Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Funding Hud topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves 2025–26 HUD action-plan appropriations, adds $200,000 for emergency assistance
Summary
Rochester City committees advanced a package of 2025–26 annual action plan appropriations and related program authorizations, and the council passed an amendment moving $200,000 from a council PSA line into cash capital to increase emergency assistance funding.
Rochester City committee members voted to approve a broad package of 2025–26 annual action-plan appropriations that fund housing repairs, demolition, lead-hazard control, owner-occupied rehabilitation, tenant-landlord services and other HUD-related programs, and they amended one item to add $200,000 to emergency assistance.
The package, introduced as a set of introductory items and open for public hearing on June 12, 2025, includes the city’s citizens participation plan and multiple program appropriations that staff said are funded by federal HUD formula dollars. Henry Fitz, a city staff member involved in plan outreach, said, “The postcard mailing went to 41,000 households that were targeted in our highest need census tracts, that over 70 where over 75% of the residents are, HUD eligible under that 80% AMI.”
The amendment to the emergency assistance item — moved by the council president’s office — transfers $200,000 from the council PSA line to cash capital so the funds can be used across multiple years. The council approved the amendment before voting to introduce the emergency assistance item as amended. Council members noted the emergency assistance program is oversubscribed; a committee discussion said there is a waiting list for furnace and emergency system replacements.
Committee members asked for more written detail on several items. Council member Smith asked whether the programs target the specific housing problems identified in the plan, including plumbing, overcrowding and cost burden; staff responded that the programs (home repair, emergency solutions, Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS) are focused on those issues. Council member Martin requested copies of the outreach postcard and the exact census tracts targeted; staff agreed to provide the postcard and the tract list in writing.
On funding timing, staff explained the awards are federal “formula dollars” and are allocated through the congressional budget process; the city will receive a grant agreement from HUD after it submits the plan and completes the required public-engagement steps. As staff summarized, receiving the funds is contingent on following HUD procedures and executing the grant agreement.
Other discussions covered program priorities and percentages assigned to different projects; staff described a cross-departmental budgeting process that considers existing balances, projected needs and community input. Council members also amended and passed related items increasing specific program allocations, including an amendment that raised the aging-in-place line from $60,000 to $80,000 to meet demand for home modifications.
The council voted to introduce and pass the various appropriations and amendments during the committee session. Staff committed to supplying written follow-ups including the outreach materials, the targeted census-tract list, and further program detail.
Less-critical follow-ups requested by council members include: (1) written confirmation of unit breakdowns for a forthcoming housing project referenced in related introductory items, (2) the postcard and tract list used for outreach, and (3) documentation showing the city’s projected use of HUD funds and program prioritization for the coming year.
