The City of Racine Common Council on Oct. 7 approved the fiscal year 2025 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) allocations recommended by the CDBG advisory board, but the vote came after extended debate over missing line items and staff transparency.

The council approved the allocation motion by roll call (motion carried 9-5). Several alderpersons said the document in the council packet accounted for roughly $612,231 in specific awards while the city’s HUD notice of award totals about $1,700,000, and they pressed staff on the whereabouts of approximately $1.1 million that council members said should include Neighborhood Enhancement Division funding and administrative charges for the Department of City Development.

Council members said the committee packet did not match what advisory-board members had previously reviewed. Alder Audra Weidner said she believed the committee had seen a fuller packet including an estimated $658,000 for the Neighborhood Enhancement Division and roughly $350,000 for department administration, but the report before the council did not reflect those figures. Director Williams (City Development) said the city receives the HUD award and that staff had accounted for all funds, and offered to provide a complete analysis showing where the award dollars were allocated. Williams told the council staff had shared information with the committee but that the specific sheet in the council packet covered only the subset of CDBG applicants included in that action.

Other council members described how the advisory process and staff scoring work. Mayor Corey Mason and several alderpersons said staff presented scoring and funding recommendations to the advisory body and the committee, which then recommended the allocations. Alder Weidner and other critics said several applications were removed from consideration by staff before committee review; she named three organizations that committee members expected to see on the funding list but said were excluded for reasons including recent receipt of city funds or questions about board composition.

The advisory-board recommendations enumerated awards to nonprofit applicants (housing services, training programs, homeless services and similar), but council critics argued the packet lacked transparency on the full HUD award breakdown and on how staff had used other city funding sources when scoring applications. Director Williams stated the department would provide a complete analysis of all HUD-funded buckets and where each dollar was assigned.

Council action and next steps: the council voted to approve the packet presented and to forward related items according to the motion; Director Williams said staff will provide the requested breakdown to council members. Alder Weidner said she would vote against the allocation because the report was incomplete and because she believed the committee had not seen certain applicant materials.

Why it matters: HUD allocations and CDBG/ESG spending determine which nonprofit and city programs receive federal funds for housing, homelessness prevention and neighborhood improvements. Council members said they want clearer accounting of staff recommendations, particularly how funds for code enforcement and Neighborhood Enhancement are being set aside and reported to the council.

The council recorded the motion as approved (9 ayes, 5 nos). The director agreed to provide the full allocation analysis to the council and advisory board so the missing buckets can be reconciled.