Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-12-19 Housing PACKET Ashland Housing Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: December 19, 2005 6:30 - 8:30pm Community Development & Engineering Services Building 51 Winburn Way, Ashland OR. 1. (6:30) Approval of Minutes (5 min) - November 21, Regular Meeting - December 2, Study Session 2. (6:35) Public Forum (10 min) - items not on the agenda 3. (6:45) Updates - Housing Alliance Legislative Agenda (<5 min) - Resolution regarding Homeowner Association Fees (<5 min) - Current project updates (<5 min) - 1651 Ashland Street -- Lithia Lot Negotiations - Housing Commission Budget (<5 min) 4. (7:00) Consent Agenda (5 min) - Subcommittee Reports - Education - Employer Assisted Housing Meeting Îreport provided. Education Committee update (5 min) - Finance (no meeting) - Land Use (no meeting) - Liaison Reports (no reports received) 5. (7:05) Other Business from Housing Commission Members (5 min) - New and miscellaneous commissioner discussion items not on the agenda 6. (7:10) New Business -Council Presentation by Housing Commission Î discussion (10 min) 7. (7:20) Old Business - Housing Priorities - full commission discussion (20 min) - SDC Deferral Program Changes (35 min) 8. (8:20) Commission Coordination th Housing Commission Presentation to City Council: January 17, 2006 th Council, Parks, ASD joint study session January 19, 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers st Workforce Housing Summit: Tues. Feb. 21, time TBA (Medford Red Lion Inn) Medford Housing Commission: Meets the first Wednesday of every month from 5:30 to 7:00 p.m. th (January 6). City Hall Council Chambers - 3rd Floor, 411 West 8th St Medford, OR 97501 9. (8:25) January 23, 2005 Meeting Agenda Items 10. (8:30) Adjournment ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES NOVEMBER 21, 2005 CALL TO ORDER - Vice Chair Matt Small called the meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR. Commissioners Present: Matt Small, Vice Chair Alice Hardesty Carol Voisin Don Mackin Jennifer Henderson Bill Street (arrived at 7:00) Absent Members: Faye Weisler Liz Peck Council Liaison: Cate Hartzell, present Staff: Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist Sue Yates, Executive Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Voisin/Hardesty m/s to approve the minutes of the October 17, 2005 meeting with corrections. Under ÐStaff Present: Goldman, GoldmanÑ should read ÐBrandon Goldman.Ñ Correct the spelling of Carol VoisinÓs and Cate HartzellÓs names. Approve the minutes of the October 24, 2005 meeting with corrections. Correct the spelling VoisinÓs name. Voice Vote: Approved. PUBLIC FORUM HUELES spoke about zero net energy homes and buildings that donÓt have utility bills and donÓt pollute. He said a zero net energy home pollutes considerably less than a standard code home. . AARON BENJAMIN, attended a joint meeting of the Parks Commission, School Board and City Council last week. The topic covered cooperation and use of surplus lands owned by the Parks, Schools and the City, particularly land made available by school closings. Agreement was reached and a resolution adopted on the possibility of joint utilization of surplus school playground lands. Benjamin is concerned there has not been adequate publicity given to this joint agreement and resolution. Hartzell said the resolution that passed had more to do with the playgrounds and the playing fields. Hartzell said Bill Street attended and brought up the housing problem, thereby keeping HousingÓs foot in the door. The group will continue to meet to talk about what playing fields need to be reserved and what other lands in and around schools can be used for other purposes. The next meeting is scheduled for January 19, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Street is the usual liaison to the Parks Department and Hardesty is the school liaison. UPDATES Subcommittee Reports Education Î Voisin said they are set for the Employer Assisted Housing on December 2, 2005 from 9a.m. to 2 p.m. The invitations have gone out. They have lined up four case studies and panelists. Mayor John Morrison will emcee the meeting. The Chamber is co-sponsoring the event and sent out a notice to their 700 members and invitations to 130 businesses. Goldman has received six RSVPSÓ. Finance - Small said the committee phoned the author of the handbook concerning trust funds for help with setting up our trust fund. The author, Mary Brooks who is with Center for Community Chage, a national non-profit organization was informative, answering general questions about how to establish a trust fund, who the players are, and possible sources of funding. The committee also spent time establishing priorities, as listed in their handout. Henderson said Mary Brooks would come to Ashland and do some work for free provided another community organization asked for her to come. The timing would be good because Oregon Action recently received more funding to put energy back into housing as part of next yearÓs efforts. Henderson said she would be willing to assist in this and to contact Rich Rohde, Oregon Action. Brooks would probably meet with various groups rather than just the Housing Commission. Land Use - H enderson said they set priorities. She handed out ÐHousing Commission Priorities 11-21-2005Ñ. Time permitting, they can discuss it tonight. If not, it can be discussed at the next meeting. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 1 MINUTES NOVEMBER Liaison Reports Council Î Parks, School Board and Council meeting as noted above. Parks Î Street Î no report Schools Î Parks, School Board and Council meeting as noted above. Hardesty had a written report from ÐSave Our Schools and PlaygroundÑ task force. Workforce housing is mentioned in this impressive report and noted as follows: (1) Possibly opening up available land for workforce housing, (2) explore the idea of workforce housing on public land that does not currently house a playground or playing field, and (3) encourage the donation of land to the City or School District for the purpose of workforce housing. The Finance Committee and Land Use Committee might consider taking this on. Hardesty e-mailed the recommendations from the report to the Housing Commission. One recommendation of the report is that the Chamber of Commerce should consider discontinuing the advertising in retirement magazines entirely and start advertising in family oriented publications. The report points to several case studies finding out what other schools and communities have done when they have had to close schools. A copy of the report can be obtained by e-mailing www.SOSP.org. Street arrived at 7:00 p.m. Î no report (Peck is liaison) Planning Conservation Î no report (Weisler is liaison) Parks Î Street said he went to the joint meeting (as stated above) and spoke about workforce housing. He felt the group was receptive. The task force will meet with Don Robertson, Parks Director, to better define by July 2006 what they want to preserve as parks and what might be available as workforce housing land. Street will let the Housing Commissioners know when a meeting is scheduled. OTHER BUSINESS FROM HOUSING COMMISSION MEMEBERS Hartzell said they are continuing to work on the Lithia Way lot. Negotiations are proceeding. Goldman said Sam Fung \[a Certified Commercial Investment Member, has been hired to do a ÐvaluationÑ of the property in terms of the land area as well as the commercial space using an income approach as well as a comparable value approach. HeÓll be providing an opinion of value from looking at other commercial property in the downtown and income potential. Goldman hopes to come back to the Council in January with a negotiated agreement. NEW BUSINESS Willowbrook Subdivision Presentation Î Mark Knox, land use consultant, 320 E. Main Street, Suite 202, said he worked for the City of Ashland as a land use planner for 12 years and has appreciated the work of the Housing Commission. He introduced Doug Irvine, owner of a ten acre parcel on lower Clay Street and Mark DiRienzo, land use planner in his office. They are requesting annexation of this property.. The property is zoned R-2 with a base density of 135 units. Knox said the project will consist of a total of 72 duplex units and 44 units in the fourplex buildings ranging from 500 to 700 square feet. There will be 500 square foot units built over the garage. Mixed housing types make the best neighborhoods. There are 58 one-bedroom, 500 square foot units proposed and 58 two-bedroom units. Knox spoke about the benefits of the location of this housing. It is within walking distance to the YMCA, restaurants, shopping, movie theater, etc. Mass transit is on Ashland Street in front of the old McDonaldÓs. The project will connect with the Barclay Square project, for use by pedestrians, bicycles and automobiles. Goldman interjected that this project has already gone through Site Review approval. The layout of the buildings and streets has already been approved by the Planning Commission. The next step is to seek approval from the Council for annexation of the property. He recommended directing comments to the applicant that would pertain to annexation. He noted that Hartzell, with regard to ex parte contacts, would be able to reference this meetingÓs minutes as to what deliberation she heard. The Planning Commission has looked at the number and location of units, but not necessarily size of the units. Irvine briefly shared his background. He lives in Ashland and his children have gone to school here. He is involved in the community and he is a developer, developing mostly in California. HeÓs always talked about giving back to the community. Ashland is losing government employees, teachers, police, actors, and artists. Eighty percent of those that work her canÓt afford to live here. They have been priced out of the market. He feels this project will present the opportunity for ownership for some. The affordable units in this development are in the fourplex units with a mix of the one and two bedroom units. Not one fourplex is completely affordable. There will be a total of 17 affordable units. Knox asked the Commission for guidance Î does the project have too many one and two bedroom units? The affordable units are 60 percent of median family income. For a family of two earning $25,000 the units would be priced at $57,500. Rent would be $480 per month. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2 MINUTES NOVEMBER Forty-four units are Ðcondo-ized.