HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-28 Housing PACKET
Ashland Housing Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda:
February 28 5:15 - 7:15pm
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1175 East Main Street
1. (5:30) Approval of Minutes (5 min)
(will be provided in March)
2. (5:30) Public Forum (10 min)
items not on the agenda
3. (5:40) Reports and Updates (40 min total)
Subcommittee Reports
Education (10 min)
RVTV show discussion
Bend Register Article on HousingÓs impact on Business
Finance (5 min)
Land Use (5 min)
Liaison reports (5 min)
Council
Parks
Schools
Planning
Tripartite
Pre-app review board (none)
Project Updates (10 min)
Barclay (8 units)
Ashland View Townhomes (1 unit)
Grizzly Peak (1 unit)
Ashland Street Condominiums (4 units)
Other Business from Housing Commission Members (5 min)
4. (6:20) Unfinished Business (30 min)
Continuation of Annexation Ordinance Development Discussion
Public Comment
5. (6:50) Commission Coordination (20 min)
Subcommittees Membership
Meeting Time/Place Coordination
Commission Appreciation Event Î 4-6:00 March 12 Î Grove Lobby
Volunteers needed
6. (7:10) Future Meeting Agenda Items (5min)
March 28, 2007
CDBG Action Plan Hearing and Award Recommendations
Annexation Ordinance Draft Language
7. (7:15) Adjournment
Unfinished Business
Annexation and Zone Change
Discussion continuation
Ashland Housing Commission Packet
Feb 28, 2007
Examination of AshlandÓs Annexation and Zone Change
Ordinances
Background
Affordability requirements were included in AshlandÓs annexation ordinance and
Zone change ordinance in 1991. This proceeded a statewide prohibition on
Ðinclusionary zoningÑ and thus other communities in the State have not enacted
similar ordinances. Therefore the jurisdictions used for comparison in this paper
are all from outside Oregon. In reviewing the other jurisdictions standards it will
help inform how Ashland may consider amending its ordinance to increase the
provision of affordable housing and improve overall accountability.
The term Ðinclusionary zoningÑ refers to any ordinance or guideline that functions
to support the provision of affordable housing through incentives or regulation,
thus ÐincludingÑ the segment of the population otherwise ÐexcludedÑ from market
rate developments.
In November of 2002 the Housing Commission and Planning Commission
forwarded recommended modifications to the Annexation and Zone Change
Standards to resolve deficiencies seen in applications processed under the 1991
standards. The City Council approved the amendments which provided for a
period of affordability (60 years) where previously there was none, and provided
a range of income targets with corresponding percentages of units to be
provided.
Principals of Inclusionary zoning
At the heart of inclusionary zoning ordinances around the country is a recognition
of the economic impact upon land owners and developers. A balance between
economic incentive, and community needs is struck to ensure the needed
housing will actually be constructed without compromising the viability of a
project.
As a exaggerated example of this balance were a City to impose a mandatory
requirement that 100% of all units on a property must be provided at an
affordable rate to households earning less than 30%AMI, virtually no property
would be developed, neither market-rate nor affordable housing. Such a project
would not be economically viable given the cost of land and construction costs,
thus the land would perpetually remain vacant. Although this example is
ludicrous in its scope it does illustrate the reality that a market and economic
feasibility study is central to a developers decision to build. Without consideration
of the market, local demographics, and the viability of developing at the standard
established by affordability requirements the potential exists to inadvertently
reduce affordable housing production.
1
A brief on Inclusionary Zoning produced by the Enterprise Foundation articulates
these considerations well:
ÐPrograms that require deliverery of near market rate housing costs
developers very little, if any, money out Îof pocket, so that program
administrators can more feasibly require higher percentages of affordable
housing. However looking at the opposite extreme, rentals costing $00 a
month, or home prices at $50,000 are absolute losers for developers in
most markets
An ordinance that is too aggressive with the pricing of affordable housing
can have the effect of devaluing the land and might be considered a
"taking." Some inclusionary zoning ordinances offer a quid pro quo in the
form of density bonuses, expedited development processing, or both.
