All funding goes towards the sliding fee scale for uninsured and underinsured.
They provide basic healthcare services that would normally be provided in a Doctor’s office. Voison asked how she
thought the healthcare reform would affect things. Peg answered that they expect an extra 20,000 people will qualify
for OHP under the healthcare reform. They are hopeful that a percentage of their clients will qualify for OHP but there
are a lot of unknowns at this point. Runkel stated that in both years 2,500 visits are expected according to the
application and questioned whether the numbers would be different in year 2 given the healthcare reform. Peg stated
that the figures are consistent with historical numbers. They don’t know what is going to happen under the new
healthcare reform. A majority of the clients that they see have insurance but are underinsured with high deductibles
so the new healthcare reform may not help them. Voison asked if there would be any change in the relationship
between Community Health Center and Asante versus Ashland Community Hospital. Peg answered that she doesn’t
expect any change. Morris asked where the expansion was last year? Peg said that they didn’t expand in Ashland,
only in Medford and Butte Falls. Voison questioned the demographic showing 447 youth served. Peg said that the
number is comprised of school based and clinic based services.
Community Works Inc. (Street Outreach)- Matt Brody, Manager. Mr. Brody explained that the Street Outreach
program is offering outreach for 13-21 years olds. Marsh asked how the street outreach program works with other
agencies. Mr. Brody said they work well with all of the other agencies who refer clients in and vice versa if need be.
Heimann asked what the impact was on them when the money was not awarded the last 2 years. Mr. Brody
answered that they had to get more creative with their resources.
Community works, Inc. (Dunn House)- Barbara Johnson, Interim Director of Services. Ms. Johnson explained that
the agency has been around for over 30 years & the Dunn House Shelter has been around since 1977. It is the only
shelter for women in Jackson County. They serve any woman and their child/ren who have been a victim of domestic
violence. They normally come during an emergency situation. They had an increase after the recession but it has
since stabilized at the higher level.
Community works, Inc. (Sexual Assault Victim Services)- Barbara Johnson, Interim Director of Services. It is a
program that runs 24-7/365. It is available to help women who have been sexually assaulted and help them
throughout the whole process. Marsh asked how they work with SART? Ms. Johnson said they collaborate with
SART to offer some of the same services. Marsh asked what the plan was for changing personnel. Ms. Johnson
stated that they are currently working through the personnel process.
Community works, Inc. (HelpLine)- Barbara Johnson, Interim Director of Services. It is a 24-7/365 crisis helpline that
offers help with all crisis related calls.
Rogue Valley Community Services (Foster Grandparent Program/FGP), Becky Snyder, Executive Director. Ms.
Snyder stated that both of the programs are mandated. The program has been around since 1975. $2.65/hour is paid
to the Foster Grandparent. The median income of these FGP volunteers is $805. The return on the City’s investment
from 2011/2012 was equal to $68,000 in services provided by volunteers. Marsh asked if the organization is required
to locally match the funds in order to receive federal funding. Ms. Snyder answered that they are required to match
the federal grant with 10% of local funds Voison questioned the salaries and benefits for the organization. Ms. Snyder
answered that it includes a full time Admin Asst., Asst Director and Executive Director. Pacific Retirement Services is
their sponsoring organization.
Rogue Valley Community Services (RSVP), Becky Snyder, Executive Director. Ms. Snyder said this program has
been in the Valley since 1976. She said the return on the City’s investment from 2011/2012 was equal to $169,000 in
services provided by volunteers.
Jackson County Sexual Assault Response Team- Susan Moen, Executive Director. Ms. Moen explained that they
offer acute services and prevention/awareness. The money goes straight to the Acute Care program which runs 24/7.
The nurses perform sexual assault exams. Marsh asked how they work with Community Works. Ms. Moen explained
that an advocate gets called out from Community Works and joins the nurse during the examination process. They
also work with them for prevention and awareness. Voison asked how they work with the Ashland Police department.
Ms. Moen said they have been working very closely with them for the last 4 years and have worked cohesively on the
“you have options program”. In the last 2 months there has been a 270% increase in reporting under the program.
Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Oregon- Stacy Kostenbauer, Regional Health Center Manager. Ms.
Kostenbauer explained that this is for the “Get Yourself Tested Program” which is a national campaign that provides
sexually transmitted disease testing to those 25 and under. She also stated that they have asked for an increase in
funding this year to go towards free HIV testing. Runkel said that in the narrative they talk about regulations that offer
sliding scale fees. Ms. Kostenbauer stated that Ashland is not Title 10 and does not provide sliding scale fees for their
services. Runkel stated that he thought it was a small number of people being served, only 48 people last year. Ms.