Ñ It doesnÓt mean they still wonÓt have to meet the definition of the affordable program. The duplex buildings are one lot. One unit will be market and the other guaranteed rentals. A mix of Ðfor saleÑ housing and a mix of Ðrental housingÑ is guaranteed. Knox explained further that 80 of the units can be sold. Thirty-six cannot. Of the 80, they are locking into 17 affordable units. They donÓt know if they will be for rent or for ownership, but either way, there will be a deed restriction on the unit itself once it is established concerning which units are affordable. Rentals are looking better with regard to financing. They could be sold, then rented. They have talked about going down to 80 percent of median income, the equivalent of about six units. They wouldnÓt change the design, but take six of the duplex units and not do the unit over the garage. Those would be three-bedroom units, but not affordable. Henderson asked if they could have a three-bedroom affordable unit. She applauds the applicants because she knows how hard it is to get the one bedroom buyer. Knox envisions that at some point having to choose the 17 units. Do they really want 17 different landlords? Developers end up backing off from the program because it is complex. Goldman briefly explained the deed restriction that is placed on an affordable unit. It establishes that whoever is an occupant of the building is qualified under the program. Whenever there is a transfer of ownership, the deed restriction is assumable for the subsequent qualified buyer. Knox said there is a big disparity in Ðfor saleÑ units versus the rental units. The rental amount seems to be close to what the market is bearing. Goldman noted that annexation establishes affordability for 60 years on the projectÓs affordable units. Hartzell asked about homeownerÓs association fees. DiRienzo said the rentals would not be required to pay anything for homeownerÓs association fees. She reminded everyone this is a glitch in the program that needs to be fixed. Will there be playgrounds? Knox said there will be some type of tot lot area. Hartzell said it is not a requirement but she has wanted it to be a requirement for a long time. Knox said there will be a gate from the area to the Y soccer fields. Street asked if they had considered having more than 17 affordable units. Knox said if they went to an income qualification of 80 percent they would end up with 23 units. Street hopes they will look at all the possibilities and that they are aware of the specific need in the community. DiRienzo said with a project of this size, itÓs easy to use the 60 percent and deal with the potential sales prices and low rents. On smaller projects that are two and three units, the land cost will be higher as well as the overall construction costs. The per unit cost is so much higher, that youÓd likely get more people interested in the smaller projects. Street wondered what could persuade them to go to say, five three-bedroom affordable units. Knox said itÓs the 90 percent. They might not have to change the design significantly if they did the unit over the garage. He is concerned because he doesnÓt want the Council to change their plan. If the Council would want three bedroom units, that would work. Street wondered if they are still concerned about ending up with an older age group of people seeking this type of housing and missing young families altogether. Recommendations Small believes there is an issue of ownership and rentals for the affordable units. He would like to see ownership of all the affordable units for workforce housing. The rent prices are not that much different than what you can find elsewhere in the City. Knox said that is burdensome. To build the units costs about $90,000 plus. If they sell for $57,000, the developer ends up losing a total of about $600,000. It would be easier to add additional square footage for a three bedroom and lock that in as ownership. Hardesty said she hopes they can see this as giving a gift to the City. Most of the Commissioners were in agreement. Small also recommended that all the affordable units are at least two bedroom units. Two bedroom units will help get families back into Ashland. Hartzell stated if there had been a vote on these recommendations, she would have abstained. She wants to protect her ex parte contact history. She stated that she did not participate in any discussion toward a decision. Buildable Lands Inventory Goldman gave the Commissioners a packet of materials addressing what is quantified as vacant or partially vacant lands. For example, if you have a 9,000 square foot R-3 lot with a house on it, under planning rules a lot that size could have three units on it. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 3 MINUTES NOVEMBER That is considered a partially vacant property and the gross acreage available would probably be 66 percent because it has an additional two-unit potential. It is considered Ðnet buildable.Ñ Deductions include areas within floodplains or steep slopes or areas that are otherwise unbuildable due to other restrictions or constraints. Between 1998 and 1999, the buildable lands inventory of R-2 and R-3 zones (multi-family residential) was roughly 26 acres of land within the City limits. Currently, there are roughly 15 acres of land included. With nearly half of our multi-family land consumed within the last five years, it is safe to say there is an issue of an adequate inventory of multi-family land. Goldman said the Land Use subcommittee talked about land use modification in the future. Those would likely revolve around making a determination of what the consumption rate more appropriately is, looking at demographic changes. Ashland has been seeing a decrease in its persons per household over time. The Planning Commission is reviewing the Buildable Lands Inventory tomorrow night. Staff can do a housing needs analysis update after hearing the Housing CommissionÓs evaluation and the Planning CommissionÓs recommendation. Everyone agreed to extend the meeting ten more minutes. Goldman said the Housing Commission can discuss what they want to do with the BLI data. Hartzell wanted Goldman to convey to the Planning Commission that the Housing Commission has just begun to look at the information and the Housing Commission would like to participate in anything the Planning Commission might be doing or vice versa. Vacation Homes Discussion Hardesty talked with Mike Reeder, Assistant City Attorney, and he did not sound very optimistic. Goldman has some ideas and will talk further with Reeder. COMMISSION COORDINATION Employer Assisted Housing Workshop Î Diana Shavey will be participating in the workshop and the Housing Commission will be engaging her for two hours of consulting after the meeting is over. Hardesty would like have the Housing Commission ask her about strategies for placing affordable workforce housing on public property and what that could do for the entity that owns the property as well as provide workforce housing to, for example, the schools. What could she recommend in terms of financing, general strategies nd to get this accomplished. The meeting will run from 2:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Friday, December 2 at New Place. Hartzell suggested sending any questions to Hardesty to organize before they meet. Street would like to put aside some time to get ShaveyÓs response to the workshop. th Council Presentation by Housing Commission on January 17 Goldman thought it would be an opportune time to consolidate their annual presentation along with the recommendation that the Housing Commission be included n the planning process and make recommendations to the Planning Commission. That means a letter would need to be drafted by that time to submit as a request. Hardesty/Street m/s to ask the Chair to use the minutes of the October 24, 2005 study session and to use his own understanding of that meeting to draft a letter to the Council and get it to the City Administrator and get it on the Council agenda. Voice Vote: All favored. The letter does not need to come back to the Commissioners for their review. OTHER Mackin suggested using a consent agenda with reports included in the packet. The reports are read before coming to the meeting. Anything in the consent agenda that they want to discuss can be pulled from the consent agenda. Then it is one motion to adopt, saving the Commission a half hour of discussion time. The deadline for the reports will be the Tuesday prior to the meeting. For th December, the reports are due December 13. Mackin said normally there would be no subcommittee meetings that last week. Hartzell requested Staff send out a notice in advance of the the deadline, reminding members to turn in their reports. Goldman said he needs the reports five days in advance of the meeting. th The next meeting is December 19 at 6:30 p.m. . ADJOURNMENT Î The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 4 MINUTES NOVEMBER ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION MINUTES 3:00pm Date: Start Time: Adjourned : December 2, 2005 5:10pm Low Income Housing Tax Credits Topic(s) of Use of Public Property for affordable (or workforce) housing Discussion: Employer Assisted Housing Workshop Follow Up Commissioners in Attendance Present Absent Present Absent X Faye Weisler, Chair X Bill Street X Matt Small X Carol Voisin X Alice Hardesty X Jennifer Henderson X Liz Peck X Cate Hartzell , Council Liaison X Don Mackin X Sunny Lindley, SOU Student Liaison X Brandon Goldman, Staff Liaison Others in Aaron Benjamin Mat Marr Ruth Alexander Attendance: Heidi Parker Ralph Coppersmith Diana Shavey, Housing Consultant Special Guest(s): General Discussion Low Income Housing Tax Credits Diane Shavey, Housing Consultant, explained the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program and how it is used to create affordable housing. The federal program offers tax ÐcreditsÑ to create a financing stream for affordable rental housing targeted at households earning 60% area median income or less. Example: Assumptions: $3million 20 unit affordable rental project. $500,000 land cost $2.5M depreciable 9% tax credit Credits: 2.5M x 0.09 = $225,000 available as ÐcreditsÑ, each year for 10 years. Thus $2.25 M in credits available for sale. Sale of the credits at 90 cents on the dollar will return $2,025,000 to invest in the project. Thus $3M (total cost) Î $2.025M (proceeds from sale of credits) = $975,000 project costs. Shavey explained that the provisions of the Tax Credit Program require affordability for a minimum of 15 years with proceeds from ÐcreditsÑ being used to lower rents. However to be competitive for the limited number of credits allocated to be used statewide, applicants typically target lower AMI households, and longer periods of affordability. In the example above, the $975,000 remaining projects costs can be further reduced by grants (HOME, CDBG) or donation of property. Use of Public Property Shavey spoke about the changing demographics in Ashland within the last 6 years. She used the Willow wind property as an example of how public property could be used to develop affordable housing. She explained that the School District could have the City, a Community Based Housing Development Organization, or the Housing authority appraise the property while outside the City Limits. The the City could propose a UGB expansion and annexation to bring the property intp the City and developed as affordable housing. She expressed that the only way the School district could establish an income stream from the property would be to eliminate affordability. However she did note that in using a tax credit financing plan the School (not needing the credits) could sell them to help finance the housing development. Shavey was questioned by Ruth Alexander on what could be done to ensure children, given families with children will see their kids grow up and thus the units could end up occupied only by adults. Shavey indicated that this potential was real. Brandon Goldman indicated that unit design, 3-4 bedroom units, would encourage families with children. Goldman introduced the concept of looking at ÐsurplusÑ school, parks or other public property in a new way. Instead of looking only at undeveloped land (openspace) the entities could include developed property with greater potential. Citing air space above parking lots as being an opportunity for 3-4 bedroom apartments and a Tax Credit project. As these properties are currently ÐdevelopedÑ their intensification may not be as controversial as using raw vacant land. Cate Hartzell questioned how competitive the tax credit program is. Diane explained that to be competitive an articulate design professional is imperative. She elaborated