Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cdbg Home Allocations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs acceptance of FY2027 CDBG and HOME allocations; member abstains
Summary
A Nashua Board of Aldermen committee recommended final passage of Resolution R2632 to authorize the mayor to accept and expend FY2027 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME entitlement funds. Community Development Director Matt Sullivan outlined process changes, HUD’s limited regulatory role, and proposed flexibility mechanisms; the committee approved the recommendation with one abstention.
A Nashua Board of Aldermen committee voted to recommend final passage of Resolution R2632, which authorizes the mayor to accept and expend FY2027 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships entitlement funds.
Matt Sullivan, the city’s community development director, told the committee the process this year differed from previous years: the committee had already completed scoring and recommended allocations earlier, and staff drafted the legislation to reflect those recommendations rather than bringing allocations after the legislation was introduced. Sullivan said the intention was to avoid amending legislation later and to provide final numbers to the committee in advance.
Sullivan addressed questions about the role of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He said HUD does not dictate local procedures for selecting projects but focuses on spending and timeliness requirements. "What they care about is how we carry over monies from year to year, that we're spending money," Sullivan said, adding that HUD’s primary concern is timeliness and compliance rather than local amendment processes.
Committee members raised concerns about project timeliness and compliance. Sullivan noted many jurisdictions face timeliness challenges, with some areas more than five years behind on spending certain funds, and that HOME funds are particularly difficult to spend because of federal requirements. He acknowledged public frustration when projects move slowly but said the timeliness findings are not unusual.
On contingency and flexibility, Sullivan said the city has historically set aside contingency funds but is considering a different approach. He proposed exploring a citizen‑participation‑plan amendment to build in a small percentage threshold allowing staff to adjust project line items where costs change, provided the overall entitlement amount is not exceeded and unused funds exist elsewhere in the allocation.
During the discussion, one committee member said they had listed themselves as a sponsor before realizing a community group (the Soup Kitchen) had requested funding and removed their name as a sponsor; that member stated they would not vote on the item. The committee moved to recommend final passage; the committee vote was recorded as "Aye" with one abstention.
Sullivan said staff is open to further conversation about a percentage threshold for flexibility and will return with options that would require committee approval via a citizen participation plan amendment.
The committee’s recommendation advances R2632 to the full board for final action.
