Richmond council approves FY2026–27 CDBG public-service grants and backs ADA ramps grant application

Council held a public hearing on the city’s FY2026–27 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) allocation and approved a package of public-service grants while directing staff to apply for competitive funds for ADA ramp improvements.

City Manager opened the hearing by explaining HUD’s allocation method — which factors population, poverty and overcrowding — and said the city’s public-service allocation for FY2026–27 was estimated at $4,930. He also described a proposed bricks-and-mortar competitive application for ADA ramps; in his presentation he referenced a higher recommended submission amount ($407,887), though the formal motion that council approved was to apply for $107,887.50.

Barbara, identified as a client services coordinator with Interfaith Volunteer Caregivers, told the council that her organization’s CDBG-supported Safe at Home project helps low- and moderate-income seniors and people with disabilities with chores and minor home repairs. “For over 33 years, our organization has been providing free basic assistance to hundreds of older and physically challenged adults,” she said, and cited program metrics: IVC provides roughly 20,000 hours of help to nearly 500 people annually; Safe at Home served 252 clients and provided 2,078 hours of chores and repairs last year.

Following public comment, a councilor moved to allocate the city’s $4,930 public-service CDBG funds among local programs: Interfaith Volunteer Caregivers ($270), McCrest ($990), Turning Point ($1,000) and the Senior Services Coordinator ($2,690). Councilors discussed county funding limits and the practice of funding organizations that serve the county; the motion passed by voice vote.

Council also approved a separate motion to apply for $107,887.50 in competitive CDBG funding to construct ADA ramp improvements at Forest Street intersections with Water, Monroe and Park, and at Park Street intersections with Grove, Walnut and Parker Streets. Jim Gutzinger, public service director, answered technical questions about locations and design.

The motions were approved by voice vote. The council did not adopt specific construction timelines at the meeting; staff will return with details if the competitive application is successful.