Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Consolidated Plan topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council hears recommendations to keep affordable housing, public services and code enforcement central to five-year consolidated plan
Summary
City staff and consultant Eric Chatham summarized priorities for the 2025–2029 consolidated plan, emphasizing affordable housing, public services and infrastructure while cautioning against designating fixed target neighborhoods because set-aside rules could limit flexibility.
Eric Chatham, a LEED consultant with Civitas LLC, presented the City of Columbia’s recommended priorities for the 2025–2029 consolidated plan to the Columbia City Council, saying affordable housing and related homeownership and rental support should remain the top focus.
“Affordable housing continues to be the top priority from resident responses,” Chatham said, summarizing results from outreach and noting that down-payment assistance, owner-occupied rehabilitation and rental development ranked highly in community feedback.
Chatham told the council that federal rules limit spending on some categories. “Unfortunately, the CDBG regulations limit us to only 15% of our CDBG allocation going towards the … public services,” he said, adding that HOPWA funding provides separate supportive services for people living with HIV and AIDS.
The consultant and staff recommended continuing to use a large portion of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for public facilities and infrastructure projects while preserving and producing affordable housing as a substantial allocation. Chatham also urged the council against designating legally binding "target neighborhoods" in the consolidated plan. He said HUD does not require local jurisdictions to set geographic targets and that naming neighborhoods would require estimating an annual percentage of funds for each area, which could reduce flexibility over the five-year plan.
Council members asked for clarifications about outreach and program details. Doctor Bustle asked how many of the 25 responses to the survey were from providers versus residents; Chatham replied that about 20 responses came from providers and said he would provide a fuller summary to council. Council member Tyler pressed on slum-and-blight removal funding and the pace of legal processes used in demolition and code-enforcement work.
Staff and council discussed current funding and delivery. A staff member reported the city currently funds Mercy, a mental health provider, at $100,000 for the current year and that Mercy provides a range of mental-health services and supportive housing. A council member asked for performance documentation showing what the $100,000 buys; staff agreed to provide performance measures and program documentation.
Chatham also reviewed budget categories and caps often applied to CDBG, HOME and HOPWA programs: a 15% cap on public services, a 20% cap for CDBG administration and planning, and typical CHDO set-aside amounts around 5%. He noted the city also generates program income through its housing assistance programs, which adds local flexibility but that the council should expect uncertainty until Congress finalizes HUD appropriations.
Council members asked for the written outreach summary and a breakdown of who responded to surveys; staff committed to provide that follow-up. Chatham said staff will return with a full draft and specific funding recommendations once federal allocations are known.
The presentation started the council’s discussions on item 1, the consolidated plan priorities and proposed neighborhood focus areas; no ordinance, budget or formal allocation was adopted during this presentation.
