Bangor Opioid Committee Reviews Grant Applications, Flags Legal Issues

[10:30] Susan Hawes: Ema greeting and salutations. Hello, how is everybody? Hello. [10:39] Speaker B (unidentified): Are you feeling better? I mean, yeah, actually, yeah, but I still, it's like weird, I feel very like faint, like weak, really gross. I was feeling great last week when we canceled. [10:54] Speaker C (unidentified): Not yesterday was bad. [10:58] Speaker D (unidentified): All right, so we're here to do our, I have emailed, so did you, I just emailed both of you maybe five or ten minutes ago an Excel spreadsheet. Yeah, I'm looking at it now. Okay, I have it in hard copy here, and that's what we're going to be talking about. So what I have done, it's okay if I just explain, absolutely, spreadsheet. So I've input each scores score into the spreadsheet, and then produced an average. These are currently ordered in the spreadsheet based from highest score to lowest score based on the average score, and the blue line is the projects that is signifies where we would run out of funding based on this current ranking. The projects that are in red are scores where there is a ten, 10-point or greater difference between the two scores. The projects in orange are five to nine points apart, and then the ones that aren't highlighted in any color are four or fewer points. Can [12:36] Speaker E (unidentified): I point out one thing I just noticed? There's a cross point one at the top that's white, and then there's a cross point one at the bottom, or red. I don't remember if I would want one or two. Okay. [12:51] Speaker D (unidentified): We can, when we get to those, [12:55] Speaker F (unidentified): we can pull up the applications. [12:59] Speaker D (unidentified): So I think our goal today is to go project by project. It would probably be helpful if one of the scorers could jump in and just give a few sentences about the project, and then my understanding of our goal will be to come up with a consensus score after discussion that will be the final score for the grant application. My goal in highlighting them in different colors was to maybe identify the places where more or less discussion was warranted, particularly when there's huge discrepancies between the scores, that seems to me like a place where we should clarify why. I say [13:54] Speaker B (unidentified): sorry, no, I didn't mean to interrupt you, I just as like a, I just wanted to bring something up before we dive into all that. I just really don't think public health, because we don't have enough to fund all these things, should be asking for more money when they already received like 440,000 or 500, what was it, something like that. I don't think they should even be on this list. Okay, they received 550 for the case manager, which is like 10x plus anything anybody else could even ask for, so it's just not fair, so [14:30] Speaker G (unidentified): I'm sorry. [14:34] Speaker D (unidentified): I think that should have been a parameter that we put on the application. If that was a limitation, it has been brought up [14:50] Speaker B (unidentified): several times in passing in this committee. We just never really made a firm decision around it. I don't know, I just feel like that's the deal. We've got such funding shortages and everybody needs money. It doesn't make sense to give public health that would be what, then 600,000 when anybody else could only get 50. That's just not fair. I [15:14] Speaker E (unidentified): think we're also not the final decision maker. We're making recommendations, and so there will likely be more comment. I'm assuming this is going back to the board, council, right? Yes, that's right. It's outside of our scope at this point to decide if it's worthy. They applied, they were scored, they're on the list. Isn't that [15:33] Speaker B (unidentified): the whole point of us meeting is to talk about these things? Like I'll just speak from my own and experience. What I found with the scoring system, there's something that was seriously lacking. Like does it make sense of a one to five? Does it make sense to spend money on this thing because there's, I don't know, out of the 13 I had, if I were to wave a magic wand and this was Scott's world and King Scott could just make decisions, there was three out of hand that I definitely wouldn't fund. There was four that I would, and there was a bunch that I had a lot of questions for. Is like some of them didn't make sense, like and some of them are in here too, like well I don't, we're going to go through all of them, so I guess we'll talk about as we go through, but so [16:14] Speaker D (unidentified): does it maybe make sense to go through first and then once we reach consensus scores deal with one-off issues? Like are there projects that the committee wants to take off the [16:29] Speaker H (unidentified): the list despite the score? Yeah, okay, right. And I have a question too with, I don't recall seeing if people could, if they wanted less money, would they accept less money? Because I know the county had that on theirs. That was, that was, that was one of the questions. Yeah, okay, so we didn't put down on this what, who would take less money, correct? Okay, so [17:07] Speaker D (unidentified): should we just start working our way through the list? Sure. So the first one on the list is Adoptive and Foster Families of Maine. I don't know if Scott or Shelly wants to give us a couple sentences on that project for [17:25] Speaker B (unidentified): The benefit of the other committee members, I think it sounded really great. My only concern with it was like the feasibility of that small amount of money per kid to actually do much of anything. And that's just from my own lack of understanding, because I think it was, they remember now, because I don't have it in front of me, I could pull it up, but it seemed like a pretty small number to accomplish what the things they were saying they were going to do per [17:46] Speaker C (unidentified): kid. Yeah, and it was like respite care for the people that take care of the kids, but also some things for the kids. The one thing that kind of bothered me was I didn't, couldn't really tell if it was just Bangor, because they said 50% of it would be Bangor and 50% of it would encompass Penobscot County, but that they didn't actually, I don't think they actually put one to Penobscot County to get money. So if they're, if I don't, I don't know about that one. I think if we did accept that, we'd have to put a stipulation that it's just for Bangor kids, because they should have presented it to the county. I'm trying to see if they had or not. Does anybody remember if they did? [18:29] Speaker B (unidentified): Don't remember. Does anybody in the room have an understanding of how that works and if they're not, it would be feasible? [18:35] Speaker H (unidentified): No, because none of us were able to see. [18:37] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, that's right. That's also a frustration of how this worked, because we didn't all see everything, right? [18:44] Speaker E (unidentified): I think what's confusing to me, [18:46] Susan Hawes: this is for Shelly and Scott Knowles, [18:48] Speaker E (unidentified): is that you both are expressing confusion and a little bit of hesitancy about the feasibility, and it's the highest scored application on the list, right, which is kind of [19:02] Speaker B (unidentified): what I was saying about the, well yeah, I don't, start all of these of the rubric, right, because if you go by the rubric, it hit all the exemplary marks, or most of them did, but there was still like a big question mark around does this actually work. And I don't know, because I don't know enough about that type of thing. There's actually the, I forget her name, forgive me, but the woman who's usually here for public health usually like talks about that, so I'm kind of hoping she would be here, because I know I figured she would know, but I just don't know enough about it. Let me pull up the actual thing so I can give you more information. Yeah, I didn't, I didn't score it [19:35] Speaker C (unidentified): fives all the way because of that priority population and geographic area thing. I didn't, I didn't, I didn't feel that was covering just Bangor, which is kind of what our money is supposed [19:46] Speaker B (unidentified): Supposed to do. Okay, so the questions and concerns I put in the box, and just to be clear, I was not super critical when I was scoring. I don't think anything got under a 40 when I was [19:58] Speaker C (unidentified): scoring things. Yeah, they did not submit an application to Penobscot County for their Penobscot County part of it, so yeah, so that was one of the other things I said. Yeah, sorry I didn't [20:11] Speaker B (unidentified): mean to speak over you. Surely, but that's okay. That's all right. That's also what I said is the best avenue for acquiring this funding, because they're asking about a county but didn't apply for the county. But it's right here, it says what is the actual impact of only 500 per child at the high cost of daycare, I guess. So [20:35] Speaker D (unidentified): one option might be, did you say, I'm sorry, did you say that they [20:40] Speaker C (unidentified): said 50 would be in Bangor and 50 yeah in Penobscot County, but they did not request any money from [20:49] Speaker B (unidentified): from Penobscot County. I don't see that as being hugely problematic just in general, but it does kind of make me wonder why they didn't ask the county for the money instead of us, or [20:59] Speaker C (unidentified): at least half us have them, if that's what they're spreading it out to pay for. They may have asked the county because all I can see is who got money. Yeah, no, it says here, it says here, well on the question they were asked, did you, has this, has an application been made to Penobscot County to fund this project, and they said no, did not realize the county was accepting applications. That's what was written on this application. So [21:38] Speaker D (unidentified): one option would be to leave the score as is and just say that half the money is going to non-bank or we could also consider funding at half the apps right I'd be comfortable with half the asking yeah me too [22:01] Speaker B (unidentified): I would too, but I don't know, despite everything that we just said, the application really did seem like a good thing. Yeah, like my lacking of understanding, like does this already exist somewhere else, how much of this already exists, like is this something that we're just duplicating, getting services on, like they want more of it. Seems like according to the application it doesn't really exist, but I don't know that because I don't have the experience for it. I don't know if that makes any sense, what I'm saying. Either way, I think it was, it scored high because it was a good application, and I don't think it's a bad thing. There was just a couple questions, so I have a [22:35] Speaker C (unidentified): Question though, do you guys even know what they're asking for if you never saw the what Scott and I saw? Yeah, okay, it says 12.5. No, but I mean like what it's for, like because it says here, okay, can I read something really quick? It says this proposal directly addresses the intergenerational harms of OUD and SUD crisis by focusing on placement, stabilization, and primary prevention. When children are removed due to parental substance use, they are placed with kinship caregivers who face immediate and overwhelming financial and emotional strain. The primary harm mitigated is caregiver burnout, which is leading predictor of placement disruption. By providing funds for structured activities, KSRI offers caregivers essential respite time which reduces stress and engages youth in protective resilience building environments reducing their own risk factors for future SUD. This multi-layered approach protects the most vulnerable element which is the child's stable home which is necessary for long-term recovery and well-being. They say that the program leverages the best practices of respite care and positive youth development and it does. Currently local resources heavily support formal foster care placements. KSRI explicitly fills the gap for informal kinship families. So I guess what there are, there is a program in place for kids that are in the foster care system, but there's nothing for just people that may be family members. [24:05] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, that's right. Sorry, now that you're saying it, you're right. [24:07] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, I had to start, you know, raising two children and financially we didn't have any help. [24:15] Speaker B (unidentified): I also indirectly know that to be true. It's not my personal experience but I've seen it. Yeah. [24:20] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah so anyway that's what they're asking the money for but like I said I hesitate to give them the full amount because it's not just Bangor it's also Penobscot County and they've they had money to ask for that you know what I mean so are we all comfortable with splitting it? [24:40] Speaker E (unidentified): So I'm going to share I just heard about what this program is about. The organization that I work for actually does have a state contract for respite for foster care so I have a little bit of a conflict but I have zero knowledge about how that program runs so I can't even be useful okay to glean any kind of like truth to what's being said is. [25:01] Speaker C (unidentified): Yours through the foster care system respite or something different kind of respite? It's a state contract so it's D. I see, okay, yeah. [25:13] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, okay, thank you. I think that's also what, again, when I wrote that one sentence of, is this the best avenue for funding? It would seem to me like DHHS would be the one to fund something like that, which is again, where it brought me back to, does this already exist and how? But like she just explained, it's for the families who wouldn't qualify for it because they're family instead of just a foster or respite, whatever, where they would be because they're not family. [25:38] Speaker E (unidentified): And separate from that, I've been a foster parent that was a kinship placement and it was handled through DHHS and I know okay it's not always but that can be the case it really [25:49] Speaker C (unidentified): depends on the situation okay all right so [25:57] Speaker D (unidentified): I believe we need to arrive at a consensus score which could be 48 49 the average between the two or something else and then we should probably take a formal vote on if the committee wants to move forward with funding half of the ask for Bangor only recipients. [26:27] Speaker H (unidentified): I recommend we leave it. This is just my thoughts. I recommend we leave it at the average, and I move that we cut it in half to make it 12 5, because they could score hot. [26:45] Speaker G (unidentified): So yeah, [26:48] Speaker C (unidentified): I mean, it was a good application. [26:52] Speaker G (unidentified): I would agree, leaving the school where it is, and having Scott and Shelly make the determination whether or not we should split that in half. I do not read this application, so I don't understand it. Scott and Shelley did I feel like they should make their recommendation on the on the [27:11] Speaker C (unidentified): I think half Scott do you yeah that works for me just to cover the Bangor area because we should be paying for all of all of the county the [27:33] Speaker D (unidentified): next one on my list is Wellspring [Speaker F (unidentified): with a] score of 48 and 43 for an average of 45.5 is one of the scores want to give us a couple sentences on the project itself sorry [27:56] Speaker B (unidentified): was that for Wellspring yeah basically they're just looking for bridging funding to continue their intent to their actually it's all outpatient services I think is what it is but they I think the impressive part of that application was they had a good resolution to like for sustainability I'm not mistakenly pull it up so I know what I'm talking about here what [28:44] Speaker I (unidentified): what did they want [28:47] Speaker B (unidentified): Basically they're looking for a funding bridge to maintain