Community Development Block Grant (cdbg) Commission - Regular Meeting

So we'll go ahead and call this meeting to order at 05:00. This is the CDBG Community Block Grant Commission meeting. This is our continuation of the meeting that was originally held on April 6 that was, abruptly canceled due to a tornado warning. So, we have gotten through the majority of the agenda. However, we were, just finalizing the application evaluation criteria and reviewing those, the bullet points of everything that has evolved, since last year in the process and and the evaluation criteria.

So we were just wrapping up with that conversation. So I'll turn it over to Cindy here to kind of finish this finish this up with that conversation. If anybody has any additional questions or has any wants any additional information regarding the application evaluation criteria, Please please speak up.

Okay. So we'll start with the first action item. So we did go through some of those discussion points at the last meeting one week ago, But we need to go through the bullet points again since this is a new meeting. And so we'll start with sorry. Hold on. Do you see Kathy can't the link at the Oh, shit. Yeah. Sorry. There's a commissioner that needs the Zoom panelist link, so we'll do that. So we'll start with the the app 2027 RFP and application process updates.

So we'll re rereview those items for the sake of this meeting. I will share my screen. Okay. So this is a new document mainly for the purpose of updating some of our internal processes as they relate to the RFP structure, the application process, and how we're funding applications. I'll go through the summary of updates as was done last time, and then please ask if you have any questions.

So each RFP or project area will have a maximum amount available for that category. So each category in the RFP will indicate the maximum amount of funding we have available for that area. And then each project area or RFP will have a maximum amount that an agency can apply for. Also different this year is that public services will have a maximum of $35,000 per application, whereas in the past it was $50,000 And applications will be evaluated or ranked with other applications in that same RFP or project area. So no longer will they all be scored and ranked together, they'll be scored and ranked per their RFP or project area.

And then the highest ranking applicants in each RFP or project area will receive their full allowable request. And then when funds fall below the full request, the next highest ranking applicants will receive their ask, and then so on. And then when funds are below the subsequent applicants' minimum requests, we would not award grant funding to that agency, but we will determine how to reallocate that funding. Public services applications will not have a minimum request in the application. However, we do have a general rule that was voted on a while back that $5,000 for public services is the minimum amount that an agency can apply for.

So their range is between $5,000 and $35,000 but we won't ask them in the application if there's a minimum. If they potentially would be funded at less than they're asked, then staff will reach out and see if they can have a viable project at that amount. And this year, we will not be doing any applicant interviews. We're trying to closely follow Dane County procurement and purchasing rules so that we don't kind of stray from their regulations. And therefore, we won't be doing the applicant interviews this year.

However, we are considering that the application review team does kind of a consensus meeting to understand some of the questions that the RFP is asking and to ensure that we're kind of consistent across the board. The next item an applicant with more than $1,000 in unexpended funds in a single project area from contracts executed before 2025 as of 07/01/2026 is not eligible to apply for additional funds in that project area. And then along with that, if an applicant with more than $250,000 in unexpended funds in a single project area as of July 1, they would not be eligible to apply for additional funds in that project area. And I think this was discussed at the last meeting, but this is because we need our grant funds expended. If we have too many grant too much of our grant funds in, you know, bank, so to speak.

It counts against us for our timeliness test that HUD does, which is a certain ratio of the amount of funding we have available versus what our grant award is. So we cannot have one and a half times more of that in our bank. So we're trying to minimize the excess funding that is still out there, and so it also encourages our subrecipients to spend the funds in a timely manner. So what I'd like to do also is go to this chart. So I mentioned the maximum amount of funding available per category, and then the maximum available per application.

But we broke it down by project area, and this is really to be in line with our consolidated plan goals. So 2027 would be the third year in our five year consolidated plan. And in order to meet our funding goals and our outcomes for the five years, we need to be thoughtful about how we allocate our funding based upon the needs of the communities as indicated in the consolidated plan. And so then you can see in the first column, we have an estimated maximum funding amount. And I'll emphasize estimated, and this is due to sometimes the uncertainty of what our actual 2027 award will be when that time comes, as well as any potential turn back from existing awards in 2026 or 2025.

So sometimes that amount will increase and sometimes that amount will decrease. So these amounts really are estimates based upon the amounts that we've awarded the past two years. And as you can see, the far right columns the very far right column has the consolidated plan goals over five years, and that's what we estimated based upon a lot of the feedback and the data that we got in developing the consolidated plan. And then if you look at the column next to that, if we average out '25 2025, 2026, and 2027, we're aiming to get to that five year goal. And so that's how we came up with this middle column of the 2027 funding percentage.

