Community Development Block Grant (cdbg) Commission - Regular Meeting

Great. We'll call the meeting to order then. I think that the first order of business is consideration of the agenda or consideration of the minutes. Our minutes from our meeting from February 3. There's copies over there, or I think they were sent as an attachment. Did anyone have any changes or, modifications to those minutes? I would look for a motion to approve.

So moved.

Do you need a second?

Second.

Thanks, Donald. Any questions, insurance issues? Alright. Then we will assume that those are approved. Thank you. That's the the item on the agenda is public comments on items not on the agenda. Is there anyone registered to speak? Or

Not on the line.

Is there anything not on

the agenda that you wish to speak on? No. Alright. Then, we are gonna talk about the home and CDBG draft 2025 caper. I don't think that's around the table too.

It is. Yep. So this is, the draft consolidated annual performance evaluation report that we are required to complete each year, per HUD. So this is an opportunity for us to look at how we did last year, so the year prior, 2025, both with our performance outcomes as well as the funds that we've spent. And 2025 was the first year of our five year consolidated plan, so it's a good opportunity to see not only how we did in 2025, but also, the progress we'll be making towards the five year plan, so when it ends in 2029.

And this is just a draft. There are some edits that we're making and finalizations to the CAPER. But I wanted to bring it to this committee because it's an opportunity for you to see with the project areas. And I'll just share my screen. It's easier to talk about it.

So this is the this is just the title page of the draft paper. And it's year one of our five year consolidated plan. And the reason this is important is because for this committee today and next month is that we are taking a look at what our numbers are and how we will prioritize the project areas for the following year, which would be 2027. So it's almost like we're in between years right now. We're looking at how we did in 2025.

We're already in 2026, and we've already got some funding recommendations that have been approved for 2026. But then we're looking towards 2027 and how we can allocate the funding and priorities for that next year. Again, this is a draft report. Most of our numbers are in here and almost finalized. But I wanted to highlight, this section that you see.

2025 was kind of an odd year because our programs, most a lot of them got a late start because our federal contracts also, came later than we expected. But we were able to serve a total of 719 individuals, with CDBG and home funds. And some of these numbers, cross over into different project areas or they're counted as a household or an individual. So I'll try to explain the best I can. But with our economic development, we served a 100 and or 139 businesses were assisted.

86 jobs were created or retained. Seven households were provided with affordable housing units, rental or owned. 25 households were supported through home rehabilitation. So that's the major or minor home repair, either acquisition and mortgage assistance. So that's combined.

And then three zero six individuals were served through our public services programs that we fund. So overall, that's that's really good. Our agencies that we funded did a really good job in meeting those objectives last year. But what I wanted to highlight too, as we move forward in determining our priorities for 2027, I'll just scroll down to page, this looks like page two of the paper. Just highlighting here that on the far right columns, you'll see what our expected program year is.

So that was 2025. So that's what we expected to do. The column to the right is what we actually did. And then the final right column is just a percentage. A lot of these numbers in this table the table might look funky, but it's what it's what comes out of our online reporting system, and I try to edit it and make it look nicer.

So we are definitely meeting needs of public services, which we typically do every year. And the next one is our community housing development organization or CHOTO. We just did not have any applicants. The economic development, like I said, we had jobs retained or created and then businesses assisted. We definitely met the jobs category, and then businesses assisted, almost met the goal. And then if you scroll down just a little bit to the next page, I'm just highlighting some of these things for you to page three,

highlighting

that the home rehabilitation. So the second row that you see, 15 out of 23 were accomplished for 2025. And then if you look down a little bit, you'll see, the '23 and the zero, and this is the TBR, the tenant based rental assistance. TBR did not get started in 2025 just because the contracts were delayed due to our federal funding being delayed. So they were not able to get started.

However, they're starting in 2026. So I'm just I'm pointing those out because as we approach how we're funding agencies in 2027, just keeping in mind maybe where some gaps are or where we want to prioritize that based upon this CAPER, based upon our cons consolidated plan goals, and then also based on citizen input. So in March, at our full CBBG commission meeting, we'll have our annual public hearing. And the public hearing will invite members from the public to comment on this CAPER as well as provide input on priorities for 2027. So it's it's a more meaningful way to determine how we're funding agencies, for the following year.

So just keep in mind that these numbers are pretty much set, but there are some minor tweaks within this consult within this CAPER that will present at the CDBG commission meeting. We don't need to vote on this today. It's kind of, you know, for your awareness as the art moves forward in developing RFPs, evaluation criteria, and then finally making those funding recommendations for the following year. So I will stop with that. Are there any questions on the CAPER?

So the first three columns here, those are the the overall five year goal, and the last three columns and are what we did last year. Right?

Yep. Okay. So the first yep.

So the numbers This really drives you have that other spreadsheet, and this is driving, like you know, we gotta fill this bucket and and, you know, so we might

weigh heavier towards those. Right. Right.

So what do we do with, like like, a or whatever? So so nobody applied for that. Are do we have to proactively go out

and seek those folks?

Or

We we try. Yep. So we try. So there are very very specific requirements for a CHOTO. And a lot of entitlement communities like Dane County have trouble funding CHOTOs. So HUD requires us to set aside a certain percentage of funding for CHOTO, which is has to be a nonprofit that does housing development. And so if none exists, then nobody's applying.

No. I know one, so I'm gonna get a

Yeah. Yeah. No. I mean, it seems like there's a couple that Mhmm. It had been certified. Right?

I don't know of any up hand. Do you?

I can

see that someday.

Hello. Hi. I'm probably a big head on the screen, so hello. I just wanna say, yes. To answer your question, Kathy, there are a couple nonprofits that have been previously certified as being It's both not only that the entity itself is a CHOTO.

