Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the CDBG Funds topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gulfport council seeks ward-by-ward priorities for $2M in HUD CDBG public-facility funds; special meeting set
Summary
Council and staff reviewed a HUD-approved substantial amendment listing roughly $6M in estimated public-facility projects while about $2M in CDBG funds are available for public facilities; councilmembers pressed for clearer project selection, engineering caps and ward-level priorities and set a special-call meeting Monday at 11 a.m. to finalize the exhibit.
City staff told the Gulfport City Council that HUD has approved a substantial amendment and that the city now has a category of public-facility CDBG funding available. Nicole (CDBG program staff) explained that the available public-facility allocation is just over $2 million, while the assembled list of proposed projects and estimates runs to roughly $6 million — meaning the CDBG money would cover only a portion of the proposals without additional local or partner funding.
Staff described the list as a set of estimates used to qualify projects and begin procurement/engineering work: street and sidewalk segments (safe routes to schools at Gulfport Central Middle and West Elementary), park and playground equipment replacement (including Francis Collins Pool resurfacing), sewer and drainage improvements and streetscape projects. Staff emphasized eligibility tests (service area must be at least 51% low-to-moderate income and primarily residential) and said each project will require design, engineering and a CDBG eligibility determination.
Councilmembers sought clarity on several points. Councilwoman Ella Holmes Hines said the exhibit was "new today" and requested more time to coordinate ward-specific priorities and to ensure residents without internet access could get paper applications. She also reiterated ongoing concerns about earlier CDBG rollout and asked that staff provide ward-level impact analyses and caps on engineering and contingency spending. Several members asked whether CDBG could be paired with other funding sources and how to phase projects so that procurement and construction meet HUD timeliness deadlines.
Public commenters — including longtime neighborhood advocates and residents — pressed for better notice of programs and requested clearer accounting of past and present CDBG and HOME allocations. One speaker asked for a forensic audit of prior fund distributions. Council members and staff discussed the trade-offs between moving quickly to meet HUD expenditure deadlines (the staff noted HUD expects timeliness by August 1) and the need for more precise ward-level direction.
Given the tight schedule, the council agreed to a short timeline: staff will incorporate ward-specific input and return the exhibit in writing by Friday; the council scheduled a special-call meeting for Monday at 11 a.m. to approve the exhibit and authorize procurement steps so engineering procurement can proceed. The motion to postpone final action until the special meeting carried unanimously.
What's next: Council members will deliver ward priorities and staff will prepare a revised exhibit for the Monday special-call meeting. The council emphasized eligibility checks, engineering contingency limits, and that project approvals will proceed in phases to meet HUD deadlines.