Most communities enacting such ordinances have sought review and input
by citizens, advocates and real estate development professionals. In the
best of circumstances, everyone sees the greater economic and social
good of providing some affordable housing, and also respects developers'
needs to make a profit.
Affordability requirements within the ordinance for Annexations and Zone
Changes function to ensure a percentage of a residential development provides
housing for those otherwise priced out of the local housing market. The
nuisances of the ordinance aim to define which demographic group(s) will benefit
from the provided housing. To this end in evaluating the potential benefits from
modifications to the ordinance one must first consider the intended beneficiaries.
The universal measure in such ordinances is targeting units to various income
strata (percent of Area Median Income).
Common elements
Inclusionary zoning ordinances typically address those items in the list below.,
They are each discussed in this paper to provide examples of how theyÓve been
addressed elsewhere.
Occupant qualifications and marketing (target beneficiaries) (pg3)
Percentage of units that are to be affordable (pg 4)
Period of affordability (pg 7)
Price or rent controls (pg 8)
Construction Standards (unit size and type , unit distribution) (pg 10)
Construction Timing (pg 12)
Distribution of affordable units (pg 14)
Alternative methods (Land Dedication, In-Lieu-of fees) (pg 16)
Incentives (pg 17)
2
Occupant Qualification and Marketing
The existing annexation and zone change ordinances both establish income
targets for ÐqualifiedÑ households. Further the draft resolution regarding revisions
to the SDC program aim to standardize the maximum rents and purchase prices
per the various income levels ranging between 60% and 120%AMI.
The following language has been incorporated in the land use ordinance of other
Cities to ensure the qualified households are appropriately identified and certified
as income qualifying. Further such provisions are expanded to ensure
prospective purchasers are aware of all the restrictions imposed on their
properties.
Santa Fe, NM ordinance
Prior to executing a purchase contract for any affordable unit, the prospective
affordable unit buyer shall be certified as meeting affordable housing program
requirements by the City or its agent. Developers and affordable unit buyers may
execute only purchase agreements that are approved as to form by the City and
include language provided by the City which shall require that an appropriate
disclosure form be provided to and explained to the affordable unit buyer prior to
execution of the contract. The disclosure form shall explain any deed restrictions,
restrictive covenants and/or liens that are placed on the affordable unit to ensure
long-term affordability. The marketing provisions aim to ensure that members of
the public who are qualified to rent or purchase such units have a fair chance to
become informed of the availability of such units.
In marketing affordable homes the City or seller shall give preferences to
individuals who are citizens of the City or are presently employed or under
contract with an employer within the City.
Sacramento, CA ordinance
The owner of affordable rental units shall be responsible for certifying the income
of eligible tenants at the time of initial rental and annually thereafter. Rental rates
shall be in accordance with the formula set forthÈThis requirement shall be
made applicable to successors in title, if any, by means of a deed restriction.
Boulder, CO ordinance
The ordinance states that no person shall sell, lease or rent a permanently
affordable unit except to income eligible households.
The ordinance also establishes that a developer or owner shall select a low-
income purchaser after completing a good faith marketing and selection process
approved by the city manager. Upon request, the city may provide the developer
or owner of a permanently affordable unit with a list of households certified by the
city as eligible to purchase the unit. However, a developer or property owner may
select a low-income purchaser who is not on a furnished list so long as the city
can verify the purchaserÓs income and asset eligibility and the unit is sold at an
affordable price.
3
Percentage of affordability
The City of Ashland currently provides a menu establishing a percentage of
affordable units required dependant upon the income ranges targeted.
Developers choose which of the five options they would like to include in their
proposal in order to meet the annexation requirement standards.