And so that's an estimated of if you look down here at the total, it's an estimated $1,400,000 that we would have available for programs. So based upon that, we considered all of the factors in putting together the maximum funding amount per RFP and then the maximum amount an agency can apply for in their application. So I'll pause there because I know there were questions at the last meeting, but if there are any additional questions and this might look a little bit different than our meeting last week, that's because we did take into consideration our 2026 award, which I mentioned last week. But now I had time to put in those numbers based upon the new amounts, which is more than last time, so that's good.

See that.

The paper one is old. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry.

I had a question. I just want to go back to the not holding interviews. I think I understand why, past experience, why that's the case. But I was wondering, when we had the interviews, there was a standard list of questions. And the interviewees had those questions in advance as well. And often, in most cases, they would have incorporated those answers to their questions into their presentation or into their documentation. Are those questions still going to be used or not? They're not.

And we also did it a little bit differently last year, Ron. Oh, I wasn't there, yeah. Yeah. So few years ago, we had this set of questions, like you mentioned, and we asked the agencies and they were able to give a presentation and there were follow-up questions. Last year, after working with purchasing, we moved closer to how we thought we should do that, whereas we can only talk to the agencies that are applying for funds about what they're putting in their application.

Right? So I think we ran the risk of agencies or applicants telling us more than what was in their application. So we're trying to avoid them telling us more because that can produce an unfair advantage in some cases. So last year, we only asked questions as they related to what was in their written proposal. And so that also came with some challenges.

And so this year we've decided not to do that. So in the RFPs, we are asking things a little bit more intentionally because we want to get information out that we think is important for the RFP. And then I mentioned that the application review team might have a consensus meeting. Not quite quite sure what this looks like yet, but this was an idea from purchasing in that we have the application review team together after they've reviewed all the applications. And they can ask each other questions, maybe ask staff a question, something that's not clear to them, so that they understand how they're scoring.

So it's kind of coming to a consensus on what the RFP is asking. And then potentially, if there's an outlying score somewhere, we say, is there something that you didn't understand because this score is way off compared to the other reviewers. So it's that mechanism. So we'll see how this works this year. It's something that some departments do, not all of them. But we want to make sure that the reviewers have a good understanding of the applications.

Any

other questions on this?

I had a quick question. Okay. So the, the first place winner gets gets the full allowable amount. What happens to the second place winner? Do could they get their full allowable amount? Or I would assume that if they came in second, that maybe they're getting a lesser amount, At least their minimum, maybe a lesser amount?

So they will get up to their full amount that they requested between their minimum amount and what they asked for. This this like you're talking about the second person in line?

Yes.

Yeah. So say for example, the highest ranking applicant asked for $100,000 and all of that is allowable, allowable costs, they would get the $100,000 The second applicant asks for $80,000 we only have $60,000 left this is just a random example if their minimum was $60,000 then they would get that. If it was $50,000 they would get the $60,000 So what we have left has to be more than their minimum request.

And then in the event that there were, in this scenario, a third or a fourth

Mhmm.

And there happened to be more dollars

Mhmm.

It basically goes down so that one gets the full amount, two gets the full amount, and wherever it it wherever we run out, that's where we run out. Unless it's not viable for that one, then it goes down to the next one. Correct? Yep. So if, let's say, we have enough money to get through two, we don't have enough money to get through all of three, and three says they can't do it with the amount that they have remaining, we go to 4, go to 5, whoever it is that can do it for that remaining amount.

Correct. K. I wanna make sure I'm getting that right. Who else is online? Joanna, are you online?

I am. Oh,

did I'm just making sure that I I just want somebody else on my team to confirm that. It's not on my head.

Yeah. So, commissioner DeGaullen. Yeah. So I I think if I I understood what you said, as long and it it's gonna be separate. Right? I think we have public service. There is no minimum, and so we're just gonna keep going in that sequence like you mentioned until money runs out first. Like, let's use that as as an example. If the third and fourth or fifth is lower than what their ask is, then that is when we're having that one on one discussion with the agency to see if they can take that.

That's public services.

That's only in public services. On the On it is going to be different, though, on everything else. Everything else, if it's below their minimum, we're going to move on to the next agency.

And I'll show this again. This might make sense, but and this is just is just an example. I'll go to mortgage reduction assistance because major and minor is kind of split. But the maximum amount that we have available is $350,000 and the maximum they can apply for is $200,000 So if the first one asks for $200,000 and it's all allowable expenses, then they will get that. The next person asks for $200,000 well, they won't get $200,000 they'll get $150,000 as long as that's over their minimum.

