Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing Grant topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council approves $6,467 Section 106 review contract tied to potential $1.05M HUD housing trust fund application

5429474 · July 18, 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

The Pocatello City Council voted to approve a $6,467.50 professional services agreement to complete Section 106 historic-preservation review tied to a potential HUD Housing Trust Fund application for property at 429 Washington Avenue.

The Pocatello City Council voted to approve a professional services agreement with Kirk Huffaker Preservation Strategies for $6,467.50 to perform a Section 106 review required for a possible U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Housing Trust Fund application addressing property at 429 Washington Avenue.

City staff said the contract pays for the historic-preservation review required under HUD environmental review and Section 106 consultation and is funded from the GRAMA division professional services budget. Staff explained the Section 106 work is an early step in a multi-stage application process to seek a housing trust fund allocation of approximately $1,050,000 through the Idaho Housing and Finance Authority (IHFA), which would be a one-time award; the grant carries a 30-year affordability requirement for the constructed units.

In response to questions, staff explained key program features: HUD allocates Housing Trust Fund money to states; IHFA administers Idaho’s allocation and may subgrant to entitlement communities such as Pocatello; the city would be responsible for compliance with program terms for the 30-year affordability period; and if the city becomes noncompliant the grant administrator could require repayment of funds. Staff noted that the most seamless path for long-term compliance would be to partner with an experienced housing manager such as the local housing authority, which can apply project‑based vouchers and has existing compliance systems.

Council Member Cheatham said he supports affordable housing need but opposed the city being the owner/operator subject to a 30-year compliance obligation and opposed spending city funds for the review. Cheatham said he preferred disposing of surplus property and letting the marketplace develop it. Supporters on the council said the Section 106 study is a limited, lower-cost due‑diligence step that preserves future options to pursue grant funding to build affordable units.

The motion to approve the professional services agreement was made by Council Member Paulson and seconded by Council Member Nichols. Roll call recorded Paulson yes, Bates no, Cheatham no, Zurich yes and other members present voting to approve; the motion passed.

Staff said if the city proceeds with a HUD Housing Trust Fund grant application and later accepts a grant (an expected award would be approximately $1,050,000), the city must ensure that constructed units remain affordable under HUD-defined income limits for a 30-year period or return funds to the grant administrator if the terms are violated. Staff recommended pursuing a subrecipient arrangement with the housing authority or another qualified property manager to handle tenant eligibility and ongoing compliance.

The council’s approval authorizes the mayor to sign the contract subject to legal review and allows staff to complete the Section 106 review required for the housing trust fund application.