CHOTO, but also that they're engaging in a CHOTO activity. And it's our understanding that those that are eligible as a CHOTO haven't engaged in an activity that would be eligible. And then to answer the other commissioner's question about what happens with those CHOTO funds, it's a use it or lose it situation. So if we cannot allocate it to a CHOTO, if there is no waiver on the CHOTO funds, then we do have to return the funds back to HUD. So it it is our is extremely important for us to try to identify an eligible organization and eligible activity

that we

can apply those funds to.

Joanna, this is Jeremiah. I believe the last CHOTO funds that we had distributed were for Habitat for Humanity. Is that not correct?

No. We've been trying to work with Habitat to get them to be a CHOTO. This was, before there was a leadership change, and I know we were not successful in getting them to convert over to a Pretty much the biggest barrier for nonprofits is that a third of their board has to be representatives of the community they serve. Meaning, they have to be either, like, the they themselves would have to be low to moderate income or they'd have to be elected officials of, like, an area that is predominantly low to moderate income. And so, given the strict requirements about a third of your board being that requirement, most nonprofits make a decision if it's worth their time to do do so.

Joanna, I have a question. So, this is more on the commissioner side. So what happens if a commissioner or an so a nonmember staff, so me and everyone else here, besides obviously you, Sydney Cindy, excuse me, and then the other staff who I'm forgetting their names. I'm so sorry, guys. What happens if we do have a nonprofit in mind? What can the commissioner like, a commissioner do kind of in that process, which doesn't, what's it called, break any rules per se?

Yeah. So that's a really, really great question. If you have a nonprofit in mind, then I think the first thing to do is try to connect staff, so Cindy and or myself, with that organization. And we'd be more than happy to sit down with the organization to have a better understanding at, like, are they a Choto already in a different entitlement community? Could be that they're already working in Madison. Right? But they haven't done any work in Dane County. We would wanna walk them through, like, what is that process in getting certified here for Dane County? If it's someone who has no CHOTO experience at all, then we definitely the conversation would be a little bit different where we're walking them with more what are the requirements, what is an, CHOTO eligible activity, and then trying to find synergy between those two.

Got it. Thank you for answering my question.

Yeah. Do you have someone in mind?

No. I do know for a fact, what's it called? I have staff sent me kind of, things about Chodo's, and that is something that I know when we first had our first, commission meeting, that was something that was, like, something that we could improve on for the commission. And so, I'm always like, oh, that's kind of a cool idea. So, yeah, just trying to throw that out there and kinda see where where it heads.

Yeah. Thank you.

I believe the, Veterinary Community Land Trust is a charter?

It's management and theory charter for the city of Madison. Yep. I it's I don't I'm not quite sure if they've applied for funding in Dane County, so that could be a potential entity to work with.

It's a partnership one?

It used to be one. Yeah. I don't know if they kept up their certification or not.

Again, so I would the way I'm reading is it, this is a very meaty document. Mhmm. Yeah. Right? And Yeah. There's a lot of work and and everything else that goes into this. Yeah.

But it's it's just sort

of a progress report. Right? Yeah. Yeah. We still have time to the four years yet to meet all these standards. And so it'll be really more important when we get to the last year. Right?

And then

suddenly have those. And then the the the buckets that we're lacking in, to me, it seems like it's because of lagging in applicants, not necessarily

carrying down people or not funding them or those sorts of things.

Right. Yep. Or some of these categories or lines are in our five year plan, but we just might have not funded something in 2025, not because of lack of applicants, but because we chose not to issue an RFP. So an example would be where the housing, like, new construction even though it says we might have had five rental cons units constructed. That was done in 2024 but closed in 2025, but we didn't do any RFPs. Like, you'll see that that column says zero for program expected

Mhmm.

Year, for the year, but we actually closed five of them. So it's, the the online system that we input our program activities into, sometimes it doesn't know, like, you know, what year things are funded by or anything, but it it kind of the output is that we're, you know, with these numbers, what we're what we're doing today for 2025. Yeah. This is

kind of following up on Ted's question, but the last three columns are what we did in 2025. And the the strategic plan refers to the general five year plan. Yes. So we proposed, to serve 1,250 people in the uh-oh.

Yep. No. I'm just yep. I'm sharing my

screen again. So we propose to serve that number, in the five year plan. And so we've done 306 of them in 2025. So the idea is that we would look at that column percent complete, like, fourth from to see what we still need to fill in.

Correct.

And so we've already met the five year obligation for jobs?

Technically, yes. Then so yep. So that's that's actually a good point, and it goes to our our next question. But I'll leave this here in case others have questions on this. But the next item on the agenda is taking a look at what the categories are. So if we're already meeting our goals for jobs created or retained, our team is going to look at, okay. That's great. But maybe we don't prioritize that line next year or the year after. Maybe we prioritize businesses assisted with that funding pot of economic development, if that makes sense. So it's a good way to say, oh, okay.

So what are these organizations doing that's making them, you know, exceed these goals, which is great? And so then how do we, for the next few years, look at making sure that the funding is also going to those categories that we're not meeting our goals in?

Mhmm.

Alright. I just wanna make sure I was looking at the right column in order

to Yep.

Make that assessment.

And, again, this table is just an output of our online system. So there's and I guess I should be should get look nicer, but I'm trying. Okay. Are there other questions on the CAPER? Again, this will be presented at the March CDBG Commission meeting as a public hearing as well. And then the commission would approve the submission to HUD at that time.

All right. Thank you. Moving on to the second item under presentations, the draft 2027 action plan project areas RFP funding priorities.

So, again, this is just something for the art to be aware of. I'll bring that up here. Let's just bring it up. So each year, we determine how we want to, develop our RFPs. And these RFPs are based upon, again, looking at our consolidated plan goals, the project areas within those goals, and then determining which RFPs to issue for the following year.

So what the art will be doing this year and which will also be part of the public hearing in March is that we're looking at the CAPER that we just saw. We're looking at our consolidated plan goals, and then we're allowing citizen and community input into these priorities and project areas for 2027. And once that CDBG commission meeting concludes and we determine what the priority areas or project areas are for 2027, then we finalize the RFPs that will be issued to the public. So as you can see, we have our goals or categories that are within the consolidated plan. And then under each goal, there's a project area.