their outpatient programming while they seek to move to a main care ohh billing model. And I'm just thinking like in Bangor specifically we're talking about Wellspring outpatient. That's a huge proponent of our treatment who's our Bangors. Yeah okay. The one of the things I had noted was where did it go. My mouse keeps dying on me I'm very sorry. So it's like trying to pull things up but it's like connected disconnected. Who was the other person that scored it [29:55] Speaker F (unidentified): I'm sorry what's the meaning okay I [30:14] Speaker H (unidentified): know that the county made sure that anybody that got any state funds they wouldn't they kept it because the state funds were quite sizable. I don't know if Wellsprings got any state funds but I thought so [30:31] Speaker F (unidentified): We didn't ask that [30:32] Speaker H (unidentified): I just thought it was a good idea I think we should [30:37] Speaker D (unidentified): They did not receive county money [30:45] Speaker H (unidentified): But the Wellsprings didn't right I can see they didn't but that's I think that has to do with the fact that the county wasn't [30:55] Speaker B (unidentified): Considering ones that can I make a suggestion real quick just in the way that we're doing this can we just review these without making definitive decisions on each one so that we can go through all of them and then circle back to make decisions that way we're not like approving some before we get through all of them does that make sense [31:14] Speaker D (unidentified): Well I think really the goal should be to arrive at a score yeah because then we'll need to reorder these all once the scores are finalized and I think that will be particularly meaningful with the scores that are in red because the conversation could meaningfully shift them up [31:35] Speaker B (unidentified): Or down yeah that makes sense to me so let's just like keep it to that then like figuring out the score and then we can circle back we need to and so for this one score one was relatively high [31:48] Speaker D (unidentified): High at 48 and score two was 43 so certainly one option is to go with the average but if any of the scorers have strong feelings about why they arrived at that particular score it's probably [32:07] Speaker B (unidentified): Worth discussing yeah what was the lower scores for you what was the things because like they don't there's only two categories for me that I scored less than five on so if you've got some insight on the lower scores I think that would make sense [Susan Hawes: And again] I will say, like I said, I was not critical with any of the scoring. Just in general, I wasn't being super critical. I was just kind of reading through the list today. Or did they not meet the standard of what was being asked specifically from the rubric? Same here. How can you not say these don't be, these people don't [32:59] Speaker C (unidentified): deserve, you know? But I, that's why I went on the basics of the actual application and [33:08] Speaker B (unidentified): the subjects that we had to grade them on, score them on. I will say, if anybody who is asking for money because they're like, you know, need the money, I think Wall Springs, from the ones I looked at, Wall Spring had an actual solution to the problem that seemed feasible, as opposed to some people kind of giving vague, we're going to work with other partners and get other grants and etc. And this was like a very specific, intentional plan to like make this work in the future, which I really thought was good. [33:38] Speaker D (unidentified): Counselor, has your scores did not, I think it was just the difference in people's scoring methodology. There wasn't a particular area where you scored this one low. It was sort of spread across all of the categories, so it's probably chalked up to purely judgment on [34:02] Susan Hawes: any of these. I went that way, suppose [34:12] Speaker B (unidentified): that is another kind of shortfall of the, of the way that we did this too, because if you got somebody like me who was not super critical with somebody else who wasn't super critical, but then with somebody who was, you know, more critical, kind of unbalances everything, but whatever. I, and in essence, actually now that I'm saying that out loud, I think maybe we just need to keep the averages except for the extremes and just discuss those, because otherwise we're not, do you get what I'm saying? Yep, so [34:40] Speaker D (unidentified): we go for the average on that one. The next one is Bangor Area Homeless Shelter. They're only asking for 10,000. We have a score of 50 and a score of 40.5 for an average of 45.25. Yeah, I scored one of those. That's a me and you, Scott, again. Yeah, [35:07] Speaker B (unidentified): so this was, what I think this was probably well the second lowest score, because we had one application that was really poor. It wasn't even really an application, it was just kind of [35:15] Speaker C (unidentified): A comment, let's see, I said here, so I'll, I can give you a brief description of what the Baylor area homeless shelter was looking for. They have people that they place in housing, but they want two things. They wanted to do one, they want to be a hub of the distribution of naloxone, which I guess I thought they already were, but if we could help enhance that, I didn't have any problem with helping that out. Their application to me was very well written. There weren't like, I didn't have to jump here and jump there and jump all over. So there's the Narcan distribution, and also they were looking to also emergency shelter but connecting guests with safe and permanent housing, and they, their plan was going to run, wait a minute, they had a timeline of July 1 to June 2026 on both. [36:33] Speaker B (unidentified): Can you just go through my lower scores? The first one was adherence to application. I said they failed to provide a detailed project specific budget breakdown within the narrative, instead providing only an organization-wide budget worksheet. The response to the sustainability and budget narrative sections and brief are brief and lack depth. The sustainability was a three sites future sustainability relied on general operating budget, a statement or status quo that relies on future funding assumptions without identifying any new sources, and if they don't need those new sources to fund it, then why are they asking for money to fund it? And the other one was the budget, because there was zero breakdown. They're just like, we want ten thousand dollars for maybe we'll expand our Narcan distribution, which we already have a ton of in our area, and then the placing people in housing, helping with that, but again, that's, you know, homelessness is not the same thing as substance use disorder. I understand they're closely related, but kind of a different thing in some ways, you know, so [37:45] Speaker D (unidentified): I think what I hear you saying, Scott, is that based on your review, you feel pretty strongly that some point production [37:55] Speaker B (unidentified): was appropriate. Yeah, it just didn't make sense, because like, if they needed the money for something like, I don't know, it's, I don't know why we would need an arcane more, an arcane distribution in our area anyway, but they're already distributing Narcan, so they want ten thousand dollars to distribute more in arcane, but then when they asked us about sustainability, they said they just take it out of their general budget, but they can already just take it out of their general budget. Why are they asking Us for the money. Yeah, that's true, I did see that, and you said that there was [38:27] Speaker E (unidentified): a specific timeline attached to when they would use the money. Yeah, well, that's what's confusing [38:33] Speaker C (unidentified): here. It says project timelines run, oh, this is, they're just telling us their fiscal year. I'm sorry, so their fiscal year runs July 1 to June 30 of 25, 26, and 26, 27. [Speaker I (unidentified): And] I think they're speaking about SUD and alcoholism. I know that this is opioid related money and not alcohol. [39:08] Speaker B (unidentified): Also find it kind of ironic on some level because they're, you know, not a wet shelter, so they don't let people who are actively using stay there, which is kind of the entire population that we're supposed to be serving now. To be fair, they did make the argument, and they're not wrong, but they do provide a safer place for people who are trying to avoid that, I guess, on some level that is true. [39:30] Speaker C (unidentified): To be fair, did Penobscot give them any money? Because it looks like they applied there as well. [39:35] Speaker B (unidentified): They were funded through Penobscot County, I believe, [39:39] Speaker C (unidentified): for the total amount of 10,000 they were asking. I'm not sure. Were, do you know that, Carolyn, was it 10 from us and 10 from them, or yeah, they got 10 from [39:52] Speaker B (unidentified): Prop Stop. It's like, the thing is, the application was like, there's like lots of great detail, lots of information, yeah, but like what it was not really tied into what they were actually asking for. It was just kind of like a generic here's Bangor area homeless shelters information, would like to get support letters and everything. It just didn't make sense to me, so for this one [40:19] Speaker D (unidentified): We have a score of 50, a score of 40.5, with an average of 5.25. Is the, it sounds to me like the will of the committee is perhaps to go with the lower score or something near to the lower score. [40:38] Speaker C (unidentified): Yeah, I agree, okay. [40:44] Speaker D (unidentified): So I'm going to circle the low score for this one unless someone [40:51] Speaker H (unidentified): what did you do, what did we do with Wellsprings, did we just leave it as the average, we did. [41:01] Speaker I (unidentified): I'm going to print a piece, oops, all [41:08] Speaker D (unidentified): right, moving on to Boys and Girls Club of Bangles, a score of 50 and a score of 40 for an average of 45. This was Scott and Shelley, oh my god, Scott. [41:26] Speaker C (unidentified): This is God, oh, the other Scott, okay, do [41:34] Speaker H (unidentified): You want me to go first? Do you want to do it? Yeah, go ahead. Project plus. Yeah, sure. Yeah, project. It was gone, it went on and on with the project, but it says as it seeks support from the city of Bangor, we'll be on someone's advisory to implement a comprehensive primary prevention initiative targeted at reducing early risk factors for youth substance use while strengthening and projectivity conditions that help young people thrive. Our approach revolves around the creation of emotionally safe and relationship rich environments where youth will find themselves supported by caring adults engaging in skill building experiences connecting with their families and it goes on for two more pages so I'm not going to read it all I can tell you I'll just tell you briefly where I came up with my score of 40 the rational data the data is not dated and it was only from one source so I made that a three because that seemed to fit you know I scored these like the rubric said too so the project timeline the timeline was vague and could use some refinement so I gave that a three also scope of work I gave a five the smarty goals listed the collection methodology is unclear and it will be blended in with the rest of their mission so I didn't really understand what that was about either and the sustainability appears sustainable but the grant covers startup, but after that it's relying on other grants. So that's why some of the ones that I scored lower down, you know, I gave them a five on the well done. It was well done there. Meets all the priority populations, five. I gave them a five on that. On the scope of work, I gave them a five on that, but there was some other things that dragged it down for me to give them a 40. So that's why I gave them a 40. Shelly, you gave them a 50, I think. [43:45] Speaker C (unidentified): you're muted shelly i'm sorry about that i kind of felt like i feel like they were very clear with what they were requesting and how it was going to support the neighborhood or the bangor area i guess i should say they had some they had some national drug survey results, some different areas of Bangor that are worse than others as far as needing this type of program. And I felt as though that was kind of true, depending upon where the overdoses were happening. What did you say about the SMARTY objectives, Scott? [44:46] Speaker H (unidentified): the spidey goals collection methodologies here i thought it's unclear yeah or was clear [44:57] Speaker C (unidentified): Unclear. Got it, got it. Okay, I don't know, I felt like that was kind of clear, but you know when you read so many of these in a row, yes, some things are not clear and some are. Yeah, I guess I ranked it high because I felt the money would do some good in this area of where they're, what they're proposing to do and the, yeah, I went, I didn't find anything wrong on the actual application either. There was some that had some serious issues, this one didn't score either, you know. Yeah, I know, yeah, well we could use, I mean, sorry, go ahead, what were you gonna say, game splitting, I guess, you know, yeah [45:57] Speaker D (unidentified): It sounds to me like this is one of those where it's just sort of the judgment of the scores, so the average might be a good reflection of yes, the colors were really good for visuals, yes, but it's not, my pen won't write over the color. All right, the next one on the list is the second Needlepoint Sanctuary project. This was scored by Allison and Shelly, a score of 39 and 50 for an average of 44.5. Do [46:47] Susan Hawes: you want me to talk, Shelly? Yes, [46:50] Speaker E (unidentified): go ahead, test my memory. This was for a partial, a part-time, I don't work in recovery, so I don't know the right words to use for this, essentially a recovery coach type position that was being raided with Penobscot County funding, potentially to provide the other half of that funding, and then also there was money in this for an outreach vehicle to facilitate the person working in that position being able to take people to their appointments and it. When I read the description, it was sounding to me very similar to the model that we had awarded for Bangor Public Health, specifically for the HIV cluster, where it was a way to not have to wait for all of the insurance and the other reimbursement to kick in. The person could immediately get referred. How am I doing? OK, so it put people directly with the treatment that they were asking for, essentially immediately. [47:57] Speaker H (unidentified): give them and I do just not about him, but the county did give them 43,000 which and they were [48:04] Speaker E (unidentified): very clear about that providing the remainder of that part-time position that this would fund and that was the way I read their understanding of how this person would interact with Bangor specifically and with the county as a whole. Yeah, [48:26] Speaker B (unidentified): it definitely sounds like duplication of services. We spent a lot of money to set up two case managers and with transportation [48:34] Speaker E (unidentified): to already do that so to be clear we awarded the city to work with the hiv cluster population and this is specific to recovery services so i 'm not easily seeing how it's a duplication fair enough [48:52] Speaker H (unidentified): enough my misunderstanding did you mean it was a duplication of the county funding [49:00] Speaker B (unidentified): no I meant what I meant what I said I was just making a misinformed whatever I because I didn't realize that I thought specifically that's what you were talking about but if it's recovery stuff that's a whole different thing it's a similar model Scott it's just a [Speaker E (unidentified): different population fair] enough [49:23] Speaker C (unidentified): i have a question though the one we gave already to do the same thing these people are asking for wasn't that also for recovery as well as the hiv together was it like a combo because the people using the needles or the ones [49:44] Speaker E (unidentified): that was specifically to support individuals in the hiv cluster with accessing each of these specific