Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cdbg Consolidated Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances Cleveland Heights’ 5-year CDBG consolidated plan and reallocations to council
Summary
Committee reviewed the city’s five-year Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) consolidated plan and a 2025 allocation package, including reallocations to storefront programs and curb-ramp/street work, and agreed to return the plan to council for approval.
Cleveland Heights’ Committee of the Whole reviewed the city’s 2025 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) five-year consolidated plan on June 16 and agreed to move the legislation back to council for approval.
Staff outlined the 2025 allocation and several reallocations from prior years’ funds. The administration said the 2025 allocation to the program was $2,000,103.92 and that the consolidated plan covers a five‑year program period for use with a regional consortium that includes Cuyahoga County and neighboring jurisdictions. Staff said the plan itself covers a 15‑year planning horizon for other regional plans (the county plan spans 2026–2040) and that the municipal consortium submits a consolidated plan together to meet federal requirements.
During the presentation staff identified reallocations of legacy funds: $22,000 from a prior local advisory allocation (Seventh Star Local Advisory Council) to contingency and a reallocation of $300,000 to the storefront program. Committee discussion also referenced moving $100,000 to street work to conform curb‑ramp improvements at the Delancey and S. Taylor locations.
Staff described program priorities and budget shares: about 30% of the allocation was dedicated to affordable‑housing activities through the Housing Preservation Office and the Home Repair Resource Center, and about 15% was identified for neighborhood revitalization projects, including public‑works elements and code enforcement. Staff said nonprofit partners proposed for funding include store‑front and public‑service recipients and named several local cultural and emergency‑service nonprofit partners that appear in the plan.
A staff presenter said some funds are program income and that the city is reallocating prior years’ money into the competitive pool. Committee members asked about program reporting and follow‑up; council members requested recipient reports on attendance and expenditures for event and service allocations in future cycles. The committee moved the plan forward to the full council for approval with a view to meet the county’s submittal timetable.
