Community Development Block Grant (cdbg) Commission - Regular Meeting

We'll go ahead and call this meeting to order at 11AM, on April 6 here. Cindy, could we do roll call?

Okay. Vice Chair DeGaan.

Here.

Commissioner Ganzler. Kathy Camp. Commissioner Gunderson.

Here.

Commissioner Kraft.

Present. Commissioner Dare?

Present.

K.

I don't know

if you skipped me, but Donald Dansler, I'm here as well. Sorry.

Just a little late.

Yep. I just called you. Thank you. I'm glad you're able to attend.

Yes.

Alright. So we have a quorum here. And our first order of business is consideration of the minutes from March 5, the CDBG application review team meeting. Do I hear have a motion to approve?

Motion to approve.

Second?

This is Gunderson. I'll second.

Any discussion? Otherwise, I'll look for motion to approve.

Think you just did.

Or, excuse me. Excuse me. Then a vote for approval. Excuse me.

Or like all in favor?

All in favor.

Aye. Aye. It's Monday.

Sorry about that. Alright. Next on our agenda here, we have presentations on the on OpenGov. And who's running that, Cindy?

So first actually, Jeremiah, we need to

see Excuse me. I'm sorry. There's public comment on items not on the agenda.

There is no no nobody here from the public online or in person.

Excellent. And then, Cindy, I'm sorry. You were saying?

Yep. No. The so the next item, presentations, OpenGov orientation. We have Katie O'Brien, who is our purchasing officer for Dane County. And Katie will go through, OpenGov, which is the platform that we use to, solicit applications for RFPs.

We also have the applicants apply through OpenGov, and then our reviewers review the applications and evaluate them in OpenGov. So Katie will do, a walk through of what OpenGov looks like and how the evaluators can review and score the application. So I'll note that, we have two RFPs or RFP areas that we're going to do in the near future, and we've talked about this before. But the first one is the CDBG pro housing. The RFP is open right now for applications.

And so at some point, you'll get a notification to go into the system and start reviewing them. And then later, once the RFPs are released for the CDBG and home grants, then we'll also kind of just remind you that these applications are now in open gov. So there are two areas that we're doing the RFPs and application scoring for.

Go ahead. Do you want me to unmake here? No. They can hear you. Okay. Great. Okay. We'll just hop right in. So my name is Katie O'Brien, purchasing officer with the Department of Human Services at Dane County. And we're just gonna be talking about the evaluation committee assignment today, what that role means.

We'll review the, statement that you got assigned when you go into OpenGov to review stuff. And then we'll spend most of the time in OpenGov itself looking at scoring, talking about what becomes public record, and we'll finish with some key takeaways, potential pitfalls. So as an evaluator, first, thank you for the folks that have agreed to be on our committee. Awesome. As an evaluator, your role is really summed up in these bullet points here.

Our job is to review each proposal that's received independently and score it using the published evaluation criteria. So this is a time commitment, and it does help to understand the RFP scope and the project or program that you're reviewing for. And the key throughout the whole process is to think about consistency, remain impartial, and focus on the application as it was submitted. I will show you the actual form when we happen to open Gov, but every reviewer has to sign a form before you can go in and look at the proposals. And that is summed up here.

The form suggests that we should review the proposals fairly and impartially. Let's see. At a basic level, this also means that you can't participate if you or an immediate family member has a conflict of interest. So if you have a conflict of interest or if you're not sure, just let us know and we can help you understand that.

I got a little nervous, but I think if I

say it out loud Okay. I'm not

usually in person either.

So thank you for dealing with my nerves. Okay. The form also makes sure that evaluators understand that they must protect the confidentiality of the process and, that they should not share evaluation details, proposal information, or scoring with vendors or their representatives throughout the process. And finally, evaluators are expected to be familiar with the RFP requirements, the evaluation criteria, and follow all the procedures and ethical guidelines throughout the process. Alright.

Here, I'm going to share OpenGov. Let's see. So this is the first RFP that the art committee is going to be reviewing. And before you start your review, I think it's a good idea to go through and read the RFP. Now RFPs are long, and they can be boring.

But the main components that we really have to focus on are in section three and four. So it's a good idea to read the whole thing, but sections three and four are really gonna talk about the project that you'll be reviewing for. And four is the evaluation criteria that you'll be reviewing the proposals against. So in section three, you can just scroll down and review it this way. I'll also show you where you can download it if you prefer paper.

But you can just go through and look at what Dane County has stated as, like, the program overview, needs and expectations, the goals, deliverables, and reporting requirements, and implementation readiness criteria. And that's it. Now in section four, this has the evaluation criteria, and it's broken down by the weight that we assign or the points that we're going to assign for each component of the application. So for this RFP, applicants are actually completing a big logic model table and uploading it in their response. And that logic model table and the information that they're putting within is going to be worth up to 60 points towards their total score.

So when the evaluation committee members go in to review, they will see that table kind of broken down, and I'll show you that in a minute, and be able to just assign however many points, that they want to assign for each of those categories. So this RFP, 60 points to that logic model table, 22 points to cost that is broken down between a budget review of 18 points and four possible points for leverage. Leverage meaning that the municipalities that are submitting applications are showing that they have committed other funds. And then section three worth up to 12 points towards the total score, and that is for the narratives that the applications or the municipalities will upload with their response. And number four, experience and qualifications.

When municipalities submit their responses, they just fill out these vendor questionnaires, and that will be compiled in the evaluator view so that you can review it. And then I also wanna point out, as you're looking at the RFP itself here, right here on the left is the table of contents and just a navigation tip. You can navigate through the RFP by just clicking on all these, or you can click down here to view all sections. And there, if, like, you're on your phone reading through, it might be easier to do it that way. And then, also, if you are more of a paper person, you can go to the downloads view here and click that project document button and just download it.

And then you can print it out or review it in that way.

To do your PDF? Mhmm.

Additionally, if you go to the download tab, you can see all of the available attachments for the municipalities to review, and that might help you as well understanding either the RFP or the responses that are getting submitted. Alright. Now I'm going to share.

So the attachments there aren't attachments to the municipality's response, their attachments that the municipality reviewed and built their RFP upon?

That is a very good question. So Tim was asking if the attachments are referring to, like, the attachments to the RFP document itself or if the attachments are getting uploaded as sort of the municipality response and both. The attachments that I'm discussing right now are with the RFP packet, we call it. So those are when the municipality is reviewing the RFP, they can go into the attachment section here, section six. And those attachments a through e are all included as RFP attachments. So they are both.