services because there wasn't a the contract is not active in the state right now and this is specifically talking about essentially walk-ins to their facility or people who are engaging them could immediately start receiving the services yeah and i think [50:11] Speaker C (unidentified): I think the reason the what I took from it was that they can like you said help the people that walk in and they're not having to actively search for the people because they 're the bus route goes by their new building that they have if I'm not if I'm correct I think that's why Bangor let them have that facility because of the bus route so there's people going to them that need help that they don't already have a recovery coach for right and [50:46] Speaker E (unidentified): that's how i read it yeah okay [50:48] Speaker C (unidentified): okay yeah that's why i [50:54] Speaker D (unidentified): can i ask a question go ahead as i said so allison you're saying that the 34 000 that they requested plus what they asked for from the county was what they needed to fund that position there's not a duplication of costs there right no it was 12 20 12 000 for [51:16] Speaker E (unidentified): the vehicle and then the remainder of the Bangor award was for the part-time recovery collection I feel like that's the wrong word that I'm saying and then the county [51:29] Speaker B (unidentified): was no that's the that's probably right it's probably recovery coach I don't have my applications [51:35] Speaker E (unidentified): And then the county was providing the other half of that the salary and French for it. [51:45] Speaker C (unidentified): I guess I'm okay with them getting money for, if we have to split hairs, I think I'm okay with them getting money for the recovery coach. But I wasn't sure about the vehicle because I felt like if the bus line goes there, and it also goes into town for people's appointments. That's what people use the bus for, right, or these off-site appointments like out of Bangor. [52:11] Speaker D (unidentified): I don't think that the bus goes by the Ohio Street location. Folks need to walk from the bus stop to Ohio Street. Some distance. I am not confident how far that walk is. [52:27] Speaker B (unidentified): Is okay, I don't believe it did it say specifically what the transportation was for, like are we talking about rides to the methadone clinic in the morning, are we talking about, I believe it [52:41] Speaker E (unidentified): primarily had to do with like basic needs in the moment and then dosing, but I don't remember, I remember reading it thinking that it made sense and fit with what they were describing [52:56] Speaker B (unidentified): describing, but I don't remember the specifics, it sounds a lot like the kind of work that I understand that they do too, so that does make sense too, so [53:07] Speaker D (unidentified): it sounds like both scores think this is a good project and maybe the difference in scores was just style, that's a good way to put it [53:19] Speaker B (unidentified): style, I would almost even say experience too, right, because like I feel like having just done this for the first time I was like very clued into just the real specific language in the rubric without consideration to needing a division in points in order to separate things a little bit more, that makes sense, but whatever, yeah, whatever, that was a completely unnecessary statement, but yeah, so [53:50] Speaker D (unidentified): is this a situation where the average score between the two makes sense [53:58] Speaker E (unidentified): yeah, I think so, it looks like my primary markdown had to do with having to infer impact because the data was limited, and then I had some markdown because I definitely had to work to find sections and answers, it wasn't really not specifically the same, it was love attachments to sort to be [54:26] Speaker B (unidentified): fair, needlepoint sanctuary is not like a super well established super well-funded agency that can hire, you know, a grant writer to my understanding, so just I think it's important that we remember that not all agencies are created equal in their capacity to create these applications, that's all I'm saying, and [54:48] Speaker E (unidentified): we didn't score on internal capacity and organizational sets, yeah [54:55] Speaker B (unidentified): No, but it's something like I had mentioned a few meetings back, because like I knew specifically there were going to be some people wanted who did, who asked for money but doesn't have any kind of, you know, any kind of support or, you know, grant writing experience, etc. But yeah, all [55:15] Speaker D (unidentified): right, so next on the list is Stop Addiction New England. They've asked for $25,000. There's a score of 49 and a score of 40. [55:30] Speaker I (unidentified): Shelly and Counselor, hold on one second. [55:51] Speaker C (unidentified): I'm sorry, I'm just trying to get my stuff together. [Speaker I (unidentified): Okay, so] did you want me to read kind of what they were asking for? Yeah, a few sentences about the [56:16] Speaker I (unidentified): yeah, let me see here, so this [56:38] Speaker C (unidentified): this was one, okay, let me first say that this is the one that I had a hard time with their application because it was sent in like, they sent us what we asked them to fill out, you know what I'm saying, so it was, it's like I started reading it, I'm like, well, I don't even unders-, they're, they're telling me when they can post an application and it's like the thing he sent out, they just re-sent it to us and then they started with their answers to all of it, so that was kind of confusing and that's one of the reasons I didn't give them a full five on that part of the actual application, so they have, I think they had two, it's very confusing. Their project was going to serve about 80% of Bangor residents and 20% from Brewer. [Speaker I (unidentified): And] the second phase recovery, stability and harm reduction project is what they're calling it. It expands reintegration supports for individuals in their residential phase two program while strengthening harm reduction outreach for people in Bangor who are homeless, actively using, or disconnected from services. Their project addresses opioid related harms by reducing relapse and overdose risk during the vulnerable reintegration period through overdose prevention education, stable housing supports, transportation assistance, and employment or training readiness. It fills a critical gap by providing long-term reintegration services, driver's license reinstatement, job preparation, housing, transition and ongoing outreach, resources not typically offered by detox, short-term treatment or outpatient programs in Bangor. They also would have a work clothing or education trade school supplies for eight to 12 people is who they're planning on helping with that. The driver's license was 10 to 15 residents. Outreach engagement would be at least 25 community members. I guess, does that help or should I find more? They plan, okay, so their three level, their high level project timeline is launch harm reduction education sessions, begin outreach to community members, initiate driver's license reinstatement processes, assess resident needs for employment, school and housing, purchase clothing and educational supplies. That would be in the first three months. In the next three months, the next six months, sorry, continue harm reduction workshops, support 10 to 15 residents through driver's education licensing steps, provide work clothing, trade school materials, and essential living support, deliver outreach-based harm reduction service. And for the next three months afterwards, the nine to 12, it'd be finalized employment education placements, complete individualized exit plans and ensure stable transportation for residents, support transitions into housing and maintain tracking of outcomes for reporting so I guess it follows people from the time they start to not use to when like getting them back on their back on their own I guess what it's kind of like [1:00:26] Speaker D (unidentified): Now I pulled your scores, Counselor Hudson, look like their deductions are sort of spread pretty evenly, not anyone, it was more just I didn't think a lot of that was really clear, so yeah, no, it was [1:00:39] Speaker C (unidentified): very messy. It's a messy application. Did you feel that way? But like, you know, I know not everybody knows how to fill one out, but sending us what we sent you is right, what [1:00:58] Speaker I (unidentified): was it, he said [1:01:00] Susan Hawes: it was scored pretty high for being messy. Well, I took, I took one off. [1:01:11] Speaker C (unidentified): Listen, I've never done this before, Scott. [1:01:17] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay, all right, so we have a 49, a 40 and a 44.5. Am I maybe hearing this is another one where there's some consideration for going towards the lower score? Yeah, I would think so. Is everybody? So [1:01:36] Speaker H (unidentified): this organization, because I didn't see the application or anything either, I'm not familiar [1:01:41] Speaker B (unidentified): with at all. The only reason I would agree with that is just because of what Shelly just said and being in the same boat of being not super critical of anything, it makes more sense if somebody was being a little bit more critical and it was a messy application with some errors that it should be probably more critically rated. Are you familiar with them, Scott? No, specifically, that's what I just said, specifically that one I'm not, but yeah, I'm just saying given the information [1:02:06] Speaker H (unidentified): on the table, I mean [1:02:11] Speaker D (unidentified): they did submit with their application many letters of recommendation, is that right, Shelly? [1:02:20] Speaker E (unidentified): They did have a lot. [1:02:23] Speaker H (unidentified): And do they have a budget? [1:02:36] Susan Hawes: I took it that they were not a well-known entity. Anybody can get a letter of, you know. Yeah, recommendation. Before, a recommendation. And they were just trying to start somewhere. [1:02:52] Speaker E (unidentified): Got it. So, which might be the harm reduction, [1:02:59] Susan Hawes: So it was really it was for all of those reasons that I took lots of time for. [1:03:04] Speaker E (unidentified): Was it clear in the application if this because the descriptions or the things you were listing off and check me on this Scott is that those seem to me to be the things that you can't easily get public funding for and so they were looking for kind of like bridge funding but was it for the specific population they're serving now? or for like an ongoing if people coming in need that it was my impression they were hoping to be [1:03:34] Susan Hawes: ongoing that's a it's a long haul for them yeah you know it's just because of who they are and their structure yeah and like you know Scott said not everybody has grant writers and fundraisers [1:03:49] Speaker C (unidentified): Scott Hardy it too looks like you might have been one of the recommendation writers [1:03:56] Speaker H (unidentified): it's like you might have been yeah like Sue was saying it's pretty easy to [1:04:01] Speaker C (unidentified): get somebody to write a recommendation yeah okay I just know if you knew more about [1:04:06] Speaker H (unidentified): them than I did or something you know all right unless it's unless it's another organization Who was it addressed to? [1:04:17] Susan Hawes: And does that introduce a conflict? [1:04:20] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah,, but I don't even know so good or at least by that thing. Is it part of something else, shall we? No, I'm not really. [1:04:31] Speaker C (unidentified): No, and it's a it you know like hold on I gotta go through these first 10 pages of what we sent them, and now they're just sending it back to us. [1:04:41] Speaker B (unidentified): here we go definitely deserve minus one point yeah [1:04:49] Speaker C (unidentified): well maybe 10 now because of some pages Kevin McGuire was the project director oh I know I know [1:04:56] Speaker H (unidentified): who Kevin McGuire is yeah so I do know something about him he's a good guy I don't know, I don't know about this organization. [1:05:14] Speaker D (unidentified): So did I hear us coalesce around going with the lower score? That's what I [Speaker F (unidentified): heard. Yeah. The] next one is Bangor Public Health and community services this is a score of 42 and a score of 46. oh geez that wasn't me was it [1:05:48] Speaker B (unidentified): yeah it was me and somebody all right actually I shouldn't say that because I don't know who the other person was no she pathway and Allison oh no because I ended up transition swapping one out so that was one of the ones I swapped out a [1:06:11] Speaker D (unidentified): couple sentences on the project itself [1:06:14] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, this was the last one I did, so my memory is fuzzy. This was for to have somebody from public health stationed at the back, right? Yes, I'm gonna have to go on that road. I believe that was really the only use of the funds was to support that part-time nurse practitioner. [1:06:47] Speaker G (unidentified): Yes, work who have an IP in their facility, that was the context. They talked a lot about wound care. [1:06:54] Speaker E (unidentified): And then kind of the one of the diagnosis piece of things that can't. [1:07:03] Speaker G (unidentified): Happen with the current staff that are there. I read it is a gap, it's not, yes, so there. [1:07:19] Speaker D (unidentified): Was very little difference in the two scores here, 42 and 46, for an average of 44 over the average. And I know that there has been conversation about not recommending public health receive any money. I think that probably conversation is for- Council. Well, I think probably when this committee decides on what the final recommended list is based on this score, four, it's probably going to score higher, but then we can talk through what that looks. [1:08:01] Speaker F (unidentified): Like with the recommendation to council. Yeah, [1:08:10] Speaker E (unidentified): I was just looking at what I think I marked down on a couple of things. The most was the three for the rationale and data to support it. And my comment just said that there was limited statistics. A lot of the need was demonstrated through sharing observations of other providers that are working and have expressed need in that facility. I. [1:08:35] Speaker B (unidentified): Just want to reiterate we had talked about before we got applications, banger public health not applying, and I think the main logic that they did apply is because we didn't know how much money people were going to ask for, and if we were just going to be able to fund everything, and I'm not going to, I don't want to be a broken record, I've already said what I said about, I really don't think they belong, honestly. [1:09:03] Speaker D (unidentified): Next on the list is community health and counseling services. I think this is one, Scott, that you're conflicted from, is that right? I. [1:09:15] Speaker B (unidentified): Work, I work at ches, but I will keep my mouth shut. [1:09:19] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay, we have a score of 37 and a score of 50 for an average of 43.5. Shelly or Councilor Haas could give us a couple sentences on the project. [1:09:37] Susan Hawes: I wish I had in my application 37 for organization. [1:09:43] Speaker C (unidentified): It's been around a while. Makes me wonder why they're, yeah, they're looking for funds to establish a supported housing model at Teresa's place, which is a permanent housing initiative for individuals and families experiencing homelessness. Currently, they have temporary funding to support one full time staff member. However, the staffing model must be strengthened to provide the comprehensive support necessary for a sustainable and effective program. So Teresa's place, I'm not sure if you all know, but it's uniquely positioned to serve individuals affected by opioid use disorder. Excuse me, extensive research highlights a strong correlation between homelessness and substance use disorders. And so what they want to do is enhance their staffing and resources that they currently have now to be able to encompass