Cleveland Finance Committee Meeting - July 15, 2026
Cleveland Finance Committee Meeting - July 15, 2026
The Committee of Finance, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion met on July 15, 2026, to discuss and vote on several financial ordinances, including a contract extension for financial advisory services, a designated outdoor refreshment area (DORA), and two tax increment financing (TIF) projects. The meeting began with a clarification on voting procedures in the committee of the whole.
Clarification on Voting Procedure
- Council President Griffin clarified that in committee of the whole, council members do not vote individually on each piece of legislation; instead, they sign legislation by committee to record their recommendation. Only finance committee members make the actual referral for a full floor vote.
Discussion Items
Ordinance 689-2026: PFM Financial Advisors Contract Extension
- Presented by: Finance Director Paul (?) and Jeremy Needfeld (PFM).
- Purpose: Authorize a one-year contract with PFM for financial advisory services, with two one-year renewal options, at a retainer of $120,000 (up from $60,000 the previous year). The contract was amended to require the director of finance to provide written notice of any cooperative purchases.
- Key Points:
- The director cited PFM's role in saving the city $68 million by restructuring the debt program and emphasized the retainer was more economical than billable hours.
- The contract was awarded to PFM's Orlando team due to a conflict of interest with the Cleveland office, which is being addressed via a firewall.
- Council President Griffin questioned the lack of local firm participation and the doubling of the retainer. The director argued the expanded scope justified the increase.
- Councilman Harsh expressed concern about over-reliance on contractors and loss of institutional knowledge, suggesting the $120,000 could fund a new staff position. The director noted they are hiring an assistant debt manager.
- PFM confirmed they act as a fiduciary and are contractually obligated to act in the city's best interest.
- OEO goals were waived due to the contract value ($60,000 originally; now $120,000).
- Outcome: Approved as amended.
Ordinance 557-2026: Designated Outdoor Refreshment Area (DORA) for Playhouse Square
- Presented by: Special Assistant Lucas Reeves, Bobby Bruno (Economic Development), and Nate Kelly and Nick DeLillo (Playhouse Square).
- Purpose: Create a DORA in the Playhouse Square district, to be activated 4-5 times per year for special events (e.g., Tri-C Jazz Fest, Borderlight Festival). The area would be bounded by Playhouse Square properties and controlled by the organization.
- Key Points:
- Playhouse Square emphasized safety, with 40+ off-duty police officers on 24/7 security, and a designated DORA cup for open containers.
- Councilman Slife questioned why the DORA was not a permanent, larger zone like those in Cincinnati or Columbus, and expressed concern about using limited citywide DORA allotments (six total). The administration and Playhouse Square stated they wanted to start small to ensure success, with plans to expand later.
- Councilman Casey noted the East Fourth DORA had been designated years ago but never activated, and criticized the mayor for not attending to present his legislation.
- Councilman Starr raised concerns about lack of collaboration with his office and issues on East Fourth Street. He requested better communication from the mayor's office.
- The safety committee had previously approved the plan, citing strong security and sanitation measures.
- Outcome: Approved with Councilman Starr added as a sponsor.
Ordinances 695-2026 and 696-2026: TIF for Helen Keller Cone Project
- Presented by: Director of Development Bordeaux Small, Rich Morehouse (KJK), David Abersall (KJK), and Tom Flynn (Turn Dev).
- Purpose: Authorize tax increment financing (TIF) agreements for two buildings at 2202 and 2230 Superior Avenue, to be redeveloped into 100 market-rate apartments, 108 parking spaces, and ground-floor retail. Total project cost: $45 million. TIF value: $3.7 million over 30 years; CMSD payments estimated at $6 million.
- Key Points:
- Councilwoman Santana requested a copy of the community benefits agreement (CBA) and emphasized the need for local hiring.
- Councilman Casey questioned the $584,000 payment in lieu of affordable housing and the decision not to convert to Cleveland Public Power (CPP). The developer cited a cost of several hundred thousand dollars for conversion, which Councilman Casey found inconsistent with the $3.7 million TIF.
- Councilman Jones asked about minority contractor participation, noting only 30% of work was complete and few names were provided. Director of OEO Michael Curry confirmed monitoring would begin after the TIF agreement is finalized.
- Councilman Palency and Conwell strongly advocated for requiring CPP connections on all city-subsidized projects.
- Councilman Shaw questioned the 45-year total subsidy (15-year abatement plus 30-year TIF) and the impact on library funding. The administration said the break-even analysis was not done at that level.
- Councilwoman House Jones called for a broader discussion on equitable tax policy and a CPP business development grant.
- Outcome: Approved.
Ordinance 686-2026: Chain of Title for Project Scarlet
- Presented by: Director Bordeaux Small, Ufoma Azewe, and developer team (Nathan Felker, Greg Kramer, Ken Kallanchuck, Brendan Shea from Green Harvest Capital and NextGen Construction).
- Purpose: Authorize the city to acquire and reconvey properties at 2060 East Ninth Street to allow the developer to proceed with a $126 million renovation of the former Medical Mutual building into a Marriott Tribute Hotel (121 rooms), 170 market-rate apartments, and 33,000 sq ft of commercial space. This is a procedural step before a future TIF (estimated $16.6 million over 30 years).
- Key Points:
- Developer highlighted $31 million in other public subsidies (historic tax credits, TMUD, Brownfield, Port Authority) and noted the project would be the first Marriott Tribute branded apartments globally.