So some of them might be, like, the notice of funding announcements. And then what applicants are required to do is download a version like the project budget, fill it out, and then reupload it. So there are things that are just notices, and there are things that they have to fill out and resubmit.

So a actually is the NOPL from HUD. So a is the NOFO from HUD, and that's what is, like, the master NOFO that we're that we applied under. B, c, and d are those budgets that she just talked about. And then e is FAQs. We drafted in, like, an FAQ sheet based on, like, questions that had come in. And so then I would if I were to have to summarize what attachments is, it's a resources that potential applicants can use in their completion of the proposal.

So the templates that we're providing that they fill out and and send send the template back, not as a template any longer, but as a response. Awesome. Yep. Yeah. Awesome. Mhmm.

Right. And then we'll pop over here, and I'll show you what it looks like from the evaluator side, if I can find it here. So this is my evaluation demo project. It is fake. It's an RFP for, like I think it's for dog walking services for county staff. So I made it very ridiculous, so we would not think it's real.

I actually need that.

I know.

So evaluation demo project. When you receive the email from Dane County that there's a project that's ready for your evaluation, it will look a little bit like this. So this says, hi, Katie. You have been added as an evaluator for County of Dane to this project evaluation demo project. So when you get this email, you can click that link, and that will take you to the project page. You can click this blue button here. Yeah.

Oh, I'm wondering if they need to set up an account first.

Because we They've never That's a good first step.

Okay. Because they haven't done OpenGo before, most of them.

That's a good first first point. Thank you, Cindy. So Cindy was talking about, well, do you need an account first? Yes. You do. Yep. So first step will be us internally. Dane County will add you and your email address to the system. So once that's been done and once the RFP you know, the due date has passed and we are ready to start evaluation, then you'll get this email. And then, again, if you want to click on the links within the email, that's a a way that you can get, to your project.

You can also there is a oh, how many will okay. There is a notification bell that is usually in the top right. It's not in this little minimal view, but you can also click on your notifications and go to your evaluations from there. If have any trouble finding your project, let me know, and I can help with that. So I'm gonna click on this blue button and see what happens.

Okay. So this is taking me to the evaluation section of this RFP. This is the response agreement that you have to sign electronically, so this is what that looks like. And it just, again, goes over conflict of interest, confidentiality, and that kind of those steps in the process. When you are in the my evaluation section of the project, you can also reference the RFP from here.

So you just go over to project documents, and that's the RFP. And then if you go to the responses tab, the responses are there. I'm gonna go back to my evaluations. There are a couple ways to review the responses that we receive. One is just by clicking on the individual responses.

So I'm gonna click on this vendor's response, and there is the full fake response that was submitted for this. Another way, I'll just hit the back button, is to click the compare responses button here. That I think this is pretty slick. You can see side by side all the responses so that I find to be the easiest way in my preference to score, but, yeah, people do vary in how they like to do this. I'm gonna click back again.

And if I go into Happy Trails and they have written maybe a long logic model response, I might wanna click on that and download it so you can also download to your computer any of the responses, like attachments. And then from this view, you can click on this scorecard, and that will take you into a window where you can score this vendor. You can also do that from my evaluations. Over here on the right is a scorecard and notes. Now within the notes tab here or button here, as well as with the notes in the scorecard, there is a spot where you can put comments.

Any comments or notes that you enter in OpenGov and this part is really important they become public record. So if anybody requests the scores for these applications, those comments will be attached to the public record that is given out. So you do not have to enter comments in. If you do, just make sure they're relevant and not broad or not related to things outside of the application itself. So comments can be added, but they're

So individual evaluator comments are public record. Are are individual evaluator scores public knowledge as well?

Individual scores are public knowledge. It is the policy of Dane County that we do not post the evaluator names on the scores that go out. So it says evaluator one, evaluator two, evaluator three. However, those evaluator names, if requested, are public record.

Mhmm. Correct.

Okay. So I like to point out the public record thing just so that folks are aware. And if you do add comments, make sure they're professional.

Cindy, I have I know this came up in years past. Written notes are not like, we don't have to submit those. Correct?

Correct. Your your personal notes, if you choose to write them down as you're reviewing the applications, if you don't submit them to us and they're not part of the application process, then they're not public record.

What

we'll do for CDBG in Home, and I completed this for CDBG Pro Housing, but we'll give you the evaluation criteria where you can, you know, like, write your own notes as you go along.

That help? Yep.

Yep.

The other thing I like to talk about for the scorecards and just as an FYI, each scoring cat scoring for each scoring area, we are scoring on the application and materials submitted. So we're not going to the vendor's website. We're not using our prior knowledge of the vendors, which a lot of us have. We are we are scoring as the applications are submitted and scoring on that only. And in that way trying to remain as objective as possible.

All right.

I think we can move on. Almost done. After you have entered in your scores in OpenGov, I believe the ARC committee will then meet again to have sort of a consensus meeting. And during that time, it is a okay to discuss your scoring and make sure that everybody sort of understood the assignment as assigned. So sometimes when you have those consensus meetings, it could be that I, as an evaluator, totally misread or misinterpreted one of the criteria, and therefore, my scores looked really different than the other folks.

And it is okay to have a discussion and, you know, update my understanding. And then go back into OpenGov, and you can actually click unsubmit and adjust your scores and then resubmit. That is an okay thing to do. The purpose of this meeting is not to get everybody to the same exact score. It's not it at all. I think we can all remember, like, being in school and having teachers that would grade wildly differently. We see that with evaluators too. Some evaluators will never give a perfect score. Like, 60 out of 60 will not be possible. And other evaluators, it will be.

So and that's okay As long as we're understanding the same the same things. We're understanding the intent of the evaluation criteria, and we're understanding the information that we're reviewing.

And this consensus meeting is a public meeting. So please keep in mind that, like, I look at the past three years, there are applicants who are sitting in the audience, whether in person or virtual. So they are seeing your comments live.

So just keep it. And and this

will be new. Like, we haven't really done consensus meetings as we're defining them today. So we'll we'll make sure we kinda prep you for what that looks like and what the intent is when we schedule those. And

wrapping up, just to remind you to score based on we don't wanna score based on reputation instead of application. These are sort of pitfalls that we can avoid. We wouldn't wanna create a new criteria that's not included in the RFP. We don't wanna fill in any missing information with assumptions. Writing style can be tough, but we ideally are looking at the content and not the writing.

