CALL TO ORDER
Citizen Budget Committee Member Runkel called the meeting to order at 6pm.
 
ROLL CALL
Morris                          Present
Stromberg                   Present
Rosenthal                    Present
Moran                          Present
Gates                          Present
Runkel                         Present
Seffinger                     Present
Lucas                          Present
Darrow                        Present
Voisin                          Absent
 
Tuneberg opened the meeting and outlined this year’s calendar;
 
 

February 18, 2016	First Meeting of the ECTS Grant Subcommittee - Introduction
February 29, 2016	Applications Available to the Public
March 28, 2016	Application Submissions Close
April 8, 2016	Applications to the Subcommittee for Review
April 27, 2016	Second Meeting of the ECTS Grant Subcommittee - presentations
May 5, 2016	Third Meeting of the ECTS Grant Subcommittee - Allocations
May 12, 2016	Citizen’s Budget Meeting - Ratify allocations

 
 
Tuneberg outlined the process and explained the reasoning behind dates and how the applicants are advised of opening and closing dates and addressed the following;
 

• That this year there will be more time for review and more time in between the presentations and the deliberations.
• That after the May 5^th meeting, this subcommittee would be making a recommendation to the full Citizen’s Budget Committee to approve the allocations.
• That there is an Oregon Budget Law which states that all deliberations must be held in public.
• He cautioned members that they should avoid being lobbied by applicants.

 
Seffinger raised the question of whether members should be allowed to respond to applicants if they approach members with information regarding their organizations. Tuneberg suggested that this should be at the discretion of the member and that it would depend on the information the applicant was offering. He suggested if the information was procedural that is ok, and again cautioned that this should be at the discretion of the member.  Rosenthal added that it should be an individual decision and if the member is uncomfortable or thinks that this information may jeopardize their objectivity then they should say no. It was ultimately agreed that this is a personal decision.
 
Tuneberg went on to caution members that they should also be aware of speaking with anyone regarding their decisions in the interim period between the presentations and the deliberations.
 
Rosenthal suggested that if there are questions from members regarding the applications that those questions be directed to staff and the subsequent answers will be distributed to all subcommittee members by staff member Blackman via BCC email to avoid deliberations amongst each other. 
 
It was suggested by Runkel that two meetings be provided for the presentations. Conversation ensued and the outcome was that the meetings would remain as they are.
 
Runkel suggested it be clearly outlined that there is a certain amount that has to be allocated to tourism.
 
Stromberg suggested that everyone allocate all of the money and not more than is requested by any applicant. Runkel added that he felt that last year it appeared that certain members’ allocated monies based on their opinions and cautioned that that this should not happen and that the allocations should be based on the criteria. 
 
The issue arose regarding organizations whose activities may fall outside of the suggested time frames in the policy and it was agreed that these are strictly guidelines and that each member must be able to defend their own rationale.
 
Lucas asked if there was a method to track reporting. It was explained that reports are delivered to staff each year and are logged into a spreadsheet and that if the applicant fails to provide a report by the deadline they are deemed ineligible to apply.
 
Stromberg asked whether when the allocations are being entered into the allocation form, members are required to allocate the tourism portions so that they meet the minimum allocation. Tuneberg answered yes and added if this was unclear on the form, staff could adjust the form. Stromberg also asked what the policy is regarding late applications. Tuneberg answered, none. There will be no exceptions for late applications and they would be deemed ineligible.
 
Seffinger questioned why the limit is $5,000. Tuneberg explained that there is a high cost for both the applicant and the City which makes in unfeasible and ineffective to distribute funds less than $5,000.
 
Seffinger expressed that she is uncomfortable with committee members participating in the grant process without having participated in this meeting. Tuneberg noted that he would forward the minutes to all interested so all would be aware of these discussions and outcomes.
 
Tuneberg also noted that no committee members can come to the meeting on the night of the presentations, having not participated in the February 18, 2016 meeting.
 
The meeting was adjourned at 8:38pm
 
Respectfully Submitted
Kristy Blackman
Administrative Assistant