In a sometimes spirited meeting Tuesday, Bowling Green Council approved a framework to guide discussions to determine how to distribute the city’s remaining American Rescue Plan Act funds.
Council approved a list of 27 proposed ARPA projects to begin their discussions, as well as an eight-category rubric to help rank them.
One councilman said he feared that council was getting stuck in the details and needed to take action.
“We’ve had this really long, lengthy process … and it’s our job to actually get it done,” Nick Rubando said. “I don’t know what we’re doing here. Can we please make a decision, because people in this community need this help.”
Council President Mark Hollenbaugh said he had provided a copy of the rubric to council members earlier on Tuesday.
The rubric features eight categories for ranking each project: How many times it came up in the community questionnaire; the total dollar amount requested for the project; the project’s ongoing costs; how closely the project relates to COVID or those adversely impacted by it; how many BG residents would be positively impacted by the project; the potential for matching funds or in-kind contributions for the project; and the positive effect the project might have on the local economy.
Councilman Bill Herald suggested an alternate method of proceeding: that council members use their own criteria and ordered list. The lists would then be compiled.
Rubando said he was a “strong proponent” for the rubric.
“It’s extremely important that the public has some transparency,” he said.
“The beauty of the ranking rubric is that every single proposal would get a score,” said Councilman Joel Odorisio. “We’ll each give our score in each category, we’ll average them together.”
One major portion of Tuesday’s discussion was about the list of projects to be considered. Hollenbaugh said that his list of 27 proposed projects was made up of proposals received by the May 31 deadline — with the possible exception of items that may have been brought up in the comment section of the online questionnaire.
Hollenbaugh said that, at the time the list was compiled in June, he wasn’t thinking that those items were formal asks and, since there was concern about the scientific accuracy of the questionnaire, he thought that council would use the comments simply as a supportive tool.
Councilwoman Rachel Phipps advocated for the inclusion of the suggestions in the questionnaire comments.
When Hollenbaugh made a motion to adopt the 27-item proposal list for evaluation, Herald also advocated for the potential to supplement the list with additional prospective projects, using food pantries as an example.
Orodisio said he felt “deeply uncomfortable” with the prospect of selecting an organization to receive funding that hadn’t requested it.
“Frankly, I don’t care personally how long the list is,” said Councilman Greg Robinette. “All I’m suggesting is we agree to what the project list is so that we can then prioritize this. We’re in an informal committee process right now. The list can be amended now. The list can be amended later. … All I’m suggesting is we agree to a list, whether it’s this list or an amended version of this list, so we can then prioritize it.”
Phipps noted that items in the questionnaire comments included a new roof for the community center. She said she “certainly thought” the items in the questionnaire were going to be considered.
“If we end up going with this rubric, it will not be that much more time to go through and (look at) each individual idea that we reviewed in the 900 comments,” said Councilman Jeff Dennis.
“We should each be able to add whatever we want to this list for discussion,” Robinette said.
Hollenbaugh said he had no problem with council members wanting to add items to the list as they go through the process, but he wanted to formalize an initial list.
The 27-project list presented by Hollenbaugh was adopted as the list for council to begin their discussion with, on a 6-1 vote, with Phipps voting no.
Additional discussion continued about the potential to amend the list. Dennis said that it would be helpful to look at the questionnaire responses and see how many of them are reflected on the 27-project list. He said that, for instance, a dog park and pickleball courts were mentioned a combined 100 times or so in the comments.
“I just think that we should go through the comment section,” Phipps said. “I’m looking at the comment section right now and, you’re right, a lot of them are in (the list). … I do think we should go through the comment section of the questionnaire and make sure that” anything not on the list of 27 is put on there, she said later.
After further discussion it was ultimately decided near the end of the meeting that Herald and Phipps would send out their proposed amendments within a week.
Council also continued discussion of the rubric, with Herald suggesting the potential for weighting the rubric’s eight items.
“I would be OK agreeing with Bill on this one,” Dennis said.
Rubando said that while he was in full support of ensuring that the process is meticulous, that people are heard, and that council makes the right decision, he feared they were “being bogged down in bureaucracy right now.”
Odorisio moved that the rubric be accepted as presented.
“We can’t let frustration inhibit our ability to make sound decisions,” Herald said. “I think if we did spend some extra time, we’d have something we’re more comfortable with and would serve us better.”
Robinette said council would be discussing the projects and their merits, and would have an opportunity to consider everything.
“We don’t need to spend an undue amount of time on the prioritization,” he said. “Why spin our wheels on the simple task? The hard work is going to be the discussion of each project.”
Dennis suggested the potential of considering additional factors in the rubric, for example to what degree the project might further the city’s goals of attracting young families to town.
“I’m not convinced this is a comprehensive list of all the factors that should be considered as we allocate,” he said.
In the end, council voted 6-1, with Herald voting no, to utilize the rubric to score the list of 27 items from the list, and potentially items to be suggested by Phipps and Herald.
Further discussion ensued as to the formatting of the spreadsheet for the rubric. Hollenbaugh said that the next step will be to have another meeting once that spreadsheet is set up. It was determined that meeting would be scheduled at council’s July 18 meeting.
The city was allocated $7.3 million from ARPA; the funds must be committed by the end of 2024 and spent by the end of 2026.
To date, council has approved ARPA investments including residential paving ($3 million); MARCS communication radios to improve public safety communications ($350,000); a City Park paving project which will include road widening, a walking path, and security improvements such as cameras and lighting ($250,000); inclusive playground support for the Wood County Plays project at Carter Park ($100,000); housing grants ($300,000 over three years); and lost revenue replacement for the city’s pool and waterpark complex ($20,000).
