Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council reviews capital reappropriations, ARPA allocations and reporting requirements for city projects
Summary
At first readings Aug. 4 council members discussed reappropriating $200,000 for the Cumberland Pool project after an encumbrance timing error, ARPA-funded garage repairs that uncovered structural damage, and unresolved funding for a $100,000 Prentice allocation; council requested supporting bid documents and scheduled follow-up for Aug. 18.
Cleveland Heights council members spent much of the Aug. 4 legislative review discussing several capital and budget items, including a reappropriation for the Cumberland Pool project, ARPA‑funded garage repairs that exceeded initial estimates, and the outstanding question of where $100,000 for the Prentice project will come from.
Finance staff told council the Cumberland Pool contractor, Frank Novak & Sons, was awarded work tied to funds encumbered in 2024 that did not post to the capital account until January 2025. “The monies were encumbered at the end of…we're not doing the boilers…we're gonna reappropriate the dollars to do the Frank Novak and Sons. So the money was appropriated in 2024 for that project. What ended up happening is that it didn't end up hitting the books until January 2025,” Director Harrison said. He explained that because the encumbrance was reversed back to the general fund, the city needs to move $200,000 back into the 2025 capital budget to cover work already approved.
Council members asked for supporting documents for bids and proposals tied to purchase orders. One council member requested proof that Novak—iled a proposal attached to the purchase order; staff replied that proposals must be attached to purchase orders to release funds. Council directed staff to attach supporting documentation and to circulate it to council.
Separately, council discussed an item for garage repairs with an estimated cost entry of $67,428 and noted the work appears to exceed an existing $500,000 ARPA allocation earmarked for related projects. Staff reported that once contractors removed facade stone from a stair area they uncovered more extensive structural damage that must be addressed before further work can proceed.
Councilmember Leah Gonzalez proposed an alternative budgeting approach to reduce movement of funds through the general fund: "Instead of taking money out of the general fund, increase the fund 4 0 2 finance capital projects line and, you know, account for missing these increases just by directly increasing budget for fund 4 0 2," Gonzalez said. The mayor and staff said council could either amend the exhibit in the legislation to reflect those line‑item changes or vote as written; council members asked for a spreadsheet showing the recommended transfers and amendments at the Aug. 18 meeting.
The Prentice allocation also drew questions. Councilmembers said the origin of a proposed $100,000 allocation for Prentice had not been finalized and asked whether the recommendation had a funding source. Staff recommended that council increase the general fund budget if council prefers that route; council agreed to pursue the funding-source question at the Aug. 18 meeting. Several council members also said future one-time allocations should include reporting requirements. Staff and council agreed a midterm report (six months) should be required so recipients return to council with a use report.
No formal votes were taken on the budget items at first reading. Council asked staff to prepare amended exhibits, circulate procurement/bid documentation, and return with a budget worksheet and proposed amendments for the Aug. 18 meeting.
