Lincoln Heights holds public hearing on $907,902 CDBG priorities for 2024–2026
April 23, 2024 | Lincoln Heights Village, Hamilton County, Ohio
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Village of Lincoln Heights held a public hearing April 22 on potential Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) applications covering the 2024–2026 program years.
Interim Village Manager Mr. Lemon presented a prioritized list of proposed projects that would be submitted as part of a three‑year application cycle, saying the total three‑year request would be $907,902. Key items included memorial field lights and scoreboard repair (2024); a multi‑year code‑compliance home‑repair program (2024–2026); a salt‑storage facility (2024); asphalt paving for the public works facility (2025); a second phase of public outdoor Wi‑Fi (2025); and street‑tree planting efforts across the village.
"I've taken the liberty of putting priority on some of these projects," Mr. Lemon said, asking councilmembers to provide any priority changes before the April 30 submission deadline. He said phase two of the outdoor Wi‑Fi was tentatively scheduled for 2025 because the village needs data from the just‑completed phase one to support a follow‑up application.
Councilmembers pressed for clarification on several items. One member asked whether the salt‑storage repair could be moved higher in priority because open or damaged bins reduce the effectiveness of purchased salt; Mr. Lemon confirmed the lot (not the municipal building itself) could be eligible for CDBG funds but that CDBG cannot pay to improve municipal buildings. Another asked whether the code‑compliance program could include funding for a staff position to administer repairs; Mr. Lemon said the application was being framed to help residents who cannot afford to bring properties into compliance and that the village would seek other grant funds alongside CDBG to support implementation.
Members also discussed Shepherd Avenue, a split road shared with the neighboring community of Laughlin, as a potential joint project. Councilmembers raised concerns about heavy truck traffic and previous attempts to limit rigs, noting that past legal challenges had complicated enforcement of bans and that any hour‑of‑day restrictions would require coordination with Laughlin and law‑enforcement partners.
No members of the public provided recommendations during the hearing; Mr. Lemon invited written suggestions and changes to project priorities during the week leading to the April 30 deadline. The public hearing was closed later in the meeting.
Next steps: Mr. Lemon said staff would finalize applications and submit them by April 30. The council did not take final action on specific allocations during the hearing.
Interim Village Manager Mr. Lemon presented a prioritized list of proposed projects that would be submitted as part of a three‑year application cycle, saying the total three‑year request would be $907,902. Key items included memorial field lights and scoreboard repair (2024); a multi‑year code‑compliance home‑repair program (2024–2026); a salt‑storage facility (2024); asphalt paving for the public works facility (2025); a second phase of public outdoor Wi‑Fi (2025); and street‑tree planting efforts across the village.
"I've taken the liberty of putting priority on some of these projects," Mr. Lemon said, asking councilmembers to provide any priority changes before the April 30 submission deadline. He said phase two of the outdoor Wi‑Fi was tentatively scheduled for 2025 because the village needs data from the just‑completed phase one to support a follow‑up application.
Councilmembers pressed for clarification on several items. One member asked whether the salt‑storage repair could be moved higher in priority because open or damaged bins reduce the effectiveness of purchased salt; Mr. Lemon confirmed the lot (not the municipal building itself) could be eligible for CDBG funds but that CDBG cannot pay to improve municipal buildings. Another asked whether the code‑compliance program could include funding for a staff position to administer repairs; Mr. Lemon said the application was being framed to help residents who cannot afford to bring properties into compliance and that the village would seek other grant funds alongside CDBG to support implementation.
Members also discussed Shepherd Avenue, a split road shared with the neighboring community of Laughlin, as a potential joint project. Councilmembers raised concerns about heavy truck traffic and previous attempts to limit rigs, noting that past legal challenges had complicated enforcement of bans and that any hour‑of‑day restrictions would require coordination with Laughlin and law‑enforcement partners.
No members of the public provided recommendations during the hearing; Mr. Lemon invited written suggestions and changes to project priorities during the week leading to the April 30 deadline. The public hearing was closed later in the meeting.
Next steps: Mr. Lemon said staff would finalize applications and submit them by April 30. The council did not take final action on specific allocations during the hearing.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
