Community Council meeting recap (2-23-26)

Welcome to the recap of the February 23, 2026 Community Council meeting.

Attendance 

10 of 12 members present, 9 of whom were eligible to vote. Voting was restricted to the 9 Community Council members who watched and scored the video component of all 55 small grants applications.

Meeting outcomes 

Recommend small grants applications for funding to the Allocation Committee.   

Meeting summary

The Community Council voted to recommend the following 12 applications to the Allocation Committee. Of the 9 council members who voted, the number who voted for an application are listed following each organization’s name. Applications with the same position number indicate a tied vote; in other words, 5 applications tied for 1^st place, 2 applications tied for 6^th place, etc. All voting results are included at the end of this meeting summary in the appendix.

*Selected in 2nd round vote among 3 applications that tied for 12^th spot in first round vote.

In response to survey questions about rationale for their individual votes, Community Council members indicated that an application’s score was the most influential factor in their recommendation-making. The table below shows how members responded to questions about which factors “highly influenced” their votes. The appendix to this summary has a table showing all responses to questions about the factors that influenced their votes.

They also responded to an open-ended question about what other factors influenced their individual votes. Five council members answered that question. Four mentioned services that may fill a gap or address unique needs, and one mentioned support for ongoing programs rather than start-up of new services.

Applications recommended for funding scored 59 and above; several applications that tied for 59 were not recommended. Out of 76 points available, 33 applications scored the median of 54 or higher.

Additional context: meeting process

Prior to Council’s February 23 meeting, PCL staff met with small groups of 1- 3 council members to prepare them to make funding recommendations. Staff reviewed the meeting agenda, facilitation plan and overall applicant pool data, and shared individual application data including scores (total, video, written), program area, funding priority, and the summary paragraph provided by each applicant. Staff also reviewed 3 policy frameworks, each with 15 applications.

Staff created the three policy frameworks to help the Community Council consider which applications to select for funding, especially in cases where applications had the same total score or scored only 1 point apart. The frameworks were score order, after school-focus, and balance of program areas. This approach provided the Community Council with tools for considering which applications to fund using factors like score, demand in the applicant pool for after school programming, or balancing for a range of program areas and funding priorities.

During the first 30 minutes of the February 23 meeting, staff reviewed the same material they covered in small groups, including meeting process, the small grants funding process, applicant pool data, and policy frameworks. The Community Council spent the remaining three hours conducting three rounds of group work, including a poll, solo reflection, small group work, and full council discussion, before completing two rounds of voting.

In the initial round of voting, each of the 9 voting council members could select 12 applications from all 55 applications. The 12 applications that received the most votes would be recommended to the Allocation Committee for funding. Three applications tied for 12^th place in the first round of voting, receiving 4 votes each: People of Color Outdoors, Love is Stronger GV, and Grow Portland.

To break the tie, the Community Council completed another round of small group work and full council discussion before taking a second vote. In the second vote, each council member could select 1 application from the 3 that tied for 12^th place. People of Color Outdoors received the most votes at 5 of 9, so it was selected along with the other 11 from the first round of voting to recommend to the Allocation Committee for funding. See appendix below for all votes.

The Community Council did not discuss funding amounts at the meeting. Staff retain that role in the recommendation process. If fully funded at the requested amounts, the 12 recommended applications total $2,555,000. PCL staff will recommend the Allocation Committee use reserves to cover the $55,000 over the current $2.5 million allocation for small grants.

If a recommended applicant later decides not to accept the grant or becomes ineligible due to city requirements, staff may consider recommending another application that tied for 12th place in the first round of voting.

View the slide deck *

*After the meeting, staff corrected an error in one slide. The total possible points available to each application was 76, not 72 as originally reported.

Appendix

Council member responses to questions about factors that influenced votes