Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Community Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council opens public hearing on CDBG plan, debates administration share and rehab priorities
Summary
City staff presented a draft CDBG FY 2026‑27 annual action plan estimating a $350,000 allocation and proposed distributions: 20% administration ($70,000), 15% public services ($52,500) and 65% residential rehab/public facilities ($227,500). Council members debated whether to reallocate admin funds to rehab and asked staff for more accounting ahead of the April hearing.
City staff opened the first of two public hearings on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) annual action plan for fiscal year 2026‑27, presenting an estimated $350,000 allocation and proposed spending priorities.
Jay Verrata, the director of housing and community development, said the recommended allocation follows HUD rules: 20% for overall administration ($70,000), 15% for public services ($52,500) and 65% for rehabilitation and public facilities ($227,500). Noah Arechiga, community development administrator, described the residential rehab program (maximum assistance $35,000 per household) and the legal assistance public service (estimated to serve around 500 residents last year).
Council members questioned whether administrative dollars should be shifted back into direct rehabilitation given need and wait lists. Verrata and Arechiga explained prior council direction had allowed the department to use some admin dollars for program operations in previous years and that program administration is a formula component of HUD funding. Staff noted they had limited discretionary general‑fund alternatives for program administration and that CDBG admin reimbursement helps cover staff costs and contractor fees for program delivery.
Members asked for more information on past allocations, the department’s internal budget assumptions, and whether adjusting the administration percentage would constitute a substantial amendment to the draft plan; staff said they would provide detail ahead of the second hearing scheduled for April 22 and that there are internal reallocation options if the council later chooses to shift funds back to the program.
The council opened and closed the hearing on the record and moved to publish the draft annual action plan for the 30‑day public review period; members flagged the issue of administration percentage for further discussion at the April hearing.
