Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Grant Administration Cdbg topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Nonprofit leader says CDBG reimbursement vanished; city staff say vote on unrelated resolutions won’t affect appeal
Summary
A community program leader told the council his CDBG reimbursement grant was terminated after staff turnover; city administrators said the council’s approved resolutions did not cancel the nonprofit’s appeal and would not affect pending PAL-related grant issues.
A community program leader told the Jersey City Municipal Council he was told his Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) award had been terminated after a prolonged paperwork and staffing problem, while city officials said the council’s voting on unrelated resolutions will not impact the nonprofit’s pending appeal.
“Receiving the grant, my grant disappears,” the speaker identified as Elvis told the council, describing a reimbursement grant he said required extensive documentation and lengthy staff follow‑up. Elvis said he provided receipts and documentation for a reimbursement grant of roughly $250,000, then later received a termination notice dated May 28 and received that notice on June 7; he said reimbursements previously promised were delayed while department staff turned over.
Council staff, including Assistant Business Administrator Peter Horton, told the council that the set of resolutions up for vote that evening did not directly affect the PAL-related CDBG matter. Horton said voting on resolution 10.25 (and related items) would not interfere with the nonprofit’s appeal process and that staff would confer with the department director. He also asked the nonprofit to forward the email record so the administration and legal staff could review it and work toward a resolution with the CDBG office.
Council members asked cabinet staff to obtain the relevant records and said they would review whether any of the current resolutions touch the disputed funding. A council member suggested the director of the CDBG program provide a timeline and that the council be updated.
No formal rescission of the nonprofit award was enacted by the council; instead the meeting produced public requests for administrative follow up and an assurance from city staff that the appeals process is separate from the routine resolution vote. Elvis and other public commenters said they will continue to pursue records and that they expected a review and possible remediation by city staff.
The matter highlights recurring concerns from neighborhood nonprofits and community groups about grant administration, documentation requirements for reimbursement grants, and staff turnover in grant‑management functions.
