The Getragette Urban Renewal Agencies neighborhood investments committee approved minutes from prior meetings (February and October) by voice vote and set a schedule for follow‑up work. Staff was directed to compile applicants’ Excel budgets, request commitment letters for secured funding and return with clarified materials before the committee’s next meeting in early March.

Why it matters: The committee will need standardized budget spreadsheets and evidence of secured match to evaluate which projects to fund in a year with constrained CDBG resources. Staff also flagged that contingency planning will be necessary if HUD funding levels differ from expected allocations.

Decisions and process notes: Committee members agreed to request specific information from several applicants, including detailed line‑item budgets, documentation for secured funding (commitment letters), clarification of project eligibility under public‑service vs public‑facilities vs economic‑development categories, and confirmation of project sites (for housing or facility projects).

Recusals and conflicts: Committee practice was restated: committee members should recuse themselves and leave the table if they have a direct conflict. Darren recused and left the table for Bike Works discussion because of a board affiliation; Fernando disclosed a family relationship with a Southside executive director but remained at the table and did not recuse from that item.

Ending: Staff will prepare an updated review matrix and send follow‑up questions to applicants; the committee will use the updated documents to begin funding allocations at its next meeting.