And, of course, we don't wanna discuss scores before that independent review is complete. So those are kind of already talked about, but just like to say again. And then key takeaways, again, we're reviewing and scoring independently using the posted criteria, keeping our comments professional, bringing any applications to CDBG staff instead of vendors, and they will send any procurement related stuff to me. CDBG staff can help with any of the, like, understanding of evaluation criteria. Anything that's confusing there, total it's totally okay to ask.

And, yeah, bring up those potential conflict of interest right away so we can get to the bottom of it, and we'll use that meeting at the end to figure out any big differences. So that is that is that, and thank you so much for listening to me talk.

Can I ask a question about how about your interest? Yeah. So it seems like for phase one, applicants are gonna be municipalities. Yes. So let's say we have a reviewer that the municipality they live in is applying. Is that a conflict, or is it because it's so broad and open to the county as long as they're not a decision maker? Like, they're not not an elected official that decides, like

You guy you folks with my housing folks are so good at your

questions. They're so tricky.

I will have to remind you. But I don't I I would guess that would be a conflict. It would be. That that is my guess. I don't wanna say it on the like, this is on the record, but so I'll I'll check to be sure, but that's my hunch.

If they live in the municipality, but they're not a decision maker, you think that would be a conflict? Mhmm. I do.

Because it's still be benefiting if the me and this guy got money.

But I'm not sure. K.

Because we might not have any reviewers eligible for CDBG.

I mean, yeah, I think. Let's I don't know.

Let's pray and come back to that, and we'll figure it out. Because we we won't we won't leave you without repairs. Okay. Like that. Thank you. I

did I did have a question along that as well. I know, like, if we had discussed if Fitchburg submitted a application, like, I would be in was I ineligible for, like, the entire scoring process or just reviewing that specific application to which I have association with?

So Donald the city

of Fitchburg. I think

that is a clear Yep.

A clear conflict. Yeah. Donald couldn't participate.

Yes. That that would be Donald where

would we that or the entire The CDBG pro housing? Just from

the pro housing review. But not Phase one.

Phase one. Okay. So he cannot score any applications that come in. Correct. Or is it just the Fitchburg application? I

would say any. However, I do want to ask. Yeah. If you can check

with that, that'd be great.

And this is sort of one where it might end up going up up because it's a new question.

Yeah. I think so, Donna, we'll we'll find out if it's so, you know, there's the two kind of areas that we're doing this for, CDBG Pro Housing, and then subsequently, it'll be the CDBG in home application. So the the pro housing one is specifically for the municipality. So we'll find out if that precludes you from reviewing all of the CDBG pro housing applications or just scoring Fitchburg's.

So I believe Erica said

Okay.

He cannot participate. So Erica's our corporation counsel, and she has said he cannot participate on any of the phase one because Fitchburg is applying for we know that Fitchburg is applying for that phase one part.

So then we have our answer. He can't He can't can't review for pro housing.

Mhmm. For phase one.

For

phase one. Right. So gonna have subsequent RFPs that Fitchburg may not be applying because they might not be eligible for.

Okay. So then we have our answer then for the For that one. For that one. There.

It says that.

Mhmm. The living one, I I just don't see as a con otherwise, across the board throughout the state, there wouldn't be any applications or reviewers anywhere. I mean, that seems but we can talk about this. But, yeah, we should find out the answers to that.

Yeah. We will. Yeah.

Okay. And Cindy, how should we communicate that with the team then?

We'll find out the answers, Jeremiah, and then I'll email the art and let them know.

Thank you.

Yeah.

All right. Any other questions on OpenGov?

All

right. Not seeing any. We'll move on to action item e, which is the twenty twenty seven CDBG home RFP and application process updates.

Great. So I'll take that one. I am going to share my screen. Okay. So the CDBG home team met.

And based upon some feedback from prior years of RFP processes as well as some ways that we wanted to streamline the application process, we came up with some edits and updates as we move forward with, the structure of the RFPs, how the applications are submitted and what those look like, and then also the allocation of the funding once the art determines the ranking of the applications. So these are some pretty significant changes, but we feel like, they've streamlined these updates have streamlined our process and have made them more easy, I guess, for reviewers to determine how funding will be allocated. And so I'll go through some of those major changes, but I'm not necessarily gonna read the whole document. I'll go through some of the summary updates and then some key highlights. But I want everybody to be aware that some of these things are different than in the past.

And I know most of you have not participated in the past, so it might not matter. But, I'll just go through some of the highlights. Okay. So in looking at this document, I summarized some of the major major changes to this. So each RFP so as you recall, this is for CDBG Home, by the way, not CDBG for housing.

This for CDBG Home. We have several different project areas, that are part of the consolidated plan, and each project area is their own RFP. So we've used RFP and project area interchangeably because each RFP is a different project area. This year, for 2027 funds, we will have a maximum amount available per category or project area. So when an applicant looks at the RFP and say they're applying for mortgage reduction assistance, they'll see in the RFP that the total amount available for that project area is x number of dollars.

And then they'll also see how much they can apply for as an applicant. So they'll have that maximum amount. So in the past, we didn't necessarily have a maximum amount per category, and we didn't have a maximum amount per applicant.

So this is new. Public

services will also have a maximum amount of $35,000 per application. In the past, that amount was $50,000, but we felt like because there are not a ton of funds, we wanna make sure that we can, fund different different projects that come in. And it looks like in the past too, I think some of the average grant amounts have been around this this size anyway. And then applications will be evaluated or ranked with other applications in that same RFP or project area. So and I'll use mortgage reduction assistance as the example again.

All of the agencies that applied under that category or that RFP will be scored or ranked against each other. So they will not be evaluated against public services or economic assistance. It'll be very, categorized. So and then those rankings will be determined from that project area. So there's going to be a number one in mortgage reduction assistance.

There'll be a number one in housing rehabilitation. So each category will have their own rankings. And I think that'll be and I keep saying easier. This process isn't easy, but I think it'll be much more I guess it's streamlined in a way that'll allow us to really look at what the consolidated plan needs are and where the funding categories can be determined and what we want to put into those areas. Okay.

