Recommendation to Create an Alameda Strong Community Relief Fund to Provide Grants or Other Types of Relief to Small Businesses, Non-profits and Residential Renters that have been Negatively Financially Impacted by the COVID-19 Pandemic. (Community Development 256)
Sorry. My mute was on recommendation to create a strong community relief fund to provide grants or other types of relief to small businesses, nonprofits and residential renters that have been negatively financially impacted by the COVID 19 pandemic. Thank you. And so this is is Lois Butler on or who's Sarah are you presenting? No. Who's presenting tonight? Uh. Miss Butler is scheduled to present. She's having the same difficulties as the last meeting, and I know she's on a phone line. And, Laura, it sounds like she's trying to communicate with you about her, her situation. But I am once again happy to wing this. Sarah. Sarah is here to help, too. It's a good thing we are a team. A team effort. Right? Right. Dalton suspenders. Yeah. I would send Shawn over to help low as he solves everything, but. Okay, I'm. Probably a little too far. If it's okay. Looks like I know that I could use that here. Yeah, I saved by the music. I love everything you guys were saying. So great. Hear? Do we not get to see your lovely face, Lois? You know this way. Okay. I saw you earlier today. I remember. What you. Okay, so here's another hardworking member of our economic development staff. She has been working with our businesses just about since day one of the shelter in place and has really been an invaluable member of the team and a big help to the local business community. So so, Lois, tell us what we need to know about this item, this fellow. Thank you. Honorable Mayor and members of city council. This read this report recommends the creation of an Alameda strong community relief fund to provide grants to small businesses, nonprofits, residential renters that all have been negatively impacted by the COVID 19 pandemic. And just I'm giving you some background. On the 21st of April, the city council approved $600,000 for a COVID small business relief grant. And this will provide 81 excuse me, 81 time grants of 70 $500 each and a total of 238 have applied for this grant program. You have a general summary of the applicants that I have applied in in exhibit one. I won't go through those staff is currently reviewing all the applications. We've actually made it through the application review the first round, and we need to go through a second round to make sure that everything is correct. We are expecting a delayed end review point of the end of the month. It was originally anticipated that we would complete this process by the 21st. UM, grants will be awarded thereafter. We're hoping that it'll be in the same amount of time, given that we are going to be asking applicants to submit information electronically so that we can get it out electronically to them. So that'll cut down on some time. On May the fifth, staff provide an update to City Council regarding the grant applications. We also received directions from the City Council to create a community relief fund and that's what we're going to be talking about tonight. The feedback from city council was as follows Given the number of applications, consider additional funding of 2 to 300000 for relief grants. Consider funding for residential rent relief. Explore a public excuse me public private partnership for raising funds. Work with the West Alameda Business Association, Waba and others who have expressed interest to set up a Go Fund Me fund campaign as soon as possible while still developing this Alameda Strong program on a parallel track. And this is to capture as many donations as possible and as quickly as possible and outreach to put potential applicants in the top three languages. As part of this new campaign and also as part of the new program, consider the following criteria perhaps have a greater loss than 20% due to. COVID provide additional consideration to businesses that are open or opened when they were allowed to open. Versus those who remain shuttered. Allow. More than one apple at one location if a business has more than one location, allowed them to have more than 25 employees across several locations. Allow grantees to give back a portion of their 70 $500 grant and then use the same pool of applicants for awarding nutrients from the GoFundMe they can claim. And then, per your direction, the city manager and staff have looked for additional sources to claim additional grant, and on June 2nd, staff will present a recommendation to the City Council for approximately $600,000, just slightly less than that in emergency relief grant funding for low income tenants. And this would come from the Community Development BLOCK Grant Program CARES Act funds. And if that is approved, then City Council would have allocated $1.2 million towards relief grants. So that will be a recommendation of ours at your lot, at your next meeting. And then City Council also directed staff to look at the $2 million allocated from reserves to add to authorized relief. Expenses. And then you asked us to look at reprograming existing budget funds. You also suggested. Thank you. So excuse me. Of the $2 million that you you've allocated and you suggested 200 to $300000, staff is not recommending that to the council. Use any of these funds for this program at this time, given that you will have funded $1.2 million. We. We feel that that. There are still a lot of issues ahead of us in terms of the city budget needs. And so we suggest that we reevaluate this in December and or the Fall City Council also previously approved through the budget process, $200,000 for branding, for economic development. And you asked us to also looked at that. We have looked at that, those fundings. And we're not recommending that either, because we are. We're looking to use that if if approved for recovery efforts related to our long term recovery plan. And this would help to provide for consulting resources and support of a task for which the Council was notified of through through another process within the city, the EDA panel process. So staff recommend that the additional funding be the funding that is coming through the CDBG funds. Regarding the Alameda Strong Community Relief Fund, you asked us to create a public private partnership. And so based on that, we met with the the Business Association to wow the Gabba Gabba and the Alameda Chamber of Commerce downtown. This is downtown Alameda Business Association with Alameda Business Association and the Greater Alameda Business Association and the Alameda Chamber of Commerce. And we talked with them about the Alameda Strong campaign and they had some suggestions. Their three primary concerns were that the goals of the program be clearly defined, that there be a separate fund for both residential and business, and that there would be some urgency and establishing the fund, even if it means setting up a go fund me fund prior to setting up the fund that we're recommending. I will talk about that a little bit later. The Gulf and the U.S.. They also discussed the eligibility and structure of the community fund. And there was general consensus among the following points the number of employees, they agreed that that could remain the same at 25, that the grant size could remain the same or should remain the same. They did also say that recipients, they could apply for a lesser amount and the remaining funds could be used to support other businesses within the fund. And they they wanted to have an inclusive public support marketing component to it, which would include T-shirts and Windows signs and a message of unity. And they also and and people would pay for some of this, like the t shirt if they put so much money in. But they also wanted it to be inclusive in that if people can't afford to pay for anything, that there be a component developed. Even if you didn't make a donation that showed that we're we're absolutely too strong, we're one. We were supporting each other. And one example was to have a poster that people could print on a printer and then a child perhaps could color it and stick it up in a window. And they also thought that kicking it off with a community fund and having a virtual town hall meeting would be great. We're proposing that this community fund is set up through the East Bay Community Foundation and that they be the fiscal agent and all of that people who are donating could get a tax deduction. A tax deduction. And East Bay Community Foundation, they worked with Berkeley on on a fund similar to the one that we are are asking you to approve. And one of the things that they believe in is that government partners that are working with them should be bold, courageous and innovative in their actions. And I think that this is an apt description of what the city council is doing through this whole process. Poor grant administration. This has been a lot of work. Staff is working all hours of the day and night through the morning, in some cases trying trying to process the applications. And so we're recommending. That that we work with working solutions. They work directly with the community foundation. I mean, they would be associated with them, but we would also work with them. The legal arrangement will be through the foundation, but we would have to approve them. They are a U.S. Treasury Certified Community Development Financial institution, and they they recently worked with Oakland, with their with their grants, and they established the grant program and implement it within a two year time frame. And we think that they would be good for us to to get their money out quickly as well. The cost of working with those there is their community foundation and the working solutions is between 14 and 16% of the funding. 