Bend AHAC subgroup rewrites public‑services application, emphasizes accessibility and HUD compliance

City of Bend staff and members of a subgroup of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee spent a meeting reviewing and revising the city’s public‑services grant application and scoring criteria, focusing on clarity for applicants, federal compliance and ways to reduce barriers for small or new nonprofits.

The work session centered on eligibility language, question design, budget and reporting fields, and the committee’s scoring rubric. Melissa Kamonya, the city’s affordable housing coordinator, opened the meeting by saying, “the purpose of this group is to take a look at our applications and scoring criteria.” Chris O’Brien, the City of Bend grants coordinator, joined the discussion and explained staff needs for federal reporting.

Why it matters: the city distributes federal and local funds to nonprofit service providers and must both meet HUD reporting rules and make the application process accessible. Committee members repeatedly raised concerns that long, highly technical questionnaires and hard limits on text deter smaller organizations and increase administrative workload for both applicants and reviewers.

Key changes and points discussed

Eligibility and application access: Committee members agreed the application should more clearly state that individual residents cannot apply and that eligible applicants are public entities and private nonprofit organizations. Staff proposed moving eligibility language higher in the application so it is visible up front rather than buried on page 5.

Application length and question design: Several members urged removing strict character caps and instead using recommended word/character ranges to reduce barriers for organizations without grantwriting staff. Isabelle Malkovich (lived‑experience seat) proposed allowing very large character fields ("20,000, 50,000 characters") while adding recommended lengths for reviewers’ guidance.

Fields to simplify and consolidate: Reviewers supported adding a short summary table at the top of each application that lists amount requested, estimated number served, and a one‑ or two‑sentence project description so reviewers can quickly see "what" and "how much" before reading long narratives. They also discussed keeping some required developer fields for federal compliance while removing or relocating repetitive items.

Budget, cost justification and documentation: Staff said HUD requires enough documentation to verify reasonableness of costs. The subgroup endorsed asking applicants to describe how each cost was determined and to flag any deviations from typical market rates. Members also recommended providing an optional budget template and asking for letters or other documentation of leveraged/committed funding (grant agreements, confirmation emails) to avoid awarding funds on unconfirmed matches.

Project metrics and impact: The committee debated how to capture impact for services that do not easily convert to "units" (for example, sidewalks or emergency relief). They agreed on combining quantitative fields (dollars requested, number served or units) with a short qualitative context prompt that asks how the funds will affect the target population and how the project aligns with the city’s priorities (the city’s five funding priorities were discussed as a reference point).

Protected populations and partnerships: Members retained questions about whether an applicant serves or partners with organizations that reach HUD‑protected groups, but agreed to reword the prompt to emphasize relationships and measurable collaboration rather than an assumption that a single organization must do everything itself. The group discussed shifting language from a narrow "Fair Housing Act" phrasing to clearer references to protected classes and relevant outreach or partnership evidence.

Confidential projects and sensitive services: Staff noted an existing HUD reporting feature that allows a project to be marked confidential (used, for example, for domestic violence shelters) and the subgroup supported including a checkbox or a way to flag projects that should not reveal precise site locations in public materials.

Duplication, collaboration and scope: The subgroup discussed and largely removed a question that invited applicants to differentiate themselves from other service providers in ways that felt likely to encourage competition rather than collaboration. Instead, the application will ask for the nature and status of partnerships and letters of support where available.

Timing, milestones and program years: Staff reminded members that CDBG is a federal program with a 12‑month program year and tighter spend‑down deadlines; a related city program (CICT) uses an 18‑month award model. Members asked for clearer milestone fields and suggested using estimated durations rather than fixed calendar start and end dates to reflect fund availability and permit timelines.

Scoring and next steps: The subgroup discussed the existing point total (about 200 points) and recommended consolidating criteria to simplify scoring. Staff will produce a test version of the application in the city’s online platform (Neighborly) for committee members to trial. The subgroup also agreed to split the public‑services application from the affordable‑housing development application (bifurcate housing and services) so each can be tailored to its programmatic goals.

Quotes from participants

Melissa Kamonya, Affordable Housing Coordinator: "the purpose of this group is to take a look at our applications and scoring criteria."

Chris O’Brien, City of Bend grants coordinator: "Hello, everybody. I'm Chris O'Brien, the City of Bend's grants coordinator."

Isabelle Malkovich, Lived‑experience seat: On character limits, she urged flexibility: "having no character limits or... 20,000, 50,000 characters."

What remains unresolved

Committee members left several drafting items for staff to return with revised wording, including exact phrasing for how applicants should document cost assumptions, how to request letters of funding commitment (acceptable evidence), and the final layout of the summary table and scoring sheet. Staff will provide a test application in Neighborly and bring a revised score sheet to the next meeting for committee review.

Ending note: The subgroup’s revisions aim to balance HUD compliance and the city’s policy priorities with practical measures that reduce barriers for small and emerging nonprofits. Staff will circulate a draft Neighborly test application and revised scoring rubric to the committee ahead of the next meeting for further edits.