So the next item, the highest ranking applicants in each RFP or project area will receive their full allowable request. So I say allowable because sometimes people or agencies apply for funds that may not be allowable per HUD regulations. So we determine that. We determine what's allowable. So if you scored number one and you applied for $50,000 and everything is allowable, then your application will receive the $50,000, assuming that that's within that maximum amount that we tell you you can apply for within that project area.

And then so forth. So then we go to number two and number three until we are low enough in funds to where a maximum amount isn't feasible, and then we go to what their requested minimum would be. So this is different, and I think you can attest to this, Jeremiah, but this is different than in the past where we, where the art determines, you know, what the funding levels would be just based on kind of, what the categories look like or where they thought the funding should be distributed. This is much more straightforward, And I think it's better for you as reviewers to assign that funding, and then probably better for the applicants because they have a clear understanding of how that's done. And if the remaining funds available are below a minimum request, then that application will not receive any funding because it's below the minimum request.

In the past, we've had questions and some concerns about how agencies indicate what their minimum amount would be to have a viable project and kind of like an arbitrary number sometimes. So this will make it more thoughtful, more meaningful for the applicants, and easier for us to understand, like, if they don't receive funding below this, then they really can't operate a viable program. This year, there were also not we will not hold applicant interviews. We've changed this process a little bit from past years, and we just determined that it's not something that Dane County typically does anyway. Applicant interviews haven't been historically scored, so we just felt that the need, to have these was not existent.

Okay. Next bullet point is if an applicant has more than $1,000 in unexpended funds in a single project area from contracts executed prior to 2025, so as of 07/01/2026, that agency is not eligible to apply for additional funds in that project area. So if an agency has $2,000 from a grant that we awarded in 2024, if that $2,000 is still there as of 07/01/2026, then they cannot apply for funds in that project area. Okay. So the next bullet point then is if an applicant has more than $250,000 in unexpended funds in a single project area as of 07/01/2026, they are not eligible to apply for additional funds in that project area.

So same thing, if on July 1, if there's an applicant with more than $250,000 from a contract that is executed at any point, and those funds are still there, then they cannot be awarded more funds. So go ahead.

Oh, I just had a a question to help me contextualize this. Would you be able to give me an example of what this would have looked like for maybe this last year? Who would have been impacted and how?

I don't know if we're allowed to mention

Right. I wasn't going to miss mention an agency specifically, Jeremiah. And plus, I don't necessarily have that information in front of me. But for example, if there was an applicant that received a grant in 2025 or 2026, and sometimes we see agencies that don't necessarily that are not able to or can't spend their funds in an efficient manner or timely manner. By us awarding more funds, it it creates kind of a a backlog. Right?

Mhmm.

So we may or may not see that right now. I don't know if there are any twenty twenty six, agencies that would have been impacted. I'm not sure. There may be none. But we determined that we want to use our federal funding more efficiently, and to allow other applicants to have the opportunity to to receive those funds.

Without naming the or without naming a particular agency, I can tell you that there is an agency that in a certain category, they have over half $1,000,000 sitting in their that have been, like, allocated to them that has not been distributed out to the community. We have another one. I think the that same we look at a different agency, and they have closed well over quarter of $1,000,000. So this is money that has already been committed to these agencies that are not going out to the people in Dane County quickly enough. Despite staff trying to work with agencies to get them to spend it, we're not seeing the movement that we would like to see.

And so we hope that this policy signals to them how important it is that they spend their contracted funds as quickly as possible if they wanna receive more committed funds. There are other decision makers, like, if you look I don't know. I don't recall them, the other funder, but there is a there are other funders that we have connected with who have a policy that if you have any contracts with any dollar amount, they will not award you to any funding at all. We didn't think we wanted to go that drastic, so we thought, okay. Can we perhaps meet in the middle somewhere?

Or we don't wanna see funds well before 2025, and we really don't want someone to have more than, you know, a quarter of $1,000,000. Or can we sort of meet in the middle? And I'd say the third reason for this part is our timeliness. So as you all know, every November 2 of the year, we're tested on where do we stand with CDBG funds. Looking at the spreadsheet and looking at who's carrying that multiple of those agencies are some of the reason why we get so close to timeliness test and why staff in general is super nervous about, are we gonna need it? Are we not gonna need it? Are we getting invoices? It feels so weird that we're having to chase invoices so that we can pay them so that we can meet time.

So and timeliness is HUD saying that we cannot have one and a half times more, like, in our bank account, basically, than what is it? What our

Annual award is.

What our annual award is. So they look at what our annual award is, and then we can't have one and a half times that at a certain point during the grant year. So like Joanna said, we are you know, as that time gets closer, which is the November, we're struggling to get invoices into Paydas so we can draw down our federal funds. So that that that is part of it. We wanna make sure. And, yeah, it's just it's just good practice to do that.

Yeah. I think that that's a really important distinction, understanding that the lack of, spend impacts not only yourself and the organization, but it also impacts future applicants. So, yeah, that that's an issue.

Mhmm. Cindy, Joanna, I have a question about the, kind of the HUD rules in regards to this specific regulation. So it is my understanding that per CBDG regulation compared to other grants that the federal government kind of administers where they want more of a spend down approach, CBDG is okay with having what we call continuous funds. I hope I'm saying that correctly, where, it is okay for an applicant to to apply for CBDG even if they do have money left over from the grant they they had last year. Is this regulation for, our commission or, excuse me, our our program, more stricter?

And if so, if it's more stricter, is the federal government and HUD okay with that?

So this would be definitely be a Dane County rule. The 1,250 thousand dollars is this language that was drafted by our team. So this would be a Dane County rule that you guys would be either recommending for approval or not recommending for approval. HUD I don't wanna speak for HUD, but if I have a good understanding of, like, what HUD rules are, they do ask for diligence. Know, they do look to see that within a certain five or six year time period, depending on the funding source, that you're seeing projections quite a bit.

Are we getting flags in the system in IDIS? Don't ask me what the acronym stands for, but it's an acronym for the federal system where it tracks financially our contracts and how much we're putting out. We're getting flagged frequently, because we have, agencies that are not spending down, and so it's flagging, hey. You haven't drawn in a year. And then it's look making us as in Dane County look bad. So if I were to be in HUD shoes, I think these rules being more stricter on, like, how quickly funds are spent might be more in favor with in alignment with what HUD requires.