18.106.030
G. For all annexations with a density or potential density of four residential units or
greater and involving residential zoned lands, or commercial, employment or industrial
lands with a Residential Overlay (R-Overlay):
1. 35% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below
120% of median income; or
2. 25% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below
'100% of median income; or
3. 20% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below
80% of median income; or
4. 15% of the base density to qualifying buyers or renters with incomes at or below
60% of median income; or
5. Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development is transferred to a non-
profit (IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development
Corporation for the purpose of complying with subsection 2 above. The land shall be
located within the project and all needed public facilities shall be extended to the area or
areas proposed for transfer. Ownership of the land shall be transferred to the affordable
housing developer or Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project.
The total number of affordable units described in this section G shall be determined by
rounding down fractional answers to the nearest whole unit. A deed restriction, or similar
legal instrument, shall be used to guarantee compliance with affordable criteria for a
period of not less than 60 years. Properties providing affordable units as part of the
annexation process shall qualify for a maximum density bonus of 25 percent.
In recent applications (limited sample set) it has been demonstrated that
developers have opted to select the minimum number of units as affordable
(18.106.030.G.4) thus targeting the lowest income levels (60%AMI). Currently
there is no distinguishment between affordable units provided to satisfy the
required percentage of affordable housing, and the incentive of density bonuses
for such units. Given a set percentage of units are required to be affordable it
currently functions as an automatic density bonus in that amount. The Housing
Commission, Planning Commission and City Council may consider whether such
a density bonus is permissible only for the provision of affordable units beyond
the minimum requirement. Excluding required affordable units from
consideration may result in the incentive of density bonuses functioning to
encourage diverse elements within the development such as conservation
measures (Earth Advantage), greater percentages of openspace, or common
recreational amenities.
The standards above do not stipulate a difference between rental and ownership
in terms of number of units required. The City of Burlington VermontÓs land use
code does distinguish between rentals and ownership requiring a higher
percentage of rentals than ownership to be affordable comply with their zoning
requirement (14.1.7 and 14.1.8). This concept, if implemented in Ashland,
4
would have the result of either increasing the number of units offered for sale (as
opposed to rentals albeit less total units) or an increase in the total number of
rental units provided.
The range provided in the existing ordinance requires a developer to select just
one of the five options above. There is no flexibility currently within the ordinance
to allow a developer to provide a percentage of units at mixed incomes within
one development and comply with the existing standards. In the event a
developer proposed to provide\\ some rental units targeted at 30% AMI, some at
60%AMI and some workforce for-purchase housing at the 120% AMI level there
is no means by which this mixed income scenario could be accommodated. In
the event the City wished to encourage a mixed income affordable housing mix
the City could allow such flexibility by establishing an Ðequivalency-unit-valueÑ of
affordable units by establishing an equivalency matrix .
For example:
120%AMI = 0.75 unit
100% AMI unit or greater = 1 unit
61- 80% AMI unit = .1.25 units
60% AMI or less = 1.5 units.
In all cases a developer could be required to provide an ÐequivalentÑ of 25% of
the total units as affordable. The calculation toward meeting this goal would be
to determine the equivalency unit value provided by each income bracket, and
additively determe if the total number of required units is achieved by the
proposal.
For example a developer is to propose 100 units. 25 units must be affordable to
meet the 25% standard. Of these the developer could simply provide 25 units at
100%AMI and satisfy the criteria.
Or in the event a mix of incomes were provided the range could look something
like the following:
3 units at $120AMI = (3 units x 0.75equivalency) = 2.25 unit value
16 units at 80% AMI = (16 units x 1.25 equivalency) = 20 unit value
2 units at 60% AMI = (4 units x 1.5 equivalency) = 3 unit value
In the scenario above, although only 22 actual units are provided it would satisfy
the criteria in that there would be a calculated equivalence of 25 units due to the
lower income ranges targeted (the 25.25 would be rounded to down to 25).
The table below provides numbers of actual units this approach, to allow a mix of
incomes, would compare in relation to AshlandÓs existing ordinance when 100%
of the covered units are proposed at any one specific income level.