So those project areas might have one or more RFPs that are issued. So instead of one gigantic RFP with all of these things, we issue RFPs for project area. It's just easier that way. And so our team has been looking at the CAPER, the consolidated plan, and also, what areas we want to adjust for these RFPs for 2027, and we'll present that to the art next month as well. So I'm just showing you this so you can see what the breakdown looks like.

And we'll also determine, how to allocate funding per RFP in advance. Like, this is what we have available for this category. This is how much agencies or applicants can apply for, and then we'll go from there. We have some thought we're developing some thoughts on how the art can, I guess, more thoughtfully kind of think about how to allocate the funds to some of the applicants that are applying in these project areas? So we will we will talk about that in another meeting.

This is kind of for the art to take a look at and to consider as we move forward. But if there are any questions on this, please let me know. I think there are I think this is the only page. Yep. Just to be clear that

this is for the RFPs that will be issued in the spring Mhmm. For funding in 2027 because we've already done this for 2026.

Mhmm.

And those percentages aren't included in this column. Not yet. Because it's just 2025. Right? Okay.

Right. So so what what we saw in the CAPER was just 2025. We don't know how 2026 will look yet. I mean, we have an idea because we're funding agencies to, you know, administer these funds through their different project areas. So we have an idea. We actually we know, you know, how much funding all these agencies are getting for 2026, but we don't know what those outcomes. Well, I mean, we have an idea what those outcomes look like because that's what they applied for. They said in their application, we're serving x number of people or businesses. But then at the end of the year, when they provide us their actual numbers, then we'll have an idea, and we'll know what the actuals are for 2026. So yeah.

So the the midyear that we're in right now is kind of that that middle ground where we don't quite know exactly what it'll look like. But that's okay because we we know generally that these categories that you see here are typically the ones that are going to be here for the next couple of years. It's just a matter of how much funding we're allocating based upon how we're doing and how much funding we have.

Alright. Any questions? Right. Then I think we can move on to item number three, which is the CDBG Pro Housing RFP draft.

Thanks, Helen. Good afternoon, everybody. Is to talk about this, and Joanna to support with there any any other questions. We are just gonna be providing so if you have this draft, we're not gonna go very deeply into it. We're just gonna be providing a a overview of the r RFP, and then we're gonna you know, later, we'll move into the the.

One thing that we just wanna make sure is that, you know, that this is this is a draft. There are some things that are being changed, not changed, updated, but those are just minimal changes. And one of the things to to make sure that we that that you know is that our we one of our goal is to make sure that the RFP is easy enough for municipalities so it has become a burden And also for you, the reviewers, to make sure that it's not a lot of, you know, complicated stuff, so it will make it easier as well, for for for you. We have a number of debates. We anticipate releasing the RFP on March 23.

We are gonna be hosting a municipal information webinar on March 11, and you're welcome to join. I know we already have Ted and Anthony registered for that, and that's gonna be at 2PM on March 11. There's still time for you to register. And then in that webinar, we're gonna be talking about some of the requirements, and we're gonna have a number of municipalities who are interested in in applying for these funds. We're also gonna be having office hours the week of March 16 for questions and answers specifically to help municipalities to understand the CDBG requirements.

The application deadline is April 24. So, you know, just a little bit of overview when it comes to the timeline. We talked about this. We have have shared some information about this before. We have a total of $1,000,000 for funding. Municipalities are gonna be encouraged to request from 15, not encouraged. They are gonna be allowed to request 15,000 to a $150,000. So the minimum will be 15,000. The maximum will be 50 a 150,000. We anticipate multiple awards.

So if we if after the first, you know, round, we come out unsubscribe undersubscribe, they were gonna be doing another another round of awards. So, you know, we can then use all the funds. So that's, you know, just general when it comes to that. One of the things for, you know, I think as as we are trying to understand this new RFP and and this project is new to to Dade County, and it is also gonna be new to to the commissions. We wanna make sure that, you know, we know that this is a planning and policy reform RFP.

It supports implementation ready activities, and we're gonna talk a little bit more about that. Last time, we talked about shovel ready activities. We have changed the name from shovel ready to implementation ready activities, and we'll go a little bit more about that. We need to make sure that the activities are, ready to remove barriers to affordable housing, including, and I'm just gonna mention some zoning and land use updates, permitting and development review improvements, and other planning and policy reforms that unlock near term housing development. As long as activities remain planning and policy, you know, that's what we wanna fund.

That's what this is is for Sony and reform updating is is supposed to fund. What is what it will not fund? It will not fund land acquisition, construction, infrastructure, installation, site specific development cost. So just to give a little bit of a background, and just mentioning this, again, expanding opportunities of municipalities in Dane County. And we are we're actually doing a lot of work in various municipalities to the webinars, invite them to the office hours to make sure that they they know about this this funding opportunity.

I think we've been sending emails every two emails every every week. And and one of the things that we're also gonna be doing is we're gonna be calling some of the municipalities that maybe we know that they were interested in doing some of this zoning, you know, that type of work. Just one thing to remember, this RFP implements the 10 county pro housing action plan, which we are working right now. Our goal is to submit it on March 11 to HUD. And then, you know, once it gets approved, you know, we can move, continue working with that.

And, also, it aligns with the regional housing strategy, which you are also gonna know it as a RHS. One of the things that is super important is that the projects are aligned with RHS priorities, particularly strategy four, which is to advance zoning and court reforms to increase housing choice and supply. And I'm almost done here. The goal is to support projects that are implementation ready. And, you know, again, last time we talked about what is what is meant.

We're gonna be addressing that, shortly and capable of demonstrating measurable outcomes within the contract period. So their municipalities are gonna be able to apply for two categories that are gonna able to demonstrate that there are implementation ready. And you can see that in the document category a, which is a thirty six month implementation, which is broader scope. There are two activities connected to category a. At least 60% of the required milestones within twenty four hours, and we wanna make sure that, obviously, we address four months.

