Application scoring process reviewed; October 31 deadline, recusal and tallying procedures clarified

Speaker 2 led a training on the city’s application review and scoring process and set a firm application deadline of “October 31,” noting staff will screen submissions for eligibility before forwarding packets to reviewers.

The training laid out a timeline: staff review and packet preparation (packets would be distributed no later than Nov. 21 depending on volume), a reviewer scoring window roughly Nov. 21–Dec. 12, a Dec. 8 deadline to submit recusal forms, evaluation forms due Dec. 15, and a Dec. 19 tally of scores to produce ranked recommendations for the 2026 action plan and council consideration. “October 31, that’s a firm deadline,” Speaker 2 said.

Speaker 2 described what reviewers will receive: only eligible applications, a blank evaluation form, and a past-performance list compiled by staff. Staff will determine whether an application meets eligibility (for example, excluding land-acquisition requests the program does not fund) before it reaches reviewers.

Reviewers were given the scoring rubric and point caps: up to 25 points for meeting current community needs, up to 15 for meeting the national objective, up to 15 for consolidated-plan goals, past performance scored on a 0/15/25/30 scale (first-time applicants are not penalized with a zero), and up to 15 for demonstrated effectiveness and efficiency. Speaker 2 said staff will prefill requested amounts and indicate whether an applicant will accept partial funding on the tally sheet.

On allocation, Speaker 2 walked through an example with $25,000 available: the highest-ranked applicant receives its full request when possible; if an applicant refuses partial funding it is skipped and the next-ranked applicant is considered. In the example, organization 2 requested $10,000 and received full funding; organization 3 requested $5,000 and received funding; organization 4 requested $20,000 but, because only $10,000 remained and they would not accept partial funding, the panel advanced to the next ranked applicant who accepted partial funding. “We have always allocated the funds based strictly on rank,” Speaker 2 said, explaining why the panel generally funds in ranked order rather than splitting allocations across all applicants.

Recusal and confidentiality procedures were explained: reviewers who must recuse should submit a simple recusal form with the date, their name, and the organization(s) from which they must recuse; “You don’t have to explain why,” Speaker 2 said. Submitted reviewer scores will be tallied anonymously (names removed from the aggregated sheets); if recusals occur, staff will use average-score formulas to compute rankings.

After tallies are complete, staff will email the ranked recommendation and reviewers will be asked to vote to accept rankings via email rather than convening a special meeting, as they did the prior year. The recommendation will be included in the action plan presented to council.

The session ended with an opportunity for questions; no public comments were received during the meeting. The meeting then proceeded to other agenda updates before adjourning at 06:13.