that its advisable to partner with experienced housing providers such as ACCESS, the Housing Authority, or the Land Trust to structure a tax cretit project. She reiterated the need to compete by targeting lower AMI households and providing a longer period of affordability. Mat Marr explained that he saw resistance to development of School Property (specifically Briscoe) is not a resistance to providing housing but rather a desire to retain the school and grounds in the same way they have been historically. Heidi Parker concurred indicating that she does not feel comfortable with the loss of Ðneighborhood schoolsÑ. Goldman asked Shavey if the school could utilize the tax credit program to get housing developed and then have a reversionary clause that allowed the property to come back to district ownership at the close of the affordability period. In this way goldman indicated that community would have the benefit of affordable housing (designed for families) for 40 years and the School would have the asset of developed units on year 40. Shavey believed that was a viable possibility. Diana Shavey asked people to think outside the box and visualize a 70 unit apartment complex, that had a continuum of care (assisted living) component, in which units could be offered to existing Ashland residents in exchange for their present single family homes. This would allow people to Ðage in placeÑ and have the security of the assisted living opportunity. Carol Voison talked about the value of sustainable ÐgreenÑ development when thinking about the future, citing heating and energy costs for low income families. Employer Assisted Housing Workshop Follow Up Alice Hardesty asked Diana what she believed the Commissions next steps should be. Hartzell added that sheÓd like Shavey explain how sheÓd address the strategic position that the Housing Commission prove the need, or priority, before we can implement a change. Shavey responded that to take next steps one has to examine how to deal with an unpredictable future. SheÓd list all the indicators of change and create a matrix of potential outcomes. The request to ÐproveÑ a need is sometimes a mechanism to thwart change. She would advise that Ashland put its hands around what can be done that is economically viable, noting that a 5 unit project that fails vs a 30 unit project that succeeds. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2 STUDY SESSION MINUTES Dec 2, 2005 Housing Commission Memo Title: Housing Alliance Legislative Agenda th Date: December 19, 2005 Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Housing Program Specialist th The goal of the December 14 meeting was to solidify the Housing AllianceÓs top agenda items so that they can roll out a campaign in 2006. This ÒearlyÑ preparation is to ensure discussions with legislators can begin immediately in advance of the 2007 Legislative Session. The Housing Alliance will focus on a split strategy for funding. One portion of the Housing Alliance ÓaskÓ will be for funds to build the Trust Fund balance. Currently the balance of the State Trust Fund is approximately 15Million and interest had been re-appropriated in the last legislative session to non-housing needs. The second portion of the ÒaskÓ is to fund immediate spending on housing. In a more aggressive strategy than the prior legislative session the Housing Alliance membership is going to lobby for the establishment of a Real Estate Transfer Tax (lift the preemption), or document recording fee to be a dedicated income stream for affordable housing. Although there was concern over the viability of a RETT compared to a Document recording Fee it was determined that a RETT should be pursued. Trust Fund ÐImmediate Sources of funds ÐcorpusÑ Development GrantsÑ Lottery25 million 25 million Corporate Kicker recapture 25 million General Fund 15 million 5 million Utility de-regulation money ( public purpose Î 6 million current source) Interest on $80m Trust Fund (at 4.8%) 7.5 million Real Estate Transfer Tax 100 million or OR 60 million Document Recording Fee TOTAL for Biennium 65 million 103.5 million to 143.5 million TOTAL TRUST FUND BALANCE 80 million The creation of an RETT was conceptualized as being a 0.5% tax on the those residential properties that exceed 80% the area median housing costs, with the first $100,000 being except. It was estimated such a tax would generate $100,000,000 state wide per biennium. Inclusionary Zoning Housing Alliance membership voted unanimously to pursue lifting the preemption on inclusionary zoning during the 2007 legislative session. This is a non-funding related item but there was consensus that it should be a priority of the lobby efforts. Uses of Funds: The Housing Alliance membership also discussed the possible uses of the Òimmediate developmentÓ funds requested with the expectation that there would be some measure of success, and came up with the following list and descriptions: a balance of uses between urban and rural (the current statutory language requires the state Housing Council to disburse funds geographically and based on need) funds should be available for retention/preservation of currently affordable housing, new construction, and acquisition/rehabilitation Land acquisition/land banking, including mobile home park acquisition. Homelessness prevention (emergency short term rent assistance, foreclosure prevention) Î this is currently allowed in the Emergency Housing Account Homeownership promotion (down-payment assistance) Housing Provider (CDCs) operations support (probably tied to services and outcomes for residents) We also discussed the need to address rental housing versus homeownership, but do not have any specific recommendations. The general consensus was that the immediate funds would primarily benefit the development of multi-family housing. Council Communication Request for amendments to SDC Deferral Program: Resolution 93-39 Meeting Date: December 6, 2005 Primary Staff Contact: Brandon Goldman, Housing Department: Community Development Program Specialist. E-mail:goldmanb@ashland.or.us Contributing Departments: Legal Secondary Staff Contact: Bill Molnar, Interim Approval: Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Community Development Director E-mail: molnarb@ashland.or.us Estimated Time: Statement: The attached resolution includes amendments to Resolution 93-39 that would consider Homeowners Fees, or other maintenance fees, as part of the housing cost for qualification under AshlandÓsPrograms SDC deferral Program. Further a proposed amendment to resolution 93-39 would eliminate the existing cap on the amount of a down-payment that could currently be applied to the purchase of the affordable home. Background: The City of Ashland currently defers System Development Charges (SDC) for ÐAffordable Housing UnitsÑ for up to a 20 year period, at which time they are forgiven (waived). If a home enters the SDC deferral program as affordable it can voluntarily exit the program and repay only the original SDC amount plus 6% interest per year. Although this was thought to be a disincentive to exiting the program when it was developed in 1993, given the current difference between ÐaffordableÑ and Ðmarket rateÑ housing prices this is no longer functional to keep units in the program. Many units enter the program due to a requirement that they be affordable due to a land use action or City contribution of funding. These include affordable units created through annexation or zone change applications, condominium conversion applications, large scale development requirements, or CDBG and City funded affordable housing projects. In each of these cases the affordability period requirement exceeds the SDC Deferral Program 20 year limit, thus units stay in the program. The Housing Commission is currently in the process of reviewing the program to recommend to Council comprehensive changes to the program including restructuring the methodology used to determine affordable purchase and rental prices and establishing a period of required affordability. As part of this undertaking it was discovered that the current maximum rental and purchase prices under Resolution 93-39 could allow a occupant household to be assessed an additional Home- owners Association Fee, further burdening the household with monthly housing costs. The amendment to Resolution 93-39 proposed would eliminate this possibility. In the coming months the Housing Commission will likely recommend to Council a new Resolution and repeal of Resolution 93-39, but the currently proposed amendment will clarify what is considered a housing cost in the interim. Further by eliminating the down payment cap (of 20% the purchase price) the City will allow larger down payments and therefore lower monthly housing costs for residents. This section is particularly relevant for low-income affordable units that may qualify for Oregon Housing and Community Services down-Payment Assistance Loans (PAL) Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the proposed amendments to Resolution 93-39 Potential Motions: Move to approve the proposed amendments to Resolution 93-39. Attachments: Resolution 93-39 with proposed amendments Housing Commission Memo date 5-25-2005 Housing Commission Minutes June 13, 2005 Housing Commission minutes August 15, 2005 RESOLUTION NO. 2005- A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 1993-39 TO INCLUDE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION OR MAINTENANCE FEES IN ANY AFFORDABILITY CALCULATIONS Recitals: A. In 1993, the City of Ashland passed resolution no. 1993-39, establishing affordable housing income levels and rental and purchased cost levels. B. Resolution 1993-39 did not contain provisions to include any homeowner association or maintenance fees in the affordability calculations. C. The City desires that any said fees or assessments be included in the affordability calculations THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Resolution No. 1993-39 shall be amended to read as follows: 1. RENTAL HOUSING. Units designated for affordable rental housing in developments which have qualified for density bonuses under the City's Land Use Ordinance (LUO) shall be rented to individuals or families whose annual income does not exceed 80% of the median income for families in the Medford-Ashland Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). This figure shall be known as the "qualifying family income" and shall be determined by the City's Department of Community Development in May of each year from the annual family incomes published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The rent charged for such affordable rental housing, including any home-owners association or maintenance fees, shall not exceed 23% of the qualifying monthly income (qualifying family income divided by twelve) as provided in the following formulas: Studio Apartment 23% of the average of 1 & 2 person qualifying monthly incomes 1 Bedroom 23% of the average of 2 & 3 person qualifying monthly incomes 2 Bedroom, 23% of the average of 3,4, & 5 person qualifying monthly incomes 3 Bedroom 23% of the average of 4,5,6, & 7 person qualifying monthly incomes 4 Bedroom 23% of the average of 5,6,7, & 8 person qualifying monthly incomes The City's Department of Community Development shall maintain a table of maximum rent levels permitted under these formulas and shall annually update the table in May of each year. The owner of the affordable rental housing shall sign a 20-year agreement with the City of Ashland that guarantees these rent levels will not be exceeded and that the 1- Resolution amending Reso 1993-39 affordability calc.doc G:\\legal\\PAUL\\FORMS\\resolution form.wpd owner will rent only to families meeting the income limits. The agreement shall bind subsequent owners who purchase the rental housing during the 20-year period. The agreement shall also require the owner to rent to HUD Section 8 qualified applicants and agree to accept rent vouchers for all of the affordable units where applicable. 