1% to East Bay Community Foundation and then 13 to 15% to Working Solutions. The Butler. I I'm sorry to interrupt your presentation, but I have a question now. I was kind of hoping when I read that in the staff report there was a typo. Is 13%. Yeah. That's that would be the time that it would take to administer the program. If you don't want to do that, we could do what we've been doing and process everything internally. Well, we'll have a, we'll have a, uh, council discussion about it. Um, the, in the staff report, it says they would take 13 to 15% and, um. Okay. Uh, my clarifying question was, please tell me that was a typo and maybe it was 1.3 to 1.5. But saying that it's not a typo, let's well, we'll hold that from when the council is having its discussion. At least one of the members of the council wants to probe that some alternatives. Okay. I'm sorry. So you were saying you're getting, I think, toward the end, right? Yes, I'm getting towards the end. I know it's a long report that I know it makes sense that I considering very important. I'm really excited about this. And and then there's the community relief fund itself which it staff recommendation staff recommends that the the grants being split 60% to the small businesses 20% to nonprofits since they can participate last time have that designated amount to nonprofits, 20% to renters. And this would be renters that showed needs not just low income renters, as will be reported. And that's next at the next meeting that the amount of the grants remain the same for small businesses and then for nonprofits as well at 7500 2500 max for renters. And that we we still have the following requirement applicant must show a 50% up from 20% loss as recommended by several community members and one member of the um, the business association. And this is as of the application date and that additional consideration be given to those that opened and this is a council recommendation versus those that remain closed when allowed to open that the small businesses have up to 25 employees. No, no limit to the number of employees. Um, if they are a restaurant and that 50 employees be allowed if the business has more than one location, this would mean including sole proprietors without employees as well. And also we're recommending also proprietors, even those who are in residential units that. The grantee could apply for 70 $500 or less. It would be up to them. The applicant must have a physical establishment in Alameda and physical meaning any any type home based or one that is in brick and mortar or office building, etc. and then the business must have a current business license and have paid their business improvement assessment. If in fact they're in a business improvement area by the application date and then the applicant must have a W-9 and apply online. And so staff is. Require requesting that the following be were renters. They they must have a residential lease. They must have had suffered a 20% loss. The applicant must verify that the that the tenant's rent was current to proceed into the date of March 4th. And that's consistent with the staff report that we're going to bring forward. The applicant cannot have received a CDBG grant, so we would coordinate that and provide documentation from the landlord to confirm the amount of unpaid rent and then payments must be made directly to the landlord. So once they qualify for the grant, the check would be cut to the landlord and then applications must be submitted in the online portal there. There has been a a committee set up for the alameda strong campaign in anticipation of it being approved. And it consists of wapa darbar and the chamber and the city's pio sarah henry. And together they have put together and are putting together a program. And if you'd like to hear from Sarah, she's here to talk to to that. Regarding the Go Fund Me campaign, one has not yet been set up. However, the group is saying that if in fact, we can't get the community foundation piece set up quickly, that they're they're willing to pursue setting up a go fund me program alternatives are as follows approve the report as is, modify any aspect of it direct staff to use all or any portion of the $200,000 budgeted for the rebranding campaign. Direct staff to create and implement a loan program in lieu of a grant program decided not to establish the Alameda Strong Community Relief Program. That is my report. Thank you, Ms.. Butler. I appreciate that. Um, Counsel, do we have any clarifying questions on the staff report? Um, I know I do. Who else does? And then we'll go to for that public comment. Councilmember Odie. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Butler. So quick question. Couple of quick questions on the renter side. So the applicant is the tenant, right? Yes. And then if the landlord gets this, then there's no other obligation for the tenant to pay rent for that particular dollar amount, right? Correct. Okay. So if they're there, they could be right now two months in arrears. And so this would only pay up to one month. Right. But, you know, up to 25. So, yeah. I didn't say their rent is 3000. They get 2500. They still owe the 500. Right. They would still owe at the time. Correct. Okay. And then when we did the. The 600,000 we excluded publicly traded companies. Was there a discussion about excluding publicly traded companies for the Strong Community Belief Grant? Yes. I assume that that would be in this. This was more to clarify some of the points that that the council made and some of the points that the that Darva and Wahba made regarding amounts. But we would still exclude publicly traded company. And then if somebody received one of these these grants, the process that we're currently wrapping up, would they still be eligible for one of these two strong community relief grants or. No, they would not be eligible. Okay. All those are my questions. Thank you for clarification about the publicly traded companies, as I recall. And it came up before the example was made. If someone might be a franchisee holder of, say, I don't know, Burger King or something, which is probably a publicly traded company, but if they weren't getting any form of assistance from their, you know, the franchisee, the franchise, then why would we why would we exclude that small business person or would we go more by the size of the business? I mean, we don't want them to be gay if they've avail themselves of other assistance. And that's not what this is intended for. But I just hold that. That's I guess that's something we'll come back to when we do counsel discussion. Any other clarifying questions? Councilmember Vela. I thank you, Miss Butler. And a couple of questions. One was for the sole proprietors. Is it a single? It's the same amount that a sole proprietor would be eligible for as a business with 25 or 50 employees. Yes. Currently, yes. And is there a reasoning for that or. While we do the process, we came across a few sole proprietors. Well, there's two issues. There's the sole proprietor that has employee. So we're not talking about that. The other issue is we have families who have their children and everybody in their business, and there's a lot of them. And they they take a draw from the business instead of paying individually and putting people on the payroll. So there are a lot of instances of that. So that sounds like something for council to discuss and decide on because we're going to we're going to refine our suggested criteria so further. Councilmember Adobe. Another question I had is the 20 $500. What is that amount based off of for the tenants, residential tenants. So they speak to this one. Whatever what I'm told. Debbie, why don't we go? We need to move this along a little bit because we haven't even gotten to public comment or council comment, so we don't need to deliberate. Just, you know, if you've got the answer. So, Miss Potter. If she's not answering. I'm. She's. You're on me. You're muted still. Laura, let me let me give you the best answer I have so we can move along. It was based on the average grant, to my knowledge, in Academy this year. And and there's a is there again, it's not based off of the number of tenants living at a given property. So