Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Social Service Scoring topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Allocation committee sets scoring deadline, begins draft recommendation letter amid federal funding uncertainty
Summary
At a meeting of the Portland Allocation Committee, staff and members agreed to finalize social service application scores by next Tuesday and to draft a recommendation letter to the city manager and city council. Members discussed federal funding uncertainty, the new-applicant set-aside, weighting of letters of support and minor process changes.
At a meeting of the Portland Allocation Committee, staff asked members to submit final social service scores by next Tuesday and said staff will compile the rankings and draft a letter to the city manager to accompany the committee’s recommendations to city council.
The committee’s work will determine awards from the city’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) requests, which this cycle include 10 development applications and 20 social service projects with total requests of more than $3,000,000. Staff described the current step as finalizing scores, inserting them into a draft memo and sending that memo to the city manager and council along the committee’s ranked recommendations.
Rowan, staff member, told the committee “the social service scores are due next Tuesday.” The staff presentation reviewed the social service scorecard and a draft letter that will explain the committee’s ranking, note set‑asides and outline recommended funding until the available funds are exhausted. Rowan also said staff will circulate a list of which applicants are classified as new applicants to help members apply the new-applicant set-aside rule.
Members repeatedly raised federal funding uncertainty as a risk to applicants’ budgets. One committee member asked whether applicants were updating budgets after reports of frozen federal funding; Rowan replied that applicants cannot edit submitted applications and that any budget revisions would be raised directly to staff. The committee discussed a case in which Greater Portland Family Promise had notified staff it would revisit its budget because of shortfalls.
Mary, staff member, explained how the city manages federal allocation uncertainty: the city prepares recommendations assuming level funding and includes a council order clause permitting proportional adjustments to grant awards if the HUD allocation differs from expectations. Mary said the city cannot finalize plans for use of funds until HUD posts the allocation amount.
Committee members debated whether the current scoring structure should account for grant size when ranking applications. Several said they focused on application quality rather than request size, but one member urged thinking about ‘‘best return or value for the dollars’’ and suggested impact-per-dollar could be reflected within the existing impact scoring category. Members also discussed whether the weight given to letters of support was too high; one member said letters account for 15 of 100 points and suggested emphasizing quality of letters over quantity so smaller organizations are not disadvantaged.
The committee reviewed the definition and mechanics of the new-applicant set-aside. Rowan and staff reiterated their interpretation that the set-aside applies to new applicants—organizations that have not previously received CDBG funds—not to returning applicants proposing new programs. Staff said new applicants scoring above 75 points are eligible to be considered first from a smaller 20% pool of social service funding. Staff also noted a separate, discretionary Cotton Street fund of $20,000 exists that the committee may comment on in its memo to council.
Staff asked members to provide suggested language for the draft letter and to submit any written comments by email; staff said they will incorporate those comments into the draft memo for the next meeting. Rowan said if members submit all scores on Tuesday, staff expects to have a finalized memo to present at next week’s meeting; if members need more time, there is one additional week in the schedule.
Votes at a glance: the committee approved last week’s minutes (motion to approve with one recommended change) and later approved a motion to adjourn; both motions passed without recorded opposition and were noted as unanimous on the record.
Staff will circulate the draft memo and the list of new applicants by email and will present the finalized ranking and letter at the committee’s next meeting, provided members meet the scoring deadline.