Again, this

is a Dane, not a HUD

rule. Right.

Yeah. So, what's it called? So it's kind of like a brilliant rule because, like, yes, we can have people who have continuous funds, but HUD also says we have to have this, this, this, this. And by creating this rule, we're doing that, which is smart, I would say.

Well, I think the important thing is too, yes, is the the timeliness test that we were just talking about. So we cannot have more than one and a half times our annual grant amount left over in our I call it our bank, but it's like our, you know, our our funds.

Got

it. And so if we're able to you know, if we're submitting if we're getting invoices, we're paying those, and then we're drawing down the federal funds, it's less than one and a half times our grant award. Got it. So by doing this and we can be more strict than federal HUD requirements. I think local units of government are allowed to do

that. Yes.

We just can't be less strict. Right? So so I think this will allow us to meet that timeliness test Yeah.

Easier. Yeah. For the reason we put

in the the shovel ready test. And is there a way to

That was my old research.

More, an evaluation criteria that these recipients are spending timely and meeting their their cash flow projections?

Yeah. In fact, the shovel ready or implementation ready means different things to different agencies that apply and sometimes different things to different project areas. So what we've done this year is we've made it an eligibility requirement. So we're not scoring on it anymore, but we're saying, are you able to implement this project in the first quarter or maybe second quarter for certain, like, housing projects? And if no, then they they cannot apply. They're not eligible to apply. If they say yes, then there is a certain, like, next step that we have to go through as staff to ensure that they can start implementing that project.

So staff so if I check yes on that box, staff is gonna check to make

Yep.

To check to make sure it's accurate. Yep.

And I think we made implementation already sort of like an eligibility. Yeah. That's what I just Yeah.

It's eligibility now. I don't know about the CDBG profiling. So

I can I can check the box, and there's no

So there's a milestone table that

they have to fill out,

and that's what staff's checking,

and he

has to see if it's, like, a reasonable milestone? But after I

have my funding, what's the what's the what's the that's the carrot. What's the stick?

So the stick is we're changing our processes and contract extensions. So this policy here hasn't been our first step in trying to, like, curb some of that not spending. Mhmm. I think the first was, like, adding shovel readiness to the applications. It was having one on one discussions with the agencies, having technical assistance with them. In some cases, do do contract extensions. We're now at the point where we're not seeing the motion that we wanna see in the spending. So now we're actually putting it as like, alright, no new funds. If you can't spend down what you currently have allocated, no new funds until that spend down is done. And then we're also internally curbing, okay.

When it looks like the contract extension's having more of a stricter policy as to why the extension is happening and and then

And we'd also add it as a scoring question past performance of if they weren't able to expand certain percentages.

So past performance becomes an evaluation criteria for future?

Yes. And that was, like, about that last year or a year before. Mhmm. And then the commission decided, like, what percentages they would like.

Mhmm.

It still happens in construction. So Yeah. It's understandable occasionally.

But Yeah.

Okay. And the evaluation criteria is next on the agenda to get that far. But, I wanted to highlight as well. So I went through the summary, but I wanted to highlight that when we get to this next table, that we looked at and if you recall, when we awarded the twenty twenty six grants, we looked at the consolidated plan goals and where we were aiming to be percentage wise with the goals after five years, and we looked at what our outcomes were for 2025, and now we can also look at 2026. So this next table will show you why we decided to put the estimated maximum funding amount per project area in the RFPs.

It's because in the far right column, you'll see the consolidated plan, five year goals, percentage per category. So that's our that's our aim. Right? We're aiming to get to that percentage of our funding and our outcomes in five years. And the column to the left of that is okay.

So if we look at what we did in 2025, what we've awarded out in 2026. And And then if we add in 2027, are we getting closer to that five years? So it kind of shows us where our needs are and where we need to prioritize our funding. To the left of that, this is where we put in okay. So if we put more a more percentage of our funding in a certain area, how will that impact our averages throughout the next two years for our consolidated plan?

And so this was done very thoughtfully because we know we know how much projects cost. We know how much it costs to implement different programs like economic assistance or public services. We understand that. So we wanted to do it in a way that was, again, thoughtful and meaningful per project area while still trying to meet our five year goals. So these estimated maximum funding amounts, in a second to right column show you what we'll actually put in our RFP.

So if you look at housing rehabilitation for major home repair and minor home repair, in these app in these RFPs, it'll tell you you can only so this is how much we have for the total program, but we'll also tell them how much they can apply for per project. So I don't have the amount per project in this table yet because we're still trying to make sure that we're doing this, you know, correctly. But it might just for an example, if it's $50,000, then that means, you know, $50,000 per grant award and then a maximum of a $156,000 for the total area. That's what we would do. And then just going down the columns, public services is always maximum 15%.

And then we edited some of the percentages so that we understood how much to put in for the other categories.

Did we get enough quality applicants over the last couple of years to meet those maximum amounts in each of those program?

Oh, absolutely. Yeah. So this will be I think this will be one of those changes that agencies who typically apply to get funding, they'll look at this and say, and I'll just give an example for economic development, they might be applying for $200,000 regularly. Like, well, we're kind of exceeding those goals now, so we have to reduce the percentage of our award that we're handing out. So we absolutely, you know, our I would say we we get probably three times the amount requested than we have available every year.

This is gonna be a shock to the system. We are trying to right size our percentages, and so we recognize that these numbers are extremely much lower than what they're expecting. And and so I think for you guys being the first ones to look at this, what we're looking to see is, like, alright. Are we in line with what are we in line with what where we land on the average of percentages? Are there any changes that you'd recommend or what you know, where because this is what's gonna ultimately go to the commission for for approval. Right? Something Right. Right.

And so this is I feel like this is not atypical for grant programs elsewhere around the state or country. They usually give a maximum amount for the project area that you're applying for. And then they'll also say, as an applicant, you can only apply for x number of dollars. Because we expect to award more than one agency per project area, so this is a way to, kind of maximize that.

Okay.

Some of these things I went through already. So just in the interest of time, I'll I'll scroll through this. But this just explains how the applications will be scored and ranked. They'll be scored per project area and ranked within that same category. It talks about how we'll award funds to the highest ranking applicant first and then move down the list.