Kostenbauer said that funding limits the amount of clients they can see and when they are unable to provide services
to the clients they do refer them to other organizations.
Help Now! Advocacy Center- Not present
Children’s Advocacy Center of Jackson County- Not present
Access- Not present
CASA of Jackson County- Jennifer Mylenek, Executive Director. Ms. Mylenek said that they are primarily a volunteer
run organization. They have over 170 volunteers which consist of retired or current professionals across every
occupation. It is a court requirement for every child from birth to age 21 who is in foster care. 92% of funding comes
from the community. Each child is placed with CASA on average of 53 months. Foster care costs the system over
$2000/month. There are 30-35 volunteers per case supervisor (employee). There are over 250 kids on the current
waiting list. They plan by 2018 to be able to serve all of those on the waiting list. She stated that donations are down
by 28% YTD. The project budget is for 130 kids. Voison questioned what made up the $354,500 in personnel
services. Ms. Mylenek stated that it consists of 8 employees.
The Rose Circle mentoring Network, Inc.- Not present
Center for Nonprofit Legal Services- Debra Lee, Executive Director. Ms. Lee explained that they have been around
for 40 years and provide professional services in the areas of family, housing, consumer, public benefits, immigration,
and employment law. They also offer petition assistance for youth immigration petitions. The attorneys are all
licensed. Voison questioned the Capital Outlay expense of $48,000. Ms. Lee stated that their building in Medford is
aging and repairs had to be made to it.
WinterSpring Center Transforming Grief and Loss- Julie Lockhart, Executive Director and Paul Gibson. Ms. Lockhart
said the organization has been around since 1989 and helps all ages with the grief and loss process. The children’s
program at Bellview elementary school should be up and running in April. They also have programs at Ashland
Middle School and Ashland High. Runkel questioned who made up the 99 people served. Ms. Lockhart answered
that it included the ongoing program at the Ashland Community Health Center for adults and at the schools in
Ashland.
Ashland Supportive Housing & Community Outreach- Not present
OnTrack, Inc.-Not present
Mediation Works- Deltra Ferguson, Executive Director. Ms. Ferguson stated that this funding is for the at risk youth
program. They are the only regional provider for this. They work with kids in the schools, also work with juvenile
justice and offer mediation services for parents and teens. Heimann questioned the Demographic profile. Ms.
Ferguson stated that the numbers come from the schools that participate in the program Runkel asked how people
know about the services. Ms. Ferguson answered that they do outreach within the schools & they also have a
Juvenile Justice contract in place.
The meeting will be continued on March 21, 2013 at 6:00pm.
ADJOURNMENT:
The Meeting was adjourned at 8:22 p.m.
Social Services Grant Allocations
Minutes
March 21, 2013 6:00 pm
Continuation of March 20, 2013 Meeting
Civic Center, Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
CALL TO ORDER
The Budget subcommittee meeting was called to order at 6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Committee members Morris, Marsh, Runkel, Heimann and Voisin were present. Staff present; Administrative
Assistant, Tami De Mille-Campos & Administrative Services & Finance Director, Lee Tuneberg.
ALLOCATIONS
The committee agreed to start with the Organizations that they all were closest on and then they would work their
way down. Chair Morris pointed out to the committee that Rota Sullivan, Executive Director for OnTrack was in
attendance tonight and that she was unable to attend last night’s meeting because she didn’t know about the
meeting. She hadn’t received our emails previously. She was available to answer any questions that the committee
had for her.
Community Works Inc. (Dunn House)- Vosion feels like it’s a lot of bang for the buck! She also feels like it’s a very
worthy organization. Marsh said that due to only 12 people being served she couldn’t allocate 100%.
Majority $14,760
Community Works Inc. (Street Outreach)- Voison felt that it’s a successful program. The program provides a
relationship to the kids and puts them in contact with other resources. Heimann said the previous years presentations
were what allowed him to allocate anything.
Majority $6,000
Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Oregon- Runkel felt like these clients might be better served in Medford under
the sliding scale fee. Voison agreed. They set this one aside and came back to it later…Voison and Runkel don’t
particularly like that the funds are earmarked for specific services.
Majority $4,000
Community Health Center- Runkel handed out literature regarding the health care reform which starts 1-1-14. He
wanted to lower the allocation for year 2 due to the reform. Marsh feels like we need to wait until the next grant cycle
to lower any allocations due to the fact that there are so many unknowns.