5
Percent Existing Ordinance Conceptual Strategy
affordability
100 unit annexation with 15-35% of the 100 unit annexation with 25
units required to be affordable ÐEquivalency unitsÑ required to be
depending on income range targeted affordable.
120%AMI 35 33
100%AMI 25 25
80%AMI 20 20
60%AMI 15 17
As evidenced above this methodology would increase the number of required
units if all were targeted at 60% or below, but inversely decrease the actual
number provided if all were aimed at 120%AMI. At 80% and 100%AMI the
required number of units would remain unchanged.
This method is admittedly more complex than the existing ordinance, but staff
found no examples of an inclusionary ordinance that functions to provide
flexibility in the mix of units across different income levels. Of the other city and
county examples identified most are constructed in a manner similar to AshlandÓs
existing ordinance with various percent requirements attributed to each income
level or a flat requirement for a set income level.
To respond to the community desire to achieve more rentals or more for
purchase units, separate equivalency values could be established for the two
distict types of occupancy (owner vs. renter). For instance the equivalency value
of rentals could be established less than that of ownership, thereby requiring a
developer to provide more rentals than would be required were the units to be
for-ownership. The City may also want to consider discretion to limit or modify a
given ratio in order to respond to a particular development proposal that meets or
exceeds what could otherwise be provided under the code.
This methodology is conceptual in nature and is provided in an effort to
demonstrate how the flexibility of allowing for varied income levels could be
achieved while ensuring the intent of the original ordinance to provide affordable
housing is maintained. If the methodology was determined to have merit,
considerable investigation would be necessary to determine the implementation
process and all foreseeable ramifications on rental and ownership developments
as well as mixed income projects.
Other jurisdictionÓs examples of required percentage of units:
Montgomery County, MD
12.5% - 15% (based on achievable density bonus) for projects of 50 units are
more Units must be for-purchase only as this section was amended by the
county after implementation when it was found that, in response to the
requirement to provide a number of affordable units, developers were providing
all required affordable units as rentals in what were otherwise for-sale
developments.
6
Boulder , CO
(a) Developments of Five or More Dwelling Units: Any development containing
five or more dwelling units is required to include at least twenty percent of the
total number of dwelling units within the development as permanently affordable
units.
(b) Developments Containing Four Dwelling Units or Less: Any development
containing four dwelling units or less may comply with the obligations of this
chapter either by including one permanently affordable unit within the project, by
dedicating an off-site permanently affordable unit, by dedicating land that meets
the requirements set forth in Section 9-6.5-7, ÐOff-Site Inclusionary Zoning
Option,Ñ B.R.C. 1981, or by providing a cash-in-lieu financial contribution to the
cityÓs affordable housing fund established by Section 9-6.5-6, ÐCash-in-Lieu
Equivalent for a Single Permanently Affordable Unit,Ñ B.R.C. 1981.
Davis, CA
Within the City of Davis projects with fewer than five units for purchase have no
affordability requirements. Projects between 6 and 75 units require 25% of the
units to be affordable and built on site.
For projects greater than 75 units but less than 200 a developer is to provide the
25% of the units as affordable or shall offer the city sufficient land (without
abnormalities) to accommodate the affordable housing component in its entirety.
For projects of greater than 200 units 25% of the units are to be affordable with
half of those units being provided through land dedicated by the developer to the
City of Davis.
7
Period of Affordability
Currently this is established for Annexations and Zone Changes at 60 Years.
Although this period of affordability may reduce potential financing avenues and
buyer incentive for for-purchase housing, it serves the community intention to
retain affordable Housing for a long duration. The period of affordability currently
in place does not distinguish differences between ownership and rentals.
Other City examples of periods of affordability:
Winston-Salem, MA = 15 years
San Diego, CA = 55 years
Boulder, CO = Permanent
Burlington, VT = 99 years which can be modified by a review board.
