Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Drainage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cleveland staff warn $339,000 shortfall possible on GLO-funded drainage project
Summary
City staff told the council that a flood-control drainage project funded by a $1 million GLO CDBG-DR grant could exceed the grant by roughly $339,000 after design and inflation pushed construction estimates higher; staff said bids will be solicited and the council may need to use fund balance if low bids match estimates.
City of Cleveland staff warned the City Council on July 15 that a drainage-improvement project funded by a $1 million General Land Office (GLO) CDBG-DR grant could come in roughly $339,000 over the grant’s construction allowance.
The shortfall follows a redesign and updated cost opinion that staff said reflects higher construction prices and utility conflicts along the drainage corridor from Blair Avenue to U.S. Highway 59.
The council heard that the grant award included $800,000 intended for construction. “As of this point, with the base bid, we're about 339, almost 340,000 over the 800,000 grant amount,” a staff presenter told the council. Staff said they have split the work into a base bid (the main drainage ditch along Blair Avenue) and three separate bid alternatives for Meadow, Birch and Allen streets to reduce upfront cost exposure.
Why it matters: the city will likely need to decide whether to use fund balance to cover any overage. Finance staff told the council that, if bids come in at the estimated levels, the only immediate way to fund the excess would be from the city’s fund balance. The presenter said bids will be solicited, and the council will be asked to approve any contract award after bids are returned.
City staff said the project design includes underground storm sewer and surface regrading and that utility conflicts — water, sewer and fiber — contributed to higher estimates. “When we try to put cost opinions together, we try to be as conservative as possible,” the presenter told council members.
Council members asked about the grant timeline and possible alternatives. Staff said the grant completion deadline is currently set for spring 2026 but a time extension is possible if requested. Construction was estimated to take about 90 days once under way; staff also said the downstream easement documentation is still pending. The presenter cautioned that changing the project scope to a different project would require a formal amendment with GLO and that the amendment process is lengthy.
Next steps: staff will advertise the work for bid, bring back proposals to the council and recommend award or alternatives. Finance staff warned that using fund balance for a sizable local match would affect other pending projects and that the council would need to weigh priorities if bids match the estimates.
No final appropriation or contract award was made at the July 15 meeting; council discussion was informational and preparatory prior to bidding.