Majority $30,709
St. Vincent de Paul- Marsh’s allocation was low because she would like to see them stand up & volunteer for the
homeless RFP put out by the city of Ashland. Voison felt they do so much for the city and is strictly a volunteer run
organization.
Majority $16,000
Children’s Dental Clinic- Voison stated that she thought it was a duplication of services due to La Clinica’s services
offered each week in Ashland. The committee disagreed because La Clinica typically served clients who have OHP
and this program is for noninsured children.
Majority $4,000
H.O.P.E. Equestrian Center-Heimann thought there was more value in some of the other programs. Voison felt the
personnel expenses were too high.
Majority $1,000
Help Now! Advocacy Center- The group agreed that they struggled with the weak application & nobody present to
give a presentation or answer questions but they did want to give them something for the time that they took to apply.
Majority $500
Children’s Advocacy Center- Voison felt like there is a duplication of services since the Maslow Project also serves
the same people. The rest of the group disagreed with that.
Majority $4,000
Access- Marsh was low because she had some questions but there wasn’t anyone present. Marsh and Runkel felt
like the # served is a cumulative # and doesn’t clearly show who they serve.
Majority $4,600
WinterSpring Center for Transforming Grief and Loss- Marsh felt like it was a great program.
Majority $1,600
Ashland Supportive Housing & Community Outreach- The group wanted to fund the organization to encourage them
in the future years since they are just starting out.
Majority $1,800
OnTrack- Marsh previously worked for Ontrack for 7 years and feels it’s a fantastic program.
Rita Sullivan, Executive Director, came forward to answer the committee’s questions regarding the demographics.
She said that the demographics also include the adults with the family. She also pointed out that they are the only
organizations certified to treat drug & alcohol within the City.
Majority $3,500
Mediation Works- Runkel struggled with the presentation and whom they are serving.
Majority $1,200
As the allocations came to an end the committee struggled with what was remaining of the funds to allocate to St.
Vincent de Paul. Peg Crowley, Executive Director, stepped up and told the committee that she would be happy to
give up $3,000 of their money to go towards St. Vincent de Paul because they do so much for the city of Ashland and
they work closely with one another. The committee applauded her for her generosity!
.
Marsh/Heimann m/s to approve 2% increase across the board for year 2Roll Call Vote: Morris, Marsh, Runkel,
Heimann and Voisin YES
Marsh/Heimann m/s to recommend proposed allocations to the full budget committee (see attached) 2. Roll Call
Vote: Morris, Marsh, Runkel, Heimann and Voisin YES
ADJOURNMENT:
The Meeting was adjourned at 8:02 p.m.
City of Ashland
Social Service Grant Allocations
Requested
Amount
Organization Tentative
Children's Dental Clinic of Jackson County$ 5,000.00$ 4,000
H.O.P.E. Equestrian Center$ 5,000.00$ 1,000
St. Vincent de Paul$ 20,000.00$16,000
Family Solutions$ 3,000.00$ 2,500
Community Health Center$ 37,000.00$30,709
Community Works Inc. (Street Outreach)$ 8,400.00$ 6,000
Community Works Inc. (Dunn House)$ 16,000.00$14,760
Community Works Inc. (Sexual Assault Victim$ 2,730.00$ 2,584
Community Works Inc. (HelpLine)$ 10,625.00$ 8,135
Rogue Valley Manor Community Services (FG$ 4,500.00$ 1,500
Rogue Valley Manor Community Services (R$ 5,000.00$ 1,200
Jackson County SART$ 6,000.00$ 6,000
n$ 5,000.00$ 4,000
Planned Parenthood of Southwestern Orego
Help Now! Advocacy Center$ 15,000.00$ 500
n$ 5,000.00$ 4,000
Children's Advocacy Center of Jackson Cou
Access$ 6,000.00$ 4,600
CASA of Jackson County$ 3,500.00$ 3,500
The Rose Circle Mentoring Network, Inc.$ 1,184.00$ 500
Center for Nonprofit Legal Services, Inc.$ 7,500.00$ 6,000
WinterSpring Center for Transforming Grief a$ 5,000.00$ 1,600
Ashland Supportive Housing & Communtiy O$ 2,775.00$ 1,800
OnTrack, Inc.$ 4,000.00$ 3,500
Mediation Works$ 2,600.00$ 1,200
Total Requested$ 125,588180,814.00$
Total Amount Available$125,588
G:\\comm-dev\\Commissions & Committees\\Housing and Human Services
1/15/2014
Commission\\Packets\\2014\\January\\Social Service Grant Awards-Proposed (1)