Committee debates whether 'LEAN recovery' should be a multi-year priority for grants

The committee spent a substantial portion of the meeting debating whether the committee's LEAN recovery priority should be a one-year emphasis or run for multiple years. Several committee members argued recovery from the hurricane remains a long-term need and suggested a five-year priority to allow sustained support. "People are still trying to figure out where they're gonna live... People can't pay their rent. People don't have food," a member (Katie, speaker S3) said, arguing multi-year support could better stabilize households.

Other members pushed back on giving LEAN recovery an additional scoring advantage, warning that a separate scoring layer could skew results and move some projects ahead of others that demonstrate greater objective need. The chair (S2) said, in part, that "the prism of the LEAN skews the perception of need," urging caution before embedding a prolonged priority into scoring.

Committee members explored compromises, including phasing a priority in over several years rather than a permanent extra score, and asking applicants to document direct agency impact and evidence rather than rely solely on narrative. Several members emphasized that applications should include concrete impact data and that reviewers should be able to assess capacity and execution plans.

Why this matters: adopting a multi-year priority or adding scoring weight would change which organizations receive funding and could have lasting effects on who is eligible and how the limited pool is distributed. Committee members asked staff to bring refined language and scoring options for future consideration rather than make an immediate rule change.

Next steps: staff will take committee feedback and prepare options for wording and scoring to present at a future meeting.