Minutes 03/11/1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

': II ,j-::t: TUESDAY MARCH 11, 1980 These figures show 59 homes that are owned by low and moderate income persons - primarily elderly, handicapped, and working people. The homes are low in value - most are blighted and deteriorating and do not conform to the state building code. This program, through loans and grants, will bring the existing substandard housing in these areas up to state building code standards. The program will not disturb neighborhoods because no new buildings will be constructed. Private enterprise will do the construction work. The City will be protected - if the home is sold, the City will get its money back because the home will have a lien on it. We still need to work out fine points such as income guidelines to qualify, interest rates for loans, rules for forgiveness of loans, and sizes of loans. The program, as I see it, will encourage pride in individuals' homes, in neighborhoods, in the community. The third reason I like this program, aside from the positive merits of the program itself, is that, according to HUD, federal grants for community programs go hand-in-hand with the community's efforts in pursuing its goals for housing. Mr. Brown tells me that, according to HUD, the City's Section 8 Existing Housing Program was instrumental in the decision to award the $3 million HUD water system grant to the City. It is estimated that this grant will save all of Martinsville's citizens, businesses, and industry each year, an amount equal to 37% of current water rates. Recently, Mr. Brown told Council that the City needs to enlarge the Secondary Sewage Plant, and this may cost well over $1 million in local funds. The City does not have the money; therefore, a HUD grant to pay for this project will possibly avert a bond sale and probable resulting sewer rate increase. I feel that our community has certainly benefited from HUD grants, and we can continue to benefit from the grants if we continue to pursue our goals for housing. Finally, I point out three things: 1. Mr. Worthy has carefully studied the application and he advises that there are no strings and/or requirements in the application that he feels are too stringent for the community to live with. 2. Mr. Grubbs and Mr. Brown were told by HUD that, if we want, we can structure the program so that grants and loans will go to homeowners, not to landlords or corporations. 3. During the discussion of the preapplication Mr. Oakes raised the point that he felt we had not demonstrated a need for the program and he felt additional study was necessary. The City Administration has verified, through questionnaires and house-to-house surveys, that there are at least 40 homes in this area in need of rehabilitation, which is the approximate number of homes that can be rehabilitated with the grant. So, we do have a need for the program based on our own inspection of the homes in the target areas.