Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cdbg Allocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Meriden committee reviews $927,552 HUD CDBG PY51 award, names nonprofit allocations and sidewalk projects
Summary
The Human Services Committee reviewed Meriden’s $927,552 PY51 Community Development Block Grant from HUD, heard a line-by-line allocation (including $220,000 for public services and $333,000 for code enforcement), and was briefed on roughly $300,000 of sidewalk projects expected to be awarded by summer.
Get email alerts on the Cdbg Allocation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Meriden’s Human Services Committee on Jan. 6 reviewed the city’s PY51 award of $927,552 from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and the staff recommendations for how those federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) dollars will be used.
"Our award from HUD was $927,552," Joe Fest, director of economic development, told the committee, noting the grant notice arrived Dec. 18, 2025 after federal delays in October. Fest said HUD determines award amounts by population and need and that Meriden’s award is toward the lower end of the city’s historical range.
Fest presented the staff allocation plan: $220,000 for public services (the maximum typically used by legacy CDBG recipients); approximately $86,000 for public facilities; about $333,000 for code enforcement (he said CDBG pays roughly 75% of housing/code-enforcement staff salaries); administration of roughly $191,985; and a Section 108 loan line of about $98,000. Fest said figures were rounded in the presentation and he would provide exact numbers on request.
Fest read a roster of recommended public-service subrecipient awards from PY51: Advocacy Academy $5,000; Bald Heads $4,000; Beat the Street ~$12,000; Boys & Girls Club ~$25,000; Catholic Charities $5,000; Change the Play $6,000; Community Guidance Clinic $8,000; Franciscan Home Care ~$17,000; Girls Inc. ~$15,000; Meriden Farmers Market $5,000; Meriden Soup Kitchen ~$8,000; Meriden Wallingford Chrysalis $18,000; Mid State ARC $8,000; Middlesex Community College (Magic Food Bus) $4,000; New Opportunities $18,009; Our House $6,000; Salvation Army $7,000; Springwell Learning Solutions $5,000; United Way (Power Up) $10,000; Women & Families (The Reach) $18,500 (amounts as presented by staff). Fest said 13 of the subrecipient contracts have been executed and eight are pending; the senior center (allocated $5,900) is a city department and therefore handled internally rather than as a separate subrecipient agreement.
Staff also described proposed sidewalk work funded from CDBG carryforward funds rather than the PY51 award itself. Fest said the city accumulates unspent CDBG carryforward funds and typically packages sidewalk work in ranges from about $60,000 to $200,000 per project to maximize linear distance for available dollars. Identified projects and rough estimates included Hanover Street near the senior center (~$80,000), Oak Street on the East Side (~$160,000), and Liberty Street (South Side Norwood) (~$60,000), totaling about $300,000 that staff expects to award and complete by the end of the summer. Fest noted municipal rules prevent starting sidewalk work before April and that work typically stops in September or October because of weather and curing requirements.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about whether the sidewalk total is part of the PY51 award or a carryforward; Fest said the sidewalk dollars are carryforward from previous years and explained HUD’s reporting preferences for general accounts when a specific project has not yet been fully funded or bid. He also told the committee staff normally leave a fiscal buffer (more than $50,000, he said) in the accounts to cover change orders and unforeseen work.
Fest said the city executed its contract with HUD on Dec. 19, 2025, and that staff immediately issued subrecipient contracts; eight contracts remain to be returned by recipients. He also outlined the CDBG reimbursement process for city departments (e.g., the senior center) versus external subrecipients.
The committee asked staff to provide exact line-item numbers and to follow up on pending subrecipient agreements; staff agreed. No formal vote was taken on the allocation package during the meeting. The committee adjourned after the staff presentation and discussion.
