City of Bryan staff presented the city’s five‑year consolidated plan process and preliminary housing‑condition survey results to the City Council, saying the plan is required by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and must be submitted by Aug. 16.

Lindsay, a community development staff member, told the council the consolidated plan combines a needs assessment, market analysis, barriers to affordable housing, priority needs and a citizen participation plan and that the city receives federal HOME and Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. "It is mandated by HUD because we receive, federal grant funds from them, both the HOME and CDBG programs," Lindsay said.

The housing condition survey, presented by Arisha Jackson, a community economic development specialist for the City of Bryan, showed improvements in the share of owner‑occupied single‑family homes rated "excellent" between 2021 and 2024 and a decline or stabilization in substandard and dilapidated classifications. Jackson summarized the survey methodology, saying staff used property records from the Brazos Central Appraisal District and validated classifications through site visits, Google Maps checks and cross‑referencing other city department data.

"When we drop down to substandard, that's when we're starting to see those significant, repairs... financially and structurally viable for rehabilitation," Jackson said, describing the survey's definitions for condition categories.

Key survey and program details cited by staff:
- Demographics and housing context: roughly 33,000 households in the City of Bryan; median household income about $53,006; median age 35; poverty rate roughly 22.9%; homeownership rate 46.6%; median gross rent about $1,100. Staff reported a 2023 median home sales price of $280,000.
- Housing condition trends: among single‑family/townhome units, a 6 percentage‑point increase in the "excellent" category from 2021 to 2024 and a 5 percentage‑point drop in the combined "good/considerable" categories; substandard and dilapidated percentages remained similar or declined slightly. For apartment units, staff reported no change in the "excellent" share and a roughly 17 percentage‑point increase in the "good/considerable" range.
- Ownership verification: staff checked mailing addresses and exemptions for units classified as dilapidated and found about 10% of those appeared to be owner‑occupied, suggesting many dilapidated properties may be vacant.

Staff described current Community Development activities funded by HOME and CDBG, including down‑payment assistance, minor repairs, major rehabilitation and reconstruction, demolition and limited public‑service funding. Staff said the minor‑repair program historically had a $5,000 cap two years ago, was raised to $10,000, and the Community Development Advisory Committee unanimously recommended increasing the cap to $25,000. Lindsay said that change is a policy decision staff could implement internally without waiting for completion of the five‑year consolidated plan process if council agrees.

Eligibility and production details explained by staff included:
- Income eligibility: applicants for Home/CDBG programs must not exceed 80% of area median household income.
- Program focus: programs are directed at single‑family owner‑occupied homes; the city does not use these funds for landlord‑owned rental rehabilitation or tenant‑based programs.
- Production rates: staff said the city typically completes two to three full reconstruction projects per year, limited by funding and staff resources, and that the current reconstruct queue represents roughly five years' worth of demand.
- Example project: staff showed a recently completed reconstruction at 800 Dumas finished at about $157 per square foot.

Council members and other speakers asked about details of the proposed increase and program operations. Staff described the typical scope of minor repairs (life‑safety and health items such as HVAC, water heaters, ramps and electrical repairs), the procurement approach (emergency minor repairs are assigned to the first available contractor; nonemergency repairs and roof projects use informal quote requests; reconstructs use a formal bid process), and insurance/contractor qualification constraints imposed by the city’s risk and purchasing departments.

Staff also described operational challenges for reconstruct projects, notably that reconstructing a homeowner’s primary residence requires the household to have alternate housing while work proceeds; staff said they will consider partnerships or assistance to address temporary housing needs. Staff noted recent increased activity by Bryan Commerce and Development to purchase infill lots and the potential for coordinated infill projects with Community Development.

No formal council action on the five‑year consolidated plan or a change to the minor‑repair cap was recorded in the transcript. Staff said they plan to begin workshops and focus groups in February, provide interim updates to council, present a draft consolidated plan at the July 8 meeting and submit the final consolidated plan in time to meet HUD’s Aug. 16 deadline.

The City Council discussion moved on after the presentation to other consent and statutory agenda items.