CDBG Working Group — Portland, ME
Date: 2013-04-04

CDBG Working Group
DRAFT Meeting 7 Summary: April 4, 2013

Members: Chris Hall, Rob Wood, Karma O’Connor, Joni Boissonnealt, Mike Rolland,
Tae Chong, Julie Chase, Beth Campbell, Ed Suslovic

Staff: Amy Pulaski, Maeve Wachowicz (note taker)

Public Meeting
The Group discusses the attendance at the public meeting and reviews the notes
taken. The group identifies a few people who attended but did not sign in: Rachel
White and Bill Burney. Tae clarifies that his statistic of 8,000 un/underemployed
people was a combination of PHA residents and the homeless population.

Discussion of outcomes
The group discusses the 6 month job retention outcome. Amy thinks that measuring
over the 2 year life of the grant and then an additional year might be a better
retention measure. So depending on when each employee was hired over the two
years, there would be a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years of tracking
per person.

The group discusses tracking resources, including year‐end reports, wage records
and how to reward the creation of sustainable jobs. The group also debates whether
they want to track the job or the individual that fills the job, and comes to the
conclusion that you would need to track, reward, and incentivize both. However,
they note that tracking can be resource‐intensive, which leads them to talk about
leveraging other resources and whether the social service funds used for this project
should be higher.

Discussion of Limits
One member questions the limit of having a minimum of 2 grantees. Other members
comment that they did not want to put all their eggs in one basket for the first year
and that the minimum does not mean there needs to be a 50/50 split of funds
between two projects. On the other hand, some members agree that the 2 grant
minimum is too restrictive and that already limited funds would be stretched. They
advocate for giving the allocation committee the flexibility of funding one good
project, or multiple ones depending on their merit.

The group also discusses that if the most difficult populations to serve need more
resources, you might be discouraging serving them if the money available is so little.
One member thinks taking any more social services money for this project would be
a strain on the already tight resources of CDBG. This year the allocation committee
got double the requests for money than what was available. However, others think
that without sufficient funding this initiative will not succeed. One member points


 1
out that eliminating the 2 grant minimum helps mitigate the fact that there are
limited funds. However, others are still reluctant to just fund one program and
suggest instead of having language requiring a minimum, just including language
that the group recommends or encourages more than one grant be awarded.

Discussion of Metrics
The group then discusses metrics and whether grants would be rewarded for the
number of jobs and businesses created or for the number of people employed. One
member also asks whether there would be mandatory technical assistance. Amy
says the applicants would have to meet with her to make sure they are eligible. The
group also decides they would like to change net economic benefit to net ROI and
that two ROIs would need to be measured, one for the business and one for the
individual.

Some members question whether the most vulnerable populations should be the
focus of this initial pilot, since the chronically unemployed for example need more
social services in order become successful. The group then talks about how to
reward grants that work with those populations. Some members feel that jobs and
businesses with the highest ROI and the least social services investment should be
prioritized, and once the program is established and successful it can begin to
address more vulnerable populations. Other members disagree and want to focus
on helping the target populations.

The group talks about how to include job retention in ROI. Beth again brings up a
milestone‐based payment model. Amy proposes that there could be 3 payments –
one after the hire, at 6 months, and at 12 months. Chris poses the question of
whether that model would discourage employers from giving promotions, because
they need the employee in the same position in order to hit the milestones. The
group agrees that issue could be problematic and needs clarification.

The group then discusses the model for payments for the social services. One
member thinks it should be a “broker” model, in which not all services would be
paid for out of the grant, but that participants are being connected to other service
providers that can help them. Another member thinks that incorporating lots of
social services should score low, because that is in indicator of low ROI. Some
members discuss that the program will be judged a success or a failure based on
how many jobs are created in the end, so that should be the focus. Other members
worry that such an approach eliminates the focus on the priority populations.

The group then talks about measuring ROI for microenterprises, and whether
looking at wages and payroll is the best measure. They talk about how often an
owner will not draw a paycheck or employs relatives, and that those nuances may
not be reflected. One member notes that that kind of program might not score
highly. Ed comments that that issue goes back to the point made at the public forum
about existing businesses being more competitive. However, he stresses that this
program cannot fit everyone’s needs.


 2
Discussion of Financial Need
Chris notes that the hospitality industry will be expanding in Portland in the next
year, and thinks this initiative could plug into those new jobs being created.
However Amy notes that the businesses who would receive funding would need to
demonstrate financial need for the project, and a large hotel chain probably would
not qualify. The group debates this restriction and some think that the argument
could be made that a large corporation would not be able to hire LMI Portland
individuals without the grant. However that does not fit with the requirement that
development funds be used for business expansion that creates net new jobs, it is
just plugging a certain population into an expanding industry.

They discuss whether the funding could go towards training, but Amy explains that
training would fall under the social services funding unless the training was for a
specific job in which the skills could not be obtained otherwise or if there are no
people already possessing that skill available to hire. Also if a hotel chain were to
argue that they need the funding for construction, that would trigger Davis Bacon
requirements, which would be onerous.

Some members think the group should meet an additional time than is scheduled to
grapple with the financial need issue and how that impacts who can apply for the
grants. They also want to address how to ensure the target population is served and
balance their needs with facilitating larger ROI, possibly by including qualitative as
well as quantitative measures of ROI.

Meeting Summary
Tae moves to accept the meeting minutes from March 28th. Mike seconds. All vote in
favor.

Next Meeting
The next meeting is April 18th at 2:00pm in the Council Chambers. Amy will clarify
the gap funding requirements for the next meeting. The group will define bonus
points for the priority populations. The group will also consider having an
additional meeting before the HCDC meeting in May.




 3