Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facade Grant Program topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney outlines residential facade grant program; board and residents raise contractor, payment and oversight concerns
Summary
The city attorney presented a draft residential facade repair grant with reimbursement draws (30/60/90 percent) and 10% retainage, eligibility rules and contractor options; board members and residents debated upfront materials costs, prior commercial AC expenditures and audit oversight.
Cliff Shepherd, the city attorney, presented a draft residential facade repair program and payment procedures that the board asked staff to refine and return with formal guidelines.
Shepherd said the proposed grants would operate on a reimbursement schedule, with interim payments at roughly 30, 60 and 90 percent completion and a final payment after inspections and required lien waivers. "Grants are offered on a reimbursement basis... interim payments along the way based on percentage of completion, 30, 60, 90, and then a hundred," he said, adding that a 10 percent retainage would be held to encourage completion.
Shepherd told the board the CRA's redevelopment plan currently describes matching grants, which discouraged applicants in the past, and recommended amending the plan so the new residential program could be non‑matching. He also cited statutory authority for the program, saying it is permissible to use tax increment (TIF) funds under Florida law to carry out voluntary repair and rehabilitation plans.
Board members and residents raised practical concerns about contractor capacity and the cost of materials. Several speakers said contractors routinely expect a deposit or must front material costs, which can limit participation by small local contractors or create cash-flow problems for projects with custom windows or large material orders. A resident and several board members noted the CRA previously paid for commercial air-conditioning upgrades and estimated that expenditures for commercial AC units totaled about $300,000; board members asked the attorney and staff to review past expenditures and any audit findings before the program is adopted.
The attorney described two program-administration options: (1) allow property owners to select their own licensed contractors who agree in writing to the CRA payment schedule and lien‑release process, or (2) prequalify a pool of contractors through an RFQ and require applicants to use those contractors if they choose the prequalified route. He recommended strict documentation (inspections, contractor affidavits, partial and final lien waivers, notice of commencement) to protect public funds.
Staff and the attorney agreed to prepare the application, detailed guidelines and the payment-application exhibits for board review. The board asked that the documents be circulated to members and uploaded for public review before a follow-up workshop; no formal policy was adopted at the meeting.
