Extended Planning and Economic Development Committee: CDBG/NOF Funding Overview, Public Hearing, and Appeals (February 23, 2026)

On February 23, 2026, the Detroit City Council's Extended Planning and Economic Development Standing Committee convened at 1:00 PM to discuss the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Neighborhood Opportunity Fund (NOF) for FY 2026-2027. The meeting included an overview of the NOF process, a public hearing for applicants, and an appeals hearing for organizations recommended for zero funding. Council President James Tate chaired, with members Scott Benson, Letitia Johnson, Mary Waters, Angela Whitfield, Coleman Young II, and Denzel McCampbell present.

Consent Calendar

• [No consent calendar items were discussed.]

Public Comments & Testimony

• Public Hearing (Applicants): Several applicants addressed the committee. Carlton White (North End Village) stated his organization met the 82-point threshold but was denied due to missing proof of two years of operation, though they had submitted documentation. Maridie Mazaira (Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers) reported their application scored 85 but was rejected because a notarized signature form was embedded in a 62-page Word document, causing confusion; they requested that such forms be separate attachments. Other speakers (including Detroit African Youth Development Organization, 826 Michigan, Southwest Detroit Business Association) cited similar clerical errors, misunderstandings about forms (e.g., Exhibit N for lower-tier participants), or system upload issues. Many appealed for reconsideration based on high scores and past performance.
• General Public Comment: Kayla Randall (Johnny Saheling/J2H) introduced her organization as a trauma-informed mental health provider and asked to be considered in future rounds.

Discussion Items

• NOF Process Overview: Chris Gulach (LPD/CPC staff) presented the CDBG/NOF framework. CDBG is a federal formula grant; Detroit’s allocation has declined from ~$59 million in the 1990s to ~$32 million currently. NOF, a subset, focuses on public service (limited to 15% of CDBG by HUD). This year, 67 applications were received (up from ~54 last year), 42 are recommended for funding, and 25 are not (16 missed threshold criteria, 9 scored below 80). Threshold criteria include 13 items such as meeting a HUD national objective, having 501(c)(3) status, two years of operation, a board of at least five members, and current documentation.
• Scoring and Funding Allocation: Tamara Hardy-Fountain (HRD) explained that funding is distributed based on application scores (80-100 points) and a council priority survey. New organizations often receive lower amounts ($50,000-$75,000) to ensure capacity. She noted that the total NOF public service pool is approximately $2.3 million, already fully allocated to recommended groups.
• System Challenges and Appeals: Multiple applicants and council members raised concerns about the new Bonfire procurement system. Speakers reported difficulty locating required notarized forms within a lengthy Word document, despite workshops and office hours provided by HRD and OCP. Sandra Stahl (OCP) stated that the system had 23 separate upload lines and that most documents were clearly identified; the certification form had been in the same place for 10 years. Councilmembers Letitia Johnson and Gabriela Santiago-Romero (absent) requested clearer separation of signature pages and a breakdown of federal vs. city requirements.
• Specific Application Concerns: Members questioned several cases:
  • Disability Network Wayne County (application #55): scored 71, below the 80-point threshold; HRD will provide detailed rationale.
  • North End Village: denied for failing to provide proof of two years of operation; HRD noted they had been funded previously but must submit current documentation each year.
  • Detroit African Youth Development Organization: scored 96 but board member list was omitted during formatting; HRD will review if documents were submitted correctly.
  • 826 Michigan: scored 90 but did not sign Exhibit N due to a mistaken interpretation of Bonfire FAQ response.
  • The Michael Organization (Miracles to Inspire Change): scored 88, but claimed the certification form was actually uploaded with time-stamped proof; HRD agreed to re-verify.
• Conflict of Interest: Director Todd noted that a few council members still need to clarify potential conflicts with the Board of Ethics and Law Department before deliberations on Wednesday.

Key Outcomes

• Appeals Process: HRD will review all eight formal appeals, verify uploads, and report findings to council by Wednesday morning (February 25). If city errors are found, organizations may be reinstated, but additional funds would require reducing other grants (minimum $50,000 per organization).
• Schedule: The committee will continue deliberations on Wednesday, February 25 at 2:00 PM (after Budget, Finance, and Audit), with potential follow-up sessions on Thursday, February 26 at 2:00 PM and Friday, February 27 at 10:00 AM if needed. The final vote is targeted for Tuesday, March 3, 2026.
• Next Steps: Council requested a document clarifying which threshold criteria are federal requirements (e.g., HUD regulations) versus city policies. HRD will also provide detailed scoring breakdowns for organizations that appealed. Councilmember Scott Benson indicated he may propose adjusting funding amounts for some new organizations based on their scores.