more people. They're looking for the amount requested from us was 50,000. Their, the total would be, the salary is 52 000 and the fringe would be 13 000 for the people they're trying to bring on, and 15 000 of that was going to be funded by chcs, and that's why they were requesting only 50 instead of the 65. And [1:11:09] Speaker E (unidentified): chcs is the service provider at together place [1:11:13] Speaker C (unidentified): It's Teresa's place. Teresa's place. Yeah, not together. [1:11:19] Speaker E (unidentified): Oh, I'm sorry. I misspoke. CHTS is just the services. They don't have the facility. [1:11:27] Speaker C (unidentified): I think they currently have a facility called Teresa's place. But in order to. Oh, is it? Hmm. Yeah, I don't know. They're just providing, and it's the services, okay, I see. So their application was to the point, there was not very many pages, but they told us the information we needed to know, and I felt that, like, I scored them a 50 because I couldn't see why I wouldn't, none of those on the rubric, none of those one through fives, every, they covered all of them as far as I was [1:12:17] Speaker I (unidentified): concerned. What [1:12:20] Susan Hawes: did you have, counselor? They were spread over the whole, the whole page, and I will say that some of them, they may have talked about it, but they haven't really. They didn't really fulfill certain things that they have scored on in the past, and so it was some of that filtered in there. I was and am still sad that Teresa's place is not full, and you know, it's been a fair amount of time now that they don't seem to have the push to get out there and really get behind [1:13:08] Speaker H (unidentified): Find their workers and help them promote choice. This we've placed some people had some members of Brush start want to go to Teresa's place and one has been accepted. The application is 17 pages long and after you, after you're accepted there's another 12 pages that have to be filled up. It's [1:13:28] Speaker E (unidentified): an absolute same and that I just want to point out that process has nothing to do with the services is being provided. What you're describing is the property manager's side of it. That is right. So that was weighing into the way you consider it that there's barriers and there's dissatisfaction and the facility not being full that would be outside of a difficult problem for DHC. Yes. Yeah. [1:13:57] Speaker C (unidentified): And I didn't, I wasn't privy to any of that outside information. I just went by what was on this, what was on this application. So [1:14:13] Speaker D (unidentified): we have a 37, a 50, and an average of 43.5. [1:14:21] Speaker H (unidentified): i would be inclined to go with the 37 but the only reason i'm saying that is because counselor has experience with them that we don't have [1:14:45] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, I guess I would be more inclined to go the average. I think I'm hearing experiences that may or may not be relevant or a part of what's happening here is weighing into decisions. [1:15:09] Speaker G (unidentified): Yeah. I would do towards the average, but I'd rather have the two folks that scored it. [1:15:15] Susan Hawes: What do you want to do, Shelly? You want to go to the average? I'd go with the average. [1:15:20] Speaker C (unidentified): What do you think? No. What do you want? Two, though? Okay. We're a team. [1:15:28] Susan Hawes: That's fine. I'll support it. That's what you want. All [1:15:35] Speaker D (unidentified): right, next on the list is the Bangor Y project. A score of 43 and a score of 42 for an average of 42.5. I think we do have one that was exactly the same. The project was, this was a, Councilor Haas and Chappell. [1:16:03] Speaker G (unidentified): I thought it was an interesting project. It's a project that we all know that they have a daycare. They're going to have a more robust daycare sometimes when they open the facility. This money was targeted for parents of those in daycare that are struggling with a variety of issues including addiction issues and I just thought it was an interesting program. It's certainly sustainable. The organization we all know is sustainable in our community. I, gave it a 42. [1:16:31] Susan Hawes: They did write a good format program, it was well-written, it's something that they excel at and they do, they normally will get what they want out of their programs, it covered the right things. I think the children of and the parents that have issues, it gives the kids a place to get some help as well so I 'm not typically a high score on anything I never did all fives I gave that one 43 so it [1:17:16] Speaker F (unidentified): might have got one by then so 43 [1:17:26] Speaker D (unidentified): 42. just [1:17:30] Speaker B (unidentified): as a observation Another thing that I realized is kind of a shortcoming of the way that we decided to score these things was there's very little consideration for the agencies already having access to a vast amount of funding compared to others that don't. So I just kind of wanted to make that point. I [1:17:51] Susan Hawes: thought about that Scott when I was reading through this and yes they do have access to a lot of other funds. but that was all done on a fundraising basis to get their new facility i don't think that those funds are going to be directly funneled into their programming so that i look at this as being an opportunity for them to add a new program yes and a wonderful new building but i gotta say they went out and beat the street and raised the funds the bulk of the funds that they needed for that so yeah i get it because when i was reading and i was seeing all the big signs that they had at the groundbreaking and the amounts of money but there [1:18:42] Speaker E (unidentified): again to your point it's two separate issues yeah not all money spendable the same way i guess i [1:18:49] Speaker F (unidentified): thought there's different strengths requirements again [1:18:56] Speaker B (unidentified): i didn't see the application so i don't know about the applicability towards the thing but i trust both of your judgments and i just wanted to say it so it said it's something i think we need to consider that's all yeah [1:19:10] Speaker F (unidentified): next on the list [1:19:16] Speaker D (unidentified): is penobscot community health center we have a 40 and a 45 for an average of 42.5 this was what i [1:19:27] Speaker B (unidentified): was talking about earlier when i was trying to pretend that i was talking about bangor public up when i wasn't this was the one that i had swapped out for so i apologize a couple of a couple of sentences on the project sure they're just basically looking for bridging money or not to stay functional i think so the lowest thing i had them on was for the sustainability because they outlined a feasible plan to transition to a sustainable supportive housing model however the audit did mention Substantial doubt regarding the organization's overall ability to continue as going concern, even though the financial improvement plan had already achieved 60% of the plan provided hires and implemented expansion savings. Again, it's like, for me, this comes back to, if it were like my opinion, I would have scored this much lower. Like if it was just my opinion on whether or not we're giving this money to this transitional living program, it's not specifically substance use disorder stuff that, if I remember right, their finances are terrible like they're like in debt in debt so like but again I just went through the rubric and whether or not they matched the things my question was how my main concern I guess at the end of it I didn't really write it down was how applicable is this to this money like [1:20:53] Speaker D (unidentified): Well I think that brings up a good point counselor Haas and I were talking earlier whether at the end of this process today if it makes sense to run this through the city's legal department to make sure they're comfortable that the project next to the MOU that dictates how we can spend this money to see if they have any concerns with the defensibility of that decision so this could be one Scott that we [1:21:26] Speaker B (unidentified): Flagged specifically for them to say look what it's like it's like not related but what's not related do you know what I mean I think what all these applications was missing was a fifth column one to five does it make sense for us to spend this and why but you know whatever [1:21:51] Speaker E (unidentified): Well it's not measurable it's probably why I didn't make this [1:21:55] Speaker F (unidentified): Opinion yeah [1:21:58] Speaker B (unidentified): Fair enough I'm just saying I'm just trying to make a point I'm not again I have very little experience doing this stuff it's just some these are things that I'm realizing as we're going through this process so [1:22:13] Speaker D (unidentified): We have a 40 a 45 and an average of 42.5 [1:22:21] Speaker B (unidentified): I'm good with the average next [1:22:30] Speaker D (unidentified): On the list Next is Bangor Comprehensive Treatment Center with a score of 46 and a score of 38 for an [1:22:40] Speaker F (unidentified): Average of 42. Can we go first? Yes, go ahead. Go ahead. [1:22:56] Speaker H (unidentified): Okay, this is the, my only issues, I'm just going to go over the issues on this, but first of all, we want to know what they asked, what's wrong with that code, what [1:23:17] Speaker E (unidentified): Are you dealing I don't do not I only have my score okay you [1:23:36] Speaker H (unidentified): Need it Carol you have it I'm gonna search for it 's Discovery House you might have it under Discovery House I [1:23:56] Speaker C (unidentified): Just have your score it [1:24:01] Speaker E (unidentified): Was specifically for scholarship [1:24:04] Speaker F (unidentified): Funds. I don't remember if there was. [1:24:11] Speaker H (unidentified): Anyway, I'll tell you how well I scored. It was extremely long. It was over 120 pages, so it was impossible to get through. So I did not get through all of the 120 pages. So that brought the application instructions to a four. You know, the first 14 pages were just right. But gee, with all the, all the other data afterwards, we'd forever get through it. The organizational information I gave them a 4.2. There were no issues except that it was vague. Project description I gave a 5. Priority population was a 5. The rational data to support the need I gave it a 3. The data was out of date. It was referencing 2018 to 2022. And that's four years ago at the closest. So I thought that was out of date. The scope of work was not clear on the roles of the staff. Data tracking was good, was okay. I gave that a four. Sustainability, I gave it two. The program is not sustainable without other grants or assumptions of increased insurance reimbursements, which are unlikely in the insurance world today. And the budget that they had a 15 indirect cost which they didn't explain at all, so that brought me to the 38, which is what I gave them. It's a logical ask and the number, it and the number it may help is sound. So you know, that's what I put for in my notes for a final score. So that's why I came up with the 38 and the, and it's the Discovery House in case everybody, nobody knows what it is, it's the methadone clinic so [1:26:08] Speaker D (unidentified): it's subsidized or partially subsidized treatment for individuals who are underinsured [1:26:14] Speaker B (unidentified): or uninsured. Yeah, that was it. How many people did they say that was going to impact? [1:26:21] Speaker H (unidentified): Back to you. Remember, I can't, that's the one, only one I didn't print. Somebody didn't have with me. [1:26:30] Speaker E (unidentified): Unless you got it. I'm looking to see if I have comments about if that was [1:26:34] Speaker F (unidentified): there I [1:26:37] Speaker H (unidentified): may have it here this [1:26:45] Speaker E (unidentified): was, it's a larger organization. It was very targeted and I just have a lot of notes about how they were very skillful in carving out specifically what would apply to this funding and this purpose. It was long, it was their organizational report which was a little overdone. It wasn't information that I needed and I kind of interpreted it more as a way to demonstrate their awareness of the industry and the work that they're doing. They spoke to doing lobbying work or be some way involved with legislation that would push for expanded treatment coverage through insurance, and they saw this as a way to help people that needed the help right now that they'd have to turn away if they didn't have... [1:27:38] Speaker G (unidentified): It was a transportation thing, wasn't it? It was. [1:27:41] Speaker E (unidentified): I have it down as scholarships. Yeah. For the services. And I think a lot of them had a little bit of transportation. This might have been one of them that did, and I don't remember what it was meant for. [1:27:55] Speaker D (unidentified): Yeah, it looks like they planned to enroll nine to 15 participants for the financial assistance. And then they sort of, they don't really spell out how many people will get transportation assistance, but it just says distribution of bus passes, gas cards or UBAR health rides. [1:28:15] Speaker E (unidentified): Okay and my markdowns were largely around sustainability and then also the rationale average. [1:28:29] Speaker H (unidentified): All [1:28:43] Speaker D (unidentified): right the next one is Crosspoint and this is the one that is [1:28:58] Speaker B (unidentified): that the mansion one or the other one got [1:29:06] Speaker H (unidentified): Knolls and Scott party yeah is that is which one is the Cross Point I [1:29:10] Speaker B (unidentified): know here it's the man the men's program for the mansion the men's discipleship program [1:29:19] Speaker D (unidentified): did that one get distributed twice [1:29:25] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah because I was a part of Crosspoint is confusing I had Shepherd Godparent Home yeah I had that one too showed up in the list for this committee it wasn't referenced anywhere [1:29:42] Speaker D (unidentified): in the application so the one that Shelly and Allison scored should be listed as two it should be five parents yes okay so Cross 41 needs the Mansion Church yep and the men's treatment yep okay so that was a score of 44 40 for an average of 42. [1:30:16] Speaker B (unidentified): yeah my low is well yeah it's whatever that 's pretty close yeah that was just close [1:30:23] Speaker H (unidentified): Well, let's see, there was no data. I gave them a two on the rational dollar because there was no data given. The timeline was vague. It's feasible, but it's vague. And the budget, there were minor gaps and I felt that the estimates were large. So that was my only low scoring part of that. But the average is fine. Are you good with that, Scott? [1:30:51] Speaker B (unidentified): Scott yeah it's basically you're saying the same thing that I'm saying we just scored a little different but that was the same concerns that I had yeah okay all [1:31:03] Speaker D (unidentified): right next on the list is Generation O that one was one of mine a score of 44. [1:31:11] Speaker B (unidentified): So whoops what was [1:31:16] Speaker H (unidentified): Generation O so this was [1:31:19] Speaker B (unidentified): One of the ones I was talking about, that if I like could make a magic one and just disappear. Period. I would, primarily because it's sending all the money out of our state. So the person who's the non-profit is registered like Florida, the person lives in California, Colorado. It's a cool program. It's like neonatal attention education to new parents with babies and or children who are born addicted, and it's like a set of like educational online courses that they can do, and then so like setting was like 7,500 of it was like for the salary for this one person who's going to run it, and the rest of it was for like awards they could get through points through completing these courses for stuff for their kids. The only reason I really don't didn't like it is because it's sending all the money. I mean, I guess not, the items are coming back to the families for completing these courses I guess, but so I guess we just have to [1:32:20] Speaker D (unidentified): score, but why are we considering? Well, so it sounds like it will be services provided to Bangor residents by a service provider that has no connection with any word, yeah, and they [1:32:35] Speaker H (unidentified): they want 20,000 and how much was just for salaries? 