Manatee County receives $963 million in CDBG‑DR project requests against roughly $253 million allocated; staff begin public vetting process

Manatee County staff on Tuesday briefed the Board of County Commissioners on early results from a public solicitation for projects under the county’s federal CDBG‑DR allocation.

Michelle Davis, the county’s grants administration manager, told commissioners that about 104 unique submissions had been received seeking a combined $963 million in funding against a county allocation of roughly $253 million. The submissions cover a wide range of needs: affordable housing, flood mitigation and storm‑resiliency infrastructure, program services (including post‑disaster assistance), equipment and generator purchases, and repair or construction of community facilities. Staff removed duplicates and emphasized the list is preliminary and has not yet been vetted for HUD eligibility.

“Of the $963 million in submissions, $587 million of the requests are reported as 100% LMI (low‑ and moderate‑income) beneficiary projects in preliminary self‑reports,” Davis said. She explained the county must ensure at least 70% of CDBG‑DR funds benefit LMI persons and that HUD guidance can be complex for projects whose benefits cross LMI boundaries (for example, a stormwater mitigation project that serves both LMI and non‑LMI neighborhoods).

Key numbers provided in the briefing (pre‑eligibility screening): affordable‑housing submissions total approximately $138 million; infrastructure mitigation submissions (roads, facilities, bridges) total about $178 million across 26 projects; storm‑resiliency and flood mitigation submissions totaled about $473 million across 34 proposed projects; program services and recovery assistance totaled about $75 million; and equipment/facility projects and repairs accounted for other portions of the requests.

Commissioners raised typical budget‑prioritization questions and noted the gap between requests and available funds. Commissioner Siddique asked how the county would guard against abuse of housing‑lift funds; county staff said CDBG rules require land‑use restriction agreements (periods of affordability) and that the county would use standard CDBG program requirements to limit resale or speculative transfer during the affordability term. Julie Viera of Community Development said property‑level land‑use restrictions are a normal tool to preserve affordability during a HUD‑required affordability period.

Why it matters: The scale of requests (nearly four times the county’s allocation) means the county must develop a competitive, evidence‑based action plan, prioritize projects that meet HUD eligibility and the statutory LMI requirement, and coordinate with municipal partners and potential state/federal co‑funders. Staff signaled they expect HUD to issue clarifying guidance that may extend deadlines and that outreach and additional project vetting will continue before the board adopts a final action plan.

What’s next: Staff will hold public and partner meetings to vet submissions, confirm eligibility and LMI benefit, and refine a draft action plan for board consideration. The county said it will also assemble project managers (permissible under CDBG‑DR) and explore other funding matches for projects that cannot be accommodated within the allocation.