Manchester holds public hearing on HUD consolidated plan; residents press for affordable housing, homeless services and public facilities

City of Manchester planning officials held a public hearing to gather community input for the city’s U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) five‑year consolidated plan and the FY2026 annual action plan, staff said.

The hearing focused on how the city should use federal and other funds — including Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME investment partnership (HOME) and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) dollars — to address affordable housing, homelessness, neighborhood infrastructure and support services over the next five years.

The consolidated plan “is we’re telling HUD what we’re going to be doing for the next 5 years,” Todd Fleming, community grants administrator with the City of Manchester Planning and Community Development Department, told attendees. The annual action plan, Fleming said, describes projects the city will carry out in the coming fiscal year.

Why it matters: HUD entitlement grants and related funds shape what housing, shelter and neighborhood improvements the city can pay for. At the hearing residents, service providers and staff described both immediate needs — more supportive and sober shelter capacity, accessible public restrooms and better street and sidewalk maintenance — and longer‑term priorities such as adaptive reuse of vacant buildings for affordable units and housing condition upgrades.

What staff described - Funding streams and amounts: Fleming said the city receives annual entitlement funds and discussed three main federal sources used by the city: CDBG (amount discussed in the hearing as approximately $1,630,000), HOME (a figure mentioned during questions of about $750,000), and ESG (not awarded to the city in the last cycle, the hearing noted). Fleming also cited American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding that the city used in recent years, saying “the city received, like, 44,000,000” in ARPA dollars and that a portion of those funds has been directed to housing work. - Leverage and projects: Fleming and consultant Tripp Muldrow said HOME dollars and local trust funds are often used to leverage larger projects. Fleming identified NeighborWorks Southern New Hampshire as a local partner; a staff comment referenced a large project with a roughly $40,000,000 price tag that uses HOME and other sources and includes long‑term affordability and rental restrictions. - Program flexibility and national objectives: Staff emphasized HUD’s national objectives — principally benefiting low‑ and moderate‑income persons — as the principal eligibility framework for CDBG and related funding.

Public and provider input Attendees raised multiple issues for the consolidated plan and the annual action plan: - Homelessness and shelter gaps: Multiple speakers and service providers described a shortage of beds for people who are actively using substances and prefer sober/dry shelter settings, limited youth shelter capacity (WayPoint was reported as full), and demand at family shelters. A mental‑health provider said a “sober shelter” was urgently needed because some people avoid existing shelters for fear of relapse. - Public restrooms and accessibility: Several participants said lack of accessible, safe public restrooms particularly affects people with disabilities, parents with young children and people experiencing homelessness. Staff said HUD funding could be used for restrooms if the facility’s service area met low‑and‑moderate income eligibility rules. - Harm reduction and needle disposal: Residents noted finding syringes in public spaces. Participants identified the Queen City Harm Reduction Coalition as an existing local resource that provides needle exchange; staff also noted that several fire stations accept used syringes and that the city is receiving opioid settlement trust funds for related programs. - Housing condition and lead abatement: Residents described aging housing stock, lead paint risk and absentee landlords. Staff described a Healthy Homes program and lead abatement grants the city administers; Chelsea Pinsonault (program manager for the Healthy Homes/lead efforts, as introduced by staff) explained those grants can support owner‑occupied and rental units and typically require rental affordability or use restrictions for a defined compliance period (staff noted a three‑year affordability requirement attached to some grants). - Adaptive reuse, parking and transit: Speakers urged more conversions of vacant institutional and commercial buildings into affordable housing but said parking requirements, costs and neighborhood opposition have slowed adaptive reuse. Attendees also urged better coordination between housing siting and Manchester Transit Authority routes. - Daily‑life services and neighborhood maintenance: Participants raised concerns about unswept sidewalks, potholes, snow clearance, trash and the need for straightforward reporting routes for non‑emergency problems; staff said the city schedules street sweeping and has a city calendar of events and programs to coordinate volunteer cleanup efforts. - Security deposits and tenant assistance: Service providers and residents described ongoing need for security‑deposit assistance and tenant‑based rental assistance (TBRA) programs that help people move into housing; staff said the city funds such programs through partnership grants but availability can vary and depends on nonprofit capacity to operate programs.

Staff response and next steps Dan Orr and other planning staff described the public‑engagement timeline: staff are collecting feedback through public hearings, focus groups and an online survey; they plan to publish a draft consolidated plan for public comment in April and aim for a mid‑May submission to HUD. Consultant Tripp Muldrow told the room that community input complements technical data: “it’s not just a number crunching exercise,” he said, and urged attendees to complete the survey and share it widely.

Staff recorded specific observations raised at the hearing and said they will incorporate those comments into the needs assessment and draft strategies. No formal vote or binding decision was taken at the hearing; staff said the draft plan will be posted for a public comment period before final submission to HUD.

How to weigh in Staff asked attendees to complete a public survey (QR codes were provided), submit written comments by email and attend additional hearings: one at the Manchester Community Resource Center and one at Mariners (both referenced by staff as scheduled at 6:00 p.m.). The consultant and planning staff made themselves available after the meeting for attendees to add notes.

Ending: The hearing gathered resident observations and service‑provider input intended to shape the city’s consolidated and annual action plans before a public comment period and final HUD submission. Staff emphasized that the hearing was part of an ongoing, multi‑step citizen participation process and that community members would have another opportunity to review and comment on the draft consolidated plan before it is sent to HUD.