Every year, there is a new round of CDBG (Community Development Block Grant) funding. In the past, the annual round of funding usually opened in the spring. In May and again in June, there were public hearings. The first public hearing was intended to gather ideas from the community about projects worthy CDBG funding. (It was always suspected the decision makers had already made up their minds, based on the sorts of projects that were "trending" at the time. Nevertheless people showed up to share their ideas. Gossips' account of such a hearing, which took place in 2013, can be read here. It's amazing how the voices have changed in a dozen years but not the issues.) If memory serves, the second public hearing was the opportunity for the community to respond to what had been chosen, by City Hall and the grant consultants, as the project for which the City would seek funding in the CDBG program. That was a dozen or more years ago, and, for whatever reason, that process seems to have been thrown out the window.
At a special meeting Monday evening, the Common Council was asked to pass a resolution authorizing the mayor to submit an application for CDBG funding. Neither the project (sidewalk repair) nor the amount of funding sought ($1 million) was specified in the resolution. After learning some of the details, members of the Common Council asked a predictable question: Did the grant require any kind of match? The information provided by representative from Laberge, the City's hired funding application consultants, didn't help matters any.
The representative from Laberge explained that because the CDBG program will not provide 100 percent funding for a project, and because the maximum amount of a grant in the program is $1 million, Laberge had worked with Ryan Loucks, the engineer from Crawford & Associates who is consulting with the Public Works Board, and Justin Weaver, mayor's aide, to come up with a project that would cost about $2 million. (In the past, it has been estimated that repairing the sidewalks in all the areas the Department of Justice has identified as priorities would cost upwards of $5 million.) The idea was to create a project the scope of which would make the application appealing in the competitive CDBG process.
Unfortunately, some councilmembers were uncertain if applying for $1 million for a project estimated to cost $2 million would not obligate the City to come up with the other $1 million to match the grant. No one was able to ask the question that needed to be asked: Would being awarded and accepting the $1 million obligate the City to come up with the other $1 million or be penalized for not doing so? Had the question been asked, the answer undoubtedly would have been no. The crafters of the grant application were factoring in the annual $307,000 from the Sidewalk Improvement District assessments to complete the project.
Sadly, before anyone could ask this salient question, Common Council president Tom DePietro called for a vote. There were five votes in support of the resolution--Jennifer Belton (Fourth Ward), Dominic Merante (Fifth Ward), Lola Roberts (Third Ward), Mohammed Rony (Second Ward), and Council president DePietro. Margaret Morris (First Ward) and Vicky Daskaloudi (Fifth Ward) voted no, and Rich Volo (Fourth Ward) abstained. Five affirmative votes were not sufficient to pass the resolution. Shershah Mizan (Third Ward), Gary Purnhagen (First Ward), and Dewan Sarowar (Second Ward) were absent from the special meeting.
Gossips has learned that the documents describing the scope of the project, dated August 8, were distributed to councilmembers by Weaver after the meeting was over. It's hard to predict what the outcome of the meeting might have been if these documents had been distributed to councilmembers when they were ready on Friday and if councilmembers had been better briefed about CDBG funding and the obligation it carries with it.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
Welp, maybe people should show up to meetings.
ReplyDeleteStunning.
ReplyDeleteReasonable and well run cities would have circulated the materials more than a week in advance, possibly collected an online FAQ, and then a responsible Common Council would have calmly discussed the issue on the merits in full view of the public and voted for the common good.
Under DePietro's tenure... at least once a quarter, if not once a month, Hudson has a rushed and politicized Common Council vote like this.
It is so terribly unfair to the Common Council and to taxpayers and residents. It leads to anxiety and frustration and lots of lost time on phone calls before and after these calamitous meetings.
Pair this story with last month's rushed grant vote:
https://www.hudsoncommonsense.com/oakdalegrantmatch
Can incoming Common Council President Morris save Hudson?
Which of the four mayoral candidates will best complement her?
