City documents show the CDBG housing rehab program is moving forward, but the limited contractor response raises a practical question about capacity as Salina places more emphasis on preserving older housing stock.

Salina’s Phase 2 housing rehabilitation work under the city’s 2024 Community Development Block Grant program is moving forward with one qualified contractor after two rounds of bidding.

The item was included on the May 11 Salina City Commission agenda as part of the city’s 2024 CDBG Housing Rehab Grant. The proposed action would authorize contracts for rehabilitation work on three approved homes: 228 S. Phillips Ave., 213 S. Ninth St., and 704 State St.

According to the city packet, the first round of bids was released in February with a due date of March 5, 2026. Six contractors expressed interest, three obtained bid packets, and two submitted bids. However, one contractor did not complete the required form as intended, and the other did not have verification of completing the required site walks. City staff then revised the bid form and released the projects for bid a second time.

The second round opened April 1, with bids due April 23. This time, only one contractor, Kansas Sand & Construction LLC, responded and submitted bids for all three homes.

Because only one qualified bid was received for each home, the city must obtain approval from the Kansas Department of Commerce before accepting the bids. The packet says preliminary approval had been obtained through verbal discussions with state staff, and a formal letter would be sent if the City Commission approved the award.

Program Requirements Limit the Contractor Pool

The bid requirements included several conditions. Contractors had to be licensed as a general contractor through the City of Salina and be in good standing. They also had to be certified by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment to perform lead-safe work practices, obtain the bid packet and instructions from the grant administrator, and obtain signatures from each homeowner confirming that the contractor inspected the house.

Those requirements are part of the structure of grant-funded housing rehabilitation work. The homes involved are older properties, and the work must meet program rules, inspection standards, documentation requirements and lead-safe work rules where applicable.

City staff noted that sending the projects out for bid a third time would not guarantee additional bidders. The packet also states that there are “not a high number” of available contractors who meet all qualifications and required certifications.

That point places the agenda item in a larger context. The issue is not only whether these three homes can move forward. It is whether Salina has enough qualified contractors available if the city wants to expand or accelerate housing rehabilitation programs.

Work Planned at Three Homes

The three homes include different repair needs.

For Home #2 at 228 S. Phillips Ave., the listed work includes window replacement, exterior door replacement, door bumpers, soffit and fascia repairs, kitchen floor repair, basement wall stabilization, and gutter and downspout replacement. The packet says all work may be performed because the total rehab need is less than the $25,000 maximum, with the property owner responsible for $6,200 of the $24,800 bid amount.

The bid tabulation for Home #2 appears to show a $27,000 total bid when lead-safe work practice costs are included. That detail may need clarification in explaining the final project cost, including how the program cap applies and how lead-safe work costs are handled.

For Home #6 at 213 S. Ninth St., the bid tabulation lists work including exterior doors, partial window replacement, porch repairs, plumbing, electrical repairs, gutters and downspouts, and relocating laundry to the main floor bathroom. The listed total bid is $24,650.

For Home #7 at 704 State St., the work includes exterior siding and paint stabilization, along with fascia and soffit work. The listed total bid is $27,000, including rehab and lead-safe work practice costs.

The packet also states that for Homes #6 and #7, not all initially bid work can be performed. Some items had to be removed so the rehabilitation work would remain within the maximum allowed under program guidelines.

That means some repairs identified in the original scope may remain outside the current project.

Grant Funding Expected to Cover Costs

The city’s fiscal note says Salina anticipates being reimbursed for funds spent on the projects, with anticipated expenses expected to be covered within the grant.

The recommended action was to approve the Phase 2 contracts for all three homes and authorize the City Manager to sign the contracts with Kansas Sand & Construction LLC, along with the letter to the Kansas Department of Commerce.

Larger Housing Strategy Depends on Rehab Capacity

The contractor response comes as city officials are placing more attention on infill housing and neighborhood reinvestment.

During the May 11 housing study session, city staff described CDBG as funding that helps stabilize Salina’s aging housing stock. Staff said the goal is to improve older homes so they remain part of the city’s usable housing supply over time.

Staff also said the city has $300,000 in CDBG funding working on 12 to 14 homes. One challenge, according to the transcript, is that many homes needing rehabilitation require about $50,000 in work, while many programs max out at $20,000 to $30,000. In some cases, staff may inspect a home and find more than $100,000 in needed work, making the home too expensive for the program to address.

Staff also described the city’s Federal Home Loan Bank grant as another infill tool, with a goal of improving 44 homes over four years.

Together, those programs show why contractor availability matters. If the city expects rehabilitation to remain part of its housing strategy, the availability of contractors who can meet grant, inspection and lead-safe work requirements will affect how quickly those projects can move.

Practical Questions Remain

The May 11 packet does not indicate that the city failed to seek bids. The city released the projects twice, documented the bid results, and is seeking state approval before proceeding with one responsive contractor.

At the same time, the limited contractor response leaves several practical questions.

The city may need to clarify how lead-safe work costs are counted against project caps, particularly where bid tabulations show total costs above figures described in the staff report. The city may also need to identify which repairs were removed from Homes #6 and #7 and whether those items will remain unresolved after grant-funded work is completed.

The broader question is whether the current contractor pool is large enough to support Salina’s housing rehabilitation goals. As the city looks to preserve older homes and improve infill neighborhoods, grant funding is only one part of the equation. The work also requires contractors who can meet program rules, perform specialized repairs and take on smaller rehabilitation projects that may come with more paperwork than traditional private remodeling jobs.