I wasn’t able to attend the East Village Growth Cell meeting this past Tuesday night, but a regular reader of the Chronicle (who wishes to remain anonymous) was there and has turned in this report:

Councilman Riggenbach was present, Gulley was absent.

They discussed changes to the rehab qualification. The first issue was the loan terms. City officials recommended:

“0% interest if paid back within the specified loan terms (outlined below) however, the loan becomes immediately due and payable upon sale, transfer, or if the homeowner ceases to occupy the home excluding any one or more of the following (each a permitted transfer): any sale, conveyance or tranfer (A) to a spouse upon dissolution of marriage, (B) to the surviving spouse upon death of a joint tenant Owner or (C) by will.
LOAN > $20,000 = 20 yr term
LOAN > $15,000 = 15 yr term
LOAN > $10,000 = 10 yr term
LOAN = $10,000 or less = 5 yr term

Some people had an issue with the 0% loan, suggesting that it may cause funding problems for the TIF in the future from bad loans that aren’t getting paid back. The item passed unanimously.

The owner of the Cornerstone building was there asking if businesses in the TIF district qualified for this. At this point, it’s home-owners only.

The next item addressed was how often an owner can re-apply for the $5000 grant and additional $25,000 loan. Vote on one:

“a. the $5000 grant may be obtained one time and every approved application will receive the $5000 grant if the total project costs are in excess of $5000”

or

“b. the grant can be obtained multiple times if more that $30000 total is invested in the project.”

There was a great deal of discussion on this. Someone suggested the grant and loan be applied only to one address and not to a particular person because the purpose of this program is to “better the property more than the person.” Someone disagreed and suggested that if someone is willing to put the full $30,000 into repair of a property and has paid it back, he should be able to get the grant and loan for the same property a second time to further improve the property. This motion gained a lot of support and was motioned for approval. I asked if there are any provisions to insure the recipient of the grant and loan are using the money properly and not spending it on luxuries unrelated to the property. I was told these are details that will be worked out later. I asked if the program is set up to allow do-it-yourselfers to pay themselves from this grant and loan before they can dip back into it or if they must provide receipts and receive no self-compensation for their own work. Again, was told this hasn’t been addressed yet and will be worked out in the details. City staff appeared to be noting these concerns. Item b. passed unanimously with wording changed to allow the 2nd $5000 grant after the loan is paid back.

Someone asked when funds are expected to be available. Nothing set yet, but it could be soon or as long as 3 years from now. It’s up to Council.

Someone made a comment about the people who weren’t there to vote and whether they’ll be notified first before this passes to the draft stage. A comment was made by the speaker to the effect of: “they should have been here to vote.” My thoughts are that many of them would if the webpage would be updated properly. I asked Bobby Gray about this later in the evening. He admitted to being tardy on updating the website.

Next item discussed was the point system similar to Decatur and Springfield’s TIFs. Money is distributed based on points collected from the different repairs to be done. Different categories were “Exterior Improvements, Sustainability, Density, Code Improvements and Comprehensiveness of the Project.” The crowd received this whole point system negatively, saying if shouldn’t matter what the project is, if a homeowner is willing to live in and improve the neighborhood. A motioin to deny point system and a motion to add a priority list for anyone who borrows as follows: “1. life safety (doors, windows, etc), 2. Structural integrity (roof, foundation,) 3. Occupant health (Asbesthos, mold removal) 4. Exterior.” Both motions pass

There were addtional questions about fences, lighting & landscape removal if it endangers the property. These will be looked at for the next meeting. I asked about the owner occupancy status and wether of not non-profit rehab groups can qualify for this grant. At this time, no. But this can be addressed at the next meeting because its never been discussed.

Next meeting was set for two Tuesdays from now.