And so there might not be and so we, you know, we did this very meaningfully as far as we have a sense of how many applicants there really are out there, right, for some of these categories. And so in a lot of these categories, there's not going to be a long line of agencies vying for these funds, except for public services, potentially.

Interesting. I

would like to say that if this commission has a different methodology that you would like to use on how the funding is applied, like, now would be the perfect time to make that recommendation. How this was drafted, you know, staff did take into consideration past, our team members' feedback, past applicants' feedback, our own experiences in going through this, just seeing just the history of it, just like Cindy mentioned, who are potential applicants, what would numbers kinda shake out to be. So if there are any recommendations for changes, like, now would be the appropriate time to make them and or yeah. Yeah. So that we can, you know Mhmm.

Get them approved and then publish it. That's this because this is the information that we'll be talking to agencies in a couple days from now in the RFP workshops.

Mhmm. Supervisor Engelberger, head

of Just a question. You're talking about the minimums. If if they don't if there's not enough money there to meet their minimums, are you still gonna ask them about if like, let's say it's $10,000 less. It's a 140 instead of a 150. You're not gonna ask them? No. Gonna go to the next one? Yeah. It isn't that a problem? Isn't that the same problem we had last time?

It is, but it's little bit different. I think that now I think a lot of agencies out there were getting confused about how to do their minimums. Right? Because, as you might recall, somebody puts a really high minimum, and we voted to fund everybody at a minimum. And so they still got to So we want them to really think about what is it going to take to have a viable project.

And if that's just serving one household with these funds, like, great. What does that look like? What is that minimum to actually serve people? Not to buy a copier or, you know, something like that. Like, you're creating this program or you have a project.

How will this funding be meaningful to you as an agency? So we have our RFP workshops coming up and we will be talking about this at length, because I think that was one of the problems, you're right, is having that minimum, and it meant different things to different agencies. And so we're saying, like, a minimum amount means what can you use to really serve a household or provide service to a business or training? Like, what what does that cost you?

Just so they understand

it up front.

That's what my concern is.

And I think, you know, to go in that line, if, you know, what we don't want is like all this money left over per category, right, because it's not meeting minimums, that's when we can decide, or the ART, the application review team can come together and talk about, Okay, how do we reinfuse these funds into the overall pot of money that we have? We don't want it to just sit there. So we can do a couple of things in this list. It's not exhaustive, but it's, you know, we can reissue an RFP, we can go back to the drawing board, we can revisit some of the other things or put it into another category that doesn't have enough funding. We can figure out how to do that.

It might it's very complex and we just have no idea of knowing. But I think moving forward in this fashion, I think, will be a good direction in ensuring that it's I don't want to say fair, because it's always fair, right, per our discussions and voting. But I think to have applicants in the same categories as each other will really kind of help us determine that.

I just wanna make sure if I understand this. If there is money left in a category, are you saying it might then be applied to a different category?

I think there are several options and hypotheticals that I don't necessarily want to, you know, say what those are now, right? Because we're on record, but I don't I'm just giving examples. Because I think the art and the CDBG commission would have to come together, and we'd have to decide what a significant amount of money is to not let it sit there. We don't want it to sit there. So how do we then reallocate it to other areas that might not be meeting our goals? And I think that's the key here is trying to meet our goals, and these are the needs of the communities.

Sorry. I I'm I'm on my phone, so I'm having a hard time with raising my hand. I the the one can the the I mean, I I appreciate the concerns that have been raised. The one thing that I'll think about that by, you know, simply issuing to everything to the top of vote getters that there's there tend to be very sophisticated users at the top end of the market. And as newer entrants come in who are less familiar with the processes, their scores may be lower.

And as a result, I'm a I I fear that we're gonna end up with a situation where we're just giving we're just handing this the the money to the same people year after year after year after year, which if that's oh, if we're okay with that, then okay. But it it seems that there are a lot of organizations that are doing good that might benefit from occasionally getting a bite at that apple rather than continuing to fund the same large agencies year after year after year.

Mhmm.

And I get that those are the loudest objectors to the process as it has existed so far. So I get the problem, but it it it I I think we should at least have some discussion about whether we should value new entrants in the market.

I know that the with the prep events that staff is going to be putting on with being able to level the playing field for those new entrants on really sitting down with them and explaining what this process looks like, what are the requirements. I would assume that you're available for questions after the fact if somebody's filling it out and needed assistance. What are the I guess, what do you see from a staff perspective for those early entrants and their challenges coming into the process, what questions that might put them at a disadvantage?

So once the RFP is released, we cannot have any discussions.

Okay.