One alternative for consideration would be to structure different periods of
affordability for rentals versus ownership. By providing options along these lines
various product types could be provided that suit the marketability of the units.
Lenders, such as the US Department of Agriculture Rural Development Program
have questioned affordability periods in that they restrict equity gain for the units
homeowners. Further, upwardly mobile young households have little incentive to
purchase a unit with a 60 year limit given little or no potential to gain equity,
instead opting for lower cost markets.
The value to the community, through provision of continued affordable housing
stock, is weighed against the personal value of ownership for qualified
households. Many programs are structured to provide ownership as a means of
wealth creation for the individual household (Habitat, USDA Self-Help). Other
programs, such as a land trust, are intended to maintain affordability for future
generations. The required period of affordability goes to the heart of this balance
between community and individual interest. Programs intended to attract and
benefit median income households or higher (100%-150%AMI) will likely be most
successful if they provide a degree of appreciation that exceeds income growth
(building wealth). This can either be accomplished through an equity share
provisions or the potential for a windfall profit due to a limited affordability period
(ie 15 years in Winston-Salem,MA). Those programs that serve to provide
housing to low to extremely-low income households (for rent or purchase) will be
most successful in the long term by maintaining a continual supply of affordable
housing through longer periods of required affordability (Boulder, CO or
Burlington Vt).
8
Purchase Price and Rent Controls
AshlandÓs annexation and zone change ordinance references the ÐAshland
Affordable Housing ProgramÑ as a means of establishing the maximum rents and
purchase prices that can be charged to be considered compliant with the
provision of affordable housing. The Housing Commission recently addressed
this issue at length in establishing the limits for the SDC deferral program. If
approved by the City Council (pending) these limits would function to maintain
units as affordable to the target income ranges. For clarityÓs sake the resolution
that establishes the ÐnewÑ SDC deferral programÑ could be referenced in the
annexation ordinance explicitly to tie rental and purchase levels to the amounts
described within the draft resolution. As a specific reference within the Land Use
Ordinance to the Affordable Housing Program this will function to establish the
cap on housing costs consistent with the Housing Commissions prior
determinations.
Other jurisdictions embed within the land use ordinance the approved
methodology to establish maximum rents or sale price for covered units.
Burlington, Vt
Burlington requires for-purchase units to include a formula for limiting equity appreciation
to an amount not to exceed 25% of the increase in the covered units Fair Market
appraised value at resale and adjustments for improvements and cost of the sale. The
ordinance also stipulates that the Housing Trust Fund (City) or its designee shall have
an exclusive option to purchase any covered affordable unit for 90 days following
notification of the availability of the unit
Rent increases in Burlington are limited to match the percent of annual increase in
median incomes. Further their ordinance states that no increase in rent can take effect
until it has received approval of the CityÓs Housing Trust Fund (the regulating agency).
Boulder , Co
Determination of Rental Rates for Permanently Affordable Units: If a developer of a
rental housing project chooses to meet the permanently affordable unit requirements
imposed by this chapter through the provision of on-site or off-site affordable rental
housing, affordability of rental units shall be determined as follows:
(1) Maximum Rent: Rents charged for permanently affordable units in any one
projectmust, on average, be affordable to households earning ten percentage points
less than the HUD low-income limit for the Boulder PMSA, with no unit renting at a rate
which exceeds affordability to a household earning more than the HUD low-income limit
for the Boulder PMSA.
(2) Maximum Income for Tenants: No single household in a permanently affordable unit
project shall have an income which exceeds the HUD low-income limit for the Boulder
PMSA
9
Construction Standards
Unit Types
A primary question that must be addressed is who are the target beneficiaries of
a particular development. Obviously a single person households has different
needs for a unit than would a five person family. Differing types of housing) will
cater to different representative households. Additionally depending on the
intended zone of property proposed for an annexation or zone change request,
only a specific density of housing units can be achieved. Therefore it may be
appropriate to identify that on a specific comprehensive plan designation the City
expects a specific type of affordable housing to be provided (multifamily rentals,
town homes, condominiums, single family detached, with or without private yard
area). Below is outlined issues regarding unit size and number of bedrooms.