7,500. So 7,500, yeah. So one third is automatically going away and two-thirds who really knows. Well again, they it's supposed to [1:32:50] Speaker B (unidentified): be for like Awards for completing this thing there's just like aside from that it's like also I don't know they should the application said they had like 8 000 caregivers and I was trying to do math on that in my head you've got one person primarily doing this and they're going to serve 30 people per 7500 that they're asking for and then how many hours per set of 30 people is that if you've got 8 000 caregivers a community of 8 000 caregivers is what for their like support i don't know i just think really in general, in general, it's sending the money out of the state. We need money here for the programs that we already have. So again, I would just if I could wave a wand, I would take it off the list. Can we do that? I think that's why we're here, to make recommendations on the things that make sense and the things that don't. I'm just reading it [1:33:42] Speaker H (unidentified): I just googled it and it is a national organization, but it's it's all the money's going out of state. I don't think can we can we vote it off? Nobody's not going out of state though is what I just heard. I heard there's it is and then well who knows about the rest [1:34:01] Speaker B (unidentified): kind of sounds like it's canned. So let me so basically the specific I'm sorry, go ahead [1:34:09] Speaker G (unidentified): I think if we're not comfortable with this, we should go with a low score and then have to make sure that it meets the guidelines. [1:34:17] Susan Hawes: If you read this, it really was written and pulled by heartstrings because the NICU kids that are having the issues from the addiction of the moms, but that aside, I've worked up there in that unit and it's very difficult to get them to accept somebody to come in and work with the families and send the stuff, so I, unlike him, I didn't have a whole lot of like rah, but I think that you're right, so we will go on and we'll look at it and then. [1:34:58] Speaker B (unidentified): That was like that also, that was like also a concern of mine because this person who's getting paid to do this is basically administrating it and then like getting the hospital to refer people and then it's all online, so it's almost and they don't have any commitments from a partnership from these people they're saying are going to send the referrals, which would be like imperative for them to be able to do what they said they're going to do. I don't know, I just had lots of question marks. [1:35:22] Speaker E (unidentified): With it anyway, I digress and without getting into specifics of this, is there a requirement or expectation that the organization is in Maine because I wonder if that impacts. [1:35:37] Susan Hawes: It was my own eligibility, the way I read it, I don't think they are here yet, they don't have. [1:35:45] Speaker E (unidentified): The director yet, so taking this specific project out of it, is the expectation of this funding that the organization receiving it be established and in name? I think there definitely should be. [1:35:58] Speaker B (unidentified): A preference for our programs here before we start sending money out of state when we really need it. [1:36:04] Speaker E (unidentified): Here, right, we need services here. I'm just wondering, other entities on this list would also need to be looked at differently if they're originating out of state, so not having any opinion at all about these, this organization, we need to be thinking of. [1:36:22] Speaker B (unidentified): Them all equally as far as being eligible, so I feel like it's in the application somewhere, isn't it, that it has to be in Bangor? It's almost like it was too much of a requirement when I read it, that's why it's sticking out of my head, because it's like almost like it said it had to be in Bangor when there's not a lot of stuff on this list, it's all like in Bangor but surrounding area stuff. Let me see if I can find it so I'm not just talking out of sight any. [1:36:48] Speaker E (unidentified): Of it was with respect to this, the people served, I mean, I get the legal piece, I just want to make sure that we're not misscoring others well. [1:37:11] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay, so eligible applicants, main based organizations, applications providing services in the city of Benz, or does say, yeah, so they actually wouldn't [1:37:22] Speaker B (unidentified): be eligible, right, they're not being based. I want to say there was something in the application that kind of blurred that line, but when I looked at it, the non-profit was from is registered Florida, the person lives in Colorado. So let's take a note that says legal review specifically are [1:37:44] Speaker D (unidentified): are they eligible based on that main base criteria? I was just like, honestly, I just can't, I was like [1:37:51] Speaker B (unidentified): thinking can't knock that hustle. How many people got opioid money you send that out to every city all the way across the country? Holy, it sounds like a scam. Yeah, I would, I wouldn't say a scam, but it sounds like a good business plan. Yes, I mean, they're saying the law school [1:38:09] Speaker D (unidentified): Cool. So yeah, we'll keep the low score unless anyone tells me otherwise, but we'll specifically call off the bill to look at that. Next on the list, St. Andre Home, $10,000. There's a score of 48 and 36 for an average. This was Chief Hathaway and Scott. Scott we're [1:38:41] Speaker B (unidentified): just saying sorry one second I'm trying to flip it. I think it would be good to hear what your what the lower score critiques were, because like I only had two things that were four and everything else was fives. San [1:39:02] Speaker G (unidentified): André home is a long time. In this instance I found issues with their budget and sustainability and their rationale for this particular program. I understand it was ten thousand dollars and I would I would be pleased if we were able to find a mechanism to award that ten thousand dollars. However, if I use the same scoring methodology that I use for every other, then that's what I that's where I struggle with their budget and their sustainability for the two primary issues that I get concerned with. I did say that [1:39:42] Speaker B (unidentified): was one of the things I did I had marked before was the budget, because it seems like they were kind of overstating the feasibility of goals based on the amount of money that they were asking for. So I can agree on that point. The other thing was the scope of the work, which is also what you just said too, right? Yes, yeah, I was just significantly less critical about it. [1:40:13] Speaker G (unidentified): I think we had a like-minded approach on this. I think the average is probably reasonable. Okay. [1:40:26] Speaker D (unidentified): Next on the list is Bangor Area Recovery Network, a score of 36, a score of 47, or an average of 41.5. [1:40:42] Speaker B (unidentified): Spot actually needed to revisit that score because you'll remember I had asked you for extra documentation based off the rationale and I did not update the which one was it the data tracking so I would if that would have been a five so it would have been a 49 because basically in this state actually well actually sorry I would say four because I had actually go seek out that information so it would have been a 48 because they had said that information already existed in different paperwork and I had to go find that paperwork in order to find that information it wasn't in the application so it wasn't perfect but it did exist and it was [Speaker G (unidentified): good so] that would have made it a 48 yeah I'm sorry [1:41:35] Speaker D (unidentified): wouldn't be the average of 42 instead okay [1:41:41] Speaker H (unidentified): You want to hear from me now on the low score of what I found you just have a couple [1:41:46] Speaker D (unidentified): sentences first on what the project was yeah don't [1:41:53] Speaker B (unidentified): make it go so it's basically they're just trying to complete the stuff that they got awarded the ARPA money for they had been awarded money to do renovations and then were unable to achieve those renovations because either they underestimated I think their explanation was things got more expensive which they did over the time period of they were trying to implement it yeah that was the gist yep okay so here's why okay the [1:42:18] Speaker H (unidentified): project description although the project is necessary to the barn the ask is to cover a shortfall from previous funding on the entrepreneur so that's why I gave it a two on the project description the rational data the rational data doesn't align with the ask if other shortfall in my opinion of course some of this is opinionated the scope of the work is vague on what the funds will pay for as this is for a shortage from the other brands so there was no detail of what they were short it's just an ask for a bunch of money and believe me I'm a fan of the barn too so it's not it's not this cut this came difficult and the budget the budget is very basic the original arbor grant would have to be looked at to score this any better than a two on the budget so that it was all for me it was mostly that it was a very big there were no details on where the money was going to go it was just to cover a short ball [1:43:16] Speaker B (unidentified): And that's why I was working with whatever, I mean, can I, how many, do you remember how many documents you got? Because I got like one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine for that one, and I have a specific breakdown of a budget, and even I think inside the application they said when, during the question of can you take more or less, they had elaborated on how that would work. [1:43:45] Speaker H (unidentified): Based on what they needed to do with the money, correct, if they could take less, that's fine, but I gauge this on what I know about the barn and also what I heard from management at the barn who offered up, who called me on it, so I had an inside track, but the heat, they feel that it wasn't a comfortable ask, but they had to ask anyway, and I believe they got money from the [1:44:18] Speaker B (unidentified): county too, is that right? Well, I didn't, I, the ask was for half of what they actually needed because they needed that, I think actually just a little over 100, which was one of the things that I scored a little bit lower on because they need both funding in order to make it to fully realize it, however they did say they could scale it down if they needed to, I'm trying to [1:44:44] Speaker D (unidentified): to find that well that's how i scored it's gone anyway just to be clear the money that they received from the counties for something okay it wasn't to cover a shortfall no for integrating peer recovery support into the emergency department at saint joseph's hospital okay so [1:45:04] Speaker B (unidentified): and again this is one this is one of the things that i graded it down on because it said i thought it was they asked for the other half from the county but in general they said due to rising inflation tariffs impacting construction and material costs we have over a 100 000 shortfall and they're asking for 50 000 so it really only covers half of it but they did say where is it could be scaled up or down based on the amount of money so [1:45:29] Speaker H (unidentified): where are they going to come up with the other? That's anyway, that's why I scored it the way I could. [1:45:36] Susan Hawes: So you scored down on the [1:45:37] Speaker H (unidentified): sustainability part, I scored down on the rational data, I scored down on the two, I gave a two on the project description, although the project is necessary to the bar, the app is to cover a shortfall from a previous funding arbiter, so that's why I gave it to the battle, tracking is good, the budget was very basic, it didn't outline exactly what the money was going to go for except for the shortfall, so that's, that's what brought everything down, well, I'd say. [1:46:12] Speaker B (unidentified): Again, right, like what I had in budget was the budget is exceptionally documented, including an original ARPA budget of 495 600, contractor bid tabulation, and then a postman assessment showing a current deficit of 104 000 after the fact. So that information, that breakdown, was in there. [1:46:29] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay, TV Scott Mills, was it evident to you that there was some sort of plan to maybe [1:46:39] Speaker E (unidentified): you fundraise or get the rest of the money elsewhere? No, and again that's the one thing [1:46:44] Speaker B (unidentified): I scored down on because they were at, but again, they couldn't ask for 100 either. That's all they could ask for was 50. And they did say yes, they could do it with less money, so if you can pare it down, then that means you can do it with less than 100 000, right? I'd also say, you know, Bangla Area Recovery Network is one of the hugest hubs for recovery in our area. I'm [1:47:10] Speaker H (unidentified): a fan too, but I had to go with what I had to go with. [1:47:14] Speaker D (unidentified): Well, it sounds like information [1:47:17] Speaker C (unidentified): that TV Scott didn't have. Perhaps. [1:47:21] Speaker E (unidentified): Insider information probably should have been disclosed to begin with. [1:47:26] Speaker B (unidentified): So what am I missing? [1:47:29] Speaker E (unidentified): I think what you're missing is you only had access to the official application, where in the room, Scott is saying he had direct communication with people involved closely with the program that [1:47:47] Speaker B (unidentified): makes my brain hurt a little bit because [1:47:48] Speaker H (unidentified): I thought we were grading the applications. We did, I graded it as I, as it was by the rubric. [1:48:01] Speaker D (unidentified): So I'm sensing maybe some interest in favoring the higher score since that was based on the [1:48:10] Speaker B (unidentified): face of the application is that 's what I think a [1:48:17] Speaker D (unidentified): correct read? That's what I would say. Yes, choose between the low, the high, or the average. It can be some other number as well, that would [1:48:31] Speaker E (unidentified): kind of like pull you and the people that were doing the scoring be the one that made the decision, but it feels like one scores based on what's provided in one had extra details which [Speaker F (unidentified): maybe those] details were left out of this application for a reason that we don't have [1:48:51] Speaker H (unidentified): have, or I didn't know we could, right? So that'd [1:48:58] Speaker G (unidentified): be this one. Okay, yeah, whatever you guys. What's that? [1:49:05] Speaker B (unidentified): What did you say? I'm sorry. Okay, yep, that sounds good to me. [1:49:10] Speaker D (unidentified): Any objection, Shelly? I don't mean to ignore you. Okay, next on the list is Blue Sky Counseling. We have a score of 46, a score of 37, for an average of 41. [1:49:31] Susan Hawes: Right at this moment in time, I can remember nothing about Blue Sky Castle, and I don't have it with me, so Scott Knolls, any recollection? Oh. [1:49:42] Speaker B (unidentified): Oh, Mr. Hallelujah, holy wireless mouse supposed to make things more convenient, does not, for the record. So basically they were looking to fund three to four full scholarships for treatment over time. Yeah, that was my major beef with it, was like, that's a lot of money for three people. I mean, treatment's not inexpensive, but still, that's kind of a, what do they say, it's like the impact per person per whatever. I forget what that, what that is called, you know what I'm saying? Let me pull the actual scoring rubric so I can tell you specifically. And again, right, like just not to sound like redundant, but I feel like that's kind of the shortfall of the way that we graded these, is because by the letter of what it was asking for, a lot