Twenty four months.

Twenty four months. Did I say hours? Okay. I just wanted to make sure that

really shovel ready.

I just wanted to see if you guys were paying attention. Excellent. I will have twenty four hours in my notes here, so I need to change that. And and, obviously, we need to make sure that a 100% completion within thirty six months. And then category b, which twenty four month implementation, more focused scope, and we're gonna talk a little bit more about that later.

At least 60% within eighteen months and a 100% within twenty four months. One thing that is very important, we need to make sure that when applicants submit this, that this is you know, there is a certification, that they are really ready to be able to implement this work. Just to help us understand, clarify the difference between category a and b, and, you know, obviously, you'll have a little bit more time in the future as you learn more about this. It may be helpful to think about the scope of the reform and the amount of work finance to complete it. For instance, category a, a broader scope.

The category activities typically involve broader policy updates or comprehensive regulatory changes that may require more extensive analysis, stakeholders engagement, or or enhanced development. In other words, it takes longer. There are many other processes. There are things that might take a little bit longer for for that for that to happen. And the category b is a little bit more focused.

So we're talking about, you know, activities that will have to do with reducing or eliminating minimum parking requirements, allowing duplexes, triplexes, establishing or expanding accessory dwelling unit, online permitting, creating approved housing plans or development templates. You know? So kind of just to give you an idea, and I know this we we are throwing a lot information at you, but so that, you know, when you get, this added piece that you have a a clear idea as to what this is all that this this will is related to. Caleb, anything that I might have forgotten?

No. I think it was all good.

Okay. Then We're gonna stop for any

questions.

We questions. If you have any questions

So, again, this is just towns, villages, and cities in Dane County.

In Dane County. Only pop.

Yep. So it's only, like Yeah. 25 or something group people.

No. So we have 60

municipalities. Yeah.

Sixty sixty municipalities. Okay. And what actually we're doing just

We don't expect all 60 to Yeah.

No. But one of the things that we are doing is really, you know, looking to, you know, what are, like, the regular players and then who are the ones who maybe we have never heard of or, you know, like anyway, so some of the townships, some of the villages, and and cities as well.

So So there's

a 60. Yeah.

And includes Madison.

Yep. Mhmm. But the the county itself doesn't qualify for this. Right? Correct.

Yeah. But Madison does because it's not a urban kind of consortium brand. It's, you know, by.

Of that.

Right. But they I I assume that they have a fairly sophisticated zoning and development department, whereas, like, I live in town at Dunne probably doesn't have that level of sophistication. Yeah. So

Are there any other questions? I just have so if I understand it correctly, category a and category b are both the sort of changing rules related to barriers for creating affordable housing. But one is just category a because it's more extensive. They have to do more work, more stuff. Category b is is just and will they indicate which one they're doing on their application?

And they can apply for both. It's just they'll need to then have two timelines to be able to

clearly Yeah. Got it. Got it. So it really has to do with the timeline.

Yes. And that was feedback that we got from planning. We went through this. With the regional housing strategy, making sure it was all aligned. We get feedback about those timelines on the implementation. Makes sense. So they're able to get really good feedback on that.

Okay. One of the things that, if I may add, we're not gonna go through this because of time constraints, but, you know, we are using a logic model. That's how we are asking them the question, You know? What category you are gonna be working towards? And they have two two activities that they can choose within category a and 22 activities that they can choose within category b.

So and we're gonna be you know? I mean and and you see it here in this table where they will they are gonna choose the barrier. And, again, we're not spending too much time here, but just so that we it's a little bit more clear and we understand the barrier then, you know, the output, the input, and the impact. And this way, it would also be a little bit more straightforward. And, also, for you as the reviewers, you will you know, instead of reading two two hundred pages, and you will just be able to look at the geologic model and review it to to see if it is actually connected to to the the activities.

So what's an example of a project that you would expect to come in for, I mean, I guess I'm I'm imagining that for most of them, it will be hiring consultants to help figure out what's going on with their zoning and but do they have to have bids from consultants in order to submit the application?

No. So RHS has a tool that they've developed that helps identify the different barriers, and then you can also use that for model zoning guidance. So what we're doing is we're using that RHS tool as the way to identify barriers that have been prioritized within Dane County through RHS. And then they're able to connect that to one of the eligible activities for pro housing and then go through the logic model. So they will hopefully have already identified that.

Then in the budget, they need to bring in a consultant just because they don't have the capacity and they wanna bring someone in to help them expand on that, they can do that. And that's something we'll talk about with them with, like, office hours, Help them with technical assistance to make sure that they're hiring the consultants properly, that they're doing the three bids, making sure that it fits under suit.

And then

And that doesn't have to be done to submit the application? No.

But they have to be able to do that within the timeline

Right. That they have. Get the work done.

Yes.

Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Anything? Okay. So I'll do So you've gotten people signed up for the information session?

Yeah. We do have it, and it is very diverse as to the municipalities that are signing up. Mhmm. You know, we have, say, typical players, you know, not pick up players, the, you know, the the the cities, but then we also have some towns and some villages, which you know? And and that's why, you know, we are we are trying and if you know of a municipality that might be interested in this, and maybe they do not know. And, again, we've been how many how many contacts did we set it to? One sixty?

It was one seventy,

I think.

One seventy. So, again, we've been sending this information, but, you know, we never know. Mhmm. Then there might be someone that might not know that this opportunity exists, and we wanna make sure that that it is it is out there. I

have a question. This is Jeremiah. Have we engaged the league of municipalities at all with things with opportunities such as this?

May I have a list for that too?

Yes. Yeah.

So we've been sending rep. Yeah. So we've been sending the invitation to municipalities. Mhmm.

Oh, I was thinking the league of municipalities.