Minimum funding. One key highlight is that, evaluators will not initially assign funding at the minimum required or requested amounts. So sometimes what's happened in the past is that in order to, you know, spread the funding to as many agents as as we can, which is not a bad thing, but it kind of creates a little bit of chaos on, you know, who scored the highest and how much funding they get. In a certain project area, if you scored number one, you will get your full requested amount that's allowable. We won't just assign the minimum.

So I I think that's a good step in making sure that this is a little more, I guess, efficient. Okay. Funding recommendations, we mentioned a consensus meeting, so we'll be in touch about that and what that looks like for both program areas for Pro Housing and CDBG Home. And again, we're not doing applicant interviews for the 2027 application process. The timeline for CDBG and Home is that we're hoping to release the RFPs in late April or early May with due dates in June.

And then from there, the ART will review the applications and score them through the next two months. And the application review team will come up with some preliminary funding recommendations either at their September 8 or October 6 meeting with a definite public hearing for the funding recommendations in November. That's the plan. Dates are subject to change, but that's what our timeline looks like with the grant year starting 01/01/2027. Any questions on these process updates?

Because in a minute, I wanna make sure we have quorum to vote on these, Jeremiah, and we do. But not to jump ahead, but we also have the evaluation criteria to look at. So I don't know if you wanna try to vote on one and then go through the next one, or what do you suggest?

Yeah. We can take a motion. Is there a motion regarding this item?

If we need one, so move. This is Donald Dansler.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Alright. It's been moved and seconded to approve the 2027 CDBG home RFP and application process updates. Any discussion? Alright. Not hearing any.

Call the question.

Yes. Aye. Yes, Donald.

Oh, no. I was just saying that you for you to say that to call the question so we can vote.

All in favor?

All in favor? Sorry. I was I was wait I was I thought you I thought you were I thought you no. Never mind. I thought I was thinking something else. Yes. Yes. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Motion And

then this will be brought to the full commission meeting on April 14 for their approval. Okay, do you want me to move on to the next item?

Yes, next item is the twenty twenty seven CDBG home application evaluation criteria draft.

Okay.

Okay. Again, this is a draft. Let me see if I can my hold on. Can you guys see that okay?

I can make it bigger right in the middle of the screen up here. Just a

Yeah. But, everything's covering it, so I'm getting there. Okay. Okay. So this evaluation criteria also has changed pretty significantly from years past in that we've made an effort to, make the RFPs, I guess, more straightforward and reduce the number of questions that the applicants would have to answer that may or may not be scored.

So there are quite a few things that we put into just eligibility rather than having them scored. So one of those things is the shovel ready or implementation ready. That's an eligibility question. There are some questions like, are you meeting a national objective? Yes or no? That's eligibility. Do you have a language access plan? Yes or no? That's eligibility. Some of these things we would work with organizations to make sure they had.

But in general, we just wanted to reduce the size of the application and the amount of information that the evaluators had to review. So this should be a little bit easier for you all, I must say. We're not showing the RFP for obvious reasons, but the evaluation criteria is based off of the RFP so that it's very clear what you're looking at and how you're able to score them. So I'm hoping that you guys had a chance to review this. But these first items, one through seven, are some of those eligibility requirements.

So, obviously, they have to apply within one of the project areas that we've listed. The project must be located in or provide services to residents in one of the member municipalities of the Dayton County Urban County Consortium. They cannot be debarred or ineligible on a HUD debarred list, and they have to meet a national objective. They have to be implementation or shovel ready by quarter one or quarter two in some cases. And then here's the funding that we mentioned before.

So if they meet these, then they can move forward with the with the application. We shifted the funding or I'm sorry, the the scoring points a little bit, and we reduced the number of categories that we were evaluating so that it's just more it's simpler, I must say. It's just more straightforward. So we have needs and priorities. We have project approach, experience and qualifications, financial information, and then past performance.

The past performance is done by staff. And so we are able to to score based on our experience and knowledge of the applicants that the artist wouldn't have that information. And so we score them up to 10 points based on if they've been spending their funds, their communication, their ability to submit invoices and reports in a timely manner. So it's pretty straightforward, very objective. Okay.

So the national objective piece used to be scored in the past, but we're not scoring this section. It's solely eligibility, but they will have to answer several questions. So needs and priorities, this is 20 points, and there's only one, kind of scoring rubric here for needs and priorities, and it's worth 20 points. So they have to determine or describe what the needs are in the communities that they're serving and how that relates to the Dane County consolidated plan. Project approach is basically, you know, what they're doing, how they're going to do that.

And they have to meet certain criteria to do that and describe how they're implementing the program and, how their program responds to different people in the community, including language access plan, waitlist process, etcetera. So it's project description and scope of work. The second part is outreach and accessibility. We want to make sure that the applicants are serving low to moderate income persons and also ensuring that their communities have access to their services and are eligible for their programs, or if they're eligible for their programs, and then describe how they're doing outreach, whether it's word-of-mouth, presentations, newsletters, how they're reaching out to those that they're going to serve. Because sometimes what we find is that they're so used to serving maybe a certain area or clientele when they're actually contracted to serve multiple areas in Dane County as an example.

We wanna make sure they're getting to those other areas of Dane County that may not have heard of their services. And then their outcomes and proposed accomplishments, how are they going to accomplish what they say they're going to do with this funding, and how are they going to implement that, and how will they measure success? Like, sometimes we know that, you know, they say they're serving a certain number of people or businesses, but things happen. Maybe they don't get there. But how are they how are they ensuring that they're trying to meet those goals?

So that section is a big section. The project project approach is 35 points. That's a major one. And then next, we have experience and qualifications, which is 15 points. So is the agency able to carry out the project that they're applying for? And do they have experience? Does their staff have experience? Is their staff do they have high staff turnover? Sometimes that says a lot about a project. And so these are two areas that they'll be scored on for, experience and qualification, which is worth 15 points.

And then finally or almost finally, financial information. We have 20 points for this category. We want to ensure that their budget is viable and that they can provide a good summary and justification for their budget items and how they're going to use these funds. So this area, they'll be looking at the budget, the budget summary, and is it realistic. They will be uploading their budget. And if there are questions about that, again, like Katie said, you just reach out to CDBG staff, and we'll we'll help you figure out what this means. K. And then finally is the past performance that I mentioned, and this is something that staff will review and score.

Does staff look at the budget as well? Oh. And provide a input?

