COUNCIL REVIEWS FOUR FINALISTS; PETITION AND LMI REQUIREMENTS RAISE QUESTIONS

Pocomoke City councilors debated the location of a proposed community center and the conditions of a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application during the Nov. 3 work session. City staff told the council the CDBG application requires the project site to be within a census area meeting low‑to‑moderate income (LMI) thresholds; staff cited a Pocomoke LMI figure of 61.24 percent for the area selected in the grant application.

City staff member Brandy Matthews told the council the grant submission specified the current downtown armory site (city‑owned), and that moving the location could change the LMI calculation and jeopardize eligibility. Matthews also told the council the Worcester County grant the city applied for required a specified project location.

GRANT AMOUNT, TIMELINE AND RISK

Staff said the CDBG maximum request in the application is $800,000 and that awarded funds must be spent within two years; staff also warned this may be the last year that particular grant opportunity is available. Council members asked whether partnering with Worcester County or designating a subrecipient would require amending the application; staff confirmed a co‑recipient or site change would have to be noted in the application and could put the award at risk.

PETITION, PUBLIC INPUT AND SUPPORT LETTERS

Council members reported a citizen petition asking that the community center be moved; they identified roughly 24 signatures on the petition. Council also said the city had received nearly 20 support letters in favor of the downtown location. Members emphasized competing goals: downtown revitalization and walkability for inner‑city residents versus transportation and parking convenience for a site farther from downtown.

DESIGNS AND PREFERRED RESPONDENTS

Jonathan Selwell submitted a revised schematic after the council’s earlier meeting; his design includes a mezzanine, multiple studios, a gymnasium and an outdoor stage. Council members said two of the four finalists — a WGM submission and Jonathan Selwell’s revised plan — provided the clearest interior and exterior renderings and ranked high among members’ preferences.

COUNCIL DIRECTION: ONLINE PUBLIC REVIEW

The council voted to publicize the four finalist schematics on the city website and Facebook page, pin the post and turn comments off, and ask residents to submit written feedback by email. Staff will coordinate the online posting in the RFP section and will bring follow‑up recommendations to a subsequent meeting. Council members asked staff to include a public‑facing timeline and to encourage targeted outreach to neighborhood residents near potential sites.

ENDING

No final site selection or award was made at the Nov. 3 meeting. Council instructed staff to continue research on city‑owned parcels, to meet with Worcester County Public Schools if council so directs, and to collect public input on the four finalist designs before making a binding decision or amending grant applications.