it's not based off of like a like a person that lives, for instance, in a studio isn't going to get a low. It's is up to. Up to. So what do we mean by sort of just up to 2500? If your rent was 1300 dollars, you only get 1300 dollars a month. I don't think you. That's what I was getting at. And then finally, are landlords available able to some landlords that landlords also have to pay for business license here in Alameda. Are they able to get qualify for the 70 $500 grant? And then would they also be able to get paid through rent relief? So landlords would not be able to get paid through rent relief, except if a tenant within their building is qualified for it and it's only for residential rent relief. And then secondly, we don't have landlords coming in as a qualifier. So even though they pull business licenses, they're still not part of the recommendation to say yes. Okay. Thank you. Offer you Councilmember Gill. Yes. Okay. Any other clarifying questions for here next week? Thank you. I have two questions and I'll ask them both. Then you can answer them both. Can you speak a little bit to the I understand the need to have a physical establishment, but the home based business is a single, single sole proprietor working out of their out of their house. I'm a little curious how that decision was made and what the thinking was there. And similarly, I'm curious about the conversation that had that was had around showing 50% loss of income versus the last program. 20%. And and obviously, I understand that the. Likely thinking was, Oh, we should help people who have lost more money. But if we thought about whether or not the impact that the money that's being received in terms of bringing people back and then keeping them moving forward is the same. Okay. So the physical establishment we do we we found that people who have sole proprietorship proprietors, they are sole proprietors and then working out of their home, a lot of them are not able to work any longer and they have no source of income at all except, you know, the ones that that that businesses that are in established locations have. And so there there really wasn't. If we're going to bring sole proprietors, then there wasn't any difference between them and and the folks working out of their home. Both of them have like mortgages or rent to pay. And so so we didn't find that there was a good reason to exclude them. And then with regards to the 50% versus 20%, it was it was a consideration that council asked us to come back with not the amount, but with a higher amount other than 20%. And in in conversations with with people that have called the city and emailed the city, a number of them asked for higher amounts. And in our webinars, a number of people asked for higher amounts. And so we, we, we went with the 50% amount because it was the amount that was most asked for. Thank you to all of you, Vice Mayor. Yes. So asking me a follow up in a couple of the answers you gave Miss Butler. So on the home based business, um, I understand that your home based business might be out of business and you're not making income, but I wrote in my notes. But you don't have the overhead that a commercial business who has to rent their space would have. And then you you mentioned whether they have mortgages to pay. But are we also looking at this program to provide mortgage assistance? Because I. A, I think there are federal programs if you have a federally backed mortgage that you can apply for. So, um, I, this doesn't also include general mortgage assistance, doesn't it's butler. Well, it includes operating costs. So somebody with a business, even if they're looking at what this is, if this is similar to the last grant where you can pay employees operating expenses, etc. a little bit. So okay, but just a homeowner who's having a trouble paying their mortgage, we're not providing relief under this program for that. Right. It's for their business. It's for their business. All right. Um, let me get to my other clarifying questions that I have. Thank you. Um, let's see here. Um, I. Uh, um, in the staff report on page three and this is kind of the middle of the page and it's under the section on city funding. And the last paragraph is staff recommends, given the anticipated $1.2 million in direct funding for small businesses and tenant relief. And that's the, you know, putting, I think, CDBG money into it. And our previous 600,000 or maybe it's the additional 600 you were talking about that the city used this use its resources to leverage this commitment with a community wide effort to support local businesses and neighbors through a foundation led drive to raise money from residents. What what are we talking about? How are the how is the city going to leverage its resources? So it would be like staff time, for example. Okay. We're we're spending we're spending a ton of time. We're not we're not asking consultants to spend that time to help with the development of this program. Okay. I understand. Thank you. And then on the, um, this group Working Solutions. So we ultimately administer the moneys raised. I guess if we approve them, are there are they the only fish in the sea or are there other other entities that do this sort of thing? Do we do comparison shopping only because that 13 to 15% of the money raised takes my breath away. Did did we have the opportunity to. Look at it? I, I, I have tried to find others that do similar work, but this report was doing in a short period of time. Quick turnaround. Okay. So I didn't I didn't find anyone. I'm sure there's others out there. Oh, right. That's that's certainly a fair answer. And then a couple other questions. The, um, so I understand that you met with all these representatives of the business associations and consulted with Ms.. Potter about the rent relief. I think, you know, she's certainly knowledgeable from her vantage point. What about nonprofits? How were they represented in the discussion? Unfortunately they weren't. They had two days from the time, took the last meeting. That's adequate answer. And I just want to say, um, this is just my, um, editorial comment for those who are urging the city to move quickly and don't hesitate, people. We brought this to you. The city council moved really quickly and staff is multitasking like there's no tomorrow. We are moving quickly. If if any business association wants to go out and do their own go fund me campaign. We are stopping you. But thank you. Okay. With that. Those are all my questions. But there's another one. Sorry, Tony. I'm sorry. Just a quick question on the $600,000 for rent relief that's I guess, funded in part by the CDBG dollars. And I think there's an expectation that this will be for low income tenants. How are we going to do that? Let's say for a particular example, if there are three people who are unrelated and they're sharing a unit, are we going to have because that that by definition, even though they're unrelated, they were a household. Are we going to take all of their their income data or are we just taking the income data of the leaseholder? So how are we going to account for household income? Because I think that's what. Yeah, I can, Potter. You want to take that? Yeah. I think I'll take a run at this one. So an interesting question. The staff report that will be published later this week is going to talk about the program, which is CDBG funded. And we're proposing to contract with building futures to run the program. They did a similar they ran a similar program for us back in the days of the Obama administration, the RCN, when we got rapid rehousing money. And we will work with them so that we all have an answer for you at the next meeting about how a household would be defined. You can appreciate. It. All right. To be continued, Councilman Brody. So just a couple of questions that popped up. So the 600,000 CDBG that you're proposing the city put into this fund, is that subject to this 13 to 15% cert or administrative charge? So yeah. Just to go back to the leveraging the question about the leveraging. I think what we're saying is that the council has independently approved the small business, the COVID grant relief program, and then we will be bringing a rent relief program to you for low income tenants. And the two programs in combination add up to a $1.2 million funding commitment by the city that we then can go to the community and say the city has stepped up with 1.2 million in programs. Here's an opportunity for you to match that to exceed that. But it'll be its own program. Okay. Well, thank you. And then, I mean, if someone maybe a landlord, but they're also have a property management business, I mean, they would be eligible, right. Because, you know, they're not technically I mean, that's not their only line of work. I believe rent. Oh, yes. A property management firm would be eligible. Okay, good. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any further clarifying questions? Do we have any public speakers, Madam Clerk? We have no one that has submitted anything to be read into the record. But at this time, we can ask any attendees who would like to comment on this agenda item, which is just to remind everybody the Community Relief Fund. Anybody who wants to speak on this. There's two who have raised their hand. And we will meet them in time them. And if they're only two, then they would each be eligible for 3 minutes of. Am I on? Yes. I mean, if you want to call that for a speaker. Ron Muni, I appreciate the count, but thank you. Madam Mayor. Council I appreciate the council and staff's quick. Work to assist our community in this trying time. I support the creation of funds to assist the community to raise needed moneys for residents and businesses. I do believe that the funds should be split though, so potential donors may donate to a residential fund and a separate business nonprofit fund. I would say nonprofits probably can do their own fundraising, but I don't think they should be excluded. I would hate to see someone not donate if they objected to either receiving funds from the percentages described or revised. I also believe that what is normally considered confidential information by those requesting the grant should not be made public. For example, a business's exact income and expense figures should not be released publicly. Likewise, whatever personal income residents should have would not be released if they request the grant. The city needs to protect the residents and private businesses. Confidential information. And finally, I don't understand the mayor's comment. I believe we're all trying to work together quickly to help our community members. Thank you. Okay. Our next public speaker. Felix Diaz. Yes. You're on. High. Hi. Yes, we can hear you, sir. Hi. My name is Felicia. I licensed massage therapy and working for the office. So my question is due to the situation with the coronavirus pandemic. So we a has been has been big affect a little bit more and with with our business. So my question is am I going to be how the city of the what and I doing really well no. So what my I am wondering if I if I can. Come come back to work in the. Chiropractor office. So I'm just going to make a statement. And Madam Clerk, I shouldn't be timed on this. Mr. Diaz, this is simply public speaking where we hear public comment. But I will tell you that in answer to your question, because I want you to receive assistance as a small business person, you should go to the website of the Alameda County Public Health Department that has updated information about what what businesses are open and that that email address is a c. T. H d dot org crate. Correct. So a. C, p, h d or gets the initials for Alameda County Public Health Department. Talk. Right. Thank you. All right. Thank. Bye bye. Okay. All right. And that was the extent of our public speakers. Correct? All right. So I will close public comment and I will open counsel discussions. Who wants to to lead us? Councilmember De Foxx. I just want to say I just want to say thank you very much. When I in reading the staff report and the reference to looking at CDBG. I really appreciate that you guys turned as much stones as possible in looking for possible source of funds for for these programs. Thank you. That was it. Now that. Certain sweet. Okay friends merry next. Right then Councilmember Odie. So I had a quick question. The first half that related to the EDC, uh, the community fund, how quickly can they solve it? Other communities already have these set up. How long do we expect if this is we gave direction four weeks ago. How long do we think this is going to be before we have something set up? We're hoping to have it set up by the end of the week. There's there there's a back and forth with community. Is there community foundation? And hopefully we will have terms by the end of the week. Excellent. Thank you very much. So I think my my comments did, I think play on some things that the vice vice mayor the other council member Vela still vice mayor in my heart. Uh the is Mr. Mooney mentioned separate funds for residential and, and business. And I think that I would like to hear a little bit more thought on that. I personally, I think most people who want to help our community are going to be happy to help our community. And it might just be easier to have one place to put the money. If this is if this is the proposal that came out of the discussion with Waba and Darva and the folks who who were engaged. I think I'm comfortable with that. But I do think that there's I'm uncomfortable with the sole proprietor in House proposal. I, I want to make sure that we are that that what we move forward here is attacking the the problem or the, you know, providing the solution for what we want to achieve. So whether or not this is to just provide debate, I think at least in the original round, we really wanted to make sure that we were providing support that would continue the viability and the strength of our community, business districts and whatnot. Which isn't just to say that there aren't people that are hurting who could use help as well. But I think we just want to think about whether or not that, you know, we are this this is a big shift. We're going to be, you know, I mean, CPA's could be getting money who are working in their in their office or or whatnot. I'm not confident that. I'd like to I'd like to make sure that we're being mindful that that that is that is what we are aiming to do. I as as I was to you two weeks ago, I am a little concerned about the 50%, the shift towards making a lot of money, a threshold here. I think that there are probably businesses that will receive the 70 $500 and never come back because they have lost too much, too much money and they have had to come back. Whereas I think that there are businesses that may be struggling very greatly who have lost 20% and for whom this could be the lifeline that continues allows them to continue. I don't you know, I don't know what that analysis looks like that would need to be done if we're going to drop this 50%. But I would want to make sure that we're not providing money to businesses that may have been so harmed that they are not going to come back. Because I think really what we're trying to do is, is I see this as this program. The previous program is really about that, like that lifeline that serves to really help people stay afloat while we get to a place where they can reopen and and continue to be strong. Other than that, I do appreciate there's a lot of work that went into this. And I appreciate how knowing that this is going to could be set up and working. And on Friday, I think it's a it's a fine model. I you know, my experience, which is somewhat limited, but I have worked with a number of foundations, 13 to 15%. Administrative costs is not anywhere near unheard of. In fact, I would say it's fairly standard for managing funds. And so I wouldn't want to lose weeks trying to you know, I think we should should see what we can do to negotiate that down. But, you know, my interest is in seeing this getting out there so that we can actually start collecting donations from our community and getting them where it needs to go. So thank you. And before I call on Councilmember Odia, I will just in response. I do think we have a fiscal duty to at least explore more than one option for administrative. It might be that 13 to 15% is just standard in the industry. I have no experience with that. But you stop and think about if this is a fund that raises $1,000,000, that's money that if if if it's the going rate, it's the going rate. But that's money that isn't going to help the people we're trying to help. And then I would just question how much administration it's requiring, but we can further discuss that. Councilmember two You had your hand up next. Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thanks to Lois, Ms.. Butler and Ms.. Potter for that presentation. And I think the mayor had mentioned it earlier. You know, we have been moving really quickly, and I know you guys are running on fumes, so I appreciate it. Just to pick up on the mayor's point, I mean, that that is a big chunk of money. I mean, everyone is taking, you know, a literal haircut of sorts, you know, in their businesses. I don't have my real one, but that's my first world problem. I mean, maybe some of these people that are managing this, you know, should also take a little bit of a haircut and, you know, lower their rates for us because, you know, this is something that we're doing to help all of our businesses and our tenants and our nonprofits. And, you know, to the mayor's point earlier, also, I mean, we are in this together. So I hope that we can we can work on getting that number lowered a bit. I I'm glad we have the, you know, landlords that are property managers because, you know, they're business people, too. And, you know, I know we've asked a lot of them recently, and so we should allow them to be treated as business people. You know, the one thing I district we did in the staff report, I do think we should consider adding another 300,000 to the grant program. I realize that's a big chunk of money. But, you know, to me, it's not spending as much as it is investing because if it is, the difference is that the vice mayor said and the mayor said between going out of business and surviving, you know, these are the businesses that are actually going to generate tax sales tax revenue in the future. These are the businesses that will be paying workers who will be spending money is money and other stores. So, I mean, to me, it's worth an investment of 300,000. You know, if if, for example, if we don't spend it and we lose another, you know, 2 million in sales tax revenue, you know, then we, you know, we're kind of pennywise pound foolish. So I'd like to see us augment that that fund and the home based businesses. I mean, I know a lot of them have recurring expenses that are just not related to their mortgage. They can have their business insurance, they could have utilities, you know, they could have their licenses. And I thought it was instructive that I assumed the person that came on, Mr. Deeds, was a massage therapist. You know, that's a business that, you know, a lot of people run out of their home and, you know, they're not able to do their job. So, I mean, I I'm glad that we're we're looking at sole proprietorships and and helping out some of these sole proprietors because, you know, they're really struggling. And if you cut hair, you know, in your in your spare in your garage or something, and you can't do that. I mean, that's something that, you know, people need to be able to be, uh, eligible for assistance. You know, I'm, you know, attorneys and accountants and other professionals, you know, they're probably facing a loss of work too, so I don't have any problem adding them to the list. And, you know, I'm the mayor. I mean, I go on the Tuesday afternoon call and there always seems to be a discussion about how sole proprietors have been left out of the programs that we've done so far. So, you know, these people help move our economy and our city as well. So I'd like to see them involved. I think that was all I had. Yeah. I mean, my colleagues are interested in, you know, awarding more grants out of the original 600,000. That's something I think is is money well spent? And all for you, Mr. Modi? Yes. Councilmember Vela. Thank you. One thought that I had was relative to administering the fund or fund is whether or not we could have an Alameda business actually apply to do that. Maybe this isn't, you know, could could we perhaps that's one way that we help a business out is to give them that business so that the percentage is actually going to them. So it's just the thought that I had. I wouldn't want that process to be too encumbered in terms of causing an unnecessary delay. But I know that staff was trying to turn this around in a in a quick timeframe, but it seems to me that maybe some of these individuals who are looking for work and have some experience administering funds, we could we could get it out to them or a couple of people that could work on it, maybe somebody doing the accounting side of it and something else doing the other administration in terms of the residential, I actually think that we need to increase it. I have a problem saying this is the average. I worry about our families that are perhaps paying a little more in rent to the money is going to go a longer way in keeping a larger group of people housed and also who have a higher held to to climb in terms of coming back from, you know, perhaps having a loss of income and being unable to pay. So I would actually consider increasing the amount to residential to up to 3000 or 3500 based off of whatever a single month's rent is. And then obviously you might have some people who have substantially less. And I think we could make up the difference. But I just to me, if we're only going to be paying a portion of one month's rent and it seems like we're hurting people who might have more bedrooms and that means hurting families. I think in terms of the strategy for all of this, I do I do want to prioritize. DICKERSON Brody's point that, you know, there are some businesses that generate sales tax, that there will be some businesses that don't generate sales tax. And I do think that when we're looking at this and we tried to be kind of mindful, but there are some businesses that are going to be really necessary to and helping other businesses get back to work and things like that. And I think that we need to maybe think about how we can go about prioritizing that. Childcare, for instance, is going to have to completely change how they operate, which could impact their ability to operate if they aren't getting assistance because they can only have 12 children together. There's different requirements now that are in place that might make it harder for them to operate. And that's going to mean it's harder for people to get back to work because they don't have childcare. In terms of the sole proprietors, I would want to reduce the amount. I'm not saying that they are valuable, but part of the intent of establishing the grants was to help as many people as possible and to have that down to helping workers. I'm sorry. Hold on. I am concerned that if we if we have it where we aren't going to cap the amount for sole proprietors, potentially we're giving a lot of money to one individual and one individual's overhead is substantially less than somebody who is employing a number of different people. And I've been on those calls, too, and I know that people support sole proprietors are getting left out. One thing that I will remind my colleagues is that they're now also included in the pandemic unemployment assistance and can can now recoup through that which which hadn't been established when we started these calls. So I'm willing to help them, but I do want to cap that and I do want to cap the number of sole proprietors that we would ultimately help as well. So I'd be interested in saying a sole proprietor could maybe get up to half of what we're offering the other grantees and that only so many sole proprietors. And we would only be giving out so many to so many sole proprietors because I really do want to, you know, hopefully we get to a place where we can help everybody that applies. But I do. And I would be interested in kind of cheering things to say kind of in the first round that we're including them. We're only going to help this money and then we'll expand it after we've helped the first wave of people. And then the other question that I had was, is there a difference of cost or for some time involved in administering two funds versus one fund? So we had a residential rent fund versus a commercial business fund. Does that increase the amount of work that goes into actually administering? And if so, is that worth the cost of having the two separate funds? And that and that's something that I just would need a little more information on before I make that decision. I will also say that the other thing that that happened before was, you know, originally back this is weeks ago, I had had some conversations that they would start a go, fund me, let's help our businesses. And some of the pushback that I actually got from one of our business associations was, well, different businesses have different followings with each business, have their own go fund me. And, you know, some businesses don't necessarily have that fund fund following. And so I'm a little concerned, again, about kind of further separating. I think that. But now now people are saying, let's have this go fund me. I think it's easier, administration wise to just have one fund and then go from there rather than the two. And to the vice mayor's point that I think people who are willing to help are willing to help regardless of who's included. But I happen to think you. Thank you. So I really go last. And I actually do think that we should follow the model of other cities and make the pots separate. It's kind of like when I'm donating to one of the different educational institutions I've attended. You can donate to the the general fund and that institution, or even like Doctors Without Borders, you could say, Oh, I wanted to go to this country or just put it where you need it. But I do think it respects the donor. And and I and other cities are doing that. They're having the separate parts. And as far as the cost of administration and administration itself, I am I'm concerned. I like the idea of supporting Alameda business by bringing the work to them. But this is very specialized business. And if a firm had not done something similar working with the city fund like this, then I don't think this is the time to try out something new. I think it's and probably staff has even done this. It reached out to Berkeley, Oakland, San Francisco, seeing who they're using, what percentage are you paying? I liked whoever it was who suggested maybe it's this is the time to negotiate a little. Let's