Portland committee reviews CDBG social-service applications; no funding votes taken

The Portland Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) review committee met virtually Jan. 9 to discuss social-service and related development applications; committee members asked staff questions about underwriting, ownership arrangements and use of CDBG funds but did not take formal funding votes at the session.

Committee members focused on the Youth and Family Outreach relocation request, several housing and navigator programs, immigrant legal services and a mobile medical outreach proposal from the Portland Fire Department. City staff described underwriting work on the housing-related development application and raised compliance questions about CDBG supplanting rules for the fire department proposal.

Rowan, a city staff member, told the committee the administrative application provided in the packet “doesn't need to be approved today, but it would be referenced in your letter” that ranks and scores social-service and development applications. Mary, another staff member, outlined the city's housing-development underwriting process and how low-income housing tax credit applications to the Maine State Housing Authority can leave project numbers in flux until construction financing is closed. “She dots every I, crosses every t,” Mary said of the third-party underwriter, describing a recommendation for a loan “just a little over $1,000,000” for the related development project.

On Youth and Family Outreach (YFO), the committee discussed that the organization submitted both a development application (for demolition and construction financing tied to a housing project) and a social-service application (for relocation and temporary operating costs). Staff said YFO will be the managing partner in the project’s ownership structure and that the application indicates a one-time rental expense during construction that would end once the organization occupies its new, owned space.

Committee members asked for clarity on whether YFO would maintain ownership of the Cumberland Avenue location and how the ownership would be structured. Staff said the plan is to create condominium units within the new building — one for housing and one for the childcare space — with Youth and Family Outreach as the general partner and managing partner of the ownership entity.

The committee also reviewed a Quality Housing Coalition application to fund housing navigators, noting the program’s prior CDBG awards and its projected client outcomes. Members said they ranked that application highly and appreciated that the applicant had plans to secure additional funding.

Catholic Charities’ Portland Immigrant Legal Services, a partnership with iLab, was discussed next. Staff flagged a submission error in which the applicant sent two different funding request figures; staff identified the official request as $135,000 in the packet. Committee members praised the clarity of the application and generally ranked it highly.

Funding for Ashley's Place, administered by CHAM with services provided by Spurlink (the applicant), drew comment about its narrower but important target population. Staff noted CHAM received $20,000 in CDBG funds last year for the same site and that Spurlink operates the program. Several members said the program’s focused impact and readiness to proceed weighed in its favor.

For the Portland Fire Department mobile medical outreach proposal, staff asked the applicant to clarify how current staff costs are funded to ensure CDBG would not supplant local or state funds. Staff said the applicant’s response allowed them to confirm the program is not supplanting. Committee members noted the program’s potential to serve roughly 350 high-need individuals and to reduce pressure on emergency services.

Throughout the meeting staff reminded members there are two separate application types — development versus social service — and explained that any unspent social-service award cannot be redistributed to other social-service programs but instead flows into a development contingency pot that can only be used for development awards. Members were told that development application scores are due the following Tuesday by 4 p.m. and that the committee would reconvene the following Thursday.

No funding allocations or formal CDBG awards were approved at this meeting. The only formal actions captured on the record were procedural: approval of the previous meeting minutes and adjournment of the session. The committee scheduled continued review at its next meeting, and staff will provide the uploaded underwriting memos, financial pro formas and applicant clarifications in the application portal (Neighborly) for members to reference.

Minor clarifications noted in committee discussion included: the distinction between the types of federal low-income housing tax credits (9% versus 4%) and their competitiveness; the practice of obtaining third-party underwriting before the city council approves funding; and that project budgets often change prior to construction loan closing.

The committee’s next steps are to finalize scoring and rankings for both social-service and development applications and to prepare a recommendation letter that includes the administrative application, scoring and ranking information for council consideration.