Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing‑and‑community‑development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council committee hears presentation on HUD five‑year consolidated plan, public survey shows limited response
Summary
City staff reviewed the federally required five‑year consolidated plan that guides Community Development Block Grant spending. Survey responses numbered 46 and favored funding many smaller programs rather than concentrating on one or two large projects; HUD award was about 2.6% lower than last year.
Tom Bombry, the city’s community and economic development project coordinator, briefed the Public Welfare Committee on the five‑year consolidated plan required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and on the annual action plan process for distributing Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement funds.
Bombry said the five‑year consolidated plan “outlines the housing, community and economic development needs, the priorities, strategies and projects that could be undertaken by the city with the funds we receive.” He told the committee the city’s application to HUD is due Aug. 16 and that staff use an estimated award amount because federal budget approvals typically lag the local planning schedule. "We got a slight decrease from last year, 2.6%, and equivalent of $24,000 less," Bombry said.
The memo and presentation summarized the citizen participation steps: advertising, a Citizens Advisory Committee review, public hearings and solicitation of applications in January for public services and facility improvements. Bombry said the city had an online and paper survey posted at city locations but received only 46 responses, which he described as “certainly not gonna be considered representative of the city as a whole.”
Of those 46 respondents, Bombry reported a 74%–26% split in favor of continuing to fund as many projects as possible rather than concentrating funding on a few large initiatives. He said the survey ranked community services, facility improvements and neighborhood services as top priorities among seven categories presented to respondents.
Councilors pressed for context. Councilor Hart said he supported the broader approach and specifically noted the importance of continuing support for the domestic violence shelter in New London. Councilor Satti asked about the small survey sample and demographic skew; Bombry agreed the response rate was low and said many responses came from nonprofit representatives and some members of the public, and that the sample was too small to be representative.
Bombry said the Citizens Advisory Committee and council had previously approved preliminary allocations and that staff will present a final annual action plan and a resolution to authorize the mayor to submit the HUD application at the June 16 council meeting. He also said the citizen advisory committee had contingency allocation percentages that can be adjusted up or down if the final HUD award differs from estimates.
The committee did not take a vote on the consolidated plan at the meeting; Bombry invited committee members to propose priority changes in subsequent meetings or at the June 16 council vote.
The committee discussion and attachments to the agenda noted eligible activities typically funded through CDBG, including public services (youth and senior services, homelessness prevention), housing rehabilitation, historic preservation and facility improvements; Bombry reiterated that items not included in the consolidated plan would not be eligible under CDBG for the plan period.
