Portland review committee removes one applicant for missing tax-exempt paperwork, flags performance and scoring questions across CDBG proposals

Portland — City staff told the CDBG social-services review committee that one applicant, Maine Soccer Development, was removed from the current review queue because it could not be established as an eligible nonprofit for CDBG funds, and the panel discussed updated performance metrics and scoring clarifications for multiple applicants.

The committee spent the meeting reviewing social-service applications for federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding. Rowan, a city staff member, told the group that Maine Soccer Development “was taken off your queue for applications to review” because staff could not establish the organization’s tax-exempt nonprofit status, and staff will work with the group ahead of the next funding round. Rowan also noted the “new applicant set aside” mechanism and how staff will handle changes to applicant performance after scoring.

Why it matters: The committee’s scoring will feed a ranked list the city council uses to allocate CDBG social-service funds. Staff and committee members repeatedly raised questions about how to apply scoring guidance — especially the sustainability criterion — and how to document low-to-moderate-income service delivery when programs serve mixed populations.

Most significant discussion points

• Eligibility and documentation: Rowan said the Maine Soccer Development application was removed because the organization “didn't have the proper nonprofit, tax exempt status that we needed.” Staff said they will assist the applicant with documentation for the next round.

• Greater Portland Family Promise: Rowan reported that the applicant submitted an update to its performance metrics describing budget hardships that have reduced staff and may reduce the number of individuals the organization can assist and units of service. Rowan asked committee members to use the updated metrics when scoring that application.

• New applicant set-aside and contingencies: Rowan described the new-applicant set-aside and the process the city follows if an applicant’s funding or capacity changes after committee scoring. Rowan said staff generally work with applicants to revise program levels; if a funded applicant withdraws, its social-service funds may move into a contingency pot and then into the development activity pot because social-service CDBG funds must be used within one year.

• Applicant reviews and documentation concerns: Committee members reviewed several applications and raised similar themes about clarity of need, leverage, and sustainability: - MaineHealth Food Pantry (new applicant): Staff said the pantries would be eligible for the new-applicant set-aside if their average score exceeds 75. Committee members said the application combined food assistance with broader supportive services and lacked clarity about which services CDBG would directly support. - Maine Academy of Modern Music (Amplify program): Staff noted the applicant remains eligible as a new applicant and that their budget allocates CDBG across multiple line items, which could increase reporting burdens. Natalie, a committee member, cited the applicant’s project information saying B9 reported “1,600, which is 80% of their clients” as low- to moderate-income, a figure members referred to when considering targeting. - Wayside (direct services), Preble Street Emergency Food Programs, and other established food providers: Members repeatedly praised the track records of long-standing food programs but debated how to score large, highly leveraged organizations whose operating budgets are substantial relative to the CDBG request. Committee members also discussed whether multiple food providers coordinate sufficiently. - Boys & Girls Club of Southern Maine (after-school transportation): Members asked whether a proposal to lease vans is a one-year fix or a sustainable solution and noted some inconsistencies between narrative and budget.

• Scoring comments and staff follow-up: Rowan said staff reviewed individual scorecards and found some very low scores or zeros in specific scoring categories that lacked explanatory comments. Rowan asked members to add brief clarifying comments to scorecards where needed and said staff might reach out to a few members to reopen scorecards to allow additions or corrections before rankings are finalized. Rowan and other staff reiterated that comments help applicants improve future applications, and scores remain the reviewers’ responsibility.

Quotes from participants

“[Maine Soccer Development] didn't have the proper nonprofit, tax exempt status that we needed,” Rowan said, explaining why the application was removed from the current review queue.

Natalie, a committee member, pointed to an applicant’s project form when discussing targeting: “B9 says how many are low to moderate income residents of Portland, and it says 1,600, which is 80% of their clients.”

Decisions and formal actions

- The committee approved the minutes from the prior meeting. (Mover recorded as Deal; outcome: approved; one abstention was recorded from a member who said they were not present at the prior meeting; the abstaining member was not named on the record.) - The committee adjourned by motion (mover recorded as Todd; outcome: approved).

Discussion vs. decisions: Committee members repeatedly identified concerns (discussion only) about applicants’ budget clarity, sustainability scoring, and whether some programs could continue without CDBG support. Staff directed that written comments be added to scorecards where low scores are given and said staff would contact some reviewers to allow clarifying comments and, if necessary, score corrections before the city’s ranked list is finalized and provided to the city council for funding decisions.

Context and next steps

Rowan told the committee that staff will contact specific members to request clarifications and may reopen some scorecards in Neighborly for comment. Staff said the committee will finalize rankings for development applications next week and that reviewers still have time to draft or adjust scores for the remaining social-service applications; staff also noted that applicants can request their anonymized scorecards after results are released to learn how to improve future applications.

Who was present: The meeting included city staff and volunteer committee members who scored CDBG social-service applications. Staff repeatedly emphasized they will work with applicants to resolve documentation problems where feasible and that the city council has the final allocation authority for CDBG awards.

Ending: The committee will reconvene for the remaining application reviews next week; staff said they will follow up by email with selected reviewers to request brief clarifying comments or, where appropriate, allow score corrections.