In the First Ward common council election... will Henry Haddad and Pat Ramoska do a better job than Gary Purnhagan?
Will there be any write-in candidates in any of the other wards?
The third ward has only one member? And what the fuck is Rich Volo abstaining for? He has a conflict of interest? This council doesn’t lead. It cowers.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi all. It is important to note, that I have been doing everything outside of pleading with the Council to advise me exactly what they need in order to pass the resolution. Not once did Margaret or anyone else on the Council ever state they would need to see the exact streets that would benefit from this grant award IF we end up awarded. It is highly bizarre to ask to see the scope of work at this early stage when we are simply seeking approval to pursue the grant. Once this brand new request and obligation was brought up by Margaret at the special meeting, that she needs to see the scope of work, I immediately provided that to her and the Council but by that point the meeting was over. Again, we are talking about our city streets here. This should not be this difficult. I must also remind everyone that we are under a DOJ consent order to make our city sidewalks ADA compliant. Here we have a million dollar grant opportunity with no City match requirement and we have to jump through hoops to get this Council to simply allow us to pursue it. Please make it make sense. Thank you. -Justin Weaver/Mayoral Aide
ReplyDeleteYou’re correct, Justin, it shouldn’t be this hard. So why does the mayor contribute to screwing the pooch? Of course any rational decision maker would want the details such as what, where, when and how much. So why aren’t these bills supported by more than a Facebook post? The decision to not be prepared was made by the mayor and the council president. You’re not responsible for Tom’s staggering incompetence. But you do work for the mayor and management is a verb.
DeleteThank you for providing context Justin.
DeleteYou are obviously working hard and trying to get the sidewalks fixed. Thank you.
It must be hard in City Hall during an election year, and with the amount of changes and issues in town, and with Mayor Kamal and Tom lame ducks in the sense that they lost their primaries and are now leaning out.
First - everyone should remember that this sidewalk fiasco is a consequence of decades and dozens of City leaders pre-Covid, in the 80s and 90s even, not enforcing laws and code on the books.
Damaged sidewalks were not fined for decades, leading to a collective action problem and lack of credibility for future enforcement. Next time Craig H enforces a code we should thank him and not attack him for doing his job.
That should make us think.... what laws and codes are we not enforcing today, that will lead to grant-hell and DOJ or other lawsuits in the future? We can think of a few...
But here are a couple of questions, not necessarily for you to answer Justin, just that came to mind when reading these comments and the Gossips story:
1. Where was Gary Purnhagen last night? Is he not on one of the sidewalk committees and well positioned to help inform on this issue?
2. Where was Mayor Kamal? Were you there in his stead, or because of your ADA role? Is Kamal still working as mayor?
3. Who specifically sponsored / introduced this resolution for this particular grant?
Is it that person's responsibility to shepherd the resolution and circulate Q&A documents in the weeks or month beforehand?
4. How much did the City of Hudson pay the two consultants who were there last night? And likely worked for billable hours before?
It seems from the Gossips report that it was not clear last night that this grant would not require a match. Can you please link to the documentation that shows that or email it to us if you have a minute.
A 2 min search yields this clear flow chart of Grants Management Process:
https://www.hampton.gov/DocumentCenter/View/26430/Grant-Management-Flowchart-PDF
And Portsmouth NH has a very simple page on how to propose and shepherd resolutions:
https://files.portsmouthnh.gov/cityclerk/ccrules.htm
See Rule 32 "Each order or resolution authorizing the levying of a tax, the expenditure of money, or the
borrowing of money shall have two separate readings and a public hearing with notice as required by law."
Do we have flow charts and clearly written rules like this in Hudson?
It seems in Hudson the Common Council can make significant financial decisions and incur liabilities with a last minute and rushed vote. Where wil the $110k for the Oakdale grant come from? Higher taxes, or a cut elsewhere? Who knows? It was unbudgeted.
re: John Friedman's point.