be bold and courageous. But I would say. But the donors decide where they want to put their money. And I think we'll get some pretty generous philanthropy and also just, you know, everyday individuals. I I'm having a real hard time with the sole proprietor, and I just want to make sure we understand there's a difference between being a sole proprietor and being home based sole proprietor. I'm not sure. The gentleman who is the massage therapist told us he was home based. I might have missed it, but. But I just think if we had nothing but money to disperse, I would look at this differently. But I do believe that we're trying to help our business districts and and then the various institutions that help support our community, and that includes nonprofits. And so I just think that we should really give thought. I mean, we saw how many grant applications we got for a limited amount of grant funding, and we weren't even I don't think doing home based, I don't think we were doing home based sole proprietors then. Um, and then I like the suggestion that Councilmember Vela just made about increasing the amount of available rent because again, you can only get one month's rent. It's not like you're going to make a windfall, but this actually has a double impact because it helps that family or individual or what have you stay in their home and it's paying that landlord who would be out of their income. So so let's do that. I also would like council to consider maybe shifting the percentage of these pots just a little, because right now it is 60% to the small businesses and then 20% renters, 20% not nonprofits, I would say maybe 50% of the fund to small businesses, 25 renters, 25 nonprofits. But I'm that's just, you know, my my thinking. And I and I do think we've got a lot of nonprofits out there that are are serving our community in in many different ways. I think that we also go into my notes really quickly. Um, I'm a little concerned with just transferring over all of our applicants from the grant program into this Alameda strong program because it might give the impression that some people are getting a head start when this is a new program where we're introducing. But consider that. And then, um, I, um, I think that that is, oh, should we require a minimum time of business has been established something to consider. Um, and then I do want to just give profuse thanks to not only the amount of work you've done to bring this forward to us, but the short time in which you did it, given the length of time that a staff report has to be submitted ahead of time. So. Yeah. Mr. Potter. Yes. Hi. I just wanted to clarify. Vice Mayor Knox White had said I'm okay with these percentages since they've been vetted with the business community. And I just wanted to clarify that. I think the business community, they are primarily interested in seeing all of the funds go to the small business community. However, staff, based on the comments we heard from council at the May 5th meeting, there was interest in making these funds available to renters as well as to nonprofits. So this is staff. Dation. We have input from the business community, but the six 2020 was staff recommendation. But I will say if there's a consensus on the council that the parts be separate and people can select. You don't really need those percentages at that point because then you would just be designating where you would want your funding to go. So it would probably be helpful for us to have some consensus direction from Council on on that issue. So I'll put in my $0.02 worth. Ooh, I think I need a motion to have a couple more minutes. It's always tricky when you're running the meeting because some of your time gets there. May I have, uh, Councilmember Vela? I'll move to add 2 minutes time. Is that sufficient or. 3 minutes. Is good. Okay, 2 minutes for the second. Second. Who is that? Councilmen. Vice mayor. Vice mayor. Okay. A roll call vote, please. Councilmember de SAG. Knox Light. I. Odie. Hi, Vella. I may or as he Ashcraft. I. That carries my faith. Thank you all. Last night and raising my hand. Hi. Lois and Isabella. Yes. I just wanted to clarify one point, and that was with regards to transferring all of the the applications to the new fund, we weren't recommending that. We were only recommending if there was a go fund me set up ahead of time. The business associations had indicated that they would use the same the same applications, but for the new fund that we weren't recommending to do it the same way. I see. Thanks. Thank you for that clarification, Mayor. As you said, it's the city clerk and we have an attendee who keeps raising and lowering his hand to try and get our attention. But you have closed public comment, so we just need to announce that anyone with a raised hand public comment on this item is closed and therefore will not be heard. Thank you. Yes. And it goes the same way it does in a regular council meeting. We we hear the folks who have their hand up or have seen their comments and we ask if there are any more. There were. And then I close public comment. So my concern is that we might lose some donors if we said, you donate to this and we'll decide where it goes. But I also want to be able to help our businesses so council come up with a solution. I'm delegating. Councilmember Vela. I don't have a problem having the two funds or the would the nonprofits be in the fund with the businesses or would they be in the fund with the residential? Well. I think I think we had, at least in the staff report, that the non-profits would be their own fund at 20% residential assistance. So three training and then 63 fund. And I just wanted to clarify, because we've been we've been talking about it as if the two funds that I just wanted to go. No, I was going by the percentage breakdown and just suggesting we shifted a little over. I'm a little. Cautious. I know our businesses have huge needs, but there was no representation from the nonprofit community. And, you know, I'm thinking of we could name a whole list of them in our community. And so and I think I was making the analogy that say you donate to Doctors Without Borders, you could say, I want to donate to the efforts in X country or region. But you can also say, I just donate to you and put it where you need it. And I think it's possible to do this sort of thing. At least the gentleman who approached me about starting this indicated that it was so in that. In that instance that a mayor would have been if I gave, let's say, $100, $50 would be given or it would be distributed based off of the percentages of funds. In that case, if I was a general donor. These are good questions that were down there. Yes. Ms.. Potter. Ms.. Butler. Yes, yes. Yes. Okay. Butler And if you didn't wanted to do it that way, I guess you could designate your percentages. Correct. I want to donate $50 to the renters and $50 to nonprofits or. Something. And then I did have another. Sorry. Someone's going to clarify, Miss Butler. I was going to clarify that. I didn't ask them that, but I'm sure that we could work something out. Okay. Missoula. Councilmember Vela My other question was, if we have a fund that gets substantially funded and we have one or two other funds that is substantially underfunded, and is there an ability then to move the money or is it then stuck in that one fund. That's sort of seen as like a legal as well as procedural answer? As a city attorney, do you want to weigh in? I realize why it might be too strong a verb, but would. I don't I mean, I don't. I think there are a lot of flexibility in how the council would direct us to set up these funds. And depending upon your direction, we won't do it, given the flexibility possible. But I do believe that once you give people the option to pick, I don't think you would want to go back if there was an under-funded fund and move money around, because I think that then that's not the spirit of you you're allowed to select. Mhm. Right. And so to add to Miss Hunter's point, if, if the council's interested to have funds shipped around, we would have to advertise that early on to say that funds might get moved depending upon a certain threshold. So it will largely depend on where your direction is as to how we do it. Well, Mr. Shand, wouldn't it also be possible that the shifted funds would come from the donors who just said put it wherever the need is? Sure. Sure. Okay. Vice Mayor, you had your hand up. I think. I think this conversation is. In the weeds. Well, no, I was going to say is moving me toward supporting the idea of separate funds. I think I feel like I. I was a little surprised to see when we came back that there was a single fund for three different uses. I think when you're going out and asking people to contribute to things, they are more likely to contribute to things. If they, you know, if it if it's really clear what it what it is, they're they're doing it and I think fund a mix of different things in Alameda is a less successful pitch then help me help renters