Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conplan Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident questions housing authority coverage and Neighborhood Preservation program in Meriden’s draft ConPlan
Summary
A written public comment urged the city to address recent reporting and legal concerns about the Meriden Housing Authority and criticized a possible phase‑out of the Neighborhood Preservation program; staff and consultants replied that CDBG rules limit direct assistance to public housing and that the hospital site’s end use is undecided.
A written public comment read into the record on June 3 raised concerns about how the draft 2025–2029 Consolidated Plan addresses local housing issues and the Neighborhood Preservation program.
The comment, submitted by Colleen Cyr, questioned why the ConPlan describes the vacant Meriden‑Wallingford Hospital parcel as slated for mixed‑use when the Board of Education is studying the site for a possible new Pulaski school. Cyr also expressed alarm at comments made at an earlier hearing that suggested the Neighborhood Preservation (NP) program — which helps low‑income homeowners with repairs — might be phased out, and she asked why that potential change was not discussed in the five‑year plan. Finally, the comment asserted that recent reporting and legal actions involving the Meriden Housing Authority (MHA) — including lawsuits and media coverage — were not reflected in the ConPlan’s discussion of the housing authority.
City consultant Eric (Civitas) and staff responded that the hospital parcel’s end use is not fixed and that the ConPlan includes mixed‑use as a possible option; any future CDBG use for that site would depend on the ultimate land use decision. Eric emphasized a procedural limitation: CDBG funds may not be used to improve public housing or pay public housing staffing because housing authorities receive separate federal capital funding from HUD. He said the ConPlan addresses issues only insofar as they relate to CDBG‑eligible activities that would affect residents, and staff committed to including required responses to public comments in the plan’s final documentation.
Committee members pressed staff to continue transparent communication about the Neighborhood Preservation program; Eric said staff’s preference was to continue the NP program for one more year while trying to secure contractors, but that reallocation would be considered if the city could not produce an adequate pool of vendors. Separately, staff summarized federal conflict‑of‑interest changes under 2 CFR 200 (effective Oct. 1, 2024) and said the city attorney will work with staff and elected officials to identify potential conflicts and request HUD exceptions when necessary.
The committee closed the public hearing and then took a procedural vote to forward the Consolidated Plan and PY51 Annual Action Plan to the City Council for approval. The committee’s recorded action will be part of the administrative record accompanying Meriden’s HUD submission.