2. PURCHASED HOUSING. Units designated for affordable housing available for purchase in developments which have qualified for density bonuses under LUO, shall 2.1. Only be sold to individuals or families whose: 2.1.1. Annual income does not exceed 130% of the median income for families in the MSA. 2.1.2. Net assets, excluding pension plans and IRA's and excluding the down payment (to a maximum of 20 percent of the purchase price) and closing costs, do not exceed $20,000 for a family or $130,000 if one family member is 65 years or older. 2.2. Have a purchase price not exceeding the following amounts: Type of Unit Purchase Price (revised annually) The purchase price shall be annually revised in May of each year by the City's Department of Community Development. The annual revision shall be calculated by multiplying the current purchase price by the annual percentage change in median family income as published by HUD for the MSA. 2.2.1 The purchaser of a unit designated for affordable housing shall not be assessed any home-owners association or maintenance fees in addition to the maximum purchase price. 2.3. Be assured to remain affordable as follows: 2.3.1. FARMER'S HOME ADMINISTRATION (FmHA) - For housing financed by the FmHA, affordability will be assured by the recapture provisions required by FmHA which requires sellers' to repay FmHA for all the subsidies accrued during the period that they resided in the housing. In addition, FmHA financed housing shall be subject to a covenant that for the first five years after the initial purchase, resale can only be to individuals from the same income category as the original purchasers. 2- Resolution amending Reso 1993-39 affordability calc.doc G:\\legal\\PAUL\\FORMS\\resolution form.wpd 2.3.2. ALL OTHER DEVELOPMENTS - For all other developments obtaining density bonuses in which the planning action approval includes for the provision of affordable housing, affordability will be assured by requiring that the purchasers of the affordable housing units agree to the City of Ashland Affordable Housing Resale Restriction Agreement prior to the issuance of building permits for the units. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this _____ day of ________________, 2005. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of , 2005. John W. Morrison, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Michael W. Franell, City Attorney 3- Resolution amending Reso 1993-39 affordability calc.doc G:\\legal\\PAUL\\FORMS\\resolution form.wpd City of Ashland Housing Commission Expenditures 12-19-05 The City of Ashland Housing Commission is allocated $750 per year to carry out functions of the Housing Commission to include meetings, trainings for commissioners, periodicals, printing, and other incidental costs related to the operation and education of the Commission. Large expenses related to Housing Commission projects have historically been paid for as independently budgeted items. For instance the development of the Housing Action Plan and Housing Needs analysis were identified prior to the beginning of the fiscal year and thus $32,000 in City General Funds were appropriated for the personal services contracts to complete these planning documents. Although no independent ÐhousingÑ projects were identified for the 2005-2006 Fiscal Year the yearly City Budget the City has expended funds beyond the $750 allocated. Incidental costs such as printing, advertising, and central services are not included below. The following is the amounts expended or contractually obligated to date (12-14-05) Amount Account Diana W. Shavey LLC Housing Consultant $1,500.00 110.09.27.00.604100 Remax, Diana Paulson Realtor Services $5,000.00 110.09.27.00.604100 and Eric Poole Sam Fung, CCIM Property Valuation $2,500.00 110.09.27.00.604100 Greenleaf ($700 total costs, $100 of EAH Meeting Catering $500.00 (Comm. Dev. Budget) 110.09.16.60610 which was billed to the Ashland Chamber $100 ( HC budget.) 110.27.00.608210 of Commerce) Postage $250.00+ (Comm. Dev. Budget) 110.09.27.16.603400 Housing Alliance Submitted to the $500.00(Comm. Dev. Budget) 110.09.27.16.606500 Membership Dues Neighborhood Partnership Study Session 9/1/05 $217.54 (Housing Commission 110.27.00.608210 Budget) Food/Drinks 10/27/05 Housing Commission Total Expended = $317.54 Total Expended (all Funds Balance = $432.46 accounts) $10,567.54 Note that no money was budgeted for Housing related personal services although $9,000.00 has been contractually obligated to date. The Housing CommissionÓs $750 has solely been used for food at quarterly study sessions to date. The remainder of the st Housing CommissionÓs budgeted funds ($432.46) should be in part available to cover admission to the Feb 21 2006 Workforce Housing Summit at $35 per member. From the Desk of: Brandon Goldman Housing Program Specialist Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 20 East Main Street Fax: 541-488-5311 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us Housing Commission Education Committee EMPLOYER ASSISTED HOUSING WORKSHOP 12-2-05 9:00 Î 2:00 Meeting Notes Moderator: Mayor John Morrison Introduction of Panelists Diana Shavey, Housing Consultant Jennifer Larsen, HomeStreet Bank Rob Stevens, The Land Mart Inc. Tonya Parker, Fannie Mae Ron Demele, RVCDC Case Study #1. Ashland Food Cooperative, Richard Katz, store manager, presenting. Of the 123 employees approximately 72% live in Ashland. An estimated 79% of these employees are renters. Excluding management, wages range from $17,500 to $38,000 annually with an average wage of $11.39 per hour (benefits, bonuses, and discounts not included). Bonuses include a profit share (productivity bonus) that translates into a $2-3 hourly increase in wages due to the success of the Co-op. Tonya Parker, Fannie Mae, noted that in the case of the Co-op, if they put money into a down payment assistance pool, employees will still have difficulty finding units within Ashland they can afford. Creation of new units is a challenge. She explained that just as a housing developer would have difficulty running a grocery store, a grocer would have a hard time developing housing. She suggested that the first thing the CO-Op could do would be to undertake a survey of their employees to determine their needs and desires. Determining the status of home ownership, education, and assets would help cater a program to their specific needs. One thing employers can do is to sponsor on-site education opportunities \[ie ABCs of Homebuying} in which the time is paid (lunch) to help employees enter into home ownership. Further in looking at the Co-OpÓs Ðproductivity bonusÑ they could consider setting these aside as down payment assistance matching funds to encourage employees to save. Fannie Mae can work with employers to come up with a specific program that addresses their needs. Ron Demele, RVCDC, indicated that the approach to housing the workforce needs multiple approaches. He echoed Parkers assertion that a detailed profile of need is a very important first step. Jennifer Larsen concurred that assessing employeeÓs readiness is key. Is the down- payment their only obstacle? Do they have resources? Are they educated about the process of home buying? Diana Shavey explained this all starts with the recognition that many people we are trying to help are those that donÓt live here yet, so any assessment has to address their needs. She elaborated that Ashland has a situation that is feeding on itself in that our surveys are not sophisticated enough to assess the needs of people who do want to be here. Ð Where are the children?Ñ she asked. Its part of AshlandÓs condition that there are disincentives \[housing costs\] to attracting the people whom we want to move here \[families with children\]. Rob Stevens. Land Mart, noted that a lot of the discussion has revolved around ownership. However it should be stated that for many rentals are a very important part of the equation. Many potential renters do not have references, lack security deposits and up front moving costs. He stated we should also focus on the question of Ò how do we help renters Ó. Parker explained that some people simply choose not to live in the community they work in. She cited the example of Fire Fighters in Portland. In that case the Mayor pushed to have firefighters and police live in town but that there was resistance in that many did not want to run into their ÒclientsÓ while shopping at the grocery store. Mayor Morrison asked Rob Stevens if there would be an advantage to an employer renting a block of apartments for their employees. Stevens responded that there are not many ÐblocksÑ of rentals in Ashland that could be rented out that way. He does have specific property owners that are interested in helping low income tenants, but that the operating costs take the rents up. Parker explained that some large employers, like a hospital or University, have converted dormitories into employee housing. Richard Katz spoke to the fact that he is responsible to the Co-op board and has to justify expenses. He questioned if there were other partners that could help develop housing, citing the expense of taxes and construction of housing. Shavey reiterated Parkers earlier point that housing development is a business and that she would not advocate that businesses become housing operators. Shavey noted that Stevens had renters often did not have security deposits and she suggested an employer could address this. Employers could offer employee classes or rental counseling and offer ÒgraduatesÓ one month rental assistance. Employers could provide a comprehensive cafeteria benefits package, and suggested security deposits be on the list to choose from. Groups of employers could engage a developer to develop a tax credit project, noting the Low Income Tax Credit program is the primary vehicle to providing affordable rental housing. Businesses could buy the income tax ÐcreditsÑ from housing developers to reduce their tax burden. Non-profit housing developers sell these tax credits because they donÓt otherwise pay taxes and cant use them. The panelists discussed examples of similar sized businesses (to the CO-op) and other entities that have worked to provide Employer Assisted Housing benefits. Lumber Mill of 110 employees and average wage of $14per hour established three annual $5000 grants for their employees with at least three years tenure for down payments. The $5000 was forgiven 20% per year of continued employment. This two year old program has worked to move six employees into ownership. Community partnerships could establish a $3-5,000 fund to go toward security deposits with education requirements. Portland partners with the Land Trust , the State (HOME, PAL) and HomeLoan Bank to create housing City of Ashland CDBG funds used to purchase property. REACH (Regional Employer Assisted Housing Cooperative Housing) in Chicago is a multi-county business collaborative. Puget Sound Theatre group brought together several small theatres to offer EAH benefits. Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce acted as a clearing house for EAH and provided a dedicated staff person to address housing. Rob Stevens explained that nearly 50% of AshlandÓs rentals are managed through property management companies. Thus having employers establish continuing relationships with property managers would help considerably to be a known reference for their employees. Shavey stated that she saw Ashland as very unique, believing it shares qualities that were replicated in only 5 or so other communities in the country. The University plays a significant role. ÐThe town is two different townsÑ with a transient student population and a newly retired (and aging in place) population that is higher than the national average. Case Study #2, Ashland Community Hospital: Carolyn Johnson Presenting ACH has 408 employees with approximately 35% living in Ashland, 8% in Talent, 30% in Medford and 27% elsewhere. Commuting time is an issue for on-call ACH staff who have to be responsive and on-site within 15 minutes. ACH employee earn between $18,200 and $108,000 annually, not including benefits. Although those at the lower end of the wage scale undoubtedly experience burdens with housing costs ACH has also had several physicians express that they could not afford AshlandÓs high housing costs Parking and transportation are a major concern for the hospital employees. Carolyn Johnson explained that they had applied for money in the past for a park and ride lot outside Ashland/Talent to bus in hospital employees. She noted their first responders need to be at hospital within 15 minutes. To accommodate Ðon-callÑ personnel the Hospital purchased a Ðsleep houseÑ nearby. The hospital, or ACH Foundation, owns several properties around hospital for future medical office spaces. They have found that commute time, and use of the Ðsleep house are inconvenient for employees with families. In past they required first responders to live within 15 minutes but that canÓt be done legally. Johnson touched on potential financial impacts on ACH due to changing community demographics now and in the future, noting that an increasing number of seniors on Medicaid functions to lower the hospitalÓs revenues. Medicare pays only 50 cents on dollar for services rendered. Medicaid pays only 25%. Private insurance, such as Blue Cross, contracts for about 70% repayment with the remainder being contractual allowances that are written off. The changing demographics also may be responsible for the decline in birth center use theyÓve experienced which could eventually result in its closure. Urban hospitals often function with a lot of debt (70%); Ashland Community Hospital is currently at 44% debt and rising. Ashland and Medford are a Ðmagnet target marketÑ and ultimately that could hurt ACH. The hospital could benefit from campaign to bring in children. Diana Shavey suggested attendees read 1961 Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs. She explained that this book was a great primer for assessing whether a city is growing and living/ or dying. She believes ACH is great place to start the conversation. She stated that the street at the rear of the hospital (Chestnut Street) with all those apartments and land could host condos. She explained that the hospital should consider the development of the air over any park and ride lots ACH builds. Air is more valuable. Example in Redmond WA where Metro partnered on such a project. Resistance was vigorous and violent but policy makers persisted and itÓs a very successful development. Diane stated that only 5 years ago 67% of ACH employees lived in Ashland and that now dropped to 35%. Carolyn interjected that in that period the hospital also added 200 new employees. Tonya Parker noted that ACH already supplying housing. ThereÓs lots of funding for transit oriented development (TOD). To build on parking structure gives you density. She cautioned that people should not presume that no one will live over a parking lot. ÐPeople who move her often come from urban areas and they see housing options differently than we doÑ. In Portland, the light rail has prompted TOD. She recommended EAH activities such as building sleep house, using other properties for part office and part housing (airspace development), development of rentals and low cost condos. Tonya questioned weather the hospital could partner with unions or Foundation to raise money for these activities or establish down payment assistance. She hesitated to suggest programs until a survey of employees is completed. She explained that Foundations can raise money well and theyÓre a natural partner to engage. Carolyn Johnson stated that ACH does have an active foundation but no unions. Diana Shavey stated employers in town have to come together and become a voice to policy makers: Ðwe have to rethink zoning rules about duplexes in SF zonesÑ. She explained that the average home size in 1960 was 1200 sqft. And the four person households growing up in those homes became successful individuals. Today the average home is 2400 sqft,, often with only 2 people in them. If we permit duplexes \[Accessory Residential Units\] in single family houses it creates the opportunity for a doctor to buy house and rent out the other half. Ron Demele followed on the subject of density, Ñthe city will look very different in next few years in terms of housing types. In 20 years, weÓll see those changes. Townhouses replacing single family dwelling.Ñ Demele explained that increasing density is best way to succeed in what the town wants. (Schools, parks etc). ÐWe have to educate people who are low-income that smaller houses are OK. Lifestyle changes are part of thisÑ. Demele explained the current Self Help Program RVCDC is undertaking: RVCDC is currently recruiting for 7 slots in self-help program that would be good for hospital workers with flexible schedules. Single family who can meet income requirements ($20-35K), must work on homes (30 hrs/week Îcan split time with others). Can own townhouse for $115,000. some loans down to 1%. Youth built program funded through state- started locally now as a work training program to help families to get programs up in timely way. CDC helps with screening process and loans. Shavey spoke about the Self ÎHelp program in that her oldest daughterÓs family was part of a self-help program in Bellingham WA. It was their toe-hold for them being skilled workers without college degrees, ÐÈit made a difference. The difference in renter and homeowner equity is $68,000.Ñ She elaborated that Self-Help is great program and she was very glad to see it in Ashland. Jennifer Larsen explained that ACH could partner with a non-governmental organization \[like RVCDC or a land trust\] on hospital or foundation land to develop housing needed for their employees. Regarding housing styles Jennifer shared her personal experience: her family owns town house in neighborhood full of town homes. The expected mostly empty nesters, single people, or DINKS (Dual Income no Kids) households, but upon moving in found that the neighborhood has numerous families with children because itÓs an affordable entry into housing ownership. She believes such town homes and density are also a good way to attract younger people like herself, who may not have kids yet, but are likely to in the future. Shavey spoke of the need to educate people about how to shift housing style acceptability. She urged people to ask policy makers to implement changes to allow Ashland to remain vibrant. Mayor Morrison explained that Ashland has invested heavily in keeping the hospital local. He referenced that Eugene lost a hospital recently to Springfield and it had a tremendous effect on community. He further noted that ACH has made a commitment to Ashland as is evidenced by the investments in expansion theyÓre undertaking. Alice Hardesty spoke from the audience stating that she lives near the hospital and notice a long low building on Chestnut Street that was purchased by the ACH Foundation. She questioned whether it could be used for affordable housing for employees, ÐHave you considered doctors offices there with housing above?Ñ Carolyn explained the building Hardesty referred to is owned by the Foundation and theyÓre negotiating to sell property to physician group to build offices. They had a concept to provide underground parking and one story building. She stated that the concept of housing on top is something sheÓll take back to foundation. Tonya Parker elaborated that such a mixed use project has merit in that market rents from commercial can offset cost of housing financing. Shavey suggested an alternative where the property is sliced horizontally \[condominium\] and have physicians group or foundation sell the air rights to organization to develop a tax credit housing project on the top floor. Larsen noted rental or purchase housing could be coupled with an EAH program to offset cost of entry into those condos. Madelyn Hill spoke from the audience explaining that the Ashland City Council responded to Rogue Valley Council of Governments Nowx2 regional problem solving process by deciding not to expand boundaries. She believed this was sign of lack of courage by the Council, and an absence of pressure from businesses to encourage expanded boundaries to bring in housing that could have been affordable. ÐNo one came from these groups to resist Council decisionsÑ. She explained that Skylark \[Assisted Living Center\] has 70 employees and only 10% of those employees live in Ashland. Shavey noted that the ultimate users of any annexed land are not residents of the town now. John Morrison asked whether ÐAir RightsÑ were complicated for lending institutions to address. Jennifer Larsen explained that its relatively simple today as condominium financing is done the same way as for a single family home. Larson added ÐIn construction of condominium project, lenders like to lend on them because of their popularity. Ð Parker expressed that its best to get involved with developer and brainstorm early on to define objectives, parameters, and ideals. She said Fannie Mae looks for a type and percentage of affordable housing units when compared to the markets theyÓre located in. Is there a market for purchase in community?. Is there developer capacity?. Having the market defined and the objectives helps with marketing, planning, and pre-sale situations that will make it easier to complete a project in timely way. They aim to connect developers to resource partners. Ron Demele noted that an alternative similar to condos is found in a land trust model. They used subsidy to purchase land, and as the land cost is so high when that is taken out of equation, you can build affordable housing. You can hold the housing in affordability for long time \[99 years+\] by owning the land separate form the improvement. Question from the audience: ÐThe City recently instituted a program with 60 yr equity requirements for annexations and subdivisions. Do lenders \[or Fannie Mae\] have trouble with those programs and is there trouble financing projects with limited equity growth? Fannie Mae: in homeownership, FM priority is for people moving into a first homeownership situation. Fannie Mae wants buyer to build well, so that it lasts long. They support cities providing subsidy. Fannie Mae would look at whether the program allows the homebuyer to see equity? They promote a variety of homeownership options because the continuum of opportunities is really important. Larsen, HomeStreet Bank, stated most lenders have options for financing properties that arenÓt secured with Fannie Mae loan options. ÐYou can approach lender about how they meet their community reinvestment act {CRA\] requirements and they may be able to work with specific projects. Its not impossible to finance these situations but youÓll be looking at specialized programs. There are a lot of them out there.