pages: CityCouncil/2014-05-06.pdf, 8
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2014-05-06 | 8 | Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the Alameda Food Bank sacrificed funds to allow other crucial safety-net providers better access to funding. The Housing and Community Development Director responded the Food Bank received a substantial cash donation from another source and is not cash strapped this year; stated staff met with the Food Bank and determined the smaller award would not compromise service levels. Councilmember Tam stated the fund allocation for the Food Bank was cut by 84%; that she appreciates their generosity in requesting a lesser amount; inquired how increasing needs can be addressed with the reallocation of funds to other programs. Steve Sokil, Food Bank volunteer, responded other associations need more funding; that he is not privy to specific details of the allocations. Councilmember Tam inquired whether Alameda Family Services (AFS) overlap with other service programs. The Housing and Community Development Director responded AFS's proposal is to provide social work case management services; stated there is some overlap of legal service needs, but AFS provides more individual case management. Vice Mayor Ezzy Ashcraft commended the Food Bank and Alameda community for their generosity; stated she supports the $5,000 recommendation for the Food Bank. Councilmember Chen inquired whether the scoring matrix was created in collaboration with the SSHRB and the needs assessment. The Housing and Community Development Director responded in the affirmative, stated the matrix was presented as part of the application, which was circulated to the SSHRB and agreed to as format. Councilmember Chen inquired how staff determined AFS would not receive additional funding. The Housing and Community Development Director responded the scores were generally in the 34 to 35 range with a maximum of 38; stated AFS scored 28; staff made the decision to fund all of the higher scoring applicants with the objective to be impartial. Councilmember Chen inquired why staff did not follow the SSRHB recommendation. The Housing and Community Development Director responded staff developed the recommendation independently and forwarded the information to the SSRHB; when the SSHRB presented alternative scoring, staff felt that changing the recommendation would compromise the process and undermine the intent to use the scoring matrix as an objective measure; staff and SSHRB recommendations are equally valid and Council Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 7 May 6, 2014 | CityCouncil/2014-05-06.pdf |