Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Our Place Application topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Panel flags budget inconsistency but finds Our Place application generally solid
Summary
The new applicant Our Place returned to seek regular funding. Staff noted inconsistent total program budget references and categorized the applicant under low-mod area for now; reviewers generally scored it as solid but ranked it lower on need compared with more urgent services.
Our Place, a returning applicant that initially used the new-applicant set-aside, appeared before the City of Portland CDBG review panel on Feb. 24 seeking additional funding. Staff told the panel the organization was no longer a new applicant and noted an inconsistent reference to the total program budget in its materials that resulted in a small point deduction.
Panel member Todd described the application as "fairly solid overall" but said he ranked it lower relative to higher-need programs. Staff explained the applicant had applied under the "low-mod area" qualification rather than "clientele" and asked Our Place to reclassify to low-mod clientele in future applications. Rowan noted staff did not deduct points for the low-mod categorization but did dock points for the inconsistent budget references.
Panelists asked whether the program serves lower-income students specifically or a broader student population; that distinction affected how some reviewers weighed need. No follow-up questions were sent at the meeting. The panel will include its ranking and any narrative comments in the materials for the city manager and city council, which will make the final funding decision.
