Martinsville Commits $100,000 to CDBG Infrastructure Grant Bid

City Council | August 26, 2026

Article Summary: The Martinsville City Council unanimously adopted a resolution of support for an Illinois CDBG Public Infrastructure grant application on Aug. 26, 2026, pledging $100,000 in city funds, and separately approved an administrative funds agreement with a regional planning commission to deliver the work if the grant is awarded. The meeting record does not identify what project the grant would pay for.

CDBG Grant Application Key Points:

Resolution No. 2026-08-02 commits city funds “totaling $100k,” in the minutes’ wording, in support of an Illinois CDBG Public Infrastructure grant application. It passed 6-0.

A companion agreement with the Coles County Regional Planning and Development Commission for “activity delivery for anticipated CDBG grant” also passed 6-0.

The project to be funded, the size of the grant sought, the application deadline and the city fund supplying the $100,000 are all absent from the meeting materials.

MARTINSVILLE — The Martinsville City Council on Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2026, committed $100,000 of city money to an Illinois CDBG Public Infrastructure grant application and lined up a third-party administrator to run the grant if the state awards it — two votes that together amount to the largest financial commitment the council made all evening, and the one the public record explains least.

The council first adopted Resolution No. 2026-08-02, described in the minutes as a “Resolution of Support for Illinois CDBG Public Infrastructure grant application and a commitment of funds totaling $100k.” Alderman Travis Hill made the motion and Alderman Chris Davidson seconded it. The roll call recorded yes votes from Davidson, Alderman Chris Perry, Alderman Harley Craig, Alderman Wendy Isbell, Hill and Alderman Ashley Wilhoit. The motion carried 6-0.

Immediately afterward, the council approved an “Administrative Funds agreement with Coles County Regional Planning Development Commission for activity delivery for anticipated CDBG grant.” Davidson made that motion, Ashley Wilhoit seconded, and it also carried 6-0 on the same six yes votes.

Both items appeared on the published agenda as items 9 and 10, the last two action items of the night. The agenda renders the commitment as “$100K” and renders the commission’s name as the “Coles County Regional Planning and Development Commission,” with the conjunction the minutes omit.

What the Record Does Not Say

The minutes and agenda are the only materials available for this meeting. Neither contains the resolution text, the grant application, the administrative agreement, a cost estimate, or a staff memo. As a result, several questions a reader would reasonably ask go unanswered in the public record:

The minutes never state what the grant application is for. Illinois CDBG Public Infrastructure grants are, by the program’s name, directed at infrastructure, but the record identifies no street, no water or sewer segment, no facility and no neighborhood. Nor does it state how large a grant the city is pursuing, which makes the $100,000 local commitment impossible to place as a match percentage.

The record also does not identify which city fund the $100,000 would come from, when the application is due, or what the administrative agreement will cost the city. The acronym CDBG is never expanded in either document, and no city official is recorded explaining the item. The minutes list no discussion at all before either vote.

Martinsville sits in Clark County, while the commission the council hired is named for Coles County; the minutes do not explain the commission’s service territory or its relationship to the city, and no prior engagement between the two is referenced.

Elsewhere in the same meeting the council heard separately about city infrastructure — a natural gas system pressure increase reported by Mayor Robert Lovell, and a lift station that Craig said would cost $500,000 to replace new. Nothing in the minutes connects either subject to the CDBG application, and this report draws no such connection.

The two approvals were among 10 action items the council disposed of between its 7 p.m. call to order and its 7:43 p.m. adjournment. The minutes record no public comment.