Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cdbg Roofing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tucumcari commission approves $300,000 supplemental CDBG award for roofing work
Summary
The City Commission approved a $300,000 Community Development Block Grant amendment to continue a roofing and asbestos-abatement project; the city share was described as roughly 10% plus prior leverage.
The Tucumcari City Commission on Jan. 23 approved a $300,000 supplemental Community Development Block Grant amendment to continue a municipal roofing project and cover additional asbestos abatement discovered after earlier work.
City staff said the amendment would raise the total grant-funded project to about $808,186 (as described in the meeting packet) and that the city would provide a 10% match. "We are asking for $300,000 in supplemental funding, through the CDBG program, to continue the roofing project and also some additional asbestos abatement that we discovered after the last request," a City staff member said during the meeting. Staff identified a city share calculated as 10% of the award and discussed $36,881 in matching/leverage that would count toward the city obligation.
The staff presentation included back-and-forth with commissioners seeking clarifications about prior credits and how earlier funds were applied. One commissioner asked whether the requested supplemental was likely to be approved by the state agency administering CDBG; staff said the amendment "has a pretty good chance" because the project had previously been approved at the $500,000 level.
A motion to accept the supplemental CDBG amendment was made and seconded. In the roll call recorded on the transcript, Commissioners Vitico, Oglesby and Gorham and Mayors Cherry and Kokerville voted yes, and the motion passed.
The packet and discussion referenced the city’s prior contract administration and the role of a consultant (Edcock) in handling environmental work and some administrative pieces, while the city’s Community Development office retained bulk administration duties. Commissioners pressed staff on the exact origin of a prior cash match/credit and whether it should be added to or subtracted from the match obligation; staff said some line items were unclear in the paperwork but recommended approving the amendment.
The commission did not attach additional conditions in the meeting minutes. Staff said they would proceed with the amendment submission and manage the matching funds and administration through Community Development.
The commission vote completes local approval to pursue the supplemental CDBG amendment; the award and final administrative conditions remain subject to the grant administrator’s processing and any required state reviews.