Other areas for consideration may include lot area, yard size, separation
between building, and common area amenities to be commensurate with market
rate units within a development.
Square Footage and Quality of covered Affordable Units
Concern has been raised that as currently drafted the annexation and zone
change ordinances do not provide guidance on unit sizes, thus the developments
proposed provide units of a considerably smaller size to satisfy the affordability
requirements. Without standards relating to construction materials and
amenities a development could provide very small units with inferior amenities
and materials, as the affordable housing and essentially reduce their project
costs by producing ÐcheapÑ housing. Construction standards can consist of
minimum square footages and amenities which may be subject considerable
negotiation. The rigidity by which such standards are applied could have
unforeseen impacts upon affordable housing providers and thus need to be
carefully considered while aiming to provide quality affordable housing.
The intention of Ðminimum unit sizesÑ is not to comply with building code (as this
is a given) but rather to prescribe a unit type that is commensurate with other
units within the development or the communities needed housing types. It has
been suggested that to resolve potential disparities the unit sizes should be
proportional to the average unit sizes within the entire covered project. To
accomplish this other communities have implemented ordinances as follows:
Boulder, CO
Establishes that the average floor area of detached affordable units shall be a
minimum of 48% the average of all market rate units in the development (to a
maximum average size of 1200 sq.ft). Establishes that the average floor area of
attached affordable units shall be a minimum of 88% the average of all market
rate units in the development (to a maximum average size of 1200 sq.ft). The
ordinance also provides for an exception to these minimums if it is demonstrated
doing so will accomplish additional benefits for the City or prevent unlawful taking
of property without compensation.
10
San Diego CA
The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix, design and overall
quality of construction to the market rate units in the development, except that
the affordable units shall not be required to exceed three bedroom per unit. The
square footage and interior features of the affordable units shall not be required
to be the same as or equivalent to the market rate units, so long as they are of
good quality and consistent with current building standards for new housing in
the City of San Diego.
The San Diego language seems to address the concern that a developer will not
simply provide all studio units tosatisfy the affordability criteria. Additionally,
while allowing a smaller square footage, albeit maintaining the average bedroom
mix, this language allows a developer to provide modest affordable units within
an upscale market rate development. It is important to note that the stipulation
that minimum building standards are met ensures the bedrooms sizes and
interior feature would not be substandard.
11
Construction Timing
The requirement to provide affordable housing needs to be coupled with the
requirement to provide it in a timely fasion. Otherwise all the market rate units
within a subdivision can be developed and the affordable units remain unbuilt
until the end of the projects buildout. At this point, with all the market rate units
being completed there is no financial incentive remaining to complete the
affordable units. Tho address this potential having an ordinance provision that
meters in the affordable units is advisable. This ensures the financial benefit of
completing the market rate units acts as the incentive to complete the affordable
units in consort with the entire developments build out. It is understood that the
proceeds from the sale of a portion of the market rate units is the capital used to
develop the affordable units. Thus it is reasonable to allow some measure of the
market rate units to be completed, and occupied, early in the developments
buildout.
Burlington. VA ordinance
Covered Affordable Housing units shall be made available for occupancy
on approximately the same schedule as a Covered ProjectÓs market units,
except that certificates of occupancy for the last ten percent of the market
units shall be withheld until certificates of occupancy have been issued for
all of the affordable housing units. A schedule setting forth the phasing of
the total number of
units in a Covered Project, along with a schedule setting forth the phasing
of the required affordable housing units, shall be established prior to the
issuance of a building permit for any development.
