Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Rehabilitation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City and CCIP report progress on ARPA-funded home rehabilitation program; applications closed
Summary
Chester officials and the Chester Community Improvement Project reported Feb. 26 that a home rehabilitation program funded with ARPA funds has 38 applications in process (out of a 78-application allotment), 27 projects completed and a waiting list; the program provides up to $10,000 per eligible homeowner.
Representatives from the Chester Community Improvement Project (CCIP) and city staff provided an update Feb. 26 on a home-rehabilitation pilot funded with American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) money.
Annette Pyatt, executive director of the Chester Community Improvement Project, and Amanda Johnson, city staff, said the program’s application period is closed. The program allotted capacity for 78 applications; CCIP reported receiving 38 completed applications that have entered the processing pipeline. CCIP said 27 projects are complete or at final inspection, four projects are starting renovations, 11 projects are in contracting/bidding and 12 projects are at the inspection/work-write-up stage. CCIP reported three applicants were deemed not eligible (the program used the term “not eligible” rather than “denied”) and that 12 applicants were deemed ineligible earlier in processing because they lacked supporting documents or did not meet program residence or income requirements.
Program details provided in the meeting record include a maximum grant of $10,000 per homeowner; projects that exceed $10,000 require the homeowner to pay the difference. Pyatt described typical work as roofing, heating systems, electrical and plumbing upgrades and windows. Contractors must submit licenses and insurance; CCIP invoices the city for ARPA funds and establishes a deposit to the contractor not to exceed one-third of the contract amount, with progressive inspections during work.
Speakers noted administrative delays: limited contractors available to homeowners, contractor documentation requirements, homeowners requesting changes after estimates and inspection scheduling bottlenecks (electrical inspection was highlighted). City staff and CCIP encouraged applicants and contractors to follow submission requirements to avoid delays. CCIP and city staff provided a phone number for status inquiries and said they will work with the city’s economic development committee on final steps to close the program.
The meeting record contains inconsistent statements about the program’s total ARPA allocation: presenters said the city allocated “over $780,000” and elsewhere a councilor referenced “$1,000,000 of ARPA funds” for community projects; another statement in the record said “750,000 was total allocated.” Those conflicting sums appear in different speakers’ remarks and are noted here as reported in the meeting. Council members said the program had no homeowner match requirement and praised program administrators for thorough work.