- Councilwoman Santana and Councilman Casey repeated concerns about affordable housing and CPP. The developer estimated CPP conversion costs at $1.7-2 million plus engineering, and said they were open to discussion but had not committed.
- Councilman Harsh supported the project, noting the need to redevelop vacant downtown office buildings and the housing shortage.
- Councilman Jones praised the project's minority participation (owner's rep is MBE-certified NextGen Construction) and outreach efforts.
- Councilman Palency requested confirmation that the developer had not filed for a property tax reduction (Board of Revision). The developer was not aware of any such filing.
- Councilman Starr detailed his work on the CBA, including increased local hiring (25% mandatory), a $500,000 community investment fund, and pre-apprenticeship programs. He emphasized the need for council members to negotiate CBAs early.
- Councilman Shaw reiterated his opposition to market-rate TIFs without affordable housing components.
- Outcome: Approved.
Key Outcomes
- Ordinance 689-2026 (PFM Contract): Approved as amended. The contract will be for one year with two one-year renewal options at $120,000 annually.
- Ordinance 557-2026 (DORA): Approved with Councilman Starr added as a sponsor. The DORA will be activated for special events 4-5 times per year, with a one-year review to determine expansion.
- Ordinances 695-2026 and 696-2026 (Helen Keller Cone TIF): Approved. The TIF provides $3.7 million over 30 years. The administration will provide copies of the CBA to council.
- Ordinance 686-2026 (Project Scarlet Chain of Title): Approved. This allows the developer to proceed with securing a TIF. The administration will provide the CBA and confirm the status of any property tax reduction filings.
- General: Council members expressed a need for a working session with OEO to improve local hiring and contracting, and a broader discussion on downtown revitalization and equitable tax policy.
Meeting Transcript
Good morning. Today is Wednesday, July the 15th. This committee of finance diversity, equity, and inclusion is called to order. Madam Clerk, please call the role. Here. Thank you. We're gonna always start out with guests, but before we go to guests, I do want to make sure that I clarify a question that was asked at the last uh committee of the whole. And I want to make sure that this is uh clarified with all council members, if I could. And the question was in committee of the whole, do council members each get a vote on all the legislation or vote um taken by committee. Um after asking the attorneys to review this uh this question, the answer is council members signed the legislation by committee to record their recommendation of votes. Council members do not vote individually on all legislation. So under council rule sixteen, um, we called the meeting. Um I called the meeting as a whole for committee of the whole without objection for the purpose of conducting business generally with all committees present, and rule sixteen states that the rules of council shall be observed in the committee of the whole, and no roll call of yes or nays are taken. Council members sign legislation by committee to record their individual votes. So as usual, under Rule 15, a majority of council members of referred committees report on legislation by signing the back of any legislation recommended for passage. Council members may speak when acknowledged by the chair, but do not individually vote on every piece of legislation heard in committee of the whole. However, only the finance committee members will be the ones that will actually make the referral for the full floor vote, not all of the committee of the whole. Okay. Okay. So just wanted to make sure we clarify that so that I know that was a question that members had last time, and I did um want to make sure I reviewed that with everybody. Okay. That being said, I'm going to bring up uh first the finance uh director. And uh this is ordinance number six eight nine to six. And I believe you have a guest with you, and I'll read this into the record. Uh this is ordinance number six eight nine-2026 as amended by councilmember Griffin by departmental request. An emergency ordinance authorizing the director of finance to enter into one or more contracts with PFM financial advisors, LLC for as needed, financial advisory and consulting services for the Department of Finance for a period of one year, with two one-year options to renew exercisable by the director of finance. And the amendment states there is no legal objection to this legislation if amended as follows. One, in section two, at the end, insert the director of finance shall provide written notice to the clerk of council whenever any purchase is made through the cooperative process, which notice shall include the details of such cooperative purchase. This is dated 714 2026, signed by Vishnu Ganglani, uh assistant director of law. And uh director, you had the floor and you can introduce your guests. Okay. Uh through the chair to the committee, um we have uh Jeremy Needfeld with PFM today to answer any questions you may have. Um introduction to this bill, as you all will recall about a year ago I came to council with the idea to have a strategic advisor for the entire city instead of having each division uh contracting out a different advisor. Uh since then, PFM has become ingrained in several projects. They've helped us revamp our debt program. They were in an integral part of that. And again, keep kept helped us keep a $68 million liability off of our books uh this year. Uh we made an agreement with council that we would come back in one year um to see how things were going and request a contract extension since the original contract was for one year. Uh just a reminder, we did do a competitive process for this. We did a uh request for bids you know when we went out and and awarded the business to PFM. So now we are here asking um to enter into a contract with PFM for another year with two one-year options to renew. Okay, uh, I do have a few questions, and um I'll begin by asking why is this uh contract structured as a retainer? Um, how many hours of consultation did they uh receive and under the previous contract and why not structure it under billable hours as opposed to not to exceed amount? So to the chair, um it's more economical for the city. Uh so I've done a lot of business with PFM when I was in Jacksonville, and um, you know, the work that they have done well exceeds uh the retainer amount. So the retainer amount covers a span of services. If we had paid that individually and hourly, um it would have been much more expensive. Um and through the relationship with PFM, we were able to um you know negotiate a uh you know uh an arrangement or retainer that was beneficial to the city. Um also there was a deep desire by PFM to do business with the city of Cleveland. They've been trying to do business with the city of Cleveland for a long time.
openpublica.com