Fayette County approves roof‑grant scoring, delays policy on encumbrances pending state guidance

The Fayette County Commission on Feb. 12 approved scoring criteria for a county roof‑grant program meant to tear down dilapidated properties, adding two points for property owners who are fixed‑income or otherwise qualify as low income. Commissioners paused a separate decision about placing encumbrances or liens on assisted properties and asked county counsel to seek written guidance from the state before the commission revisits the issue.

The commission approved the criteria after Angela, a county staff member overseeing the grant, proposed adding an income component so applicants on fixed incomes, including retirees and people receiving disability, would receive two additional points in the program’s ranking. “You could just let them know that special consideration is given to low income applicants,” Angela said during the discussion.

The added points apply only if owners voluntarily provide proof (for example, Social Security or disability documentation) and would not be required information for every applicant. Commissioners and staff said the point system will simply rank applicants; the commission will again review the ranked list and confirm ownership before awarding funds.

Commissioners spent most of the discussion on whether the county should require an encumbrance—a recorded lien or other restriction—on properties receiving grant money to protect the county if an owner later sells the property for profit. A county staff member said an encumbrance could be structured as a contract clause that requires reimbursement to the county within a defined period if the owner sells the property. A state official who had previously advised staff, identified in the meeting as a state environmental resource analyst, recommended encumbrances but left the final decision to the county.

Some commissioners warned that requiring a lien up front could reduce participation; others said a recorded encumbrance provides clear legal standing to recover funds if owners violate the agreement. Because the state guidance the county received was inconsistent—sometimes calling encumbrances “required” and in other messages calling them “preferred”—the commission voted to seek formal written guidance and delay implementing any encumbrance policy until counsel reports back.

Commissioner action: the commission voted to approve the grant criteria including the added two‑point income preference and separately voted to pause the encumbrance policy and direct county counsel to request a written legal opinion from the state. Staff said they will publicize the final criteria and that they currently have about 30 applicants for the grant cycle.

The commission did not adopt an encumbrance requirement at the meeting. County staff said they will return with counsel’s written guidance for the commission before placing any encumbrance language into the program’s requirements.