Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-08-30 Housing MIN ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES August 30, 2000 CALL TO ORDER - The meeting was called to order at 4:10 p.m. by Chair Larry Medinger. Other Commissioners present were Gerry Sea, Joan Legg, Nancy Richardson, Madeline Hill, Carlus Harris and David Fine. Joe McKeever and Jan Vaughn were absent. Staff present were Bill Molnar and Susan Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The Minutes of the July 26, 2000 meeting were approved. AFFORDABLE HOUSING OPTIONS FOR CITY OF ASHLAND EMERGENCY SERVICE PERSONNEL Some of the questions raised about this issue are noted in last month’s minutes. Medinger said if we had a small, low-level program of acquiring one house a year, this need could be addressed without a big output of money from the City. Theoretically, in ten to 12 years, we could have a stock of homes that would serve this purpose in the community. Richardson’s main question was about whether the spouse’s income would be taken into account in qualifying. If there is a working spouse, they could be way above qualifying for an affordable house. Medinger said if we ran it like the regular housing program, that income would be taken into account. Legg said it seems there are two different things--one is the affordable housing program and secondly the necessity of keeping emergency personnel living here. She does not know if we want to monitor the income because it seems the purpose is to have emergency personnel living in Ashland so they can respond in an emergency. Medinger wondered how you get these folks to be citizens of the town they are working in right off the bat. Richardson sees an income element as a concern. If the program is available to entry level personnel but as a whole, your family income is at a certain level, then you can afford to buy in Ashland if you manage your money properly. Fine has suggested it be available to any emergency responder but not captain or higher. We already pay less to the firefighters and police than in Medford and yet housing costs are higher than in Medford. The most compelling argument is that you want emergency responders close by. And, you want these people to have a sense of ownership in the community. Richardson assumed this would be a land trust property. Medinger thought so. Fine thought this would be an extra incentive to City Council to keep them interested in finding funds to buy more land trust properties. Hill wondered if the Council shared his feelings on this. Fine thought three Council members are lukewarm and three to some extent share his feelings on it. Hill believes there have been mixed feelings on the Housing Commission. It was discussed at length last month. She is on the Ashland Community Land Trust Board. This is hard for her. Molnar said the Land Trust discussed this informally. They felt the tool is available to the City. If the City ever chooses to secure property and make it only available for housing for emergency employees, they could use a land lease to guarantee that it is always affordable. Hill said the Land Trust did not want to risk the money they have received from the Community Development Block Grant by not going to the lower income people. The Land Trust Board is concerned the City would earmark the funds for emergency responders. Fine said that would violate the terms of the CDBG. Hill could feel more positive about it if it did not jeopardize the lower income people. Fine hoped that by encouraging emergency responders to apply, that the Land Trust would appear to be more a part of the mainstream of the community . Hill finds herself feeling more convinced than she was last month. Sea wondered if the Commission said “yea” to this, what are the next steps? Hill said we would want more specifics before going to the Council. Medinger wondered if Molnar has enough to put together a recommendation to the Council. Molnar said he is assuming they would go with the income data and say as a Commission they felt it was a valid to be able to provide housing opportunities even though they are outside the current Land Trust program. The Land Trust land lease would be the most appropriate vehicle but it would be ultimately up to the Council to find the money. Legg wondered if this means we are committed to the emergency personnel who currently live outside the city. Hill did not believe we would be opening it up to those who already had housing. Molnar said last month we talked about interviewing some emergency personnel to see if they would be interested in this program. Fine thought we could strengthen our chances if Molnar would do a one page description of the Land Trust and this proposal and send a letter to each emergency responder to see if they would be interested in this program. Then next month, the Commission could meet briefly on this. CONSIDERATION OF SUBSTITUTNG LAND TRUST LAND LEASE OPTION IN LIEU OF CURRENT RESALE RESTRICTION Molnar said right now our program is structured so one signs a resale restriction agreement and a homebuyer’s agreement saying the house has to stay in the program for 20 years. If the owners sells the house and qualifies under the affordable program, the owner is required to pay back the Systems Development Charges at six percent. The new proposal would be to get rid of all the paperwork, and any subdivision that had an affordability requirement would be guaranteed affordable through a land trust format. The developer would give the property to the trust. The whole issue of people buying and selling and making a windfall would go away. Harris noted that this would not impact the developer because they will still get their money back. Is the developer contributing the lots? Where is the money from for the lots? Medinger said if it is 130% then it would work as it has always worked. The developer can get a density bonus. If the developer is going to 100%, they have to have fewer units for the same percentage but deeper subsidy. If they want to get 80%, then it is fewer units yet but the deepest subsidy. Molnar was thinking in the case of Chautauqua Trace, the developer gets his land cost back. The main pitfall is to the buyer because they won’t own the land. They are paying a market price at 130% of the median income for the area, and that is part of buying the house. They would be leasing the land unless it is under the land trust model. Hill said there is a profit to be made in building a house. Harris has noticed that people who are interested in the Land Trust are especially interested in living in Ashland. They want a home here, and are not interested in the resale windfall they might get. Harris said the City could establish a legacy for itself by a commitment to sustained affordable housing if it adopts this method. It is not new; a lot of cities do it and a lot of cities do a lot more by pouring money into sustained affordable housing. This would be a way by which year after year, generation after generation, the City could demonstrate that it had good affordable housing on the ground that stayed affordable. It may not be much at any given time but as time goes on there will be more and more units for people work in Ashland to live here. Hill moved that the Housing Commission direct Staff and a committee of one or two Housing Commission members to do some writing to recommend to the Council to rescind the current resale restriction agreement and substitute with the land lease, using the Ashland Community Land Trust model. as a way to work with developers in the annexation and density bonuses in the other times it is mentioned in the current affordable housing document. Legg seconded the motion. It carried unanimously. Fine suggested following this with a letter expressing the Commission’s strong feelings about this issue. Medinger said he is willing to commit whatever it takes to get serious about this and asked Molnar to set up a time to meet. Hill asked if this would apply to annexations and people who want density bonuses? Are there any new situations we think it should apply to? Molnar said this is something for a discussion later on, however, when the Buildable Lands study was done, we are seeing that most the development that has occurred on multi-family property in the last two years has been for sale. An apartment has not been built in the last two years. Is there a loss to the public of allowing this? Do we modify our ordinance and not allow 100% individual ownership on R-2 property? This might be the only part where we extend this program. Harris believes rentals are a big issue and we need to seriously look at this. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2 MINUTES AUGUST 30, 2000 OTHER Next Agenda Come back with affordable housing draft for land trust lease Update on the letter Molnar sends out for emergency responders Monthly report of the Land Trust ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 p.m. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 3 MINUTES AUGUST 30, 2000