Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cdbg topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Temple City council authorizes higher caps for CDBG home‑improvement aid, gives manager allocation flexibility
Summary
The council voted unanimously to let the city manager adjust CDBG allocations by up to 50% during the year and to raise the home‑improvement loan cap from $35,000 to $40,000 and the grant cap from $10,000 to $15,000; staff said the change responds to rising construction costs and limited federal funding.
Temple City Council on Jan. 10 approved staff recommendations to adjust the city’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs for fiscal year 2026–27, including modest increases to the home‑improvement loan and grant caps and new administrative flexibility to manage unanticipated costs.
Staff presented an overview of available CDBG funding and program activity, saying the city’s estimated federal allocation for the next fiscal year plus carryover is roughly $297,000. Adam Goolic, a city program manager, told the council that construction and material costs have increased since the city last raised loan and grant caps in 2016 and recommended raising the deferred loan maximum from $35,000 to $40,000 and the grant maximum from $10,000 to $15,000 so households can complete necessary repairs without forgoing critical work.
The proposal also authorizes the city manager to amend program allocations by up to 50% during the fiscal year to respond to shifting needs, and staff emphasized the programs do not impact the general fund because they are federal dollars with some recycled repayment proceeds.
Council members sought operational detail before voting. Staff said the housing‑rehab program typically assists five to six households per year, has about 30 households on the waiting list, and uses zero‑interest deferred loans that are repaid when a property is sold, which creates a carryover balance that is recycled into future grants and loans. Councilors asked how applicants are vetted, whether seniors or safety cases can be prioritized, and whether supplementing CDBG with city funds would trigger federal prevailing‑wage rules; legal and staff responses said supplementing with city funds requires careful review because it may create additional federal reporting or wage obligations.
Public commenter Jerry Jambasian asked whether seniors or urgent safety needs could jump the list; staff said the current program is first‑come, first‑served but the council can direct staff to explore prioritization changes or a separate small emergency category.
After discussion, Council Member Tom moved and council seconded a resolution (No. 26‑5853) that included the loan/grant cap increases and the manager’s allocation authority. The council voted 5–0 (Chavez, Chen, Yu, Mayor Pro Tem Man, Mayor Sternquist) to adopt the resolution and implement the changes.
Staff told the council it will return with options for prioritizing safety‑critical work and for possible program adjustments that could increase the number of households served. The council also asked staff to report back on whether waiving fees or partnering with nonprofit programs (for example, Habitat for Humanity volunteer programs referenced during discussion) could cost‑effectively expand reach without creating prohibitive federal compliance obligations.
