Title
title
Concur with the Housing Programs Advisory Committee and Adopt the Resolution Amending the Village of Oak Park’s Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program Guidelines
..end
Introduction
overview
A Resolution supporting amendments to the Village’s Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program Guidelines, which were last updated November 19, 2012.
end
body
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Board concur with the recommendation of the Housing Programs Advisory Committee to revise the guidelines and approval of the resolution.
Prior Board Action
The Board has taken the following prior action(s):
• 2012-R-246: A Resolution Adopting Amended Guidelines for the Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program.
• 2012-R-80: A Resolution Adopting Amended Guidelines for the Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program.
• 2009-R-168: A Resolution Adopting Amended Guidelines for the Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program.
• 2008-R-086: A Resolution Adopting Amended Guidelines for the Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program.
• 2008-R-019: A Resolution Amending Guidelines of the Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program.
Background
The Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program was established in 1978 with funding provided from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The purpose of the rehabilitation program is to assist low- and moderate-income owners earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) with maintaining their properties. The program has been revised several times throughout its history. The guidelines were last amended in 2012.
Currently, homeowners with qualifying incomes are able to receive a 0% loan of up to a maximum of $25,000, repayable after 20 years or when the owner sells the house. The loan also comes with a lead paint hazard reduction grant. Village staff helps the homeowner with the project scope and in selecting a contractor.
In January of 2025, the Housing Programs Advisory Committee (HPAC) began reviewing the Single-Family Rehabilitation (SFR) Loan Program and the Small Rental Property (SRP) Rehabilitation Loan Program. Using the recommendations from HPAC, staff formulated and incorporated these into revised guidelines for these programs.
Staff and HPAC identified the following challenges with the current SFR program.
- Lack of alignment between the program’s name and the types of housing that can be served.
- Confusion over whether to direct applicants to emergency loans or SFR loans.
- Ability to fix code violations with garages.
- Declining number of loans approved each year.
- Long timelines to complete rehabilitation projects.
Several of the changes being suggested to this SRP program guidelines include 1) eliminating the 1% application fee 2) changing the eligible dwelling type to include 1-4 owner occupied units 3) removing the emergency repair section and creating a separate stand-alone guidelines 4) clarifying the level of assistance provided includes both a rehabilitation loan and a lead paint hazard reduction grant 5) adding a category to the scope of work for accessibility and 6) adding performance standards for operation of the program.
In May of 2025, staff presented to HPAC the revised program guidelines, including a stand-alone guideline for an Emergency Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program. HPAC provided their feedback on these guidelines. Staff took these suggestions and returned to HPAC in June of 2025 with finalized versions of the Guidelines. HPAC voted unanimously to recommend each guideline for Board approval.
Timing Considerations
There are no specific timing considerations associated with this item.
Budget Impact
There is no budget impact associated with this item. Rehabilitation projects are funded through the CDBG revolving loan fund.
Staffing Impact
The Neighborhood Services Department will continue to facilitate the Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program. There is no staffing impact associated with this item.
DEI Impact
The purpose of the Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program is to provide assistance to low- and moderate-income homeowners earning less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) to maintain the property and to comply with code requirements.
Community Input
On January 15, 2025, the Housing Programs Advisory Committee reviewed the Single-Family Rehabilitation (SFR) Loan Program and the Small Rental Property (SRP) Rehabilitation Loan Program. HPAC recommended several changes to the programs to staff.
On April 16, 2025, staff introduced to HPAC potential program revisions to the SRP and SRF programs based on staff analysis.
On May 21, 2025, staff presented the fully revised SFR and SRP program guidelines to HPAC for review and feedback. New stand-alone policy guidelines were included in the presentation for the Emergency Rehabilitation Loan Program, which was previously included within the SFR program guidelines.
On June 18, 2025, HPAC voted to recommend that the Board approve the draft guidelines for the Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program (formerly SFR).
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Board of Trustees approve the resolution adopting the amended Residential Rehabilitation Loan Program Guidelines.
Advantages:
• Changes the emphasis from single-family to residential property containing 1-4 units.
• Cleans up outdated language.
• Adds a category to the scope of work for accessibility.
• Clarifies the level of assistance provided includes both a rehabilitation loan and a lead paint hazard reduction grant.
• Removes Emergency Loans from the current guidelines to be included in a new stand-alone guideline for ease of use.
• Eliminates the 1% application fee to remove an economic barrier to the program.
• Clarifies the warranty provided to the homeowner.
• Adds a performance measurement and evaluation to the program.
Disadvantages:
• There are no disadvantages to this action.
Alternatives
Alternative 1:
The Board can choose not to approve the resolution amending the guidelines.
Advantages:
• Provides staff with additional opportunity to refine the guidelines based on Board feedback.
Disadvantages:
• Changes will not be made to address existing opportunities to clarify the guidelines.
• An economic barrier to the program would remain.
Anticipated Future Actions
There are no anticipated future actions in relation to this item.
Prepared By: Jeffrey J. Prior, Neighborhood Services Program Manager
Reviewed By: Jonathan Burch, Assistant Village Manager/Neighborhood Services Director
Approved By: Kevin J. Jackson, Village Manager
Attachment(s):
1. Presentation
2. Resolution
3. Guidelines