RSS
|
|
Both projects, the Community Development Block Grant scattered site housing program and the Rural Operating Assistance program, require public hearings at the beginning of each three-year cycle before the county can apply for new grants.
Neither program generated any public comment, but both were discussed at length by the board before the grant applications were approved.
Speaking for the CDBG scattered site housing program was Michael Scott, of Professional Resources Opportunities Inc., who is overseeing the project. Scott told the board this was the second of two public hearings required for the grants. The first was held as the 2005 cycle was being closed out.
“The budget for this year's program will be $400,000,” Scott told the board. “This includes all the work that will be done on the program, as well as any service delivery costs, and any administration costs.”
Scott told the board he anticipates rehabilitating six to eight low-to-moderate income houses in Halifax County. “In fact, this year the Division of Community Assistance (DCA) is requiring that households receiving assistance from scattered site funds be classified as very low income, which equates to a household income of 50 percent or less than the county's median income.”
The application is due Oct. 29, and so far, they have identified six households throughout the county. One of those is a holdover from the 2005 project.
The individual households must come from each of the small communities scattered throughout the county and representatives from those communities are invited to sit on the selection committee. Scott anticipates a couple of more applications being submitted from several communities.
“This year we are recommending that there be one household considered for relocation assistance,” Scott said. “The relocation assistance involves replacement housing and also a budget line item for demolition and clearance.” Scott said a house in Littleton is being considered for this.
The house in Littleton was chosen by the town and according to them, the family is very deserving of the assistance. Their home was considered in the 2005 program, but was beyond repair. Scott said the cost for this would be around $70,000, which is considerably higher than the usual $44,000 required to rehabilitate a house.
Commissioner James Pierce asked Scott if all of the municipalities are participating. Scott said all of them have been contacted, but each must hold their own formal meeting because it requires a formal action by their board. He anticipates 100 percent participation.
Commissioner Rives Manning questioned using $400,000 for just six houses. “I'm going to be perfectly honest; you can put people in new house less expensively than that. I don't think that's good use of taxpayer's dollars.”
“I don't disagree with you,” Scott told Manning. “What you get into though, especially on the demolition side, is asbestos inspection costs, asbestos removal costs and all service delivery costs. It all raises the cost of doing that.”
Commissioner Carolyn Johnson asked if the house in Littleton was the only home considered for the program. Scott said it was. “I've talked to them several times and actually what they wanted to do was demolish old, dilapidated, vacant structures, and that is what several towns have expressed,” Scott said.
Scott also said they had submitted a request to the DCA to do just that, but it was declined. The DCA will allow one relocation like the one being considered in Littleton, but that is all.
Johnson then asked Scott about the Hollister community and how many applications have come from there. “We have one now and that one is actually a holdover from the last program. We've also asked a representative from the Haliwa-Saponi, Hollister Reach, Native American Way and CDC to sit on the selection committee,” Scott told Johnson. “Right now there is one for sure and possibly two more will be considered.”
Chairman Gene Minton told Scott he shared Commissioner Manning's concern about the actual cost per unit. “These are strictly budgetary items right now,” Scott answered, “Once we actually get bids in and so forth, it really just depends. It depends on the degree of asbestos found.”
Manning told Scott he thought they were making a mistake leaving the number of houses at just six. Scott said that the numbers are based on actual costs from the previous program and that there will be a couple of alternates listed also, but that it would be fine to put the number at eight to 10 for the application.
Scott said a new requirement for the applications is that the houses are owner-occupied and that ownership must be verified prior to application, which is not always easy to do.
Since there was no public comment, the board passed a resolution to submit the application for eight to 10 houses, with one request for family relocation.
Comments