of the check marks were made. However, it's still like, doesn't seem like a great idea to me. Come on, I [Speaker F (unidentified): apologize, you] guys want to move the next one and circle back, because I have to like fix my mouse, this is not working. Oh, of course I say that and then it opens. Just kidding. Okay, so the budget realistic based on existing successful models, the cost participants high comprehensive services, but it's like I said, that's basically the same thing I said. The sustainability transitioning clients to long-term sustainable options like main care or private insurance is good, but there's no evidence of building partnerships or engaging community partners for long-term support. The product description is highly detailed, evidence-based. The anticipated number of unique individuals served is relatively small given the large request. Lack of a funding to support MOUD for the uninsured. Large request for small number of people. So basically the same thing I just said three different ways, sorry. So [1:52:15] Speaker D (unidentified): So, Councilor Haas, is that pretty reflective of what your scores? [1:52:23] Susan Hawes: Actually, I scored him, scored them considerably lower than he did. But I think there were some of the same areas, I just went from a different angle. And there's only so many things you can score them on. [1:52:38] Speaker D (unidentified): I think we've decided to call that one style. [1:52:44] Speaker B (unidentified): You have the same I pulled up here. I'm honestly okay with leading with the more critical scoring, specifically because that's a tiny number of people to help for $50,000. dollars so [1:52:57] Susan Hawes: but that's just my opinion well for that amount of money and that number of people [1:53:07] Speaker F (unidentified): they are just a scam what's [1:53:12] Susan Hawes: for free three slots three to four people so I think [1:53:21] Speaker D (unidentified): what I heard Scott was that you said that you maybe even preferred lower score I'm okay with [1:53:29] Speaker B (unidentified): Go on with the more critical score unless anybody has an objection to that. [1:53:40] Speaker D (unidentified): Next on the list is GBA Counseling Services. We have a 33 and a 50 for an average of 41.5. Shelly or Chief Hathaway, a couple sentences on what this one was. You want me to go, chief? [1:54:05] Speaker C (unidentified): Okay. So basically what they're looking for is funding to allow 12 more individuals to access immediate and critical treatment via both telehealth and in-person formats. And it would be people with substance use disorder, opioid use disorder, and co-occurring mental health and substance use disorder. It'd be people who are uninsured, which sounds a little bit like the last people, but they're looking for 30,000 to be able to do that, and their money would immediately lease a three office unit space and hire an additional licensed clinician to be able to bring on 12 more clients. I do have a question though. They said the request is to build on the their application for opioid settlement funding from Penascot County, so I didn't know if did Panofscott give them an amount. Let me take a look. They did. Okay. Was it was it were they asking the same amount? How much gave them 35,000. okay so i guess then whatever okay so i guess then whatever we would add would be added onto theirs i personally think helping anybody who's uninsured is uninsured and maybe unable to get main care i think that 's important to help those people with their treatment as well as counseling and stuff i will say that i didn't i didn't grade low because i think that what they're doing would be great and they're to me their application is an easy read they did have a lot of letters of support but like you said earlier, they anybody can get those from anyone, so I just I just felt like this was an important part for the community of Bangor. Go ahead, chief, I [1:56:20] Speaker G (unidentified): had issues with sustainability and budget. Okay, with their with the description of their organization in the service they were going to provide, but as I look at my scoring, I was fairly consistent. Sustainability and budget were my two, my two issues. We're [1:56:47] Speaker C (unidentified): quite a bit off. Well, it's because I'm I'm a bleeding heart. Yeah, if we could do maybe [1:56:59] Speaker G (unidentified): the average. Yeah, I'm comfortable with the average. Yeah, me too. Did [1:57:08] Speaker C (unidentified): you mean sustainability beyond the plan that they have for the amount of time or during the time? I also had a timeline issue. Okay, I was just re-looking at that and I kind of was wondering about that because I don't see it either. Yeah, I think if we split it down the middle, don't [1:57:37] Speaker D (unidentified): Go away, Shelly. So the next on the list is Metro Treatment of Maine. There's a score of 50 and a score of 33 for an average of 41.5. Same scorers, so likely the same style. [1:57:56] Speaker C (unidentified): Is it still me in the chief? Yes. Oh, Jesus. [1:58:03] Speaker G (unidentified): You can find that. I will tell you that my scoring on that aligned with the previous. I had the same. Yeah, I had some sense of sustainability issues with it, without looking at my score sheet in front of me on my phone. I had a timeline issue as well. Yeah. [1:58:31] Speaker C (unidentified): I don't see you have my screen. Yeah, I don't see a timeline very well clearly outlined. [Speaker I (unidentified): Here either. Yeah.] We could go half again or [1:58:49] Speaker I (unidentified): like split the difference. Let [1:58:53] Speaker F (unidentified): me say what that was for. [1:58:55] Speaker C (unidentified): oh i'm sorry shoot hold on they were looking for project description proposal directly addresses the harms of the opioid crisis by expanding access to evidence-based medicine medication assisted treatment for individuals who might otherwise be unable to obtain care by providing financial support through treatment scholarships the project reduces barriers to initiating and sustaining math and the project also supports earlier engagement and treatment following overdose or crisis helping stabilize individuals and prevent repeat emergencies as clients enter Matt they also gain access to counseling recovery supports and wraparound services that address the social and behavioral factors to pretty contributing to opioid related harm so basically but it didn't really say like how many people curious yeah it's it's for it's for matt but like services beyond that but once you start matt you get these services all [2:00:44] Speaker D (unidentified): right. All right, next on the list is Preble Street. We have 43 and a 39 for an average of 41. [2:00:55] Speaker H (unidentified): We're both low scorers, aren't we? Go ahead, Sabah. [2:00:58] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay. What was the project? [2:01:00] Speaker H (unidentified): I'll read it to you. Preble Street requests funding to support the Hope House, the only facility in Bangor that provides low barrier emergency shelter for people experiencing homelessness. Yes. sud oud and co-occurring mental health disorders funds will support people in their transition from homelessness and active substance use to stable housing and recovery that's the basic part of that and i support this oops somehow here it is the low we scored about even my issues were the organization information the description i'm familiar i'm I'm personally familiar with Preble Street, but if I wasn't, it might be hard to follow, so I gave it a three. And the goals seem to support the existing organization with nothing new and very general goals and outcomes. That I gave a three. The scope of work, I gave it three. Scope of work is an ongoing and what they currently do. And sustainability is a three because the project requires ongoing funding to maintain. Anything that the whole house does and that's that's where I came up with that and we were right close on that is [2:02:22] Speaker E (unidentified): it general operating or was it a specific yes maybe which part that's okay for the funding is it just general operating yes correct from [2:02:42] Speaker F (unidentified): my observation about directing characters. [2:02:48] Speaker D (unidentified): So pretty close? An average or? I'm okay with average. Next on the list is Timberwolves. They have a score of 32 and a score of 50. [2:03:09] Speaker H (unidentified): Who has 50? Shelly. [2:03:26] Speaker D (unidentified): No, it's it's important that this isn't a public session, so it's I mean it's public for viewing, but not public participation you [2:03:41] Speaker H (unidentified): couldn't give description yeah I can. [2:03:45] Speaker C (unidentified): So actually it's Timberwolves Native American Church is the requester, but it's for a program called the Bangor Community Wellness and Prevention Program. Short [Speaker F (unidentified): bios project. Okay,] so the project Bangor will that is actually program is phase three of that program. This location is at the brick church. The community wellness prevention program three expands upon the successful foundation established during the initial pilot. phase one demonstrated a clear community need for trauma-informed prevention services culturally grounded healing opportunities family wellness education youth focus supports and accessible harm reduction training phase three strengthens and enlarges the work by broadening program capacity deepening prevention supports expanding targeted workshops enhancing culturally rooted wellness offerings and introducing a pure wellness leadership component that builds long-term sustainability well this is to support their program the phase three part of it you [2:05:08] Speaker I (unidentified): want me to tell why yeah go ahead go ahead yeah okay [2:05:14] Speaker H (unidentified): this is you know I felt it adherence the application instructions was off and I'm giving you two the reason is there were three applications with opal I can't remember what bus and it was three applications with different apps it was a little confusing to me the project description was very broad and somewhat hard to follow because they had these phases these three phases the project top timeline I gave it three was all thought out but parts seemed unrealistic scope of work just does include Key activities and a lot of uncertainty about how this will all work and sustainability requires receiving grants only to be sustainable. It would have to continue to receive grants to be sustainable and the budget I thought was incomplete with and the proper allocation was big. So that's where I kind of came up with a low score. It was it was so that's me on that. Yeah. [2:06:20] Speaker C (unidentified): They well they did spread it out in each month what people would be what the plan was. Did you see that? Did you say that? Did you say that wasn't like precise enough or well thought out? Oh okay sorry. Realistic parts of it seems unrealistic. Okay unable to achieve is that what you mean by [Speaker I (unidentified): unrealistic? Yeah.] I guess looking at this one the total budget that they're requesting interesting. They did put out what it was for but it is kind of vague, as you're saying, they list some things that it's for but it's, it's not like pinpointing, you know, this one covers teaching supplies printed materials it doesn't really that's $6,000 out of the money that they want, but they don't really specify what program they're using or like teaching supplies. Supplies stipends for facilitators well as educators that's some of the monies. Yeah what would be the I'm looking here yeah I think we could go with the split but also you know how we were gonna like be able to give out money but we might we would give lower amounts to people if we couldn't do the full amount. Is this someone we consider that for or is this a different step of the process later? I think that's a different step of the process we're just going to do the scores first. Okay all right. Then we can take a note that you're interested in considering this for part of it. Yeah part of it part of it but not the full [Speaker I (unidentified): amount Scott.] Are you okay with going the average score? Yeah I'm okay with that show. Okay all right. [2:08:54] Speaker D (unidentified): Okay next on the list Wabanaki Public Health we have a full agreement it 241s what was the project I [2:09:12] Speaker H (unidentified): did think that one oh [2:09:26] Speaker G (unidentified): there he is oh okay. [2:09:33] Speaker H (unidentified): It's for the Cedar Road detox Cedar Road detox plays a critical role in addressing the harms associated with the opioid crisis providing safe evidence-based withdrawal management rapid linkage to treatment stabilizing support for individuals at high risk of overdose related health complications patients. I'm very much in favor of the two detoxes we have. One is Wellsprings and the other is Cedar Roads, and 41 is a high score for me to give. So I can tell you the same things, Chief. I had no issues all the way down except for the rationale data to support the need there was a lot of assumptions sustainability no steps or specific sources are given for sustainability and the budget it's a narrative only and that was my only issues with it but i'm i personally think it's like i said 41 is a high score so we'll [2:10:43] Speaker D (unidentified): stick with 41. [2:10:46] Speaker G (unidentified): No, I found their budget and their description would be very good at a time of issue. [2:10:54] Speaker D (unidentified): All right, EMDC is next on the list. We had a 40 and a 41. [2:11:25] Speaker H (unidentified): EMDC Recovery Support Workforce Pathways Program will strengthen recovery outcomes for Bangalore residents by addressing two of the most persistent barriers to sustained recovery, employment stability and access to essential supports such as housing and transportation. Anyway, I gave that, like I said before, 40-41 is a pretty high score. I had an issue with the rationale. The data scored the need. I was a little low on. On just getting ability lacks details and that's obviously it, you know. I think the budget was clear in detail, but even when something's clear in detail I give it a four, so just so you know I don't do week fives too much unless they're cut and dry, so that was it for me. [2:12:25] Speaker D (unidentified): Can I ask a question, did they connect the assistance to the target population? [2:12:32] Speaker H (unidentified): I believe they did, yes. [2:12:34] Speaker D (unidentified): So they're going to offer those services specifically to folks. [2:12:37] Speaker G (unidentified): Correct. They did make reference to that. Yep. Sorry to interrupt. I'm good with 41. I found the project description to be very well done. Yep. And that was fairly average on personal value as well. Yep. [2:12:55] Speaker D (unidentified): So take the average of the two. [2:13:02] Speaker H (unidentified): Do you want me to leave? I can leave. [2:13:05] Speaker D (unidentified): I think we just need non-participation, because other participants can be watching online, so I think it's fine for you to stay in the room. So we have a 38 and a 41. Pretty close. [2:13:23] Speaker I (unidentified): Go for it, Allison. say this [2:13:31] Speaker E (unidentified): was also for scholarship you have to look this way for individuals looking to enter fresh start it covered a little bit i think it was the first maybe two months two weeks i don't remember it was a very specific and yeah there was an end to it to the scholarship And then there was some administrative funding that was associated with it that was partially being covered by Fresh Start outside of this. And it was a single purpose, it didn't have a lot of, it was very clear. I'd [2:14:28] Speaker B (unidentified): say how many people it was going to impact. Please. I [2:14:43] Speaker E (unidentified): don't have information about that TV Scott but I do say that it did not indicate that the scholarships would be reserved specifically for residents of Bangor just that the houses in Bangor other things that I worked out on were sustainability it wasn't clear if this was going to be an ongoing fundraising raising effort or just a one-time pocket of money and the other thing was nothing [Susan Hawes: was] included for data