My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
7/18/2000
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2000
>
7/18/2000
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:14:19 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 3:42:38 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
07/18/2000
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
106
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
nor how it was expanded; it had never been confirmed by the Board of County Commissioners. We <br />have to be very careful in dealing with Federal grants. As the applicant, our credibility as a grant <br />recipient is exposed. The majority of the match is the County's and the project sponsor is a County <br />department. So, in essence, it is the County's HUD application. She continued that while everyone <br />has a passion for the cause and is bending over backwards to help, care must be exercised in anything <br />that might negatively affect the credibility of the County, whether in grants or financial or bond <br />ratings. All of them are linked to our credibility. She felt the Board had the responsibility to correct <br />some of the mistakes, and offered three options: 1) to do nothing, which she felt was not the right <br />thing to do; 2) to withdraw the application, which is probably the wisest and quickest action; or 3) <br />to amend the present applications, which she felt would "red flag" the application because the <br />discrepancies were so numerous. Whatever they decided to do, the document had to be reviewed <br />by the County's legal and financial staff and then come back to the Board. She favored a withdrawal <br />of this year's application and a re -write for next year's cycle. Next year, the HUD application could <br />be for a phase 2 for Hibiscus Manor and they could build on this emergency shelter grant. She was <br />very willing to help them with the new application and set it up so it rolls over; it would be an <br />opportunity for the corporation to be on its own. She was concerned that if they did not do as she <br />suggested, they would be back in the same predicament next year. For these many reasons, she could <br />not support the application as submitted. <br />Vice Chairman Ginn asked if a one year period would be to sufficient to establish a "track <br />record" for them to apply on their own for a grant of $250,000. <br />Commissioner Stanbridge thought it would because they have closed on a building and they <br />have an emergency shelter grant in line. Ifthey proceed with that, they already have their own match, <br />plus what the Board of County Commissioners can bring to the table. Then they would have a <br />legitimate HUD application that might be approved. They also would be able to begin to work with <br />the Continuum of Care plan as it is now only a concept. <br />Next Vice Chairman Ginn asked if the application had been submitted, and Mr. Van Mele <br />advised that the application which he was speaking of was the Emergency Shelter Grant. <br />July 18, 2000 <br />82 <br />BK 1 14 PG 290 <br />I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.