in need help nonprofits in need help businesses in need. I do think with the businesses and nonprofits, I think we should look at possibly three. I think if we can always have a submittal form that says, would you like to add money for renters or nonprofits as well so that you can ask people to donate to all three at the same time? Um, but I think if, if we are going to do that, I think, you know, I know we had a number of nonprofits that were successful in getting PPE funds and so making sure that we are if we're going to, if we're going to do nonprofits and if we're going to do businesses, maybe we're helping people who are not successful in those other programs. And I do believe that's a criteria, isn't it? Yeah. And then I think. Did I see Councilmember? No. No, it's. Uh, it's. Um, it. Was a criteria that they had to have applied for it in the last round of. My career. Well, well, wouldn't it. Would it not be something you'd consider when you were looking at income? You know, losses and an income. Um, it's, it's not something that we consider for the last round, but it is something that we could consider for this round. Okay. All right, counselor Brody. Thank you. And I neglected when I talked earlier to recognize Sara Henry Arpaio, who's also done a great job on this and many other things. It was nice to have her have a Saturday off. As you can see, she's in the EEOC right now. You know, I worry about whether, you know, I like the allocation of staff here, but I worry that if you know. One of these funds may get nothing. And, you know, in the end, I know it's for rent, but in the end, that rent is going to go to property owners who are basically business people. Nonprofits hire people and get out money in the community. And small businesses are small businesses. So, I mean, it's not like you're you're giving money to a tenant. It's actually going to be used to pay rent. And I worry about it being super complicated by splitting it up. And I also worry about if it's more complicated, is it going to be more costly? Um, you know, I'm not sure. Yeah, I'm just not sure I'm there yet. Well, I'll tell you, we need to we need to wrap this up because we've got a number of other items to cover, and we want to move this forward so we can start getting the money out. I, I don't think it's so terribly complicated. As I've said before, um, other, other charities do this sort of thing on a regular basis. And you know what I think? I think at the end of the day, people are generous. I've been very moved by just the stories of people coming forward, businesses, the things they've done to help other people. Right now, even businesses, even restaurants who are operating at a loss are helping provide meals for people who are hungry. So, you know, at some point, I don't know. I think you've you've got to see, um, the, the good in human nature. And I, I feel like I'm seeing more of the positives and the negatives through all these hard times. I would like to really see this move forward so we can start getting we have people lining up, wanting to donate to this fund. So, um, Councilman Brody. I may be in the minority on that issue anyway, but was there any other folks that would support the idea of, um, awarding more grant money? Oh, could I just address that really quickly? I in my notes, I said, could we wait until the budget hearing to decide on that? Just learn a little bit more about our finances. But. And do we need to know that to move this element a strong program forward? I know, but I guess it's not on the agenda for the budget meeting tomorrow and if the awardees are going to be announced by Friday. Um, you know, I don't know how long would I get if, if there was a sense that folks wanted to do that, how long it would delay getting money into the hands of our businesses? I don't know. Does the city manager want to address that again? I use the term loosely. Liberally. Hi. So we gave the council some options. You could do a couple items if you wanted to talk about tomorrow. I don't know. Can you continue this this item to following the meeting tomorrow? I don't know. I'm asking even on that. So that would be one option if you want to look at it after the budget to continue this item to, I guess, the council meeting and just this item to after the budget meeting so that you could make that decision. The other thing is we could come back on June 2nd. So if you're talking about adding money to this program, Alameda Strong, you could come back to June 2nd. But what I think Councilmember OTE is talking about is actually adding. To the. $600,000 grant program itself. Is that. Correct? Councilman Rudy. Thank you, Madam Mayor. I mean, is it possible to just continue that discussion on possibly augmenting the grant fund to tomorrow and move forward today on the Alameda strong portion? Um. City attorney. So, Madam Mayor, I'm my city councilmember. It's my. Recommendation. Would be that you just simply continue the item so that you have a complete agenda item for discussion. You could certainly give direction on the item today. But. Nonetheless continue. The entire item till. Tomorrow. I would like to find a way to move forward on the Alameda Strong Program Community Relief Fund now, because I think it's we're really pushing staff to get this pulled together. And I and we've got a lot to talk about tomorrow to Councilmember Odie. Any other way you can seek and let's hear from the vice mayor. We'll hear a different from a different person right now. What I heard the city attorney say is that we could get very strong direction tonight to move forward in a very particular way with the community fund and then just delay the action along with the the other funding issue, too, after the budget hearing tomorrow, so that the staff would know exactly what we were directing them to do tonight. And it wouldn't delay it. It would it just wouldn't be the formal vote until tomorrow night. Is that correct, Mr. Chan? Yes. All I'm saying is that you don't bifurcate this item into smaller slices and continue the item. But yes, you could even take votes on this item tonight. It just that. You give yourself. The option to reverse yourself tomorrow night. Got it. Councilmember Vela, any thoughts? Councilmember de Thug Councilmember Vela. I'd like to wait and just take up the the conversation about potentially putting in more grant money, more money into the grant program with the budget. I also would like to focus on just getting this project off and launched. I think that if we if we could give money later, but hopefully we can focus our efforts on getting others to contribute now, which might actually reduce the need for more funds from the general fund, which is, I think, the goal. I am a little wary of kind of making it overly complex in terms of administering. So I defer to staff or whoever is going to administer about the number of funds. We can also just have one fund that people can earmark what they put in. That's another way people do it. Can they get a little less complex of administering multiple funds and you can market it to say, look, this gives to this. I just wonder if there's different nonprofits or grant making places out there who will only give to certain things like they won't give to businesses, but they'll give to a fund to support nonprofits. And that's why I think there would be a value in kind of allowing nonprofits to have their own funding. If that's the case, I'm out of time. But I think we voted to give everyone every. 20 minute minutes. Okay, so this. Is good for the gander. Yeah. And then, you know, so I think, you know, I defer to them, but I would like us since we are setting this up, since we really only went to one person. I if there is somebody in Alameda who has experience administering funds and I think there are because the city's office and yeah right but but there might be somebody I would like us to see if there's an Alameda business that has done that or a professional that has done that. And there may be somebody. And then at least where we're giving back to an Alameda an Alameda business. Okay. And I would want it to be I would want it to be anybody who has experience administering any public fund because their cities, their special districts, their school districts. But if you have that sort of experience, I would want to consider them at least. Okay. Ms.. Potter, then Mr. Odey. Did you have your hand at my left? Yes. Thank you. I was just going to say that I fortunately the budget workshop is tomorrow evening. So I think that staff is fully able to keep moving on, setting up the foundation and can then incorporate any decision that might be provided tomorrow night regarding funding. So I feel that we can absolutely move forward with the direction we proceed tonight. If it's at all possible to move this item tonight, I would like to do that. Councilmember Brody, you've got your hand up, sir. I would also like to move it forward, but I'd also like to have the option to consider the additional funding tomorrow as part of