Planning commission recommends distribution of 2026 CDBG funds after lengthy nonprofit presentations

The Richland Planning Commission on a September evening heard hourlong presentations from seven nonprofit applicants for the City’s 2026 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) public-service pot and voted to forward the commission’s allocation worksheet to city council.

The commission opened a public hearing and listened as program leaders described demand for food delivery, transitional housing case management, respite and life‑skills programs for residents with developmental disabilities, teen services, domestic‑violence shelter case management, and victim advocacy. After questioning applicants and reviewing staff materials on available funding, commissioners voted unanimously to approve the allocations as displayed on the staff worksheet and recorded in the meeting record.

The commission’s vote advances staff’s recommendation for allocating the City’s limited CDBG public‑service funding and for allocating a separate public‑facilities pot that funds owner‑occupied home repairs and removal of architectural barriers.

The decisions came after staff explained the city’s constraints: the CDBG application round drew $93,950 in public‑service requests while the City’s 2026 CDBG budget allows only $43,720 for public‑service activities, and federal rules cap public‑service spending at 15% of the local grant for this program year.

“We received $93,950 in requests. Unfortunately, we only have $43,720,” said Toni Lehman, community development staff, explaining the cap and the commission’s ranking process. Applicants had five minutes each to describe need and outcomes; commissioners then ranked priorities and negotiated funding amounts on a staff spreadsheet that was the basis of their motion.

Applicants’ presentations and requests

- Christine Stacy, program director for Elijah Family Homes, asked for $10,000 for the Transition to Success program, which provides case management and housing assistance for families in recovery. She told commissioners the program currently serves families living in Richland and maintains a waiting list.

- Brian Kenner, representing Senior Life Resources (Meals on Wheels), sought $20,000 to support home‑delivered and congregate meals for older residents in Benton and Franklin counties. Kenner said Richland seniors accounted for roughly 25% of the organization’s clients and meals served, and that the requested funds would pay for approximately 2,300 meals.

- Donna Tracy and Stephanie Olson represented the Arc of Tri‑Cities (Arc). The Arc asked for $10,450 in scholarship funds to help low‑income individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities attend day and camp programs. Tracy and Olson described volunteer reliance, summer camp capacity and the Arc’s long history of local services.

- Michael Novakovich, president and CEO of Columbia Ability Alliance, requested $8,000 for scholarships and program operations at its community center for adults with developmental disabilities. Novakovich described vocational training, community integration and a recent accreditation that staff said strengthened financial and program practices.

- Shannon (last name not specified), representing Domestic Violence Services of Benton‑Franklin County, requested $20,000 for a housing case manager position to help shelter residents navigate housing barriers and shorten shelter stays. She described a new Domestic Violence High‑Risk Team (DVHRT) partnership with the Richland Police Department.

- Liz McLaughlin, chief development officer for Boys & Girls Clubs of Benton and Franklin Counties, requested $13,500 to expand structured teen programming at the Richland Teen Center (Chief Joe Middle School) focused on academic support, workforce readiness and social‑emotional services.

- Jody Gerritsen of Support, Advocacy and Resource Center (SARC) requested $12,000 to maintain an assault‑advocate position; she said about 25% of SARC’s clients live in Richland and that advocates provide crisis response, hospital support and referrals.

Why it mattered: a tight pot and other funding sources

The commission and staff repeatedly noted that other funding streams could cover parts of applicants’ requests. Staff referenced HOME‑ARP (HOME American Rescue Plan) supportive‑services awards the City has used in prior years to pay for housing barriers such as security deposits, application fees and urgent needs for people who are homeless, fleeing violence or at risk. Staff told commissioners those HOME‑ARP sources could potentially supplement or replace CDBG recommendations for eligible populations.

Staff clarified program rules for owner‑occupied rehabilitation funds (a separate CDBG public‑facilities request): loans are deferred, interest‑free, and carry affordability periods of six, ten or 15 years depending on the loan amount. The program serves households at or below 80% of area median income (staff cited a 2025 threshold of about $84,500 for a family of four). Those details shaped commissioners’ deliberations about how to stretch limited dollars to meet urgent needs.

Commission discussion and outcome

Commissioners ranked applicants in order of priority and then negotiated dollar amounts in a live spreadsheet. During deliberations several commissioners said they gave extra weight to organizations that provide prevention or broad youth services, while others prioritized crisis‑response and housing stabilization programs that serve people fleeing violence or homelessness.

After discussion, a commissioner moved to approve the allocations as displayed on the staff worksheet; the motion was seconded and passed unanimously. The meeting record and staff worksheet (the allocation table shown during the meeting) were adopted as the commission’s recommendation to city council.

Formal actions recorded

- Motion to adopt the staff worksheet and recommend the 2026 CDBG public‑service allocations to city council (motion moved and seconded; vote: unanimous).

- Motion to adopt staff recommendations for the public‑facilities pot (see separate action under “Public facilities” in this news package). That motion passed and was amended to set contingency rules; see companion article about public‑facilities allocations.

What the commission asked staff to do next

Commissioners did not finalize disbursement policy language in the meeting minutes beyond adopting the worksheet and a contingency rule that the commission recorded on the meeting screen. Staff told applicants that city council and, where applicable, other funding partners (HOME‑ARP) would be part of final funding determinations and that award amounts could change during council review.

Quotes

"This is probably the hardest meeting," Toni Lehman, community development staff, told the commission at the outset of the presentations. "I appreciate everyone being here tonight."

"We're an answer to poverty, homelessness, and substance use disorder," Christine Stacy said of Elijah Family Homes, describing its work with families in recovery.

"All of our meals are evaluated by a registered dietitian. They all meet one‑third of the recommended daily allotment," Brian Kenner said of Meals on Wheels operations.

The vote and what comes next

The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to Richland City Council for final award decisions and contract authorizations. Staff said council actions and any court appeals would rely on the public record created during the hearing process.

Ending

Commissioners thanked the applicants and staff for a lengthy public process but repeatedly noted the limits of the available federal grant. The commission’s recommendation preserves that record for council review and leaves final adjustments to the council and to external grant sources such as HOME‑ARP where eligible, officials said.