Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cdbg Funds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council discusses repurposing Adeccah CDBG-CV funds to buy fire rescue equipment; members request more outreach and options
Summary
Council members discussed a recommended revision to an Adeccah CDBG-Coronavirus response allocation to close out the grant by shifting about $543,000 toward fire protection equipment (Stryker "touchless" CPR machines); members raised concerns about public notice, eligible uses, and payback/eligibility constraints and asked staff for alternatives.
The Mobile City Council reviewed a proposed revision to an Adeccah Community Development Block Grant (CDBG-CV) budget. Staff said the revision would settle remaining administrative line items and reallocate approximately $543,000 to fire protection equipment, specifically Stryker Lucas touchless CPR machines for the fire department.
A council member asked how much money was involved; a staff speaker gave the figure: "A little over $543,000." Staff said the original grant had been intended to acquire real estate for food banks, but market conditions and federal procurement/environmental-review constraints made that use impractical. Staff said the purchase of emergency medical equipment was a recommended closeout use and that procurement had progressed to a point where purchasing the equipment within the grant deadline was practicable.
Several council members expressed concern that the council and the public had not had adequate notice about repurposing the funds. Council members requested more outreach to constituents and asked staff whether the funds could be reallocated to other community needs; staff said HUD eligibility and a COVID "tie-back" constraint narrowed available options and that the federal program's timeline left limited time for new procurement or alternate projects.
Staff said the grant has roughly 9'12 months remaining to be spent and that a change of use would require a new 30'day comment period and possibly additional procurement steps, which might be difficult to complete within the remaining federal timeline. One council member noted HUD and DECA (Adeccah) rules include a five-year use requirement for facility purchases and that failure to meet eligibility could trigger payback obligations.
Staff suggested the recommended action was intended to close out the grant rather than create a new multi-year program. Council members urged staff to provide a short list of constrained but eligible options and to do broader outreach to affected communities before final action. The transcript records discussion about the revision (agenda item 091256) and staff recommendation; no final recorded roll-call vote on the revision appears in the provided excerpt.