Ñ Case Study #3: CITY OF ASHLAND. Gino Grimaldi and Tina Gray presenting: Of the City of AshlandÓs 206 employees , not including parks or temporary workers, 41% reside here. City of Ashland employees have a wide range of incomes starting at $24,400 and up to $125,000 for upper management. In response to interviews in preparation for the Employer Assisted Housing workshop the City indicated that many first responders (Police, Fire, Public Works and Electric personnel) are no longer able to make a 15-20 minute response time. The City has had to ease up their response time standards to as much as 40 minutes for some groups because their employees cannot find housing closer to Ashland that meets their income and budgetary needs Gino Grimaldi stated that the issue of response times goes beyond police and fire personnel in recognition of the need to repair city services including water, and electric. Electricity, water, sewer, flooding, police, fire, public works all require ability to respond quickly. Traffic impacts: Grimaldi stated that concern about growth always brings comments about traffic. Much comes from going from one end of valley to another and use of non- renewable resources. The recent increase in gas prices has triggered some employees saying theyÓre having hard time affording getting to work. Additionally in relation to creating and maintaining streets, the volume of traffic brings cost to federal government, the state and ultimately the local communities Grimaldi expressed that dedication to community comes from connection to community. He said many police officers donÓt want to work in same community they patrol, but some do. His experience with firefighters is that many also choose to live from outside city. With schedules that have them on shift for 24 hours and off for 48 hours; many like activities that require country setting. Grimaldi said ÐthereÓs a certain culture within fire service that causes thisÑ. Gino noted that in the realm of recruitment there is not as significant a problem in looking for those employees at the entry level. However he stated Ðwe have trouble when we look for people in high demand who donÓt exist within this valleyÑ. Specifically he explained the difficulty in recruiting skilled workers such as the plant operators for sewage treatment or water treatment given they are in high demand. Recruitments in fire dept have failed and the cost of housing as mentioned as a factor. The salary of upper management employees allows someone to buy a home, but when upwardly mobile people move form one community to another, they want to upgrade their housing situation/lifestyle. To relocate to Ashland often requires downsizing and many frequently say ÒnoÓ to the positions once they understand our housing market and the tradeoffs necessary \[compared to what they could afford elsewhere\]. He concluded by saying that hiring Mid-level personnel has become harder. Tina Gray had assumed high housing costs would mean it would be hard to attract entry level people. Since she started 8 years ago, the difficulty finding mid managers has resulted in us training lower levels employees, to promote from within. Gray explained that many City employees own their homes, but 59% donÓt own homes in Ashland perhaps due to their purchasing power being higher elsewhere. She further expressed that recruitment difficulties also effect the diversity of the CityÓs workforce. Jennifer Larsen explaned that her program started in Seattle in 1964 to serve city employeesÓ first responders. ÐStudies say that if thereÓs police and fire within city thereÓs going to be less crime and response is fasterÑ. She explained that the starting point for that program came about because down payment costs were too high. Seattle worked with the program and the lending institution offered reduces closing costs and fees, and further they worked with realtors to reduce their fees. Larsen indicated that with AshlandÓs appreciation rate of 16-18% thereÓs great potential and opportunities for shared appreciation mortgage. ÐIt does require money up front, but you get it backÑ and she noted the City of Portland currently does equity share with employees. She saw value in combining programs like that with education and outreach, and with lenders that help developers to create packages and reduce closing costs. Tonya Parker stated that to implement shared appreciation mortgage the will of the city leadership is critical, ÐIf thatÓs in place, it will be a recruitment tool as a benefit option.Ñ Diana Shavey cited an example where several years ago Oakland CA had recruitment package for teachers coming into teach that provided a $40,000 ÒshareÓ in a property, that incentive package was latter increased to $60,000. ÐGiven the current money market, that kind of investment is really favorableÑ. Demele question how can we get word about the CDC programs within the city to those who are at lower end, in recruiting,? Tonya Parker responded that homebuyer education programs are easy and effective way to start. Larsen expanded that publishing information internally would help reach prospective applicants for the CDC program as well as provide education about other programs. She provided a brief example: Two employers (City of Portland and Multnomah County) of roughly equal size (about 5000employees each) rolled out EAH within 3 months of each other. The City had support of elected officials. Within 2 weeks however interest stopped because the Human Resources Department wasnÓt promoting what was available. Multnomah Co maintained the same level of support in the first three months, and additionally their Human Resources Department was supportive and promoted the EAH program internally and advertised for an event. In contrast to a comparable event at the City of Portland where 150 employees participated, the County event had 500 employees attend. After 18 months of participation in each jurisdiction, Multnomah County served 500 people and City of Portland had served only 90. She stated this was a direct consequence of how much or little Human Resources supported the EAH program. Shavey explained that the experience of purchasing housing is frightening for a lot of people. ÐYou want to engage them soon after you inspire themÑ. She questioned whether in lending on a purchase ÐDoes fact that doctors come with such high \[student\] debt work to the advantage or disadvantageÑ. Demele responded that credit card debt is the worst, noting Rural Development as a lender allows you into process debt from education or medical expenses differently. You have to look for programs that fit. He further expressed that public perception may affect our ability to subsidize doctors. Public policy must target how high up weÓll go with resources. Jennifer Larsen explained that lenders typically donÓt distinguish types of debt, Ðdebt is debt. Many programs look at income criteria. Developing a program of your own allows more flexibility.Ñ Juli DiChiro asked a question from the audience regarding the use public funds. ÐStrict laws regulate personal and financial gain from public resources. How do you use public funds from tax dollar base?Ñ Larsen responded that one way to address this issue is that you offer the program to anyone in community who meets program guidelines. Demele stated that allot of cities look at recapture seeing the program ÐbenefitÑ , not as a gift but a public investment. Two goals are to serve the community and individual clients. Tonya Parker explained that if you can match the objectives of an EAH program to goals within the Consolidated Plan, the recapture speaks to stated city goals. That lets HUD, lender or partner see it as helpful in addressing the community objectives. Mayor Morrison asked whether there was a model city, or hospital, or businesses partner, in this kind of program. When you make it available for everyone, they could go to one simple program that was created through pooling of resources \[as a consortium\]. Larsen noted the City of Portland has made funds accessible to anyone (shared appreciation dollars) and different employers can add to that for their employees. Tonya Parker also noted that the Portland Housing Center is one stop shop for housing resources for citizens. Shavey noted that she had spoken with Liz Peck at OSF about their housing program earlier and explained that OSF could be taking advantage of the income housing tax credit program. ÐThey \[OSF\] donÓt pay taxes and should be using the tax credit program. The large bank of rental housing that OSF runs is prime candidate program. Ashland needs tax credit housing program that businesses in invest inÑ. Ruth Allexander asked whether the school, or another public body, could favor its employees? Tonya Parker stated that targeting employees is in large part how you market a program. She said youÓd market to your employee base through Newsletters, pay stubs, and not to the city at large. Jennifer Larsen explained that there is a difference between private and public money. Private money can be restricted to employees only. Cindy Dyer of ACCESS Inc cited an existing community resource in the Southern Oregon Housing and Resource Center as a clearinghouse. The SOHRC is located at ACCESS and serves Jackson and Josephine Counties. Programs offered are rehabilitation grants, rental programs, and rental assistance and homeownership programs. Additionally SOHRC conducts education programs \[ABCÓs of homebuying\] through RCC regularly. She explained that the staff knowledgeable about various programs available. ACCESS gives orientations to employers as a first step to say whatÓs available right now. Case Study #4: Sky Research. Kyle Hopkins presenting: Sky Research is a small but rapidly growing business with offices located in Colorado, Montana, Massachusetts and Vancouver BC. They are headquartered in a 12,000 square foot hanger at the Ashland Oregon Municipal Airport. For more than 20 years, Sky Research has provided both ground-based and airborne remote sensing, geophysical and mapping services to clients such as the US Army Corps of Engineers, the Army National Guard, NASA, and the World Bank. Sky Research is one of AshlandÓs emerging Òhigh technologyÓ companies, in that they utilize a wide range of sensing technologies including various magnetic and electromagnetic systems, Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) sensors, Synthetic Aperture Radar(SAR), and orthophotographic digital cameras to serve their clients. Sky Research employs 32 employees with 22 living in Ashland. Over 50% (18) of their employees rent housing with the remaining owning housing in the area. Employees earn between $25,000 and $100,000+ annually. Sky Research has found that in recruiting employees from outside the area the new hires are consistently surprised by the high cost of housing in the region, and specifically in Ashland. Kyle Hopkins explained that their company is growing rapidly with only 10 employees in 2001; and now having 55; most in last 6 months. He explained the company founderÓs motivations for locating the business in Ashland which included the semi-rural nature with access to ready transportation. He explained that much of the value in a business being located here are not quantified as assets on a balance sheet, but do help attract a young, healthy, and well educated workforce. Of SkyÓs employees: 33% hold a graduate degree, 44% a bachelors, and 24% have taken some college. He explained that with jobs in the $60-120k income ranges they need people with solid educational background and experience. They want to be part of solution with high paying jobs and increased educational