tracking, which was the primary place that they lost is with me or with my score. And then the data was largely county level, not the Angora level. Anything to add? I'm wondering if it did because I didn't mark it as not being there. Yeah, that was something I think it wasn't just, it's not in here, right [2:16:28] Speaker D (unidentified): Next on the list, Needlepoint Sanctuary, their first application scored by what's marked as their first, Scott Hardy and [2:16:51] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, go ahead, the project description, the description, the, excuse me, the, over, it's quite long. Essentially it's a very long description and I read it once, but it was weeks and weeks and weeks ago now. Okay, yes, okay, this is for the syringe rebate program. It's like the bottle mill, people turn in syringes and get five cents or something like that. I believe it was five cents and this is how I rated it. I had no issues with the application, the project description, the project needs refinement around location and how it will, how its operations will take place. Only one, so okay, rational data to support the need, only one source was given and it was an article out of a magazine. Guys, raise a question, real kind of raise a question, real [2:18:03] Speaker B (unidentified): quick, you said they were going to encourage people to go pick up needles, correct? That's what it is, it's like a bottle bill. Okay, can we do that legally where there's an HIV outbreak, we're encouraging people to go pick up dirty needles? That's crazy. Is it picking up or is it just [2:18:19] Speaker H (unidentified): returning the ones that they returning? But you know, and I know they'll pick them up too [2:18:25] Speaker B (unidentified): yeah i would i mean it's a great idea if you want to clean up all the needles because people are going to do it 's a terrible idea because at least somebody's going to get hurt doing that [2:18:32] Speaker H (unidentified): That's crazy. Yeah, I'm not saying it's a good idea, I'm just going on the rubrics of how I scored it. Let's see, okay, staffing roles need more refinement. I had no issues on it. Okay, the budget, it's realistic but it needs more detail and I gave it a 40 and I think that's high for you [2:18:57] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, we were right there, right? Yeah, we were right there. To be less bombastic and more specific, I do think that's something we should ask about, is whether or not you could actually implement something like that, because of the gigantic risk for somebody to be harmed, because it may just be invalid altogether. At least it seems like that to me, I don't know. [2:19:16] Speaker E (unidentified): I mean, one of the requirements is that you are describing evidence-based practices. Do we know that to be an evidence-based practice? [2:19:27] Speaker H (unidentified): No, as far as working in other places, I think they had some within here that another place was going to try it, but nobody else had, you know, I think it was another location in Southern Maine that was going to do it, but they haven't done it yet. [2:19:48] Speaker E (unidentified): So there might be rules in the funding itself that would prohibit it anyways. [2:19:53] Speaker H (unidentified): Correct. I scored it based on the rubrics. [2:20:01] Speaker E (unidentified): Well, I think that's a way of preaching is that it doesn't take into account humans. [2:20:06] Speaker H (unidentified): Right, it doesn't take into account certain things. Yeah, right. [2:20:09] Speaker D (unidentified): So I've heard that we definitely want legal to review the permissibility of the underlying program. I think I'm also sensing with this one, maybe some interest in going with the lower score or- That's fine. Or I could be misreading the tea leaves as well. [2:20:28] Speaker H (unidentified): I don't wanna- Well, lower score, there's only two points of difference [2:20:31] Speaker G (unidentified): between the lower score and the average. Average is both lower score. [2:20:41] Speaker B (unidentified): Okay, let's go again. I feel like most of the things in white should just almost auto average because [2:20:48] Speaker D (unidentified): that means they were close, so yeah, okay, an average, okay. Now we're into the common ground three applications, which can get a little confusing, but the first one on the list [2:21:06] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, that's me, or I was one of the people for that. No, it's not, just kidding. It should be, because the score is 43 and I got a score of 43 on it, so oh, this, I didn't change, this was one [2:21:20] Speaker D (unidentified): that got swapped, okay, yep, because of the conflict, so Scott and Counselor Haas, I [2:21:31] Speaker B (unidentified): think this would be amazing if we had money to waste. That sounds terrible. Basically they wanted, they have a, they made a documentary about homelessness and how it's impacting our area, and they want fifty thousand dollars to go around and show it to different agencies, like if we had money to waste that'd be great, but we've got a lot of people who need money to provide services, so I just, and the thing is, right, like it scored a 43 because it hit a lot of the marks, it got, it was the things that it Said it needed by the rubric. However, this was one of the three that, if I had depicted disappear, it would be gone, because it just seems like we've got more important things to spend this money on, I [2:22:12] Susan Hawes: agree. The application did hit the mark that it should in a lot of places, but I agree with Scott on the, you know, we're investing that in a movie that they're around show doesn't help people, so and [2:22:33] Speaker B (unidentified): I don't care, you can use, yeah, I'm good with going with the lower score, because, you know, it's obvious that I would all [2:22:42] Speaker I (unidentified): right [2:22:45] Speaker D (unidentified): The next one on the list is Godparents Home and Shelly, and there's a couple, there's a couple points between us [2:23:00] Speaker C (unidentified): spread. So the, they were looking for money to make, did it say three or four extra rooms, beds, also for treatment programs, for people who, they already have people that go to this Shepherd's Godparent Home, but they wanted to increase the amount of people they could service. You know, I'm looking at it and, you know, with going with what Scott said earlier about how many people it'll actually help and how much money it actually is, seems to be upside down, like it should help more people than it is for that amount of money, and they wanted, what they want, 49,000, was that the one, yeah, forty five, forty nine thousand six hundred dollars. So I gotta give that part of it to you, Alice, and I'm sure that was involved in your [2:24:08] Speaker B (unidentified): scoring. Can I ask a clarifying question? Yeah, are we talking about expanding rooms, so it means there's what, three or four more people consistently being helped moving forward, or just three or four people period, because that's a different number, Jeremy? Oh, actually, because the project [2:24:27] Speaker E (unidentified): description talked about existing capacity to serve pregnant and parenting mothers, and then in the timeline it talked about needing to lease space, yeah, the space for it, so [2:24:46] Speaker B (unidentified): again, it would only be for the lease. Okay, yes. [2:24:50] Speaker E (unidentified): So I, mean, at 13, the markdowns were across the board, obviously. I think the, if there had to be a large theme, it was that it, the funding to me, from my perspective, for a treatment supported residential program was very low for 40 units, and they didn't actually reference any type of treatment. It really seemed to be providing shelter, which is a different level of support for people who are, have custody of their children and are in recovery, so it didn't seem enough to me. It also didn't really share any evidence-based. And I noted that the only potentially recovery related supply in the budget was for drug testing. So I didn't see where we were talking about any kind of well, it can be right. [2:25:51] Speaker C (unidentified): I see, though, where it says hired on board a part-time recovery coach, certified peer mentor. Prepare the four bedrooms and women and children affected of by opioid use. [2:26:03] Speaker B (unidentified): It was gonna do wise it was gonna do all that for how much 50 grand without the s1 yeah it was purchase they're gonna hire somebody and expand four bedrooms for 50 that's what they said. [2:26:17] Speaker E (unidentified): It was residential services treatment services for four I don't know if it's specified in recovery or just oud impacted mothers and the children plus a part-time. [2:26:38] Speaker C (unidentified): Recovery coach right it was it was a peer support model. [2:26:44] Speaker B (unidentified): It's unfortunate that they apparently didn't represent it very well because I've got some like lived experience and I guess it's not necessarily personally mine but things I've witnessed people I know have gone through the program and they definitely do help lots of moms who were going through recovery and stuff so it's unfortunate that they didn't reflect that in their application however that seems like how would you do that just hiring a peer support is going to be the majority of that and. Then you're going to expand four beds for how long for I don't know whatever this is my two cents sorry yeah they were looking to use the a lot of the budget. [2:27:16] Speaker E (unidentified): Actually wasn't that peer support and the only thing that stands out to me is it was 20 an hour was their rate I didn't see any fringe or anything so I don't I'm not sure if it was ever going to be a full-time position yeah that's my point all. [2:27:36] Speaker D (unidentified): Right so we have a 50 a 13 and an average of 31.5 oh. [2:27:50] Speaker C (unidentified): You know what Scott it says that they would serve 60 women and children over the grant branch period so I assume that's an in and out kind of thing of all it's like you're gonna 60. [2:28:01] Speaker B (unidentified): You're gonna assert 60 people for that doesn't seem like the math is mathing seems like bad math which is unfortunate because like they're good people they do good stuff but it doesn't seem like they represented or made a reasonable and see I don't know I don't know that stuff you. [2:28:16] Speaker C (unidentified): Know what I mean I don't know that math mapping the peer support was going to be providing services. [2:28:22] Speaker E (unidentified): To those four new units, and then it sounds like they were also going to be used in their other locations. So this was gonna, this was going to introduce dedicated peer support staff to their programs overall, with the portion of that individual being assigned to the new units wherever they were. I think described it as rooms, not units, but it definitely also landed more the budget and the description [2:28:56] Speaker C (unidentified): lined up with meeting the homelessness needs more than the OEG, which is 100, you know, like the key [2:29:06] Speaker B (unidentified): thing that they're doing. However, there is definitely some crossover, so like I said, just unfortunate they didn't represent that well. Yeah, I don't know what, I just, one more thing, I'll shut up. I think with a gap that large, you kind of have to meet in the middle. That's just my opinion. Yeah, [2:29:21] Speaker C (unidentified): I'll do whatever you want to do, Allison. No, [2:29:27] Speaker B (unidentified): no, because ultimately my opinion is not, it doesn't hold weight, water against the two of yours, because you guys saw the information and you graded it, so it's definitely your decision. I just wanted to put my opinion. Yeah, should [2:29:44] Speaker C (unidentified): we split it? I'm gonna read. I'm trying to look. [2:29:53] Speaker E (unidentified): I mean, potentially. I think what I want to hold up is that there's no mention of any evidence-based programming or services or accountability to the models, that this isn't the only residential like treatment program that I scored personally, and so I think [2:30:17] Speaker C (unidentified): I had the benefit of seeing the difference in cost, CNI, I don't know that, unfortunately [2:30:25] Speaker E (unidentified): I would lean more to my side than your side. Okay, 20, I think it's 28. Okay, [2:30:37] Speaker F (unidentified): so [2:30:41] Speaker D (unidentified): 28. Yeah. Okay. The next Common Ground Friends application. We have a score of 23 from In the Room, Scott, and a score of 38 from Allison. [2:31:07] Speaker H (unidentified): Do you want me to read the description, Allison? [2:31:09] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, this is 2. [2:31:12] Susan Hawes: Pardon? Common Ground Friends 1. [2:31:14] Speaker G (unidentified): Oh, 1. Yeah, Common Ground Friends 1. [2:31:16] Speaker H (unidentified): The project description, Common Ground Group Friends proposes to establish the Vanguard Counseling and Wellness Center, a flexible outpatient mental health wellness program located in Bangor. The center will provide counseling, structured therapeutic groups, support hours, harm reduction, education, wellness service for community members affected by opioid a use disorder, called substance use, trauma, and co-occurring mental health condition. That's what they want the money for. You want to go first on what you have, you scored it? [2:31:53] Speaker E (unidentified): Sure, I it looks like I scored, I took away points for the data again. It was county level, and then some anecdotal information to support the need is what I have in my comments. I also took points for it not being clear what was specifically targeting OUD versus the other areas of need that they described. The majority of my points that I took had to do with the data, the rationale, and also the budget. It was clearly laid out and it wasn't clear what was indirect versus indirect just because it was jumbled so [2:32:45] Speaker H (unidentified): I did I think that what I did have to do I just might have been a little bit harsher on it let's see the people I don't know if I should even say that but I'm familiar with the people involved in this particular alphabet, which was Mike Tuller in particular, which you don't know if you don't know him. He graded it off the application. Yes,, it was on the application. Anyway, so that didn't weigh in how I graded to a rubric anyway, but I definitely, because I think it's important. Project description doesn't clearly align with exhibit E, just as you had said. The rational data, I gave it a two, very basic understanding of the organization with limited a description data tracking i agreed with that too i gave it a two and this is budget is unclear with very little or no detail so we agreed upon that 's i came up with a low score [2:34:14] Speaker E (unidentified): And this was largely setting up so the drop-in not so much delivering services that was me pursued through like regular insurance reimbursement stuff is that what you remember [2:34:29] Speaker H (unidentified): That's what I recall too yeah so this was yeah it's a startup it's startup I've seen money [2:34:34] Speaker E (unidentified): The scope was a lot of identify a lease sign a lease get the burnishings [2:34:42] Speaker D (unidentified): So same ideas probably just style and [2:34:49] Speaker H (unidentified): Severity I think the ideas were the same [2:34:51] Speaker D (unidentified): So we did do we think this is another one where the average makes sense I'm [2:35:02] Speaker F (unidentified): Trying to do math, but I was supposed to be in bed. [2:35:04] Speaker H (unidentified): Oh, it's 30 and a half. [2:35:07] Speaker E (unidentified): No, so it's 15 points different. [2:35:09] Speaker H (unidentified): Yeah, it's quite a difference. Yep. [2:35:13] Speaker E (unidentified): I'm comfortable with just doing the average. [2:35:18] Speaker D (unidentified): And then the last common ground one is a score of 29 and a score of 32, or an average of 30.5. [2:35:29] Speaker F (unidentified): Allison and she can chat this was a project for youth young adult residential recovery yes the [2:35:55] Speaker E (unidentified): The ask was specific to capital improvements to the