So it's a competitive process. But we go through the RFP workshops and our reach is pretty wide. Like, we do significant outreach. And I think that the RFP workshops are a time for them to ask those questions up until the release of the RFP. And, you know, to address Supervisor Glaser's comments, and I think Joanna probably will do the same, her hand is raised, but we we realize there are new applicants, and we've significantly made the application much more condensed and much more straightforward, so that newer applicants don't have to go through, like, a lot of the stuff of a federal application that maybe was done before.

So there might not be as many new applicants, Supervisor Glaser, in the categories that may not have a lot of awards in the first place. But we do see more applicants in the public services category, as well as economic development, I would say. So, Joanna, did you have a comment? Your hand was raised.

Yeah, thank you, Cindy. I was going to mention under past performance, which I know is the next action item, new applicants are awarded 10 points, so 10 out of a 100 points, that's about 10%. That is and when staff was looking at the evaluation criteria, you know, that was a that was definitely a consideration of, like, okay, how does how will 10 points apply to new applicants, to existing applicants? Is there an unfair advantage? And as we looked at, like, past history in the past, they had only received five points.

And so we do think that with the increase to 10, we are showing a good faith effort in wanting to get new applicants to the table. Supervisor Glaser, you're putting out a really strong point, right? Like how do we not prevent or how do we not cause these undue hardships to new applicants? I guess the question that I would have is, do you have a recommendation for a different methodology as it comes to awarding funding?

No. I I mean, I don't know that I have any immediate suggestions. I I do like the idea. I I like sort of the the 10. I guess help me understand, is that for people who have never applied, or is that for people who have never received an award?

So when we identify as a new applicant, we identify it as an agency who has not been awarded funding in the last five years. Because

of Good.

Five year period is when we look at, like, past performance. So we look at, you know, how accurate and consistent are they spending their funds, what is the program of financial report deadlines that they're meeting, and then how responsive are they with communications. And so that's the the metrics that are used in that category. Okay.

I mean, it yeah. I and if if we looked at it and see that, like, new applicants tend to be dis tend to be disadvantaged by, you know, five to 10 points, and that helps to sort of raise the bottom a little bit, or at least to overcome that first, know, that that sort of first award deficit, then, you know, I guess I'm I'm okay to to try it and and, you know, see if that's helping helping to to even out the playing field. You know, one of the one of the challenges and I I I I like the idea of getting rid of the interviews and going to a more standards based scoring. I I just I I think over time, we just need to be cognizant of, you know, whether whether and to what extent extent the things that we're trying to accomplish, getting new entrants in into into the money or getting money to to new applicants, whether that's actually happening. And so, you know, I would I would say, you know, maybe adding it to this post grant review to to re to, you know, to just sort of consistently evaluate, okay.

We we awarded x number of new applicants this year, you know, which was y percentage or whatever. Just kind of ensuring that we are, at least on some consistency, getting new applicants into the into the system and and getting them awards.

Thank you, supervisor Glaser. One question for staff. Do we track that information as far as the number of new applicants per RFP cycle?

No. No? But we I mean, there's we don't have a lot of subrecipients, so we can we know who's new.

Okay. Yeah. Okay.

But we we haven't tracked the number of new grant recipients or applicants each year.

Okay. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions or comments or discussion around the CDBG home RFP and applications process updates?

I do have a question.

Yes, sir.

I haven't done this for I don't know when I did it last, but so I might be up to date with this. But, obviously, the applicants need to be thorough in responding to the RFP. But do we do something to discourage them from throwing 30 or 40 pages of extraneous stuff into the applications? We don't weigh them.

Yeah. No. We do have I believe the OpenGov system has a page limit or don't know. It's not a character limit, but it might be like a is there some kind of what is it? A limit? I

know for the Pro House in one, we have a number of we have, like, for the narrative portion, it's up to 3,000 characters.

Yeah. Maybe it's a character limit. Mhmm.

We do we do promote that.

Mhmm.

Yeah. At least with Pro House in presenting with this.

I have one other question on the funding rec on the last page, funding recommendations point for applicants that have grant funding remaining from prior to 2025 may not be eligible for 2027 funds. So does that mean shall not or may or might be or it's discretionary? It

won't be. There might have been a typo in there. So if you look at the first page I'll just scroll up that the last two bullet points on the first page, the summary, if these are the ones you're talking about, Ron.

Yeah.

Yeah. It's they are not eligible.

Okay.

Sorry about that. I'll make a note.

Okay. Thanks, Ron. Alright. If not, any more discussion? Do I have a motion to approve the the RFP application and funding process updates?

I'll move. Second.

We have a first with, supervisor Engelberger and a second with commissioner Johnson. Great. Any additional discussion? Not hearing any. All in favor, say

aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Any nay? Any Not hearing any. Motion carries. Next, we'll jump into the 2027 CDBG home application and evaluation criteria, and we'll cover those bullet point updates right now.

