191890

The City of Portland ordains:

Section 1. The Council finds:

1. The Bureau of Planning and Sustainability (BPS) shapes Portland’s future and advances climate justice for a more equitable, healthy, prosperous, and resilient city.
2. In 2018, Portland voters created the Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund (PCEF) program, which invests in community-originated climate action solutions that advance racial and social justice. The PCEF program is projected to generate over $200 million annually. 
3. In 2023, City Council adopted the PCEF program’s Climate Investment Plan (CIP), a five-year plan that guides the program’s investments, including by allocating funding for the Community Responsive Grant Program (Ordinance No. 191463). 
4. In November 2023, the PCEF program released a Request for Proposals (RFP) for Community Responsive Grants for $40 to $60 million in anticipated funding. 
5. From November 2023 to February 2024, PCEF staff hosted 11 virtual information and office hour sessions during regular work hours, evenings, and weekends to answer questions from prospective applicants. Over 200 individuals attended PCEF-hosted application support sessions. PCEF staff and subject matter experts also provided a total of six trainings focused on grant writing and budget development; multifamily, commercial, and single-family residential energy efficiency and renewable energy measures; community solar; and regenerative agriculture and green infrastructure. These sessions were recorded and uploaded to the PCEF YouTube account and have collectively received 748 video views. PCEF staff contracted with a consultant to provide an additional 15 meetings where the consultant provided grant writing and budget development support, prioritizing small and emerging organizations.
6. The PCEF program received 230 applications, totaling approximately $309 million in funding requests. Applications subsequently went through eligibility review, financial risk assessment, and reference checks before moving to application scoring panels. Of the proposals submitted for consideration, 21 were found to be ineligible for funding or not technically viable. 
7. The financial review process involved evaluating the past three years of financial documents and relevant application narratives. Key considerations included the organization's operating reserve, variances in income and expenditures, net income, net assets, and debt/equity ratio. The review also considered financial management practices, including board-approved budgets, written financial policies, periodic external audits, and clear expenditure approval policies.
8. The reference check process, led by PCEF staff, involved contacting multiple applicant-provided references to verify past performance, project completion, and confirm the applicant’s ability to manage similar projects. PCEF staff also provided internal references for current and former PCEF grantees.
9. The technical review process involved internal and external subject matter experts who assessed the technical feasibility for each eligible implementation project. Two PCEF staff members were assigned to each review, ensuring consistency and balanced evaluation. Key considerations included project feasibility, appropriate use of funds, and technical capacity, with ineligible uses clearly defined and a process for requesting additional information as needed.
10. Eligible and technically feasible applications were evaluated by one of 20 scoring panels, each panel composed of three people including PCEF staff and subject matter experts. Panels were intentionally formed to represent a diversity of race, ethnicity, and gender across all panels. All panel members received grant scoring and anti-bias training. Scoring panel members evaluated applications using published scoring criteria. 
11. Scored applications were ranked within the PCEF funding areas (energy efficiency, renewable energy, transportation decarbonization, workforce and contractor development, regenerative agriculture and green infrastructure, and other) plus planning to create the recommended portfolio.
12. After six months, and hundreds of hours of review, PCEF staff make the following funding recommendations, totaling $91,916,334, to City Council, set forth in the “2024 RFP 3 PCEF Funding Recommendations,” attached as Exhibit A.
13. To maximize the impact of available funds and support more projects, PCEF staff made strategic adjustments to its recommendation: (1) approximately 30% of projects in the recommendation were downscaled with a particular focus on those requesting over $1 million, and (2) a larger portfolio of projects was recommended than initially planned.
14. After Council authorizes the initial grant funding allocation, PCEF staff will work with grantees to finalize grant agreements. During this time, PCEF staff may identify additional project needs related to inflationary pressures, grant reporting, administration, or technical assistance. As a result, PCEF staff may recommend an increase in the grant award up to 12% above the grantee’s initial awarded funding.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Council directs:

1. The BPS Director is authorized to execute grant agreements with the nonprofit organizations recommended for funding, listed in the “Summary of grant applications recommended for funding” table of Exhibit A, for a total not to exceed amount of $91,916,334.
2. Amendments to the grant agreements, including scope of work, budget, and grant amount, may be executed by the BPS Director, provided those amendments do not increase the fiscal risk to the City or increase funding more than 12% above the grantee’s awarded funding as authorized above.
3. The BPS Director, in the Director’s sole discretion, may decline to execute a grant agreement with a grantee listed in Exhibit A. The Director may then, in the Director’s sole discretion, execute a grant agreement with an alternate grantee if: (i) funding for the new grant is equal to or less than the grant in Exhibit A; and (ii) the scope of work for the new grant is substantially similar to the scope of work for the grant listed in Exhibit A; and (iii) the award results in no greater risk to the city.