Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the CDBG topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Temple City approves CDBG allocations, raises home‑improvement loan and grant caps
Summary
The city council adopted Resolution 26‑5853 to establish FY2026 CDBG programs and allocations, authorizing the city manager to adjust allocations up to 50% during the fiscal year and raising the home‑improvement loan cap from $35,000 to $40,000 and the grant cap from $10,000 to $15,000. Council and public discussion focused on cost inflation, waiting lists and potential prioritization for urgent safety needs.
The Temple City Council voted unanimously to adopt Resolution 26‑5853 establishing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs and allocations for fiscal year 2026 and to give the city manager authority to adjust those allocations administratively by up to 50% during the fiscal year.
Staff presented the program overview and funding estimate: an estimated allocation of a little over $200,000 for the next fiscal year, combined with an unallocated balance (repayments and carryover) of about $96,000, producing roughly $297,000 available for programming, according to staff.
Adam Goolic outlined ongoing programs supported by CDBG funds: a housing rehabilitation loan and grant program (about 30 residents on the waiting list and typically five or six households assisted per year), HUD‑required lead‑based paint testing and removal, and a youth scholarship program. Staff noted construction and materials costs have risen substantially since 2016 and recommended increasing the maximum loan amount from $35,000 to $40,000 and raising grants from $10,000 to $15,000 to allow homeowners to complete necessary work.
Council members pressed staff on program throughput and equity: increasing caps can reduce the number of households served in a given year because a higher per‑household maximum uses more of the pool, they said. Staff explained the unallocated balance is largely composed of recycled zero‑interest loan repayments and that the program vets applicants when their number approaches funding availability; historically many on the waiting list do not qualify when vetted.
Public commenter Jerry Jambasian asked whether seniors or urgent safety needs could be prioritized; staff said the program is currently first‑come, first‑serve but the council or staff can return with alternative prioritization options. Council directed staff to examine program design options — including a potential safety‑priority stream or alternative funding strategies — and to return with recommendations.
On a roll‑call vote the council approved the resolution and associated amendments (Council members Chavez, Chen, Yu, Mayor Pro Tem Man and Mayor Sternquist voted yes).
