Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Funding Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews scoring, communications and potential open application model for housing funding
Summary
Committee members reviewed the recent application cycle, flagged areas for clearer staff communications and recommended revisiting scoring criteria and materials organization; staff agreed to examine options including a potential open application process for some funding streams.
Committee members reviewed staff’s post‑cycle survey and discussed improvements to application materials, scoring guidance, and reviewer communications. Melissa Kamagna, the City’s affordable housing coordinator, presented survey results and asked the committee for feedback on where to improve the process.
Five of nine committee members completed the survey; members agreed staff guidance and proposal quality were strengths but flagged areas for improvement, especially clarity and consolidation of communications and scoring guidance. Several members asked for a central repository of materials and consistent subject lines for committee emails. One member said that receiving materials in fewer, consolidated emails would help manage time and preparation; another asked for clearer instructions in the application describing how to answer scoring questions.
Committee members raised issues with the Neighborly review platform and scoring inconsistency when questions do not map to particular application types. Staff said Neighborly has advantages for file and loan tracking but that the system’s flexibility is limited without additional cost; staff offered to convene a scoring‑criteria review session and to consider options for providing guidance to applicants on how to address scoring questions.
The committee also discussed an ‘‘open application’’ approach (first‑come or queued applications as funding becomes available) as a way to capture time‑sensitive opportunities (for example, developers who identify a property and need rapid funding). Staff said open applications are used elsewhere and could be structured in several ways; they said CDBG timelines and federal public‑notice requirements add complexity and that a staff proposal with options could be brought back for committee consideration.
Members asked staff to: consolidate and better label meeting materials and funding communications, schedule a scoring‑criteria review before the next funding cycle, and engage applicants for input on process design. Staff agreed to present options for improved communications and for an open application framework at a future meeting.
