Committee reviews proposed urgent‑need home‑rehab grant program with Habitat for Humanity

Staff presented a draft program, recommended by the Housing Commission, to provide grants for urgent home repairs to income‑eligible homeowners and to partner with Habitat for Humanity of Northern Fox Valley to administer the grants and oversee construction. Ross, presenter, said the program differs from the existing Home Rehab Accessibility Loan Program by providing grants (not loans), setting eligibility at below 60 percent of area median income, and narrowing eligible work to critical health and safety repairs such as roofing, windows, exterior doors, HVAC and accessibility improvements. Ross told the committee Habitat would assist applicants by hiring contractors, obtaining permits and overseeing work. The Housing Commission recommended setting an annual budget for the program based on a percentage of the housing trust fund; the commission proposed $85,000 for the first year, described by staff as approximately 5 percent of the current trust fund balance. Staff emphasized that grant funds would not return to the trust fund once distributed. Committee discussion and recusal: David Petrell recused himself from the discussion because a family member is involved with the project. Committee members expressed support: one member said, “I think this is a really good program. It always aggravates me knowing that we have north of $1,000,000 basically sitting in a fund to help people,” and another said the grant format could encourage more senior homeowners on fixed incomes to apply. Council member Jamie asked whether lowering the eligibility threshold to 60 percent AMI makes qualification easier or harder; staff confirmed the 60 percent threshold would make income eligibility more restrictive than the county program that uses 80 percent AMI and said staff could adjust eligibility if participation is low. The nut graf: The proposed urgent‑need grant would use housing trust fund dollars to fix critical health‑and‑safety problems for low‑income homeowners rather than providing loans; the committee asked clarifying questions and provided feedback but did not vote on a program ordinance or funding allocation at this meeting. Next steps: Staff will prepare formal documents for committee consideration if the committee directs moving forward; staff said it could report back on application interest and adjust eligibility or funding recommendations if uptake is lower than expected.