Jul 28, 2002 By Paul Sunyak 3 min read

The Fayette County Housing Authority is spending $82,319 per unit to completely renovate 11 scattered-site public housing units on Coolspring Street in Uniontown, even though the units are reportedly only 20 years old and have brick-and-stucco exteriors. Executive Director Thomas L. Harkless, who confirmed the age of the three row houses on Coolspring, said the exterior skin needs replacing because of apparently flawed bricks that have crumbled on 15 percent of their surface.

“You can actually take your pencil and flake away at it,” said Harkless. “The face of the brick is actually chipping off in parts of it.”

The authority board has taken a decidedly anti-row housing position, favoring construction of single-family homes and duplexes.

But Harkless said that in this case it makes more sense to rehabilitate the slab-on-grade Coolspring row houses, which have no basements, as the cost of building new would be $120,000 per unit.

He said the high labor costs mandated by the federal Davis-Bacon Act are what drives the cost of such rehabilitations skyward. He also noted that this is the first time the Coolspring Street units have been “looked at comprehensively” in two decades.

Noting that the authority is charged with using federal money to provide safe, decent and sanitary housing, Harkless said he is aware that critics will scoff at the project’s $905,519 cost.

“I know that there’s people out there who think that no matter what the problem is, you shouldn’t spend (this type of) money on the poor,” said Harkless. “They think it should be chicken coops (that they live in).”

The executive director added that complete interior “gut job” on the inside of the units, which includes new plumbing and electrical work, is needed after 20 years because of the nature of the housing.

“These are rental properties. They get a little more beat up (than your house),” said Harkless.

The buildings’ exterior will remain brick under the renovation plan. Harkless said this time the work should “last forever,” which he admitted by housing authority definition is a period of 40 years.

He said the authority is looking for a quality return on its investment in the long run, and thus doesn’t mind spending what appears to be a large sum at this point. The four board members in attendance at last week’s meeting unanimously approved the nearly million-dollar expenditure.

However, board member Angela M. Zimmerlink, who could not attend the Wednesday morning meeting, said she favors a more conservative upgrade on the 11 units that would include replacing stoops with porches.

But Zimmerlink draws the line at pouring a huge sum of tax money into a complete rehabilitation of the row housing, which was built in 1960 according to information she was given.

“As a landlord, there’s nothing wrong with upgrading your property. But I think the board’s going to an extreme,” said Zimmerlink. “They look at this project as a way of instilling pride and improving self-esteem (of public housing tenants), and spurring redevelopment on Coolspring Street – all for only $900,000 of tax money. And I disagree with that.

“It’s just another but more expensive approach of addressing low vacancy rate and social problems. I disagree with their approach and their self-acclaimed role. They can’t find refrigerators, track inventory, collect rent, or follow HUD rules. Yet they think they can be redevelopment specialists and social workers.”