IURA staff told the Neighborhoods & Housing Committee that its CDBG program was technically outside the HUD timeliness test at the June measurement and identified a gap of roughly $71,000 in expenditures that must be addressed to meet HUD’s deadlines.

An IURA staff member introduced the timeliness workout plan and said the agency had prepared a chart showing projects with slow spending. “The bottom line is that, as everybody, as we’ve—we were sort of prepared to know, we technically are outside of the timeline for spending down our CDBG funds,” the staff member said.

Staff summarized the items holding up the expenditure pipeline: homeowner rehabilitation vouchers in process, a delayed Cecil A. Malone pedestrian project, low current demand on the economic development loan fund, and a new shared‑kitchen grantee that only recently submitted its first voucher. The staff presentation emphasized administrative bottlenecks—environmental reviews, contract execution and project start scheduling—and proposed measures including earlier monitoring, risk assessments keyed to grantee experience, and process changes to streamline contracting for repeat grantees.

The committee discussed causes that are outside IURA control (for example, contractor scheduling and developer timelines) and causes that are internal (environmental review backlogs, contracting cadence). One committee member said some slow projects were not the office’s fault, while others asked staff to consider standard voucher forms or delegation options to speed review.

Reprogramming and public‑process constraints: Staff explained reprogramming CDBG funds requires amending the action plan. Minor amendments (typically under $25,000 and similar purpose) follow a shorter process; substantial amendments require public notice, a public hearing and Common Council approval before submission to HUD, and could take “at least 30 days” and sometimes substantially longer. The staff member cautioned, “it really depends, you know, on how fast we want to move that through the process… theoretically it could take 25 days, it could take as long as 75 days,” and noted HUD’s review timelines are variable.

Why it matters: HUD timeliness rules govern CDBG expenditures; the committee must balance speed (to meet HUD tests) against public‑notice and competitive procurement norms. Staff flagged tradeoffs between running a rapid, targeted reprogramming and using a competitive public process that can slow implementation but is sometimes a stated policy preference.

Next steps: Staff will continue intensified monthly monitoring of slow projects, pursue process changes to shorten contracting and environmental review timelines, and bring reprogramming proposals to the committee when a concrete candidate project or funding shift is identified.