Cleveland Heights committee to send $100,000 Students of Promise grant back to Committee of the Whole for funding source

The Cleveland Heights Finance Committee discussed on June 3 a request from Students of Promise for a $100,000 city grant to support a women-and-children transitional shelter and related program services, and agreed to return the request to the Committee of the Whole for a final funding-source designation.

The request, presented by Students of Promise Executive Director Bob Ivory, would support a facility that Ivory described as “not necessarily… a shelter. We’re transitioning women and their children that are homeless into… permanent housing.” He told the committee the funds would be used largely for programmatic services — “financial literacy, social emotional learning, trauma informed care, family reunification… mentoring for the children,” and onsite childcare and early learning — and said “nothing less than 50% of these funds” would be used for those services.

Why it matters: committee members flagged precedent and oversight questions. Several said the city must identify an appropriate account and record how the funds will be monitored before approving a one-off program grant, and asked for reporting requirements to be included in any contract or resolution.

Committee discussion focused first on whether American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds were available. Vice Chair Anthony Maddox Jr. said he had “got an email back from Brian Iorio and he said we have allocated everything from ARPA at this point,” and the group discussed whether money could be repurposed within the existing budget. Finance Director Greg Harrison told the committee that budget lines can be modified and “the county auditor will just certify it,” but added that certification and any legal limits need to be checked: the group agreed staff should verify the exact account and any county certification required before final legislative action.

Ivory said other funding is already in play: he told the committee Kyle County committed $250,000 in ARPA toward brick-and-mortar work on the building, and that a state budget proposal passed by the Senate includes dollars for this project in fiscal years 2026 and 2027 (the state budget must still be reconciled with the House). Ivory and council members described a mix of construction and program funding: county ARPA for interior/brick-and-mortar costs, the requested city funds for program operations and personnel, and potential state funding if the budget is enacted.

Committee members emphasized the need for clearer terms if the city provides money for programming rather than capital costs. One council member warned that “once you start funding programs… the community is gonna wanna know” about reporting, duration and how future requests will be handled. Several members suggested requiring a progress report and documentation from the grantee — for example, a six-month report describing how funds were used — and said any contract or resolution should specify those deliverables.

Next steps: the committee agreed to return the item to the Committee of the Whole; Director Harrison was asked to identify a specific funding source and report back at the Committee of the Whole meeting on June 16. No formal vote on the grant was taken in the finance committee meeting; members framed the action as a referral pending staff clarification of the funding source and any required county certification.

Community and funding context: Ivory said the facility will include an early-learning center to support working parents and described relationships with banks and other partners for credit readiness and supportive services. He also noted that councilmembers and a state senator had recently provided testimony to the Senate finance committee seeking state dollars for the project.

The committee also discussed precedent: members recalled past small grants but said a $100,000 program grant is materially different from one-off support for events and raised the question of whether the city should create a structured grant process or rely on contract terms and reporting for individual awards. Several members said they would prefer clear reporting requirements attached to any funding, and one recommended discussing a broader strategy for future program funding at committee level before adopting recurring policy.

The committee invited Students of Promise to provide additional detail about program duration, staffing and proposed reporting requirements and asked staff to return to the Committee of the Whole with a recommended source of funds and any legal or auditor certifications required.