Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cdbg Priorities topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Portland priority-setting task force elects chair, names co-chair and begins CDBG priority work
Summary
The Priority Setting Task Force elected Tay as chair and Kristen as co-chair, accepted procedural rules and April minutes, and began ranking priorities for Portland’s CDBG program while flagging limits in the citywide survey and HUD reporting constraints.
Cameron, staff lead for the Priority Setting Task Force, opened the virtual meeting by outlining the agenda and saying the group would review the task force rules and then elect leadership before moving to priorities and scoring for the city's CDBG program. The body conducted a roll-call acceptance of the updated rules and then held elections: Tay was chosen as chair and Kristen as co-chair.
Mary, a city staff member who spoke for program administration, introduced Laken Chapin as the new Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program manager; Laken said she looks forward to working with the task force. The panel then voted to accept the April 22 meeting minutes after a motion and roll call.
The bulk of the meeting focused on materials in the welcome packet (CDBG policies, the city resident survey, a prior task force report and other resources). Members raised three recurring themes: (1) the citywide community survey showed unusually positive satisfaction results but likely underrepresents diverse and low-income residents, (2) HUD requires standardized national indicators that limit what the city must report but the task force can adopt additional local outcome measures, and (3) scoring should balance high-cost, transformative projects against lower-cost efforts that reach more people.
Several members argued for targeted outreach and qualitative work to supplement the survey'including partnering with community organizations and conducting interviews to reach populations that are harder to survey. Mary said CDBG awards are split between public service grants (which must start and end within a fiscal year) and development/infrastructure projects (area-based and typically managed over a longer period), and that HUD data defines low- and moderate-income areas for infrastructure eligibility.
On eligibility questions, Mary clarified several program rules discussed by members: HUD'defined microenterprise assistance applies to businesses with about five or fewer employees; personal property purchases to be given directly to clients (for example, buying furniture to distribute to households) are not generally allowable under CDBG; and city procurement rules govern whether a grantee could later bid to provide services to the city. Members also urged building local outcome metrics into the allocation process so the scoring matrix rewards sustained impact and collaboration among applicants.
Cameron assigned homework: each member will rank priority activities on a 1— scale ahead of the next meeting. Staff will compile averages to form a basis for discussion and the group, led by Tay and Kristen, will refine and vote on recommended priority rankings. The meeting adjourned slightly over time with plans for follow-up and additional staff support.