Yep. So the evaluation criteria is reviewed and approved every year by the application review team as well as the full CDBG commission. And the evaluation criteria is meant to act as a guide for the reviewers as they are going through the applications and scoring them based upon the points that are available in that category. So this year, we reduced the amount of information that was actually in the RFP, and then therefore kind of reduced the amount of, I guess, evaluation items that the application review team would have to go through. And so in doing so, some of the items were moved to eligibility instead of a scoring point, which I think is good because either they meet that eligibility criteria or they don't, so it shouldn't be scored.

So then some of the main points are that for the national objective, that is technically an eligibility requirement now, and we're not scoring on that. And so we are moving down to needs and priorities, project approach, experience and qualifications, financial information, and past performance. And so as we mentioned a little bit ago, past performance 10 points is the total here. And if they have not been an applicant or received funds in the past five years, they will get that full 10 points. So national objective and project eligibility is not scored, like I mentioned.

And staff will go through the eligibility requirements to when the applications come in. Needs and priorities, and we have the breakdown here. So it shows you it's like a guide on how to put the scoring in here. Project approach, we have the project description and scope of work. Again, it's broken down into these four categories for scoring.

Outreach and accessibility is five points, and then outcomes or proposed accomplishments are five points. So those three items add up to the project description, project approach at 35 points. And then as we go down, experience and qualifications has a total of 15 points. The organization and staff experience and qualifications is 10 points. And then staff turnover and retention is five points.

Next we have financial information worth 20 points. This is condensed into one big category, so it has to do with the budget and budget summary. Sorry, these keep going to different pages. And then past performance is the 10 points, and this will be reviewed and scored by staff. And they'll take a look at timely and accurate submission of beneficiary and program reports, expenditures, invoices, adherence to the scope of services and quality of work, as well as communications.

So are they responsive? What communications? Do they follow-up? Do they respond? And then also meeting deadlines.

So that that is it for the evaluation criteria, less categories than in the past. Anybody have any questions? I think

I think I have a question in regards to the experience piece. So with the experience piece of the total of 10 points, if somebody hasn't qualified in the past, they obviously don't they're not gonna qualify for any of those points. Correct?

Are you talking about this category, experience and qualifications? Yeah. No. So the RFP will have the questions will be more clear. Right?

We're not showing the RFP because then it would be a public document before it's released. So the questions have to do with how is your organization and staff set up to provide the services or perform the work that you're actually applying for? So if they're a new organization that hasn't applied before but they're doing some work, then they obviously are qualified and have experience. So they need to talk about that. So the points here, they have to talk about and tell us, whoops, gosh, this what prior work they've done, how they're serving low to moderate income persons, and then how their proposed project relates to the work that they've done. What is their experience?

Perfect.

Whether Okay. Or not they've received a grant from us before.

Right. Yeah. In regard to staff turnover and retention, and that 20% threshold as it were, are they going to tell us that, or do they have to ferret that out from their materials?

Yeah, in the RFP the question will give them a sample calculation on how to do that. And I think that's HUD best practice, too, so it's percentage that is best practice. And then I think it was brought up by somebody in the application review team that if it is more than 20%, right, things happen, life happens, people quit, they move, whatever, We want to hear about their retention plan. So how do they retain or what are their efforts to retain employees if that percentage is higher?

Well, and yeah, I remember that point in particular was you know, an organization with three people, one person leaves, well, 33% of your and and they could have went and they could have, you know, started a new company. Who knows? So so it's not always a negative is kind of what we were looking at.

Mhmm.

Yeah.

Right. All

great questions. Any additional comments or questions? Anybody online?

Alright.

Not hearing any. Do we have a motion to approve the 2027 CDBG home application evaluation criteria? Supervisor Langerberger? Supervisor. Excuse me. And this one's that.

Is that Kathy?

Yep. That's me.

So, Kathy, you're a second then.

Commissioner Camp, second. All in favor, say

aye. Aye. I'm a second.

Aye. Thanks. Aye.

Opposed? Not hearing any. The motion for the to approve the 2027 CDBG home application evaluation criteria is approved. Next, we will move on to our future meeting items and dates currently to be determined. Is that still the case?

It shows May 5 May 5. 2026.

Okay. I must have an old copy. I didn't grab anyone walking in. So so that is May. The next meeting is May 5 at 5PM. Alright. Any additional items for discussion? Anybody online? Not hearing any. Motion to adjourn.

So moved.

First? Second.

Second by supervisor Henkelberger. All in favor say aye. Aye.

Motion carried.