Wakulla County received several warnings from the state that its weatherization program was having problems months before an emergency was declared in order push through some bids and try to get the program back in the state’s good graces.

And the state Department of Community Affairs recently issued a scathing letter to the county on another program in the housing department – the Low Income Housing Energy Assistance Program. In a May 21 report, DCA monitors wrote eight-pages of findings ranging from the lack of a LIHEAP policies and procedures manual to quarterly reports to the state arriving weeks or months late.

Both programs are administered by the county’s housing department, and work to funnel federal funds through the state to local low-income residents.

In the weatherization program, Wakulla is to receive more than $1.3 million in federal stimulus program over a three-year period from March 2009. That amount should translate into as many as 288 homes being weatherized – that is, made more energy efficient with improvements recommended by a home inspector.

From March 2009 to April 2010, Wakulla was to have had 104 homes completed. It has completed two.

County officials said the problem was that the weatherization program’s head left in September and the program was without certification until April, when the two houses were approved.

An April 29 letter from Janice Browning, director of the state’s Division of Housing and Community Development, warned that “if a substantial number of weatherized dwellings are not completed by May 31, 2010, the department may be forced to seek an additional or replacement provider for Wakulla County.”

Fearful that it could lose federal stimulus money, county administrators stepped in and directed staff to get more houses weatherized – and let emergency bids to additional contractors to do the work in order to increase the number of homes.

Continued on Page 11A

Jerry Nuss, the new weatherization director, resigned after the bids were let, complaining that it was improper, while contractors who had done past weatherization work complained that they were excluded from the emergency bids being let – and said the prices of these emergency bids were outrageous.

But a review of correspondence indicates that the county was warned of state concerns about the project as far back as December 2009, and again in February and in April.

County Administrator Ben Pingree last week appointed a six-person panel, including three from neighboring Leon County, to look at issues in the weatherization department and Housing Director Alfred Nelson. That panel is to report back with its findings and recommendations by June 24.

Because of administrative costs incurred by weatherization – as much as $100,000 – there is concern raised by some about the potential budget impacts to the county if the stimulus money is not turned over. There are ongoing expenditures, salaries for department personnel as well as rented office space for the housing department, for example, with the county looking for stimulus money to reimburse those costs.

According to expenditures in the clerk of courts office, those two costs – salaries and rent – have accounted for nearly $35,000 in expenditures for the county’s weatherization program this year.

And, prior to the May rush to get houses weatherized, the county had accomplished two weatherized houses for $10,000 – for which the state would pay about $3,000 in administrative costs, considerably less than what the county has already spent.

State officials are scheduled to come to Wakulla County this week for a visit to look at the county’s compliance since the May 31 deadline passed.

Some have expressed concern that more than 100 homes should have been completed by now – at $5,000 a pop, that would mean more than $500,000 pumped into the local economy.

If the stimulus money were pulled from the county budget – all or part – there would be a non-profit agency that does weatherization administration appointed to continue the program for local residents. The money would presumably still stay in the county, but would not go through the county budget.

The LIHEAP report blasts the housing department for its lack of compliance: including reports being turned in late to the state and proper procedures being followed.

It should be noted, though, that the third program administered by the county housing department – the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP), which provides for rehabiliation of homes and down payment assistance – has so far not drawn concern.