Oh, the league of municipalities.

I think Ashley shared that list with us. I don't know if we know what happened.

Yeah. I think yeah. Not at a meeting or anything. Right? But No. That list is this is, like, the same list we have. Right? So Okay. There there has been information sent

Yeah.

To those contacts, but I don't think there was anything that we

The only thing that I that that one of the things that we did and that might not refer to what commissioner, are talking about, we we did do a presentation and, you know, this funding opportunity to the ten county municipalities group. And I'm not mentioning that incorrect, but, yeah, they they invited us to present about this this opportunity. Yeah. The Dane County Municipalities Association.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah. I was just kinda wondering, like, what groups

Yeah.

What groups we might be able to engage that even could do, like, an informational email, informational webinar, even you know, just any sort of way to engage a specific audience where the the their audience are the individuals that we're kind of seeking out for these opportunities.

If you have I mean, you know, and and, again, if if you have any list or any contacts, send it our way. Yeah. Because we wanna make sure that that we put that information out there. Okay.

Excellent. Thank you very much. And these are gonna be due back when?

April 24. April 24.

So that's when we would start looking I mean, so that will be before the regular cycle of application. And

and one thing that, you know, again, we're not gonna deep dive into the whole RFP, but there are a total of five questions.

Mhmm.

And the only questions that you folks have to worry about is four questions. Mhmm. So we wanna make sure that both is easier for the municipalities, but at the same time, it's it's easier, you know, for it's not a a huge burden when it comes to reviewing all this information.

Mhmm. Yeah. And, presumably, these are gonna be just I mean, you're gonna have enough funding for most of the people who apply, you think.

You bet.

And so it will really be sort of saying yes or no to the municipality. I mean, we're scoring them. But okay. Joanna, you have your hand up.

You actually just nailed it. What I was gonna say is in the proposal, we said that we're gonna serve four to seven municipalities. And while a million dollars does sound like a lot of money, if everybody if, let's say, all seven municipalities applied for that a $150,000 maximum, we'd be over budget. So based on the data that we're seeing right now and who has signed up for the, workshop, you know, if everyone were to submit an application, we're looking pretty good now. I think it's more so if they're down in the $2,030,000, then we might need a round two.

But, no. I think it's good to get the word out to municipalities in rural parts of Dane County and just let them know that there there is money available. Money that's typically not available. So, yeah, happy to spread the word. Thanks, Franch.

Alright. Any other questions on the RFP?

Real quick.

I believe that oh, go ahead, Donald.

No. I just had one thing that, Joanna just alerted me to that, the city of Fitchburg may be responding to this, RFP process. And I am still currently, on the city council, so I may not be able to move forward with you all if they do, decide to submit a application. So I just wanted to put that out there in transparency.

Thank you, Donald. Yes. We were aware of that, and, I think we have enough people on our committee, to move forward with it if you had to recuse yourself.

Okay.

But you can recuse yourself from the fall or the summer review. Yeah.

Understood. Yeah.

So it just I'll just clarify on that point. So we have two different RFP processes that the art is going through. One is the one we're talking about now, which is the CDBG Pro Housing, and that review will be first. And then kind of at the same time, we'll be releasing the CBBG and home RFPs, but those reviews will be probably in June or July. So I just wanted to clarify there's two different sets. Right.

Alright. If there are no other questions, then I think you would like some comments on the evaluation criteria, or you wanna go over the evaluation criteria?

Yeah. If if it's okay, we can go over it.

Screen? Do wanna you share your screen, or do you want If you can share.

I'll have to bring it up. Yeah. Okay. Just give me a second, but you can start talking.

Excellent. Thank you. So so the we have the evaluation criteria, and, you know, you you have this also in your in your documents. We are scoring, from one to six scale, five to six, above average, three to four average, and one to one to two below average, and, obviously, zero not addressed. Each curtain is weighed according to program priorities.

The total points is a 100 points. We are, you know, depending on as you can see, the the depending on the importance of the the priority, we are allocated a number of points. So the logic model, which is the one with the biggest priority, is a total of 60 points. As you can see there, cost is a total of 18 points and, leverage bonus up, up to four points and then narrative 12 points and experience six points. So one of the things that we are proposing is that application scoring 60 or below may not be considered for funding.

So, again, we are providing the biggest importance is to the, question number one. No. Question number zero. Question number one, which will be a total of 60 points. One quick note on why the rubric uses ones to six, which I just wanted to explain that.

You know, obviously, as as we mentioned before, you know, five to six above average, three to four average, one to two below average, and zero not at risk, which shows a consistent one to six scale. So reviewers are always scoring the quality of the response the same way instead of switching between different point systems. One of the things that we are doing is we're applying those multipliers to reflect the priority of each sections based on the program goals. So as you can see, you wanna go just a little bit up again to to attend Cindy. If you can see there, you know, obviously and, again, you know, priority question number one, logic model, priority number one, We thought that was the most important component of of the RFP.

The base is six points, so we just multiply it out at six times 10. So then participant who gets, you know, the best points will get a total of 60 points, and then we can go, you know, just like that as well. We have what we call the match, the leverage bonus points where we are asking participants, applicants to if they are bringing some leverage funds, if they bring up to 25%, they get two points. If they bring up to 50%, they will, you know, they will get four points. So all of that will equals a total of a 100 points.

Caleb, anything else when it comes to those, the point systems and all of that? Does that make sense? Any questions so far when it comes to that point system? Any any first impressions?

So we'll be giving guidance on this, I mean, or this is basically it. Right? Yeah. But then we are to independently score these

ourselves. They're gonna be Yeah.

A mask, and then that that would be

the one. Yeah.

Yeah. And I think what you're saying is we score, like, for the logic model. Yeah. We give it a score between one and six.

Yep.

Yeah. And whatever that score is gets multiplied by 10.

Yes. By yes. Yes.

And you'll need you'll need to do that if you because, unfortunately, the system doesn't just let it happen automatically.

