Fort Walton Beach Council agenda — 03-22-05 — reading text

991. 00, for a project entitled, URBAN DRUG ENFORCEMENT IN THE CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH, for the period of 02/ 01/ 2005 through 07/ 31/ 2005, in accordance with the Budget and Budget Narrative contained in the subgrant application, and subject to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement Conditions of Agreement and any special conditions governing this subgrant. By execution of this Certification of Acceptance/ Request for Payment, the subgrantee requests a lump sum payment of the subgrant. Signature of Subgrantee' s Authorized Official Typed Name and Title of Official Date of Acceptance  CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 22, 2005 Consent Agenda Consideration of a Request to Increase Spending Cap for the CRA Residential Rehabilitation Program from 25, 000 to $ 30, 000 CDS Director) Community Redeveloment Agency Recommendation: Approval 6- 0 ( 3-2-05) Council Action 1st 2nd Vote: Agenda Item Number: CA- 7 I. I  CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date: March 15, 2005 To: Joyce Shanahan, City Manager ~ J Through: Missy McKim, AICP, Director. 11.-". rJVY- SerVi~ 9S Community Development From: Peggy Fowler, AICP, Planner II Community Development Services SUBJECT: Increasing CRA Residential Rehabilitation Program Grant Limits From 25, 000 to a Maximum $ 30, 000 BACKGROUND: The City of Fort Walton Beach Community Redevelopment Plan ( July 1998) identified the need for a Home Paint- Up/ Fix- Up for the residential portion of the Community Redevelopment Agency ( CRA) district. To that end, the Putty & Paint Program was developed by staff and approved by the CRA Board of Commissioners and City Council in October 1998. This program was intended to only paint the exterior of homes and included a spending limit of $3, 000 per house. In 1999, the CRA recommended that a residential rehabilitation program be established to accomplish work that could not be completed under the Putty & Paint Program. Many of the houses in need of painting were also in need of significant exterior and interior repair work. In August 1999 the City Council approved the Residential Rehabilitation Program and set a limit for repairs at $ 25,000. DISCUSSION: Due to increased costs of inspection services, construction materials and cost of contractors, the $ 25, 000 spending cap has not been sufficient to cover costs of repair and reconstruction for residences, primarily those that need major repairs to the roof. In many of the residences that need repair and reconstruction, the problems occur because of roof damage. When the roof damage is minor and only a portion of the roof can be repaired, the costs to rehabilitate the residence can usually be covered by the spending cap of $25, 000. However, in cases where substantial roof damage has occurred, the roof must usually be reconstructed to some degree. When the roof is flat, not only does the entire roof usually need major repairs or reconstruction, but other problems also occur. Because the older houses that are rehabbed Page 1 of 2 usually don' t meet the code for heating and cooling fixtures, the repair costs usually include installation of central heat and air. When the roof is flat, it is difficult or impossible to install the ductwork without also constructing duct chases, and there is usually no " extra" closet space for an air handler inside the residence. For cases such as these, it is necessary to install a pitched roof to allow for ductwork and, in some cases, the air handler, to be located in the attic. Considering that the value of housing is increasing in Fort Walton Beach, rehabilitation of older housing stock makes fiscal sense, as long as the houses are found to be structurally sound and the life expectancy of the house will be increased substantially. For the low and moderate income homeowners who are eligible for the Residential Rehabilitation Grant, being granted funds to repair their homes and bring them up to code is probably the only way they can afford to live comfortably. Based on past experiences, with no financial assistance for the homeowners, many of the homes will fall into disrepair to the point of becoming a health and safety hazard and subject to condemnation. If this occurs, these homeowners will have a hard time finding housing that they can afford. RECOMMENDATION: At their March 2, 2005 meeting The CRA Board of Commissioners voted ( 6 to 0) to recommend that City Council increase the Residential Rehabilitation spending cap from 25,000 to $ 30, 000 per house. Page 2 of 2  CITY OF FORT WALTON BEACH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Date: February 22, 2005 To: Chairman and Members Community Redevelopment Agency Through: Missy McKim, AICP, Director J /IJ\~ \ Community Development Servi~ Y \ From: Peggy Fowler, AICP, Planner II Community Development Services SUBJECT: Increasing CRA Residential Rehabilitation Program Grant Limits From 25, 000 to a Maximum $ 30, 000 BACKGROUND: The City of Fort Walton Beach Community Redevelopment Plan ( July 1998) identified the need for a Home Paint- Up/ Fix- Up for the residential portion of the Community Redevelopment Agency ( CRA) district. To that end, the Putty & Paint Program was developed by staff and approved by the CRA Board of Commissioners and City Council in October 1998. This program was intended to only paint the exterior of homes and included a spending limit of $3, 000 per house. In 1999, the CRA recommended that a residential rehabilitation program be established to accomplish work that could not be completed under the Putty & Paint Program. Many of the houses in need of painting were also in need of significant exterior and interior repair work. In August 1999 the City Council approved the Residential Rehabilitation Program and set a limit for repairs at $ 25, 000. DISCUSSION: Due to increased costs of inspection services, construction materials and cost of contractors, the $ 25, 000 spending cap has not been sufficient to cover costs of repair and reconstruction for residences, primarily those that need major repairs to the roof. I n many of the residences that need repair and reconstruction, the problems occur because of roof damage. When the roof damage is minor and only a portion of the roof can be repaired, the costs to rehabilitate the residence can usually be covered by the spending cap of $25,000. However, in cases where substantial roof damage has occurred, the roof must usually be reconstructed to some degree. When the roof is flat, not only does the entire roof usually need major repairs or reconstruction, but other problems also occur. Because the older houses that are rehabbed Page 1 of 2 usually don' t meet the code for heating and cooling fixtures, the repair costs usually include installation of central heat and air. When the roof is flat, it is difficult or impossible to install the ductwork without also constructing duct chases, and there is usually no " extra" closet space for an air handler inside the residence. For cases such as these, it is necessary to install a pitched roof to allow for ductwork and, in some cases, the air handler, to be located in the attic. Considering that the value of housing is increasing in Fort Walton Beach, rehabilitation of older housing stock makes fiscal sense, as long as the houses are found to be structurally sound and the life expectancy of the house will be increased substantially. For the low and moderate income homeowners who are eligible for the Residential Rehabilitation Grant, being granted funds to repair their homes and bring them up to code is probably the only way they can afford to live comfortably. Based on past experiences, with no financial assistance for the homeowners, many of the homes will fall into disrepair to the point of becoming a health and safety hazard and subject to condemnation. If this occurs, these homeowners will have a hard time finding housing that they can afford. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the spending cap be increased from $ 25, 000 to $ 30, 000 per house and requests direction to proceed to City Council for their approval of the change in the spending cap. Page 2 of 2