property itself it's [2:36:07] Speaker I (unidentified): A roof [2:36:10] Speaker G (unidentified): Siding yes kitchen maybe it also means interior renovations necessary the [2:36:23] Speaker E (unidentified): Majority of the points that I took away had to do with it not being an acceptable use of the funds. There was a very thorough construction timeline, but construction isn't actually an eligible expense for the funding. So a lot of those sorts of, the application itself was solid, and it was describing things that weren't [2:36:46] Speaker F (unidentified): fundable. [2:36:48] Speaker G (unidentified): Fair. I had concerns with the project description, the scope of work, data tracking, the budget. [2:37:02] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, I had pretty big markdowns for project description, scope, [2:37:16] Speaker G (unidentified): and budget. Our population served to be reasonable with the application and the instructions, but otherwise I was average for most every other. Yeah, we're pretty close to average. [2:37:44] Speaker D (unidentified): Three to go. Welcome to Housing, this one has a pretty large discrepancy, score of 31 and a score of 13 [2:37:54] Speaker B (unidentified): for an average of 27. Question was, this not graded three times? Because this was given to me accidentally instead of Wellspring, and then I sent in a grade for it anyway, but I'm assuming that means somebody else got it as well, or am I wrong on that? What [2:38:18] Speaker D (unidentified): councilor has, did you grade this one? I could also have the name wrong. Is this the one that they took furnishings and [2:38:26] Susan Hawes: yes, that kind of thing. I did, but I can't believe I gave it 41. [2:38:32] Speaker F (unidentified): So, but I don't know, I bet he didn't need this, I can [2:38:41] Speaker B (unidentified): tell you that I scored in a 48. So well, I don't know really where that leaves us, because I technically wasn't supposed to score it, I think, because it got given to me wrongly. I was supposed to receive Wellsprings, and it was just a file mix up. [2:39:08] Speaker D (unidentified): Gotcha. Well, if it wasn't supposed to go to you, we can disregard that score, but I mean, you're also going to be welcome to participate in the conversation and advocate for your score, so I'm not sure. Yeah. [2:39:27] Susan Hawes: Honestly, when I did this, for the amount of money, and you know, they seem to do it, turn things over quite frequently, [2:39:38] Speaker F (unidentified): was kind of, you know, they do provide things people need, but, so [2:39:45] Susan Hawes: I'm fine. Take that score up and stick it on there. [2:39:51] Speaker D (unidentified): Shelly just asked a question. The person sitting in the back is a [2:39:56] Speaker H (unidentified): member of the public, [2:40:00] Speaker B (unidentified): not a participant. I guess I'd be interested to hear, is it Allison was the other one who scored it? Why did you score it so low? [2:40:10] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, so Welcome to Housing is the organization in Penobscot County that provides free household items to people who are exiting homelessness. What they shared in the application is that they've seen an increase in their requests. Largely there, they kind of anecdotally attributed that to the opioid crisis and people, the increased homelessness having to do with increased opioid use and causing people to lose their housing. And my score largely had to do full, please. I didn't award full points pretty consistently, I think. I didn't give any points for the budget, and the comments I have is that there's no evidence of delineating funds for the specific population or purpose. The indirect is 24% of the overall budget. What they submitted was a budget that showed their annual operating with the $5,000.00 [2:41:19] Speaker F (unidentified): were incorporated into that overall budget. [2:41:22] Speaker E (unidentified): So there was no clear idea of what that funding was actually used for. And then the description also wasn't very clear about what specifically they would be purchasing. thing they talked about their need exceeding what they have on hand for some items, but they weren't things that you could really put on a shopping list. They didn't really demonstrate any awareness of how they're directly serving people that would be the target population. There was no mention of how they would identify town of origin, so that they could make sure it was people in Bangor. And generally no evidence that the funds would be earmarked for the specific population. So Bangor slash OUD, no timeline. And then scope of work, there was a couple different places where they described using raising the funds in different ways based on the question they were answering specifically, and then no sustainability besides just describing that they always find other funds [2:42:44] Speaker F (unidentified): no data tracking [2:42:50] Speaker B (unidentified): they do have a data tracking element and I really only know that because I go there, but it does say that in here in the how you collect your data track, we track recipients by basic information, agency, town, age range, gender, whether they're veterans, the number of people in the household, and they also do it sheet by sheet. Anytime somebody comes in and gets stuff, they mark off everything that they get, and also it's a requirement when people go, a loose requirement, that they have the case manager with them so that they're associated to some kind of other service as well, yeah [2:43:20] Speaker E (unidentified): when they spoke at the public comment question session, they indicated themselves that they weren't tracking and wouldn't be tracking the information that was required for it, and they cited HIPAA, which is not actually something [2:43:39] Speaker F (unidentified): that they would be held to. [2:43:42] Speaker E (unidentified): And so my notes for data tracking are that they described the intended data tracking strategy that does not reflect ensuring funds are directed exclusively to intended recipients. Data limited to demographics versus metrics associated [2:43:55] Speaker F (unidentified): with the impact and the outcomes. [2:44:00] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, and that also doesn't specifically mention the $5,000, that just kind of tracks what people are taking. So that's fair enough. [2:44:12] Speaker E (unidentified): I think it just, it missed the piece that would have connected everything the way it needed to be connected for the award [2:44:22] Speaker D (unidentified): so we have a 41 13 an [2:44:32] Speaker F (unidentified): average of 26 i [2:44:39] Speaker D (unidentified): think there's perhaps a question about whether if there's no connecting the recipients to the target population yeah whether it's a qualified use or whether we can assert that it's a qualified use well [2:44:57] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, I think that was where I kept getting stuck is that the scoring like my scope would be the scoring, and then understanding that i'm also scoring things that in their descriptions are making themselves ineligible to receive the funding, and I think that piece is outside of this case final decision, because we didn't make the rules about fine. [2:45:19] Speaker B (unidentified): Yeah, can you elaborate on that? Just as I'm curious. [2:45:24] Speaker E (unidentified): Yeah, I think for this one specifically it was not demonstrating that they would be using the money just for the intended population. And then they also didn't demonstrate that the funds would go directly to the activities. It was just rolled into a much larger budget. Yeah. Yeah, okay, that makes sense. Fine with just the average, so. [2:46:00] Speaker D (unidentified): Next on the list, Together Place. A score of 10 and a score of 32. [2:46:17] Speaker B (unidentified): You guys all know that I've been a very vocal advocate for the Together Place. I didn't have anything to do with the scoring and I'm not gonna have anything to do with this conversation for that reason. [2:46:31] Speaker D (unidentified): This was Chief Hathaway and Allison. [2:46:34] Speaker F (unidentified): Why can't I get my password correct? [2:46:44] Speaker D (unidentified): A few words about the pattern. [2:46:46] Speaker E (unidentified): Well, I think that was a lot of my problem is that it was very unclear to me what we [Speaker F (unidentified): were talking about.] Did you have a clear sense? No. [2:46:57] Speaker G (unidentified): Looking at my scores, that was very average. Okay. [2:47:01] Speaker E (unidentified): It seemed to largely be describing an extension of the overnight warming center into a day center and then the description from my understanding of the services they provide appeared to actually be describing the services they already [2:47:23] Speaker G (unidentified): provide during the day so I was might have been an expansion of services currently provided I wanted I think I wanted to find a path for more support but those average yeah I [2:47:47] Speaker E (unidentified): Think where I struggle, because I also have a, it's an organization that I'm familiar with, and I struggled to make the connections that I was able to make when grading other applications. I really had to pull from my own understanding of them, not what was being provided. So based off what was provided, it didn't really seem to hit a lot of the times. And then just because I keep bringing this up, it was a 58% indirect cost. And then, yeah, it was $19,000 for a facility, specifically utilities, cleaning, and pest control, not typically something you would consider direct expense. [2:48:43] Speaker D (unidentified): A 10 of 32, average of 29. Sounds like this is a style difference, a pretty big one. [2:48:50] Speaker G (unidentified): I think it is, because I think we, our thoughts are a lot numbers. And two, we had budget issues. Yeah, based on what you just said a moment ago, so I think the average is probably sensible. Yeah, I mean, I, yeah. [2:49:04] Speaker E (unidentified): The average makes sense. I would also acknowledge I would be okay going a little higher than the average. [2:49:14] Speaker F (unidentified): But I would defer to the larger group for that. Yeah. [2:49:31] Speaker D (unidentified): Last one, Hope for Homeless list, we have a 22 and a 2 for an average of 12. [2:49:45] Speaker F (unidentified): Yeah, one. [2:49:50] Speaker B (unidentified): Second. All right, here it is. So this is like specifically one of the things that I was speaking to when in previous sessions when I had said, but this is one of the things I had in mind. The people are going to request money that really do impact the community that don't know how to ask for money, and that's what happened here. While specifically this is given to primarily people who are homeless, it also really opens doors for case management, which then leads into all of that stuff. So I definitely think it's tied in, but the application was basically non-existent. It was like a blurb, which is really unfortunate. I also had it, sorry, go ahead. Like, no, finish. I also think that without providing any kind of track record of fiscal records, the 25,000 is a lot of money to ask for. I would like to see that they have been tracking or whatever they've been doing with their money and giving stuff out, like, is it just like a lot of money to just be like, well, we hope that works out. So that makes sense. Yeah, [2:51:05] Speaker E (unidentified): it basically was the letter of intent. So there was no, there was nothing to score, which was the barrier that I encountered. I gave some points, a point because they identified volunteer network, and that's essentially their organizational structure,, and that was the only thing that was really discussed at all that was on the list of [2:51:36] Speaker F (unidentified): things we wanted in [2:51:40] Speaker E (unidentified): Their scope of work, they did begin to describe what they do, so I did give them a point, and they identified additional food beds, but nothing linked directly to their priority population. What I said is their priority population is stated as individuals experiencing homelessness and doesn't address the geography or the population impacted [2:52:06] Speaker B (unidentified): by substance use disorder, so there's nothing to, for, okay, I just, for me it's different because I know, because I utilize the service, and we, you know, this is the food bags that go to the people who are experiencing extreme substance use disorder that are like not even going to food coverage because they're like that despondent from society, and it's like super necessary, but like she said, none of it was there. I don't know how we reconcile that or even if that's possible. It's like if I could wave a wand, this is one of those things that would be funded, maybe not 25 grand, but significantly less, if they can prove that they can track it. However, you know, the application doesn't support that. I [2:52:50] Speaker E (unidentified): think that was the hard part with me on this one, because I also understand and have seen the work that they do, and there's nothing to score. [2:53:00] Speaker F (unidentified): It's too bad, so [2:53:08] Speaker D (unidentified): we have a 22, a two. It sounds like the scores are in agreement, sort of in substance. Do we think the average is the right score here? I'm [2:53:24] Speaker E (unidentified): comfortable with the, if you haven't, TV Scott. Yeah, that's, that's fine. So [2:53:33] Speaker D (unidentified): I think next steps are I'll take these consensus scores, put them into the spreadsheet, and then we break the totals. I'll create a new blue line that shows sort of who gets funded just based on scores, and he doesn't. I will then have people do a review of those applications to just flag any concerns as far as permissible uses. And then it sounds like we need one more meeting to officially vote on that list and finalize it. And at that point, I think that's the right time to have some of these discussions about whether there are specific applicants that don't go into the recommendation council for whatever reason, or do, like the last one we discussed, because even though the application wasn't what we wanted, we think they might be worthy of funding. So what about like the [2:54:40] Speaker H (unidentified): First one we had a reduction of funds is that the next meeting that we would do is a reduction of funds. I think we would want to vote on the amount of funds now. What if there's funds left over that would bring up some of these people that are yeah below the woodblock because we have to spend it all right. I think there will be yeah I think. [2:55:07] Speaker D (unidentified): Presumably some of these above are going to go below. [2:55:14] Speaker B (unidentified): Can we try to make this like soonish because I know people really want to get to this money. I don't know how soonish we can do it and I know that everybody's busy so I'm not trying to be unrealistic. You should say that Legos got to run through it though too right so we got to give it at least a little bit of time for them to do that. As I'm speaking I'm realizing that out loud. [2:55:38] Speaker C (unidentified): Well I know next week was the regular meeting anyway on the 28th right is that too soon for them I. [2:55:47] Speaker D (unidentified): Very much doubt that they will be able to review okay no problem after so the first week in February I'm sorry I can send around updates for that first week in February. [2:56:14] Speaker B (unidentified): We have some yeah it doesn't make sense to really play anything until we know the timeline for legal right yeah right. I also think that's a really good plan so thank you for doing that yeah. [2:56:32] Speaker C (unidentified): So I'm going to Texas and I will be home on the 4th but late at night. I'm leaving on the 30th and I'll be home on the 4th so if there's something that you guys can do on dates while I'm gone please do it because I want to move this along but if I can be there then fine I will but I am going to see Cooper Flag play the Celtics so worth it yeah. So I will look forward to the dates and I'll see what I can work on. [2:57:13] Susan Hawes: Okay thank you all are we adjourned I think we're adjourned good night it's good to see you Richard.