Yeah. Yeah. One of the things that we just wanna mention is question zero is the implementation ready question. It's an eligibility ready question. So, you know, we wanna and and we wanna make sure that once you receive the application that you know that all of them have fulfilled that eligibility purpose.

So you don't have to decide that. That's something that we have we are gonna be working on. If we see that there are some issues with eligibility that they did not respond question zero, a 100% of there are some issues, we're gonna give them up to forty eight hours for them to be able to cure the their their their proposal. Not their proposal, but that that first component. Yeah. Does that make sense?

So that's kind of a threshold requirement.

Yes. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. And you don't have to

worry about that. The ones that aren't. So we would Yep. We won't score that.

Okay. So you're only you know, you would be asked to, you know, help, you know, to to question number one, which is the logic model. And if we go down just a little bit, Cindy oh, right there. And I'm just gonna summarize this. So, you know, obviously, you will evaluate a clarity of the barrier identified, alignment with hap to housing, a logical connection between input actions, outputs, outcomes, and impact, alignment between the logic model in category a or b, timeline, clarity of outcomes, demonstrating their reductions, and description of prorate housing impacts.

So, you know, I just wanted to make sure that and and you will have this with you so you can go, you know, it's a five or six, you know, and then go through all of the it's all of those different components and then assign assign a score based on that. Does that make sense so far? Okay.

So as we go through, there's anything that would this is still a draft? Yeah. If there's anything that would help you understand any of this or make it more clear so that when it is time for you to do the application review Yeah. It's in there.

Yep. Excellent.

And then, you know, the next one, cost. So it's a total of 18 points. When I put this a little bit down, I think.

Yeah. It's right there at

the bottom. Oh, right there. Oh, yeah. Couldn't see it. You know? So, obviously, the total points is 18 points. You know? What you will be evaluating is whether costs are necessary and reasonable, alignment between budget and proposed activities, compliance with federal cost principles, and absence of eligible cost. One of the things that, you know, if the budget is incorrect, if we find some mistake, we're also gonna ask municipalities or applicants to to correct that, you know, so that you don't have to deal with, you know, all that person. You know, instead of instead of adding twenty twenty four and twenty four, they added 50 instead of 48, so you don't have to deal with all of that.

Question number three goes into the narrative. And, you know, obviously, you have all those points, and we wanna make sure that the application is clear of the project explanation, consistency with the logic model. And one of the most important things is maybe there were some areas in the logic model that they were not able to add because, you know, they might have reduced space. So they're gonna be able to, you know, add some extra background information in the narrative portion. So if if when you see the logic model, there are some things that this doesn't make any sense.

They will have their opportunity in the narrative portion to be able to do that. And we are limiting that to 500 words so they you don't you don't have to read five, seven pages. So, you know, that will make it easier for for them and and and for the reviewers as well.

And we've also given them clear trying to give them clear guidance about what to address Yes. In that narrative. Yeah. Hopefully, also, we get So easier for them and then easier to review.

So all of these things that that you see here on these points, they are connected to the RFP a 100%. There is nothing that you're gonna be reviewing or scoring that is not is not connected. And then the part will be question number four, which is experience and qualifications. You know? I mean, applicant experience implementation, clarity of staffing plan, identification of consultants or partners.

You know? And this is where there might be a municipality that is, you know, a small municipality. They might not have someone as in in staff to be able to do this work, but they can hire a consultant. They can hire, you know, some somebody else to be able to do that work. We wanna make it as accessible as possible. Those are all the areas that that we have, and, you know, we are looking for any input, anything that we might be missing. Does it make sense?

Anybody have any questions or suggested additions for consideration?

Amazing work, Balthazar. Would we be able to get a copy of this sent via email?

It's Anthony, it should be an attachment on the agenda too.

Oh, yep. I see it. Never mind. Yep.

But but the reviewers will get this copy as they review the application so they have something next to what they're reading.

Got it. Thank you. Yep.

Again, this is general, not specific.

So I'm at township, but I have a button next to a city, and we're thinking, like, maybe we wanna create an idea for, like, both my family up in this part of our township. Right? Mhmm. You can do that. But if it's we have a developer who wants by 10 acres and build a multifamily project here, then that doesn't qualify. Right? Correct.

Yeah. Yes. It's just

on the planning board. Yeah.

They get it easier for the developer hopefully to come in and build there. Mhmm.

Right. And and one of the things that thank you very much for for for that question. You know, we're gonna we're gonna be releasing another r RFP down the road where it's gonna be about multifamily development. So but one of the things that we wanna see is hopefully not hopefully, but that everything will be entertained. So this is phase one. Then phase two might connect very much with phase one, and then phase three the same. So and that's why we are starting the work right now. So we have municipalities making some of the changes, and, you know, hopefully, then, some of the development will happen in those municipalities. Yeah.

I have a couple questions if no one else has any. You you referred to this, but under that experience and qualifications Yeah. If the municipality is applying, they haven't identified the consultant or person, individual who's gonna be doing the work, how do you how do you rank that? Do you just look at, you know, what the city has internal capacity to be able to implement the project? Is that what we're looking at with the experience and qualifications?

They'll be partially that, and then they'll have to have we'll have space for them to identify if they don't have that experience, and they've identified that they do not have the experience and what their plan is, their staffing plan.

So their plan might be, I'm gonna hire a consultant, and you would just score that. How would you score it? I mean, it's like I don't know.

The the only thing is that so if they don't have a consultant, that might also affect them, the timeline

Mhmm.

Because they might not be ready to do some of these changes by the time that they go out there and find a consultant. But that's just

because on it says zero points for no staff or consultant identified. I mean, right

in this column right here, it says three to four. So if they, for example, provide an I'm just example of an experience, but consultant arrangements not yet finalized or

Will be procured, awarded. But then over there, it says no staff or consultant identified. So I'm guessing what they have

to do is talk about it. Yeah.