DeleteIs abstaining (as Volo did) not the correct action when a vote is being forced/rushed and legitimate questions were not answered in time? It seems more intellectually honest to abstain if you do not have the information you need, and are forced to vote. Or is there a different rule or practice in the Hudson Common Council for yes/no/abstain?
It now seems that this particular grant does not have an expiring/exploding deadline.... so why the rush and drama, and why not do this during normal Common Council Meetings with a month of prep?
Common Council members can be forgiven, if not lauded, for being suspicious given the Oakdale grant hot swap, and other rushed resolution within DPW and elsewhere that increased the overall tax burden. Even if necessary repairs.
It was also odd to see some Common Council members audibly interject or show exasperation _while_ their colleagues were voting. It is one thing to be surprised, it is another to bully or intimidate... as audience members or Common Council members.
Perhaps Common Council DePietro should sit out the rest of the season to avoid these bullying / toxic meetings?
Or alternatively, can the Common Council start circulating September's agenda today? Normal Corporate Boards spend the tail end of quarterly meetings setting the agenda for the next meeting and allocating preparation and tasks. Should the Common Council do this? Does the Mayor's monthly Departmental Heads meeting do this?
No wonder many Common Council seats are often unopposed or even appointed. Why would a reasonable and respectful resident subject themselves to this trial by fire, last minute switcheroos, followed by recriminations.
No wonder Peter Spear is calling for a Citizen Assembly and more direct resident engagement. New and professionally experienced residents like Joe Ferris step up to the plate to lead, Margaret Morris spent months walking door to door in the heat, selflessly, to win the greatest landslide and mandate ever, and Bob Rasner and others advanced Charter Reform proposals.
Everyone's taxes (read Housing Affordability) could be so much better, and the City so much more peaceful, residents so much better served, if we just did the basics of governance.
Abstention is reserved for situations where the representative can't ethically vote yes or no. If a legislator is offered up amateur legislation supported by no additional verbal or written clarification(s), s/he should properly vote "no." Any other vote would be an abdication of responsibility. Unprepared bill sponsors have only themselves to blame if those whose votes they seek refuse to issue a rubber stamp.
DeleteIf ever a city screamed for informed, professional leadership, it is Hudson. We can be so much better!
ReplyDeleteJustin, it would be good of you to address the key question of whether there is or is not a match required for the CDBG grant. If there is, how is it matched, and by what source of funding? Is this $1 million or a $2 million project? What is the duration of the grant period? Your statement about the grant matching seems explicitly to contradict what is reported here of Laberge's opinion.
ReplyDeleteStrange meeting. I am leaning towards siding with the mayoral aide here: Based on everything that was said during the meeting, this resolution should have been passed. I think Dominic summed it up succinctly when he said that the city would be in a better position than before if the grant was awarded.
ReplyDeleteThat said, the resolution's wording is entirely generic and makes not even a passing reference to using the grant money for sidewalks. I wonder if the nays (Margaret and Vicky) took offense to that and simply don't trust the mayor that the actual grant application isn't going to be about something else.
And then there's Tom: It's not clear to me why he pushed so aggressively for a vote. He should have tabled this and waited until Justin has sent the additional specifics that Margaret asked for around. A nay vote after the details were sent around (and assuming they matched what was stated in yesterday's council meeting) would have been hard to justify.
Hi Don. There is no city match requirement. The application has been written to include $2 million worth of work. If awarded the $1 million, the City "could" decide to keep that same project scope and would therefore need to "match" the $1 million award OR could scale back the project scope to equal the award amount. Nothing is set in stone and the Council would still have the power to accept the money or deny it. I think the wording of this became a bit foggy during the meeting. And again, the resolution before the Council is to simply pursue the grant. Hope this helps. -Justin Weaver/Mayoral Aide
ReplyDeleteIt's a pretty sad state of affairs when a city official's only option to explain things to the public is via someone else's blog. But it's all we've got, especially with Tom Depietro doing his best at pathetic MAGA tactics.
ReplyDelete