Common Council rewrites HUD funding plan after debate over partial awards and HUD deadline

The New Britain Common Council on May 14 adopted an amended consolidated plan and annual action plan that reallocates Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money among local nonprofits and public-works projects after a lengthy debate over whether reduced awards would stall projects.

Alderman Victor Santiago moved the substitution and called the amendment to the floor, proposing reallocated awards for programs including window repairs at the Friendship Center, facility improvements for the housing authority, and funding shifts to New Life/Christ Church programming. He urged adoption, saying the changes reflected council priorities and fiscal constraints.

Why it matters: the city must submit its HUD consolidated plan by May 15 to preserve entitlement funding that allows subrecipients to spend retroactively from the July 1 fiscal year start. Administration staff repeatedly warned that partial awards on public-facility projects often make projects infeasible because HUD and federal rules typically require the CDBG portion to be the final piece of funding and because federal requirements (prevailing wages, lead abatement, radon testing) add costs.

Scott, an administrator for CCND, told the council: “When you’re looking at these sort of fractional funding... CCND strategy is usually to zero that out rather than give them a third of what their whole funding request is. Reminded, these are one‑year project periods.” He warned that partial allocations can force the city either to extend contracts or to reprogram funds and that HUD has reclaimed unspent money in prior years.

Opposition and concerns: Alderman Smedley said he was “nervous that that’s still not enough money for New Life to complete their project” and worried that partial awards to window projects would “just be throwing money away” if the work could not be completed. Multiple members pressed staff on whether projects previously funded had unspent balances and whether partial awards would meet minimum contract thresholds (for example, bus contracts tied to summer camp operations).

Process and outcome: the council debated a series of substitute amendments, took two brief recesses for caucus discussions, and revised the substitution on the floor. After procedural motions and legal questions about veto timing, the council adopted Alderman Santiago’s amended substitution and then approved the amended Resolution for the consolidated plan. The mayor and corporation counsel noted the practical difficulty of overruling a veto in the narrow time window before HUD’s deadline.

What the amendment does: on the floor the council described moving funds between community-service and public-works buckets (examples discussed included shifting dollars to New Life and reducing certain parks/rec programs), adding or reducing $10,000–$55,000 line items for a range of providers and prioritizing housing-related and youth programs in the revised allocation. Several agencies discussed included Friendship Center, Prudence Crandall, HRA, the Boys & Girls Club, the YWCA, and Gillette Community Services.

Next steps: city staff will finalize the consolidated plan for submission to HUD by the May 15 deadline and, if necessary, work with subrecipients and CCND on contract modifications. Council members reserved the option to revisit allocations if projects do not move forward; staff noted that unused funds revert to a contingency pool for repurposing under HUD rules.

Quotes: “I support this amended resolution,” Alderman McNamara said in urging timely action given the HUD timeline. “If we don’t act tonight, we might jeopardize the HUD money,” he added during debate. Scott cautioned councilors that HUD has in recent years reclaimed unspent money and that partial awards on construction or facility projects often prevent contracting and completion.

The council approved the amended Resolution (item 3) by voice vote after the amendment carried.