So they don't talk about it at all. Yeah. Okay. Yeah.

And that's it for most of the tier one, so they just don't answer it. Yeah.

Alright. And then this is kind of goes back to I'm assuming that the outcomes for the pro CDBG projects don't go into the consolidated plan or the

CAFR. It's separate.

Okay.

I mean, we can we talk about things that are, like, parallel to what we're working on that fit under the umbrella, but it doesn't have to be in that. It's We do we mentioned it in the in the report.

So

Okay. And we do follow this general like, there is an action plan that has to be approved by HUD. And

Financial plan for this? Yeah.

For this one. Okay. And we are actually working we're crossing our fingers that we'll have our Pro Housing website page by next Wednesday where, you know, there will be some information available as well to the public. That's one of the requirements of HUD to be able to put out there the action plan, the reports, you know, who's getting funded, the contracts, and all of that.

Okay. Alright. If there's no other questions, I think that we're looking for approval.

I I do have a I do have a question. The last couple of years, the committee has taken the recommendations from the applications, and we've taken those recommendations to the greater commission. And in the first well, in both years, it was challenged that it didn't seem very fair. And this is the criteria that the that the committee is using to score each one of these applications. And in your review of I guess my question for everybody would be, in your review of this, if we're gonna go through this entire process and we get to that meeting and somebody says, I don't think your decision is fair, does this criteria match with with what your expectations are going to be for how this is set forward?

Because once we make that decision, I don't know how if we're evaluating things on a criteria and we're and we're voting blindly on what this looks like, my concern is how we get if we get to the end of this process and then somebody says, well, I don't think it's fair. Well, we voted on this. We've all evaluated the criteria. We've all put thought into this, and we've gotten behind it. So I don't wanna get to that to that nth hour.

And and all of a sudden, we'd change our mind because somebody maybe voiced a concern. We have to we have to get behind what we're saying here is the criteria, and we believe that this is the best path forward. What are your thoughts on that?

Does any staff have comments on it?

Yeah. I I guess I'm not a 100% clear on what's being asked. I think Because we're going through the criteria for you to review and I don't know if we need to approve it because it's still on draft form. But we go to the commission and the commission looks at it so you're not going in you said going into it blindly. I I don't that's why I'm not connecting is where are you going into it blindly at this point?

And I can speak to that.

In saying that what you're asking is when once we approve these criteria, we all have to believe that they're the right criteria, and we have to use them in our evaluation, and we have to stick to them when people object to the outcome.

Right. Because we are as a full commission, we're going to agree on this on this on these parameters. These are our guidelines. And and what I don't like happening is that we get to that we get to a point where now all of a sudden, our own our own commission is well, did we evaluate these correctly? I don't wanna get to that point again.

I wanna make sure that that we are all aware that this is this is what we're agreeing to, and this has to be this has to hold true for every single application we're looking at and in all considerations just because it's come up a couple of times. I don't know, Joanna, if you've had anything to add to that.

Yeah. No. I think you bring up

a really good point, and

I thank you for raising that question. Yes. That that is ultimately a decision that the entire CDBG commission is gonna have to agree to at the next commission meeting, that this is it. This is the criteria. So if there are any changes that you guys think we should be making, like, now is the time to speak and and make those changes. Because once this gets published and this is introduced

to

the municipalities, this is the standard that all applications will be held to. So, no, I I do think you bring up a really good point, Jeremiah, about about the criteria. I also do know that staff spent a lot of time crafting it in this manner Mhmm. To have weight put behind it, to have points. You have it.

I don't know that you guys have ever received it in this manner where it's like you're seeing, like, okay. X number of points means this in this criteria. Like, it's it's spelling out exactly what what and how application should be scored as. So and this has came as a result of feedback that we have received from commission over the last few years. So I'd also expect that we might be seeing something similar when it comes to the other side of the RFP.

But, yeah, I do know that staff has has taken a lot of consideration in in the comments that have been made. And and to your point, you know, are pertinent I guess for today's meeting, is the AHRQ team comfortable having this being the evaluation criteria that is used for the PRO Housing phase one portion?

I would say to you that the next step so the AHRQ is looking at this evaluation criteria today and approving it to then bring to the full CDBG commission. So we do I mean, for the CDBG in home applications and evaluation criteria, we do this every year. So the commit and maybe we just reiterate, Jeremiah, that if we're approving this evaluation criteria and we are putting our faith into the art that they are taking the time to review these and scoring appropriately and therefore making those funding recommendations then.

I would like to clarify something though with the voting. So, like, some of the language in here, we do have to update, like, with the match bonus to leverage bonus. Maybe clarify the rubric portion on some of it, like, what I would based on feedback that you provided. So with approval, it would then be, like, approving a draft to

be fine. Yeah. With changes to bring this to commission. Uh-huh.

But I think what it's trying to do here, you're trying to make it more objective than subjective. Right? And so I think it does a good job at doing that. And I think we have to clarify that when we're Yeah. When we're going through the whole commission saying, you know, trying to make this you know, that I can't just, you know, pick this one because I like this township or something like that. So it I I think it does a good job.

And if I may just add just a little bit, you know, I think that's why we're going into instead of choosing one to 20 points, just one to two, you know, three to four, five to six. So we avoid that being subjective and being more objective as to to when it comes to providing a score. And it seems to me that, you know, you need a minimum threshold of 60, that that threshold is fairly low. Right? Yeah. See, it sounds like everybody's gonna

probably get approved for something. We got four to seven people that are looking at it, and we've got a million dollar allocated for the year. So

I'm sorry. There was something flying in

the air.

Yeah. And the the reason we're looking at just having any service for actual so that there is that minimum amount put forward so that you don't have a you know, it looks like a they have a comprehensive plan or or not comprehensive plan, but they have a

logical plan. Anthony raised his hand.

Staff. So once this gets approved in art, and then goes to full committee, will full committee also need to vote on it as well and make recommend, make criticisms and recommendations as well? Yes.

