Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing And Community Development topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lancaster County holds CDBG public hearing; staff outlines eligible projects, updated 2024 priorities

3806984 · April 15, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Lancaster County held a CDBG public hearing April 8 to review eligible program activities, explain LMI requirements and to solicit input on projects for the county’s 2025 prioritized needs list.

Lancaster County held a public hearing April 8 to review the county’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) citizens participation plan, explain eligible activities and to solicit input for the county’s 2025 prioritized needs list.

Elizabeth Morgan of the Catawba Regional Council of Governments reviewed program rules, funding ranges, and national objectives for CDBG. She told council that only local governments (cities, towns and counties) may apply for CDBG funds and that projects must meet national objectives such as benefiting low and moderate income (LMI) persons, eliminating blight, or addressing urgent community development needs. Morgan explained that eligible activities include public infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, drainage), downtown streetscapes, demolition of dilapidated residential structures in LMI areas, public facilities (libraries, workforce training facilities, childcare facilities), and public safety equipment that serves LMI neighborhoods.

Lancaster County staff reviewed the county’s prioritized needs carried forward from 2024: (1) upgrades to public facilities including parks, libraries and fire stations; (2) extension and upgrades to water and sewer in LMI areas (with specific references to the Kershaw Wastewater Treatment Plant, King Circle area, Kershaw Mill, Dobson School area and Emerald Estates); (3) demolition of vacant dilapidated structures in LMI neighborhoods; (4) brownfields cleanup; (5) neighborhood revitalization activities including transportation, sidewalks, broadband and housing rehabilitation; (6) homeless services; (7) economic development infrastructure and workforce training; (8) locating recreation and social services in the county’s Northern Panhandle; (9) housing rehabilitation, down-payment and closing-cost assistance; and (10) promoting fair housing.

Staff and Morgan emphasized CDBG eligibility limits and practical considerations: applications must document that at least 51% of beneficiaries are LMI for certain project types, and projects that serve the county at large (for example countywide parks or transportation services) are harder to qualify unless they demonstrably serve an LMI area or segment. Morgan said the spring application round required infrastructure requests to be submitted by March 21 (request) and April 21 (application), whereas fall deadlines differ.

Councilmembers asked whether projects on the 2024 priorities list have been completed; staff replied that Lancaster County currently does not manage most CDBG projects directly, but City of Lancaster is a subrecipient for two projects (Municipal Justice Park upgrades and Arch Area sidewalk), and Kershaw and Heath Springs have had projects. Council discussed potential future projects for CDBG funding, including a fire truck purchase, courthouse historic work, and upgrades to an EMS station at the old library near Marionbone Fields; staff cautioned that some projects will require income surveys or proof that beneficiaries are LMI to be eligible.

Council asked how the county could build competitive applications and whether transportation or fire-truck projects would be eligible. Morgan and staff said some projects (fire trucks, fire substations, downtown streetscapes, water/sewer) are eligible, but funding is competitive and often requires a local match (10% typically) and readiness (designs, environmental review) for Ready-To-Go funds. Council directed staff to accept edits to the priority list over the coming week and return any revised list to the board as part of the application preparation process.

No formal action to adopt a new prioritized list occurred at the April 8 meeting; the public comment portion of the hearing included written input opposing a proposed Cogito Academy development (on agenda item 8c), which staff logged and made part of the record. Councilmembers were able to ask questions; staff closed the hearing and invited additional written input and technical- assistance requests from low and moderate income groups.