this. Plan and. Make a motion. Is there a way to do that? I mean, I got like a fuzzy maybe you shouldn't, but I didn't get like, well, you can do this if you do X, Y and Z. And if you can tell me what X, Y, and Z is, I'll make that motion. Um, who are you referring that to? The city attorney. Yes. And so, Councilmember. Odom, my recommendation would be that you. Make a motion. I got it right there. Go ahead. Mr. Shinn? Yes. And Councilmember o.T. My recommendation is that you make whatever substantive motions you want to make tonight and then make a motion to continue this item along with the special meeting until the conclusion of the budget hearing tomorrow night for a time, certainly you can set it at, let's say 7 p.m. and you start when you can start. And then this item will. Again be called. The special meeting. And the I, along with this item will be called after the budget item. And then at that moment you can add whatever. Other funding. Or anything else you use that makes sense. Well, that is a recommendation. Is there anything preventing us from doing it the other way? Approving because this was multiple parts. You know, it wasn't just one one item. We can sign off on the alameda strong portion and then defer the discussion on the, um, whether or not we agree with staff's recommendation to not provide more money until tomorrow. So essentially the bifurcate is. What you're saying is, is that not permitted? Or is it just your recommendation? Because can you get us to. Yes. Here and as far before we go back to city, no. And then before we go back, the vice mayor has had his hand up. And I want to I want to. Well, I guess I believe we've been given that direction. Direction? Why did we not vote on how we would like to move forward with Alameda Strong and take that vote tonight and then continue the item for future discussion at which we can have the discussion about the funding tomorrow night and the vote perhaps for the motion. I'll make the motion. Let's just set the vice mayor just said. All right. And well, I'll just it doesn't really matter to me. I will put in a recommendation for multiple funds. Okay. Okay. So you've made the motion. You made the motion, Councilmember Odie. I will second that motion. I'm going to ask it if I can just make a couple friendly, just clarifications of things I heard. But I would would that in their motion include restricting grantees who got previously received keep funds which would be a would which would be different than the last one so that we're funding people who were unsuccessful in past grant applications so giving. Staff. The leeway. Is that what you're saying? Well, I don't want to get the leeway I want to give. Okay. Personally? Okay. Councilor Brody, that's your motion. What's your thought? Um, so they didn't receive the 7500? That that that's what you're suggesting? No. P federal grants. There are. There are there are nonprofits that have received hundreds of thousands of dollars in Alameda. But my feeling is they shouldn't be competing with other nonprofits that have not received any funds but. Saying, I'm okay with it, I'm okay with that. I just think our staff's not administering this, though, right? Isn't either Ebix and working solutions administering it it. Once the payments are made. But as far as the decision of who's getting the money right and the list of applicants and then just the distinction, as I understand about the PGP, is a payroll protection program. It starts out as a loan that needs to be repaid unless you retain 100% of your workforce for a certain period of time. But, you know, if if you're saying you would like receipt of those funds to be a criteria that would wait against you receiving our fans, is that what you're asking? No, I would say if you've received them, you cannot apply. You do not qualify for these funds that I would prefer to. I would prefer to expand the number of businesses and nonprofits in Alameda who receive support rather than allow some people to receive double support and others receive zero. Okay, that's fair. I mean, I would agree to that. Okay. Okay. And then my other my other clarification, Jim, is just just because we had a lot of conversation, but I don't know that we ever heard consensus around the sole proprietor in-home issue and what your intent was there. I, I, I'm not overly supportive of that, but, but I wanted to find out. It was in the staff recommendation. So I would, I was going to suggest keeping it in there. Council has got to hand it. Can I. Yes. Okay. So two things. One, with the maker of the motion, be willing to at least limit the sole proprietors to 50% of the the grant amount, because that's a significant amount of money to give to one person who can also qualify for the federal payments, the federal pandemic assistance, which means that they can get unemployment plus $600 a week. And again. I'm sorry. Inside America, sorry. This is a distinction between I heard home based business sole proprietors and sole proprietors. Do you do you see a distinction there, Councilmember Avella? To me, I there is. But maybe too far in the weeds. Okay. Okay. Again, I mean, so I want to get clarification on that. And then I also wanted to find out if that's because if that's not to me, that's a significant thing because then we'll get we could give out more money to more people. If we if we are limiting that and I would hate for, for instance, a bunch of people that are sole proprietors who are working out of their house are the ones that end up getting all of these grants or a substantial portion of them. So I was also interested in perhaps giving some direction to staff to limit the number that we would be giving out. So can somebody make. Sure. That they are lowest? I mean, that sounds reasonable. I have no problem with it. But that just whenever your take. So from staff's perspective, if the council wants to say sole proprietors would be eligible up to half of the 7500, which is like 4750 or something like that. I don't have a problem with that. And if we want to cap the number or make it a percentage of what we receive, I think we're fine with that, too . And I would just add back to the p p issue. I would just say that the reason that we are asking that people have applied is because there was discussion previously by the council that we don't want to be the funder of first resort. Right. So I guess policy direction on that is helpful for us. Mm. But we can make the full propriety of one work at a reduced formula. Council member Villa. And then the other two clarifications that I wanted to see if they were included as if if we could increase the residential rent relief to 30 $500 still at the one month cap. Quickly, you just ran out of time. Make your second. And then the second point was on the TPP. If that's limited just to the not the larger nonprofits that have qualified for it, I would be fine with limiting it. And if that's part of the motion. Okay for me if that works for the vice mayor who made that suggestion. I will. I will. I will. If that if that's what gets us to moving this forward. Great. Great. Okay. And Madam Clerk and staff, do you have any information on the residential? Everything that's in it. Yes. And on the residential, I think we would say one month's rent not to exceed 3500. And that's how we would address that issue. Okay. Yes. Okay. All right. We have a motion by Councilmember Otis, a second by Vice Mayor Knox. Let me we have a roll call vote, please. Councilmember de SAG. Hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Mayor. As the Ashcraft high that carries by five days. Good work, everybody. The second motion. Are in effect. A motion? Yes. Councilor Rody. I guess I'll make that second motion to continue the discussion on whether or not to accept the test recommendation to not provide additional funding for the grant program until after the budget meeting tomorrow. A motion to have a second. If we can amend the motion, just be continue this item to include that conversation to the next, which is the advice we got. I would be happy to. Second and I think you need a time specific in there. Just 7 p.m.. Yeah. Okay. Sure. But I don't really want to rehash this motion. We just passed. It. We all get that. Come on, guys. We got it. We're going to move this along. So you're okay with that amendment? Yeah. Okay. Move by Odie, seconded by Inox. Right. Draw cover, please. Roadside guy. Right. Hi. Hi. I. Mayor has the Ashcroft. Eye. Carries by five eyes. Very good. All right. We're moving on to item to see. Madam, would you introduce that item, please? Recommendation to authorize the city manager to opt for commercial tenants in city owned properties. A loan conversion and forgiveness assistance program in response to the COVID 19 pandemic. Thank you. Okay. And this is being presented by his presenting. Hi. And I'm going to ask for brevity. This was not a long staff report, and our council members read their materials and the public is always capable of going to the website and reading too.