Got

it. Recommendations, we prefer that criticism.

I do I have a couple of, I guess, questions. My first is going to be around the the point scoring. So if you see here, it says basic range of one to six points. One to two points equals below average. Three to four equals average.

Five to six equals above average. What is the difference between a five and a six? And I ask this because, historically, that top those top tiers get really tight. And we have to be really sure about is this a five or is this a six? So my wonder is, do we need to actually define what a five is, what a six is?

That's on the, rubric below. We've tried to identify what we mean by, like, if you scroll down, Cindy. Yeah.

Right. Here. But Question where

we lay out, like, this is what something that's above average. Five to six should have these elements. Yep. A score that's three to four has these elements, and a score that's one to two doesn't.

I think he's trying to separate a five and a six because I think I know what you're saying, Jeremiah, and where, like, the difference of being funded or not funded is sometimes just a half a point. Right? So Yes. There might be a bunch of people who fall in here, but is it a five or six or something?

Five or I'll just use this as an example, because we're two separate people. But Donald, he might say, well, gosh, my my my scoring is a 64 and a two. Jeremiah's could be, you know, a 53 and a one. And that could that that, to your point, Cindy, takes it from being a top score to a bottom score.

So We to that point, we did start with one, three for this and then realize that that would end up bunching everybody more likely. And we wanted to provide some sort of nuance so that if people are reading it, they they could address that. As much as we want this to be objective, it does, you know, come down to how accurately you follow that guidance. And maybe someone does read it and say, okay, this is very, very clear. Someone And else says, this is pretty clear. I think we can't get away with that as much as we're trying to other than just having, you know, a checklist and maybe that's one way to approach it.

Yeah. Okay. I mean, I think we could parse out some of this language too, like, in the within the scores and, like, really separate out the numbers into, like, individual categories versus a range that is so close together. Because, I mean, he's bringing up a, like, a very good point there in terms of if somebody's deciding if they're in that, you know, five or six category, like, what is the what is gonna be the tipping point or the separation? And it has to be something more objective than subjective, based on kind of the outline criteria that we have here.

Would it be easier than if you hey. Because you're the ones reviewing it. If we did collapse it down to one, two, three instead of one to six.

Two, four, six? Yeah.

No. So it'd just be

one two

three. Is below average, two is average, three is above average.

Yeah.

Or or can't that subjectivity come into play when you're comparing this from hell?

Yeah. You know? Two yeah.

Yeah. I guess I I I feel like you yeah. I mean, I feel like there'll be some distinction in how they write things up.

Right. You you have two, and they're both, like, whatever in the category. They're both five, six, but they did a really great job, and they did a good job. But they're both five or six, so I'll give this one a six and this one a five.

So

so maybe you can't

make it all objective. Mhmm. There there should be some subjectivity, but that's to me, again, I think everybody's gotta evaluate in their own mind however they do, but that subjectivity comes relative to the other Mhmm. Other Yeah. Applications.

Yeah. And I know it's like I know I hardly ever would get something perfect. Just nothing's ever perfect.

But And

I think to that point, though, is I think one of the things is that as an evaluator, you have a consistent standard across. Right. So if you're not being consistent across, I think that's where that issue comes with the points if things are close together.

Yeah. Yeah.

And also level itself out from the various evaluators too. So I might be a generous scorer and can I'm not. Scorer, but then they'll they'll all they'll even have. Yes. One of us is making this decision as

a team. And so

that Exactly. Mhmm.

Yeah. Mhmm. Moderate time.

That's the

whole point of having four of us scored. Right?

Mhmm.

Or five. Yeah. So do we wanna leave it this way? Or I feel more comfortable being able to distinguish within categories myself, but I understand Jeremiah's point. Like, what makes something a five or what makes something a

six? But

I think that's where a little bit of subjectivity comes in based on the reviewer. Thanks, Donald. Oh,

sorry.

Any other comments? Are we happy to forward this to the full CDBG committee or commission? Would you like us to vote? Or

You would need to vote on moving this as you I don't did you say there were minor tweaks

to

add some stuff with the link, like, clarifying language. And then we realized as we're going through the logic model, there's a couple of things we wanted to add clarify, like, what we meant by outputs, what you should be looking for, things like that.

And outcomes. Yeah.

In this document?

Yep.

So I guess the art would vote on based on what Caleb just said, on moving this structure, Jeremiah, if you're comfortable too, like this structure of priorities and point systems to the full commission for approval. It I mean, and, Jeremy, if there's another way that you want to see that, I think you should or you could, you know, give some examples. And if you

need No. I think that I think, you know, it I mean, to create a whole new rubric might be a a pretty extensive process, but might be something to to think about going forward. But, I mean, this model has has worked. I just I've I spent the majority of my time thinking about how we can eliminate bias and how we can make this, well, you know, objective versus subjective. So Yeah.

Alright. I think I need a motion to approve, the general rubric that has been proposed for evaluating the PRO applications.

I'm open.

Thanks. Head moved. Can I get a second from someone on the board?

Second.

Thanks, Jeremiah. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Alright. Great. Thank you for that discussion. I think it was useful. Alright. We did the action items. Future meeting items and dates, it looks to me like you're sending out a doodle for the week of April 6.

Correct. And I'll I think what I'll try to do that week is bring in our procurement person, Katie, who hopefully would show everybody how to use OpenGov.

Mhmm.

I I may I'm not sure if that's a public meeting setting or not, so I'll figure that out. But, also, we'll look at the CDBG and home evaluation criteria hopefully by then. Okay.

Alright. So look for that, and please respond so we can get that meeting on the agenda. And I think that there's a regular CDBG commission meeting coming up soon.

March 17 at 05:00. March 17. It will be held at the City County Building.

Alright. Great. I would look for a motion to adjourn.

I'll make the motion.

All good. Alright. All in favor.

Aye.

Aye. Alright. Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank

you.