Committee adopts city-run East Side grants program after debate over oversight

Council Member Ron Salem’s substitute to administer east side Community Benefit Agreement (CBA) funds inside city government won committee approval on Feb. 2, following weeks of public pressure and a daylong discussion that included the inspector general and the council auditor.

The substitute creates an East Side Grants Committee — a nine‑member body that would advise and score grant applications — and establishes a city manager role to run an internal grant program modeled on the city’s opioid and public‑service grant processes. The substitute sets four funded categories (affordable housing, workforce housing, economic development and mitigation of homelessness), limits operational grants to $250,000 and caps capital‑project awards at 60% of the annual lump‑sum appropriation.

The substitute was driven by public comment. Latavia Harris, speaking for the Together Eastside Coalition, urged the council to adopt the opioid (city‑administered) model rather than create a new nonprofit, saying, “I’m in favor of just going to the opioid model.” Other east side speakers, including community leaders and attorneys, warned that a brand‑new 501(c)(3) with no operating history could expose CBA dollars to fraud or poor stewardship and cited the inspector general’s similar concerns.

Inspector General Matt Lassel told the committee his central worry about the original outside‑nonprofit proposal was lack of city oversight: “My concerns all along were purely based on the language of the initial legislation and how it did not allow for oversight by the city.” The council auditor’s office likewise recommended a structure that keeps city contracts directly with each grant recipient so the city can require reimbursements and audit trails.

Supporters of Salem’s substitute argued it balances oversight and speed. Salem and other proponents said housing and workforce programs need both local control and timely disbursement; Salem told the committee, “These are taxpayer dollars and I think it’s extremely important that we have control of those dollars.” Administration representatives said they preferred the external (nonprofit) model used in other cases but did not object to stronger oversight provisions.

Committee members adopted three substantive changes during the meeting. First, oversight and program administration were placed in the Grants & Contract Compliance division rather than the mayor’s office at committee direction to reduce political optics and use existing administrative controls. Second, the committee added “goal” language encouraging appointing authorities to seek at least some members with experience in economic development/workforce, affordable‑housing, and homelessness‑mitigation fields while maintaining neighborhood representation requirements. Third, to facilitate an initial round of grants this fiscal year, the committee set a transitional eligibility rule: applicants must have been in existence for two years in the initial grant cycle and three years for subsequent cycles to match the public‑service grants standard.

The substitute preserves a competitive, reimbursement‑based grants structure. Staff will run mandatory application workshops (at least one after work hours), conduct site visits, and require quarterly and annual council reporting. The committee also kept an appeals process similar to other city grant programs.

Next steps: the substitute will be docketed for full council consideration. The committee recorded a unanimous vote in favor after rolling the passed amendments into the substitute.

Community reaction and context: Speakers from the east side said the change reflected repeated requests from residents to keep CBA dollars local and transparently managed. Several commenters and council members noted that the Jaguars’ private contribution and other non‑city dollars are outside the scope of the ordinance and remain at the Jaguars’ discretion.

What remains unresolved: the exact number of city staff the administration will dedicate to the program and how quickly hires will be completed. Council members noted $4 million budgeted contingently for program startup is available and that the administration will return with position‑control and appropriation details if additional staff or cap changes are required.