Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Detroit council holds hearings on Neighborhood Opportunity Fund recommendations and appeals
Summary
Detroit City Council received an overview of the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund (NOF) public service recommendations, heard appeals from several nonprofit applicants flagged for missing threshold items, and was told staff will return with an appeals analysis before Council deliberations.
Detroit City Council on Wednesday opened a public hearing on the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund (NOF), the portion of the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) that pays for public-service grants to local nonprofits, and heard appeals from organizations that HRD and staff had recommended not fund.
Chris Gulak of the City Planning Commission staff told the council that HRD (the Housing and Revitalization Department) and the Planning Commission reviewed 53 public-service applications and recommended 35 for funding and 18 not to be funded. Gulak said the administration estimated public-service funding this year at about $2,400,000 and reminded council members that “no more than 15% of the block grant can be allocated towards public service.”
The NOF review process combines threshold checks (eligibility items such as nonprofit status, a 5-member board, and a current Michigan certificate of good standing) with a 100-point scoring rubric. Gulak said applications scoring 80 or above were recommended for funding; applications that scored above 80 but missed a required threshold attachment were flagged as ineligible. He told the council HRD received 17 new applicants this cycle and that most awards recommended were in the $60,000–$100,000 range.
Tamara Fontaine Hardy, director of HRD’s neighborhood services and economic development division, told the council all ARPA funds for other relief programs have already been committed in executed contracts and that HRD is reviewing a separate ARPA neighborhood-level funding round. She said HRD expects to notify applicants to that ARPA round within 30–45 days. Hardy cautioned that federal HUD funding levels remain uncertain and that staff continue national advocacy to protect CDBG programs.
Council members heard appeals from five organizations at the meeting. Dennis White, senior program manager for Live 6 Alliance, appealed after HRD recommended no funding for Live 6 because of a low score (67) despite meeting threshold items; White said his group coordinates corridor clean-and-safe work and “Every month, we pick up over 4,000 pounds of trash from the West McNichols Corridor.”
Annelle Echleston, co-executive director of the Student Advocacy Center, said her nonprofit scored 98 on the review but was flagged as ineligible because the notarized certification form in the application was not signed and notarized in the city’s copy. Echleston appealed for allowance to correct the submission and continued access to mentoring and school-support services in southwest Detroit.
Representatives for the Boys & Girls Club of Southeastern Michigan and Southwest Economic Solutions also appealed HRD findings that they had not submitted operating proof or a 2024 certificate of good standing. The Boys & Girls Club representative said the organization had notarized and submitted the required forms and asked staff to recheck OCP’s electronic upload records; Southwest Economic Solutions said it had submitted a 2023 certificate by mistake and possesses the 2024 certificate.
Council members and staff reiterated the appeals process: HRD and Planning Commission staff will review evidence submitted at the hearing, produce an appeals analysis, and deliver an updated chart to council by the next day (staff said Wednesday morning or Wednesday afternoon). The council’s deliberations are scheduled to begin Wednesday at 2 p.m., and the administration asked the council to consider a vote the following week. No final funding vote took place at this hearing.
Staff and presenters emphasized conflict-of-interest rules for council members during NOF deliberations: unpaid volunteer or board relationships must be disclosed publicly; paid relationships require disclosure and recusal. Mr. Bullock (staff member) and Director Todd said specific questions about potential conflicts should be referred to the law department for review before formal deliberations.
The meeting included general public comment on related community priorities — tutoring and youth programming, block clubs, and neighborhood streetscape work — but those items were not part of the NOF funding decisions heard at the hearing.
The council closed the session after hearing appeals and scheduled return briefings from HRD and Planning Commission staff before making any funding decisions.
