Ad Hoc Committee

City of Portland CDBG Priority Setting Task Force: Meeting 5 Wednesday, June 17, 2026 at 8:00 AM Zoom To submit written public comment on an agenda item, email cdbg@portlandmaine.gov. Submissions must be received by 12:00 pm the day before the CDBG PSTF meeting to guarantee their inclusion in the agenda packet. All submissions must include the commenter's name and legal address. To help ensure your comment is submitted for the correct item, please include the name of the agenda item (see below). REMOTE ACCESS INFORMATION: The CDBG Priority Setting Task Force (PSTF) will conduct this meeting remotely via Zoom pursuant to the Remote Meeting Policy adopted by the CDBG PSTF. Allow your computer to install the free Zoom app to get the best meeting experience. If you are not able to attend live either in person or via Zoom, a recording will be available in the Agenda Center following the meeting. For public comment via Zoom, you will need to use the "raise your hand" feature. To raise your hand via the telephone, please hit *9. You will be unmuted by the host when it is time for public comment. You are invited to a Zoom webinar! When: Jun 17, 2026 08:00 AM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Jun 17, 2026 08:00 AM Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/j/84398845920?pwd=x46c5hLRwObPWWhOMlo1oayF2WymV3.1 Passcode:460875 Phone one-tap: +13017158592,,84398845920# US (Washington DC) Join via audio: +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) Webinar ID: 843 9884 5920 International numbers available: https://portlandmaine-gov.zoom.us/u/kb2QvOXTUl 1. Welcome and Roll Call 2. Review and accept Minutes of CDBG Task Force from the June 3rd, 2026 meeting a. June 3, 2026 Meeting Minutes 3. PSTF Process & Application Overview 1 Page 1 City of Portland Wednesday, June 17, 2026 at 8:00 AM CDBG Priority Setting Task Zoom Force: Meeting 5 4. Decide & Draft Priority Impact Levels a. Neighborhood Investment & Infrastructure b. Housing Availability c. Economic Opportunity d. Address the Needs of the Unhoused 5. Review Guiding Principles a. CDBG Guiding Principles 6. Adjournment a. Next Meeting: July 1, 2026 at 8AM - 10AM via Zoom 2 Page 2 Priority Setting Task Force - Meeting 4 Minutes This meeting was held on June 3rd, 2025 and is the fourth of ten meetings scheduled for the Priority Setting Task Force. Meeting Information ●​ Meeting Context: Fourth of 10 Priority Setting Task Force meetings focusing on reviewing needs, goals, and activities for future funding. Attendees ●​ Tae Chong (Chair) ●​ Kristen Dunphey (Co-Chair) ●​ Matt Starr ●​ Teale Smith ●​ Miyabi "Abbie" Yamamoto ●​ Barbara Ginley ●​ Stephanie Miller ●​ Gwendolyne Tuttle-Beaudoin ●​ Jill Johanning ●​ Colleen Cooper ●​ Carly Lappas HCD Staff ●​ Mary Davis (HCD Division Director) ●​ Laken (HCD Staff) ●​ Cameron George (HCD Staff) Actions Taken ●​ Approval of Minutes: The meeting minutes from the previous meeting were unanimously approved. Matt made the motion, and Teale and Abby seconded. ●​ Task Assignments for Staff: Rather than wordsmithing live, the committee tasked HCD staff (Cameron, Mary, and Laken) with revising and editing the Priority Goals to incorporate committee feedback while ensuring alignment with CDBG eligibility rules. ●​ Agenda Adjustments: The committee agreed to move criteria like "Flexible service" and "Development of private-public partnerships" to the scoring matrix discussion, rather than listing them as standalone priority goals. ●​ Items Tabled: The committee decided to defer the discussion on the "Needs of the Unhoused" and the final high/medium/low priority rankings to the next meeting due to time constraints. Page 3 Major Discussion Points Defining Evaluation Lenses ●​ The committee established two primary lenses for evaluating proposed activities: whether they reach the most people, and whether they create transformative change. ●​ "Transformative" was discussed extensively. A proposed definition included: “Promoting creative responses that provide short to long term community wide impacts” ●​ The Committee emphasized it is creating a framework for the next five years, so goals must remain broad enough to invite creative solutions from applicants without being overly restrictive. Neighborhood Investment and Infrastructure ●​ Public Safety Improvements: Tae proposed adding public safety (e.g., lighting, technology, clearing sightlines) to the priorities. Mary clarified that while broad public safety infrastructure (like streetlights) is a city responsibility, targeted efforts by nonprofits (like neighborhood watch programs or targeted safety tech) could be eligible. Staff will refine the wording to reflect this. ●​ Snow Removal: Jill advocated for snow removal (sidewalks and driveways) to be included to address accessibility and housing retention for vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and disabled. Mary cautioned against funding general city maintenance, but the committee agreed