We we can, like, at the consensus meeting because we know we'll know, like, if what they're applying for is allowable, not allowable, if they if there are items in there. And the eligible costs are in the RFP, so the applicant should know what's eligible and not eligible. And then we'll also look at you know, we'll know when we have the review for the consensus meeting.

Yeah.

I mean, my expertise is not in this area. Right? We're we're Yeah. Been when you in the professional experience of I sat on these group of meetings a lot, random, etcetera. But so if somebody gave me a budget, I had some realm of if I thought it was realistic or

not. Mhmm.

I don't have that here. So when I'm looking at these budgets, I don't know I mean, if they spread the jelly across the bread and if that's it should be or

Mhmm.

If it should be, you know, all on one side and etcetera. So I'm hoping staff provides a little bit of information. I'm not sure if other commissioners have that experience either.

Yeah. I mean, Jeremiah can speak to that, but I think the staff do an initial assessment of every application, and we provide that to the AHRQ. So some of the information might relate to the budget. I don't know. I haven't seen it this year. But I think the staff will be able to show you know, whether or not things are allowable or whether this is reasonable. And then the ARC can make that determination afterwards. But, yes, I I agree. Like, you may not have experience in in budgets or what these program costs look like or if they're allowable. But think having the basic information, if they're describing it in the budget summary, for example, you should have a better idea of what that looks like.

I'm just going back to the conversation about your spend and and kind of some spend and would expect to see a annualized budget that shows the spend over months and whether or not that's realistic or not. Maybe I'm maybe that's not what I'm gonna see in the budgets, but that was where my head my where my head was at.

Yeah. I mean, but if they submit a budget some some projects are two years inherently. A lot of them are just one year, but what they're submitting is for that time period. So if they're submitting a budget for a project they're applying for, we're assuming it's for one year. But certain categories are two years, and you'll know that.

Are they calendarizing it so that you see the spend over time?

You're seeing categorical it's a categorical budget,

not a calendar budget. Okay. Yeah.

Well, I guess for editorial commentary, it it's what I heard earlier in this meeting was you care about calendarization of the phone. So perhaps you should be asking for that in the future.

So in our contracts, we do have that they have down 75% for the one year contracts spent by, was October 10. And so for the two years, it's 75% by the following October. So with some of them yeah. And so it's just it

depends on the cap. I'm hearing things

and trying to relate it

back to what I'm going to see as well as what you might think about in the future. Mhmm. Just

Yeah. But that's an important point because we do ask them to spend a certain amount by a certain date in their contracts. So

And that'll show up as with your input for historic performance? Yeah.

Because it'll be if they haven't been able to spend down.

Yeah. Okay. And we

can make sure to add that, like, a little more clearly in our, review.

Mhmm.

Cindy, I have a question in regards to, the kind of staff staffing parts of the criteria. So what happens if we get an applicant and, they talk about, like, the staffing of their own unit, and the applicant is, showcasing that they are going to need to contract staff or use a contracted staff to kinda fill the kind of needs of the project. Would those that applicant need to follow contracting rules set up by Dane County themselves? And if so, is that something that the application review team members are gonna need to know as well?

So one thing, there are certain project areas we don't allow subcontracting, Is that what you're asking? So they can't subcontract out. There are other project areas like housing or construction where they have to do that. But we don't know typically I mean, Caleb can speak to this, but that they may not know what that other subcontractor vendor will look like or will be, but they know that they have to contract out certain costs. But I the art doesn't

Can you scroll up to I think it I think Anthony is referring to, like, the experience and qualifications.

Is this what you're talking about, commissioner Gerr?

No. Actually, Cindy, you actually hit it right on the point about contracts.

Okay.

Sorry, Joanna.

No. It's okay.

I'm sure if

there's one You're you're exactly correct, Sydney.

Okay. Did you have anything to add?

Not too soon. Okay.

I guess I had a question in regards to, the experience and qualification section as well. How do we avoid a situation where maybe, like, a newer or a smaller organization that might be equally trusted in the community, but they're due to their size or how long they they've been in, I guess, in business, how are we making sure that the playing field is is more equal where one might not have the so many resources to put towards the the the the respond their responses or their their application.

Do you mean that they might not have the experience in qualifications, or you mean to have staff to put together something that would meet this criteria?

Yeah. So, like, if a if an so what are we doing to, like, make sure that organizations that have dedicated resources specifically to putting these these bids and these RFPs together compared to maybe the smaller, more or less resource heavy organization and ensuring that their that the that the the playing field is level, right, for a small organization and a large organization in this process? Mhmm.

No. I think that's a really good question. And I think our first attempt was to make this RFP and this evaluation criteria more simplistic and straightforward. But I think that's a really good question, Jeremiah. Are you worried that this experience and qualifications piece has something to do with it, or is that separate?

Because I think, Amy, I know we've seen this past year, we've funded, a few organizations that are smaller, that don't typically apply, and your rate, sometimes they don't score as high. But I think we have to go with what the information provided is for those applications and ensure that it may be during a consensus meeting, know, it's like, okay. Did everybody get the same, you know, meaning from experiencing qualifications, for example? And how do we apply that this category, this evaluation criteria, the same across the board, or even the project approach or needs. Like, I feel like there are areas where smaller organizations could really, you know, shine, I guess, and talk about what the needs of their communities are.

And maybe they don't have as much experience in that area. But if they're talking about the needs, that's that's kind of why they exist. Right? They're getting a need in the community. It's harder to get federal funding potentially if you don't have a dedicated grant writer on staff or what have you. But I think, there are opportunities within this evaluation criteria. And if you feel like you need to switch around points or add something else, Jeremiah, this is the time to do it or to think about it. But I think it allows, those organizations to have areas that they can really describe what they're trying to do. Yeah.

And I and and don't get me wrong. I think that a lot of the progress that we've made, especially even working within this new OpenGov system, has made the this whole process a lot more of a level playing field. So I just, you know, applaud that the work that that that the team has already done to make sure that that happens. So I think we just need to we need to keep moving in that direction, making sure that that funds are accessible.

Agreed.

Mhmm. Yeah. Perhaps if we look at the evaluation criteria language used in experiencing qualifications, we can bake in specific language that's includes the ability for the evaluators to look at the organization itself and see if they have the ability to execute the project even if they haven't specifically done what that project area.

Yep.

