Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disaster Recovery Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission approves FEMA subaward and hires Pegasus to manage elevation project at 2560 West Tulsa Drive
Summary
The commission approved a federally funded subaward to elevate a home at 2560 West Tulsa Drive (resolution 2025-15) and authorized a $35,000 task order with Pegasus Engineering for grant management; the homeowner must escrow a 25% match before work proceeds.
The Deltona City Commission approved a federally funded hazard mitigation subaward and grant agreement (resolution 2025-15) for a single property at 2560 West Tulsa Drive after staff said the Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) had approved elevating the house at least one foot above base flood elevation.
Vice Mayor Harriot moved to approve the subaward; Commissioner Santiago seconded and the motion passed 7 to 0.
City staff explained the funding is site‑specific: the FDEM approval covers only this property and the homeowner must secure a 25 percent match before the city will begin any elevation work. Staff said the homeowner may pursue other grants through the city’s housing department or obtain a loan if grant funding is not available. The homeowner’s match must be transferred to the city, likely into an escrow account, so the city has assurance the match is available before the project proceeds.
The commission also authorized a task authorization with Pegasus Engineering in an amount of $35,000 for grant management services related to the elevation project; that item passed 7 to 0. Commissioner Colwell asked whether the $35,000 would be refundable; staff said it could possibly be refunded as part of matching or reimbursement programs, depending on grant rules.
Why it matters: The action uses federal hazard mitigation funds to reduce flood risk for a specific property damaged by Hurricanes Ian and Nicole. City staff said the grant is project‑specific and funds cannot be reallocated to other addresses if this homeowner cannot provide the required match.
Public comment included clarification requests from commissioners about whether the resident had applied to housing programs and whether the federal funds could be used for other properties; staff consistently emphasized the site‑specific nature of the award and the escrow requirement for the match.
Outcome: Both the subaward resolution and the Pegasus task authorization were approved unanimously (7 to 0).