to frame this as addressing a specific gap for target populations, such as volunteer shoveling programs. Housing Availability ●​ Multilingual Support: The committee supported adding multi-language communication and engagement services as a high priority. Members emphasized that this involves more than basic interpretation; it requires cultural brokerage and process navigation (e.g., multilingual housing navigators) to ensure housing retention and understanding of leases. Economic Opportunity ●​ After-School Programs and Childcare: These were discussed as crucial components of job retention support services. While Barbara raised concerns about the complexities of food procurement using federal funds, the group agreed to focus on the programming and childcare aspects as a priority for working families. ●​ Barrier Removal Improvements: Jill explained this refers to ADA accessibility improvements for existing buildings (e.g., adding ramps or lifts). The committee agreed this pairs logically with facade improvement priorities. ●​ Multilingual Specialists: Abby reiterated that economic opportunity programs need multilingual specialists (e.g., community engagement coordinators) rather than just interpreters to effectively help individuals find and retain employment. Page 4 Next Meeting ●​ Complete the Address the Needs of the Unhoused section ●​ Prioritize Activities Based on High/Medium/Low Priority ●​ Review Guiding Principles if time permits Page 5 This section is taken from the 2025 CDBG Policies (pgs 9 - 11); please refer to the 2025 CDBG Policies document for additional information. VIII. SCORING CRITERIA Applications will be reviewed by staff to establish eligibility with the federal eligibility criteria outlined in the above sections. If staff determines an application to be ineligible, the applicant will be notified and the CDBG Allocation Committee will be made aware. Staff will review all eligible applications and provide comments on the organization’s capacity to deliver proposed services. All eligible applications will be evaluated by the CDBG Allocation Committee (see Rules and Regulations on City of Portland website), who will generate scores and award recommendations, which in collaboration with the City Manager will then be presented to the City Council, for final review and approval. Funding recommendations will be determined by utilizing the following guiding criteria: ●​ Consistent - All projects and programs will be reviewed with respect to the Consolidated Plan and other HUD requirements; City goals, priority impact levels, and other CDBG or HOME investments. Proposals should be coordinated with relevant City Departments where appropriate and align with City initiatives. ●​ Measurable Community Impact - Programs and projects will be evaluated based on how well they create a significant and measurable community impact. ●​ Diversity and Inclusiveness - Programs and projects shall address the community’s diversity and create a culture of belonging. ●​ Priority to Lower Incomes - Priority will be given to projects and programs that serve the lowest income persons. ●​ Leveraged Funding - CDBG cannot be the only source of funding for a program or project; leveraging other funds is essential. ●​ Location* - Project benefits the targeted LMI area or neighborhood and considers other nearby improvements. ●​ Sustainability* - Project demonstrates benefit to the environment through energy efficiency or similar considerations, as well as demonstrates economically sustainable practices. ●​ Letters of Support and MOUs - Demonstration of support from peer organizations and clients. *Does not apply to social service applications. The CDBG Allocation Committee will score each application based on the criteria above. Each Committee member will rate how the application addresses each scoring category using one of the following: Absent, Very Poor, Poor, Fair, Good, Outstanding. There will be corresponding point values for each rating which will total a maximum of 100 points. Page 6  Goal, Priority Impact Level & Community Need 30 Total Goal 15 Priority Impact ​ (5pts high Priority, 2pts priority, 0pts eligible activity) 5, 2, or 0 Community need 10 25 to 30 Total Points Guiding Principles: Activity Dependent Measurable community impact 10 10 Social Service or Diversity and inclusiveness 5 Construction 10 Social Service or Priority to lower incomes 5 Construction Location (construction only) 5 Sustainability (construction only) 5 Capacity to deliver: 25 Total Financial need 5 Leveraged funding 5 Experience providing service 5 Readiness to proceed 5 Financial stability 5 Partnership/Collaboration 15 Total PENALTY POINTS DEDUCTED Missing section/s 1 point deducted per item Failing to follow Submission Guidelines, section I.C.3 (including but not limited to: application not typed, page 0.25 point deducted per limits, max/min request amounts, etc) instance 0.25 points deducted per Errors (e.g. in budget calculation) instance Page 7