Like, if if you are if you're executing one project area successfully and and now you're applying in a different one, and that would end up nicking you in this particular category. Or if they've done something similar that we think is applicable and they're providing that as their expertise, you know, allowing the evaluators to use that as a a surrogate for the for our experience.

Sorry. I think what you're describing is what I'm reading right now under good and average. So organization has undertaken similar projects in the past, plus the projects, staff are identified and qualified, but it's not clear on roles or decision making capabilities. Organization has one to two years of experience serving LMI person. So we're not telling them that they have to do this specific this very specific project. Previously, it's just similar projects. And so I do wonder if, like,

future decision making Yep.

You can based on what you're seeing there for what we define as excellent, good, and average.

And it wouldn't have to necessarily be c d CDBG and home. Mhmm. It could be other work they're doing in the community. They just have to describe that. But maybe, you know, something in here I know it's a similar projects, but maybe it's

So I think maybe we're using the word project then in a couple different ways because project

Yep. Mhmm.

Refers to a specific area and and just maybe think about adding up some verbiage here to help yeah. Because we're gonna provide this information and use it to evaluate. So providing a little bit of context clues that we can use other similar experiences

Mhmm.

A benefit might meet the Jeremiah's good

Yeah.

Concept here.

I understand what you're saying, and I can try to put something together for the CDBG commission meeting. And I think for the purposes of of a motion to, like, move this forward, we would say that with some changes to these areas that But I understand what you're

what you're saying.

I'm I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Jeremiah, was gonna say, to go back to the question that you were asking about how are we leveling out the playing field for agencies that might have grant writers and those that don't, I think that is where the workshops come in, the the ones that happened before the RFP is open. To fill out this application, you don't need a grant writer. And we're really trying to make it super simple that any anybody can fill this out. So I was actually thinking back as to, like, when I first started writing grants. The Dane County CDBG application was the very first grant I wrote in my history and look at where I'm at now, and I was not at all a seasoned experienced grant writer.

I was just tossed into it. And so seeing what what that was back then when you had to have it on a CD or a thumb drive, physically take it to the CCB office by a certain deadline. I mean, we have come a very long way from what it used to be. I don't say that our process at all is perfect, but I think we have learned being on this side of the table now, being on the other side, you know, what those expectations are and how to make it easier for agencies to apply. So so we're trying. We're trying as much as possible. If you have any ideas on what we can do to make it easier, let us know. Mhmm. But it is coming from from past experience.

So so a really big cliff there at 20% for five points. Is is there some thinking about what the magic is at 20%, which is a little bit granularity at 10 or 15 for three points or something like that. Is there some magic in 20% that it's all or nothing? Where do we

get that number?

Which number are we talking about?

20%.

Staff Staff turnover.

Oh, I I don't recall where that number came from. It's it's been in our evaluation criteria. But

If there's some logic behind why that's an on off switch of 20%.

Do you think it's a high number?

I could

Well, that would be interesting too because if an organization has three employees versus 300

Yeah. Was their end.

Okay.

Just asking me provide the next week, provide some thought around why that's the case.

And In

our general RFPs, we actually ask or we tell them the methodology too for how they're calculating their turnover so that they do. In the RFP, we do. Good.

Is there a percentage that you see, Katie? Or

I would recommend well, two ways to do it. One, you keep the percentage in for you could, you know, delineate 18%, 15%, or whatever, and maybe do some research in the fields of the applicants and what it should be and what it is. Like, what is our baseline? Other ways to look at staff turnover is to ask applicants how they are managing retaining staff instead and give them a chance to brag about any initiatives they might have done in the last couple of years because everybody is struggling to retain staff right now. So if they're doing anything Mhmm.

Of note, they can tell us that maybe they get points for those efforts.

I'm just remembering the last set of my only experience here, the last set, there there wasn't a lot of point separating that Right. So 5% is huge. So for five points, this was big. And Mhmm. Mhmm. You know, if there's a really good shop and they somebody gets a promotion and they move to a different company or whatever, that could be an unfortunate scenario for that company.

I didn't even

Oops. Sorry. Go ahead.

Even a a a way to explain if your staff over turnover is higher than 20%, what's going on to allow them sort of a way to explain poor numbers.

Yeah. Especially since we're having interviews. You can't ask that question alone.

Mhmm.

And then, Cindy and Joanna, if if an applicant is subcontracting, staff, they're gonna do, are they gonna need to report that on this application criteria as well?

I again, so when you

can I ask you a clarifying question on that, Anthony? Yes, ma'am. Subcontracting staff, where are they procuring the staff from?

So that's the question I have is if if there's subcontracting staff, we would need to know that. Right?

We will we would. But, like, are you saying talking about, like, from, a staffing agency or, like, like, if they're, like

Like, a con if it's if it's not an employee, but it's a contractor. Like, if somebody's hired not as an FTE employee, but they're hired as a consultant or contracted employee, those are different. Right? Is that what

you're talking about?

Yes.

And then so if that is the case, then they would have to follow proper procurement for federal standards there.

Well, if they're hiring a staff person, then they have to go through, like, whatever that agency's policy is on, you know, hiring their their hiring process. Right? Because

Yeah.

Some companies or agencies, they they hire people as contractors, not as FTEs. Mhmm. So I think I we don't see that a lot, to tell you the truth, especially for nonprofits. You don't see that unless they're pairing out a consultant agency that does the work, and that's not allowed. We can't have those some subcontracted consultants to actually do the work. Got

it. Okay. Thank you.

Okay.

Okay. And any other questions for the team in regards to the, application evaluation criteria? K. Not hearing any. Can I get a motion regarding this item?

I make a motion to approve this with the changes that we have, suggested.

And do we have a second?

Second.

Any questions, discussion from members of the team? Not hearing any, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Nay? Motion carries. Alright. Cindy, I do not have a future meeting date. Do we have a future meeting date?

We do not have a future art meeting date. It depends on when the applications for the CDBG Pro Housing come in and if they it's today, meaning the team, both Sarah and Caleb, if they have a consensus meeting, which we'll need to talk about as a team. But then the next CDBG meeting is on April 14.

Okay. April 14. Thank you. Any other additional business? Otherwise, have a motion to adjourn.

I make a motion to adjourn.

Second?

After today.

I'm sorry. What was that?

I think it was residual.

Oh, okay. Sorry. Okay. Any opposed? Not hearing any. This meeting is adjourned. Thank you for your time today.