San Diego Ordinance
The issuance of building permit for the Affordable Housing Project shall
occur on or before the earlier of:
(i) the issuance of building permits for construction of the
number which represents 50% of the Market Rate Units within the
Project; or
(ii) (ii) the date which is eighteen (18) months after the filing of
final map for the Market Rate Project, or
(iii) a date which is eighteen months after the receipt of the
building permit for the first Market Rate Unit if no final map is filed;
Completion of construction of the Affordable Housing Project shall occur
upon the earlier of twelve (12) months after the issuance of building
permits for the Affordable Housing Project as described above; or the date
which is two and one-half years after the earliest date determined above.
The issuance of building permits for the construction of the number which
represents 75% of market rate units for the Project shall not occur until the
completion of all of the Affordable Units is authorized by the City.
12
Occupancy of the Affordable Housing Project by persons meeting the
Program Eligibility requirements shall occur not later than 180 days after
the completion of construction as determined above.
Boulder, CO
The construction of required permanently affordable units in any
development shall be timed such that they may be marketed concurrently
with or prior to the market-rate units in that development. However, the
city manager is authorized to enter into other phasing agreements if doing
so would accomplish additional benefits for the city.
Boulders ordinance also requires affordability agreements to be in place
prior to approval of a development (Site review, subdivision or building
permits). ÐSuch agreements shall specify the number, type, location,
approximate size, and projected level of affordability of permanently
affordable units. Prior to application for a building permit for a residential
development project, developers shall execute such restrictive covenants
and additional agreements, in a form acceptable to the city, as are
necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter. No development
review application or subdivision application shall be approved in the
absence of proof of the execution of required agreements and covenants.
No building permit application shall be accepted in the absence of proof of
the execution of required agreements and covenants.Ñ
13
Distribution of Affordable Housing
A program may benefit from giving developers the flexibility of delivering
affordable housing on-site or off-site. In some cases, off-site housing may be
much more desirable for these reasons:
If the site subject to rezoning is very expensive land, more affordable
housing can be delivered off-site, given the economic capacity of the
project.
Some types of housing such as rental and special needs housing may
require locations near services, on bus lines and/or near employment.
The subject site may not have these desirable attributes
AshlandÓs existing Ordinance does not offer this flexibility, and given AshlandÓs
land constraints with most of the ÒflatÓ land suited to higher density housing
existing outside the City limits and thus subject to annexation, it may not prove to
be a viable option for developers.
Past evaluations of annexation proposals have seen a benefit of integrating the
affordable housing units throughout the proposed development. With a value on
mixed income distribution it is reasonable to assume required affordable units
should be developed on site. Further members of the Housing Commission and
staff have questioned the aggregation of all affordable housing units into one
area within a development essentially segregating those households from the
remainder of a subdivision. For this reason scattering the required units
throughout the development has been the preferable pattern by the City.
Should the Housing Commission, Planning Commission and City Council
ultimately desire to mandate distribution of affordable housing within
developments it would be prudent to evaluate the ramifications upon not-for-profit
affordable housing developers and their specific funding source requirements.
For instance the USDA Rural Development, State HOME program and CDBG
programs require between 50% and 100% of a specific development to be
affordable to qualify for the competitive funding. Further the Low Income
Housing Tax Credit program is also structured to fund specific single site
developments that provide the majority of units within the structure as affordable.
Lastly specific housing types such as a senior assisted living complex, a special
needs housing, or a transitional housing development are typically built as stand
alone developments to facilitate provision of services. In each of these cases it
could be in the public interest, or required by grant funding sources, to not scatter
the units throughout a development but instead concentrate them into one
location.
14
Alternative Methods
Land Dedication
Currently AshlandÓs Annexation requirements allow the potential to satisfy the
affordability requirements if a developer transfers land to a non-profit affordable
Housing provider. The developer must transfer with public facilities in place to
accommodate 25% of the total project units, and the land must be transferred
prior to commencement of the project.