experience. Hopkins explains where employees pay their taxes, and own homes and live, determines how much of the economic benefit of any business provides to the community. He spoke to the issue that gentrification of older areas in town displaces lower income housing areas.. He spoke of his person history seeing planned developments in developing countries and stated that we need to address the range of income needs for housing. He concluded by urging creative development and stated that we need to use airspace better. Shavey said that in preparation for the meeting she mapped whatÓs available through the Multiple Listing Service within city. She found that the cheapest house, or condo, for sale on Wednesday November 30, 2005 was a two-bedroom condo listed at $219,000. In order to afford that lowest price unit she sated a household would have to have income between $60-65,000 assuming they had no other equity and a 10% down payment saved. She spoke to what employers can do ÐEmployers should encourage civic minded employees to get involved and as employer support them. If they are participating in governance, support them. Civic engagement is critical to the processÑ. Tonya Parker stated that KyleÓs passion and interest is evident and is the kind of employer involvement that is critical to help employees to become homeowners. Jennifer Larsen stated that in Ashland employees at Sky Research can likely afford loans but the housing inventory isnÓt here. She explained that HomeStreet had worked with a large nonprofit (with about 50 employees) whoÓd never bought a home. She created a program to get information on housing to employees and participates. She noted the success in that the organization had 6 new homeowners since instituting the program. ÐGet a development partner whose mission is aligned with your mission. If they donÓt care about affordability, then your goals will go out the door.Ñ Diane Shavey said. She mentioned opportunities to use church parking lotÓs air space for housing developments. Ruth Alexander spoke saying there are a lot of big houses in town. ÐSome could be divided and rentedÑ. In speaking of Sky Research Ron Demely explained that to him HopkinsÓ presentation shows the company is entrepreneurial. He suggested looking for solutions from within the kind of energy that created business. He spoke to the benefit of putting creative minds onto the issue of housing who can come up with unique solutions. He elaborated that mixed income developments are currently growing in popularity. Speaking of mixed income projects the cited an example in Portland where a condo on the first or second floor may sale for $100,000-200,000, and on top of the building is a million dollar penthouse, Noting that one recently sold for $4million. Tonya Parker referenced a new development in PortlandÓs Pearl District that recently opened -Sitka Apartments \[http://www.thesitka.com\]. \[The projects is for people at 60% Area Median income or below. The development is a full block, market rate \[commercial\] on ground floor with underground parking. They used tax abatement, tax credits, and a variety of funding sources. Speaking of AshlandÓs land use approval process Juli DiChiro spoke of two mixed use projects (Bemis and Northlight) that recently were reviewed by the City , Ðthey are similar to projects people are talking about and it seems weÓre putting brakes on those kinds of projects. She stated that although we hear excitement here \[at the workshop\] that in some ways those two projects would have helped and were not supported. Mayor Morrison expressed that if what weÓre looking for is opening up more housing opportunity there are examples of the kinds of development we want to move toward. We are inventorying city land use ordinances and the community has to be confident that benefits outweigh negatives. .He noted that as a community we need have to hone what we get in terms of affordability. ÐOur community doesnÓt have common vision.Ñ Tonya Parker explained that the two biggest things she typically sees is the need for education about who needs housing beyond stereotypes (what do they need, how much do they make) and political will. Cate Hartzell asked the panelists if they could provide a step by step example of what Sky Resea\\rch (and others) could do at this point. Ron Demele stated that he would suggest going to the planning dept to identify whatÓs out there \[land\]. He suggested envisioning long term growth and look for commonalities for how the city, and the business \[Sky Research\] will expand. Tonya suggested that if a business can find a place, work with city to develop it. Fannie Mae would sit with them to see where they could help. Jennifer Larsen said if a business came to her with the vision, sheÓd sit and talk about specific demographic group of their employee base and what they earn. She noted that the workshopÓs case studies were diverse and that no one solution would fit all. She said many could talk about down payment assistance in partnership with a bank. EAH works by educating employees, credit counseling and then helps to cut fees in half for financing. ÐThis is about the moneyÑ Shavey added. She said you work to build concentric circles of financing and layers of assistance. She suggested that Sky Research, as a technology company, could try to find partners interested in doing something innovatively technological in housing that would play off the companies strengths in technological awareness. She said grants (perhaps for green/sustainable developmentÓ could be sought to develop a model that could be replicated somewhere else. She suggested searching for such technology focused grants and indicated that the Ford Foundation and LIS Local Initiative Support Foundation may be sources. Tonya Parker reiterated a point made earlier in the workshop, Ñeven if you build housing, donÓt feel you have to manage it. ItÓs huge undertaking.Ñ Alice Hardesty suggested that shared appreciation might be an option for Sky Research. ÐIs there land you have available that the housing could be built on where the business is now located?Ñ Kyle indicated they could not develop further where they are (airport) and stated they have difficulty finding such a site, Ðwhere could we do such a project?Ñ Kate DeWayne of SOU suggested they consider whether a partnership with the college could be undertaken. She noted that the University has dormitories that need to come down and have been promoting the Òcampus communityÑ. She saw a value in such a technology intensive company being part of that community in that the company could provide educational value for the University students. DeWayne explained that people (employees and students) mingle and get cross pollination. Sky would have access to the campus, and students would benefit having them around them. She explained that Ðdorms donÓt have to be people pilesÑ. Shavey noted that the Dept of Urban Housing and Development has an Office of University Housing that could be of assistance. John Stromberg asked whether Hopkins could go deeper on comments that business depends on getting people who are unusually capable or creative and highly trained. Stromberg stated that AshlandÓs attractiveness helps business in that context \[recruiting educated and creative employees\], but when they get there, the housing costs are higher than expected. He elaborated on his point that if these employees \[or companies\] went to the hinterland, they could have a nice house, but not the community amenities; ÐthereÓs an inherent economic advantage to company being close to us even with our high housing costsÑ. He stated that companies canÓt compete with you by going to hinterland, so a company can justify investment in this issue. Kyle Hopkins concurred that a growing cadre of people want to be here and also, Vancouver, Portland, etc. He explained that Sky Research has offices in other states (Colorado, Arizona) because thatÓs where the work is. Further Hopkins stated that Boise and Sacramento are the Silicon Valleys of today. Ultimately he believes Ðmoney wins outÑ. CLOSING COMMENTS: Diane Shavey said there should be a constant process of educating people, who donÓt have capacity to make an impact ,because they all couldnÓt show up today. She suggested a Ònext stepÓ would be to get Ashland Library to display a month long photo display in what small town housing design looks like in the US. Most of the ideas people have are of affordable housing that looks like post-WWII projects, but she indicated that tax credit housing can look good. SheÓd display such photos at community meetings and make housing the focus of its communication with citizens in everything we do for next year. She recommended another book: The Art of the Long View: Planning for the future in an uncertain world, by Peter Schwartz. She stated that admires anyone in public office in a politically engaged town such as Ashalnd. She said people should work with the housing authority noting that they used to only do low-income housing. But now they are logical partners who can increase the housing opptunities. She spoke of changes proposed at the state legislature to allow Housing Authorities to partner in market rate and affordable housing . She indicated that people can support such legislation. Jennifer Larsen said Ðyou have wealth of knowledge in this roomÑ. Regardless of the unique situations Larsen believes there are always opportunities and creative ways to address the housing needs. Tonya Parker said she felt like sheÓd learned a lot today. She heard some of the primary issues were the decrease in families and kids, concerns about commuting and density. She said Ashland could be encouraged because there are towns that have moved beyond problems like ours. Ron Demele stated that there is a future that is currently unfolding. Projects He spoke of town home developments along Siskiyou as a new type of \[denser\] development in Ashalnd. He explained that the development of affordable housing takes a long time and a lot of strategy. He noted that the current RVCDC project had 17 funding partners to layer the financing. Demele stated that there are still 7 townhouses available at $115,000 for qualified people willing to work. Mayor Morrison concluded the workshop in thanking the participants and the panelists. He said that personally the workshop helped affirm for him how housing is central to so many other community issues, Ðso much begins with the basics of food and housingÑ. Housing Commission Priorities The following Priorities were identified by the Housing Commission Subcommittees in an effort to rank which goals were seen as the highest priorities in the short term. Although typically the goals are established by the Affordable Housing Action Plan, the full commission and subcommittees also added specific goals they deemed necessary to support affordable housing preservation or creation Land Use Subcommittee In evaluating the various land use related goals the Land Use Subcommittee separated the goals into low and high priority, and long and short term designations. In some cases the subcommittee identified a ÐMediumÑ PriorityÑ. The High Priority Short Term goals were further ranked by each member and averaged to the following ranking. High Priority Short Term 1) Land Acquisition 1) Restrict Single Family in Multifamily Zones 3) Rental Needs Assessment 4) Ordinance or Resolution Development to protect vulnerable (existing) affordable housing developments 5) Recommend ways to improve regulation and monitoring of affordable units in program 6) Document Lessons learned from Lithia Parking Lot RFP and Proposal evaluations. 7) Unit Acquisition Î Existing Properties High Priority Long Term Identify land for rezoning Feasibility of a UGB amendment Allow or require a percentage of small lots in new subdivisions Medium Priority Long term Modify the big box ordinance to promote affordable housing Establish a higher density multifamily zoning type. (Increased Densities) Low Priority Short Term Increase Density Bonus Opportunities for affordable housing development Low Priority Long Term Reduce maximum lot size coverage ARUÓs as a permitted use in single family zones Conditionally allow ARUs on small lots in multifamily zones Reduce Parking requirements for affordable housing projects located within a designated transit corridor. Lastly the goal : Identify target (City owned) site for vertical housing was seen as fitting in none of the above categories as ÐidentificationÑ is essentially complete, but it should remain a visible goal to promote the potential development of such properties with affordable housing Finance Subcommittee In evaluating the finance related Action Plan Goals the Finance Subcommittee categorized the items into the following areas: High Priority Short Term Modification of the SDC Deferral Program Inclusion of Engineering and Community Development Fees in waiver Limitation of annual SDC deferral amount Evaluate Section 108 Program to derive funding for an affordable housing project High Priority Long Term Establish a Housing Trust Fund Establish long term funding stream Low Priority Short Term Planning and Utility Fees annual limitation on waivers Low Priority Long Term None Education Committee Specific Action Plan Goal (6a) relating to Education is an ongoing endeavor, or are specifically in support of other goals (ie Land Use or Finance related). However the Education Committee did identify some campaign strategies that would be employed to address the public education goal: Ongoing Campaign: Letters to the editor Articles Development of a presentation (power-point) and informative materials. Development of visuals on affordable housing Speaking engagements and presentations -Chamber of Commerce - Realtor groups - Rental Owner associations - Fraternal Organizations - etc. Public Television (city talk or a show on ÐWorkforce housing works for AshlandÑ) Establish an exchange liaisons with Medford Housing Commission and other regional housing groups - Southern Oregon Housing Resource Center, Jackson County Housing Coalition. Housing Commission Memo Title: Ashland Affordable Housing Program, SDC Deferral Program Dept: Planning Department Date: May 25, 2005 Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Housing Program Specialist BACKGROUND The City of Ashland currently defers System Development Charges (SDC) for ÐAffordable Housing UnitsÑ for up to a 20 year period, at which time they are forgiven (waived). If a home enters the SDC deferral program as affordable it can voluntarily exit the program and repay only the original SDC amount plus 6% interest per year. Although this was thought to be a disincentive to exiting the program when it was developed in 1993, given the current difference between ÐaffordableÑ and Ðmarket rateÑ housing prices this is no longer functional to keep units in the program. Many units enter the program due to a requirement that they be affordable due to a land use action or City contribution of funding. These include affordable units created through annexation or zone change applications, condominium conversion applications, large scale development requirements, or CDBG and City funded affordable housing projects. In each of these cases the affordability period requirement exceeds the SDC Deferral Program 20 year limit, thus units stay in the program. However, the SDC Deferral Program is currently the only mechanism in place to define units as affordable other than this program. This program does not distinguish between income levels but instead states an affordable rental is one that is affordable to households earning 80% Area Median Income (AMI), and an affordable purchase unit is one that is affordable to households earning 130%AMI. The Affordable Housing Action Plan supports the continuation of waiving SDCs as a means of lowering the costs of building and operating affordable housing (Strategy2) and further recommends that it be limited to units that remain within the pool of affordability (no voluntary exit). Given the recent ordinance amendments to the zone change and annexation criteria of the Land Use Ordinance Staff believes it is necessary to modify the SDC program to ensure future affordable units developed are priced, or rented, at an affordable level. Currently the ordinances and the SDC program are incongruous. For example, currently it is possible that a 2 bedroom unit required to be affordable to households earning 60%AMI could be sold to them for up to $146,744 , whereas their true ability to afford would limit the purchase price to approximately $78,000. Revising the SDC program to accommodate a range of income levels and corresponding rents or purchase prices would resolve this disparity. Discussion Points The following are offered for consideration by the commission Period of Affordability 1) Require a minimum period of affordability (30 years) to participate in the SDC Deferral Program unless required to be longer by other ordinances or funding (IE 60 year zone change). Once entering the program a resale restriction agreement would be recorded on the property ensuring it remain affordable per the maximum rent/purchase price schedule set forth in the SDC Deferral Program. (this is the alternative proposed in the Affordable Housing Action Plan) 2) Allow voluntary entrance/exiting of the SDC Deferral program yet with greater disincentives to exiting the program. Propose a sliding scale with significant penalties to encourage people to voluntarily enter housing into the program, and remain in it for a longer period. a) 0-5 year period repay all SDCs plus interest (6%) and assess a $10,000 penalty b) 5-10 years period repay all SDCs plus interest (6%) and assess a $5,000 penalty c) 10-15 years period repay all SDCs plus interest (6%) and assess a $3,000 penalty d) 15-20 years period repay all SDCs plus interest (6%) and assess a $1,000 penalty e) 20-30 years period repay all SDCs plus interest (6%) f) 30 years or longer > all SDCs are forgiven The legality of ÐPenaltiesÑ has not yet been investigated, should there be interest in this option Staff can determine whether or not such an assessment is permissible. Affordable Rents and Purchase Prices Issue: Currently the ÐAffordable Housing ProgramÑ is only defined by the SDC deferral resolution (93-39) that establishes maximum rents for households earning 80%AMI, and Maximum Purchase Prices for Households earning 130% AMI. As the zone-change ordinance and annexation ordinances provide developers options to target a range of incomes (60%, 80%, 100%, 120% AMI) the existing resolution does not ensure the households targeted can actually afford the units. Options: Establish new maximum purchase prices that are correlated to the specific income ranges, and adopt a methodology, or standard, to establish maximum rents for the 60%, 80%, 100%, 120% levels. Specifically rents should be consistent with the HOME Program to ensure federal Subsidy can be directed to affordable rental projects: RENTALS 60% AMI Rentals Currently the Medford-Ashland HOME rental rate ranges (considered LOW and HIGH rent limits) for units based on size (# of bedrooms) are as follows: Studios: $440 1 Bdr: $488-$523 2 Bdr: $586-$657 3 Bdr: $677-$846 Note the HIGH-HOME rents for studio, one bedroom, and two bedroom units are equal to the Fair Market Rents noted in the Table above as HUD establishes the HIGH-HOME rent to be the lesser of Fair Market Rent or ability to pay without exceeding 30% of a households income. It is appropriate that when Fair Market Rents are lower than the 30% of a households income that the Fair Market Rent be the maximum a rental can charge. By utilizing the HOME rents they are adjusted each year according to increases in median income. 80% AMI Rentals The existing resolution (93-39) was developed to establish a maximum rent no greater than 23% of the average household size depending on the number of bedrooms. This methodology assumes a 23% housing costs to allow some money to go toward other housing costs (such as utilities). The resulting rents are below: Maximum Rents for 80% Median (per Res 93-39) For rental properties covered under the Ashland Affordable Housing Program Studio $599 1BDR $679 2BDR $794 3BDR $895 4BDR $959 100 and 120%AMI Rentals. Currently there is not a housing cost burden for households earning more than 100%AMI (defined as paying more than 30% of income toward housing). Market rate rentals are currently less than their ability to pay. However this may not be the case if market rate rents increase rapidly in the future. A question that needs to be answered is given the burden of households earning less than 80%AMI, does Ashland want to subsidize rental housing that targets households making more than 80% AMI with SDC deferrals. The adoption of 93-39 indicates that at that time (1993) there was not a such a desire at that time and it seems that providing an SDC deferral for rentals targeted to such households is not presently appropriate either. FOR PURCHASE HOUSING For any Ðfor-purchaseÑ unit the City must determine what it considers a housing cost when evaluating whether a maximum purchase price is actually 30% of a households income. To do this, the City can choose to include only the purchase price of the home or additionally include factors such as interest on a loan, insurance, home owners association dues and taxes. Commonly referred to as ÐPITIÑ, Principal, Interest, Taxes, and Insurance are typically the contributing housing costs that are included when determining the affordability of a purchase unit., This more comprehensive assessment of actual housing cost is intended to ensure a household at a particular income range is not overburdened. Tables are provided as an attachment to this memo to illustrate for discussion purposes what monthly housing costs are affordable to each income range (60, 80, 100, 120%AMI) depending on number of rooms in a purchased housing unit. Recommendations Staff would like to come back to the Housing Commission at the subsequent meeting with responses to questions and incorporate comments into a draft resolution for consideration. This Resolution would establish the period of affordability, the maximum rental and purchase price limits based on the income ranges to be consistent with the Land Use Ordinance. The new SDC Deferral Program Resolution, if adopted by Council, would supplant resolution 93-39 for any new developments regulated under the Affordable Housing Program. Updated April 25, 2005 Income Limits by Family Size: $/year *For the Medford-Ashland Statistical Area as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development 2005 Income Level Number of Persons in Family Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ 10950 12500 14050 15650 16900 18150 19400 20650 Extremely Low Income (30%) 18250 20850 23450 26050 28150 30200 32300 34400 Low Income (50%) 21900 25020 28140 31260 33780 36240 38760 41280 Income at 60% of Median 29,200 33350 37500 41700 45000 48350 51700 55000 Moderate Income (80%) 36500 41700 46900 52100 56300 60400 64600 68800 Median Income (100%) 43800 50040 56280 62520 67560 72480 77520 82560 Income at 120% of Median 47450 54210 60970 67730 73190 78520 83980 89440 Income at 130% of Median Housing in the NEWS Ashland Housing Commission Packet