Under Boulder ColoradoÓs ordinance developers may satisfy their affordable
housing obligation either by:
(1) conveying land to the City of equivalent value to the fee-in-lieu contribution
that would otherwise be required, plus an additional fifty percent, to cover costs
associated with holding, developing, improving, or conveying the land; or
(2) conveying land to the City that is of equivalent value to land upon which the
required affordable units would otherwise have been constructed. Such land
must be zoned to allow construction of at least as many affordable units as would
otherwise have been required.
Cash-in-Lieu fees
The City of AshlandÓs options do not provide an alternative for In-Lieu fees. Such
fees are often an option for developers to contribute a set amount into an
affordable housing fund, to enable the City to apply those funds to meet its
housing goals in another manner or through purchase of onether site.
Davis, CA
In the event a developer wants to pay inÎLieu of fees, instead of building
the affordable units, the City of Davis requires the applicant demonstrate
unique hardship due to the size of the project, subject to the satisfaction of
the Planning Commission or City Council. Upon demonstrating such
successfully the in-lieu fees are assessed and applied as follows:
Payment
¤ $23,737 per affordable unit
¤ Fees are pro-rated, not averaged
¤ Fee adjusted annually based upon building valuation data
¤ Fees generally paid upon Certificate of Occupancy for first market unit
Use
¤ In-lieu fees are deposited into the CityÓs Housing Trust Fund
¤ Monies are used for loans to affordable housing projects, primarily
developments
on dedicated land
¤ Loan repayments are returned to the Fund and recycled
Boulder, CO
9-6.5-6 Cash-in-Lieu Equivalent for a Single Permanently Affordable Unit.
(a) Cash-in-Lieu Equivalent: Whenever this chapter permits a cash-in-lieu contribution as
an alternative to the provision of a single permanently affordable unit, the cash-in-lieu
contribution shall be as follows:
(1) Detached Dwelling Units: For each unrestricted detached dwelling unit, the cash-in-
lieu contribution for the calendar year of 2000 shall be the lesser of $13,200.00 or $55.00
15
multiplied by twenty percent of the total floor area of the unrestricted unit. The cash-in-
lieu contribution will be adjusted annually as set forth in subsection (c) below.
(2) Attached Dwelling Units: For each unrestricted attached dwelling unit, the cash-in-lieu
contribution for the calendar year of 2000 shall be the lesser of $12,000.00 or $50.00
multiplied by twenty percent of the total floor area of the unrestricted unit. The cash-in-
lieu contribution will be adjusted annually as set forth in subsection (c) below.
(b) Contribution-in-Lieu Provisions Affecting Certain Developments Containing a Single
Dwelling Unit: A lot owner that intends to construct a single dwelling unit that will be the
primary residence of the owner for not less than one year immediately following the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy shall meet the standards set forth in Section 9-6.5-
5, "Inclusionary Obligation Based Upon Size of Project," B.R.C. 1981, or meet the
following standards:
(1) Designation of Home as a Permanently Affordable Unit: The owner shall make the
unit a permanently affordable unit, except that such initial owner does not have to meet
income or asset qualifications imposed by this chapter. The income and asset limitations
shall apply to subsequent owners of the affordable unit.
(2) Alternative Method of Paying Cash-in-Lieu Contribution: If the owner of a unit
described in this subsection chooses to comply with inclusionary zoning obligations
imposed by this chapter by making an in-lieu contribution as set forth in Section 9-6.5-5,
"Inclusionary Obligation Based Upon Size of Project," B.R.C. 1981, the owner shall have
the option of deferring payment of that contribution until such time as the property is
conveyed to a subsequent owner, subject to the following:
(A) The amount of the cash-in-lieu contribution shall be increased or decreased to reflect
the percentage of change, if any, between the actual valuation determined by the Boulder
County Assessor of the property upon which the unit is constructed following completion
of such construction and the most recent actual valuation determined by the Boulder
County Assessor of the same property at the time of transfer of title to a subsequent
owner.
(B) The owner executes legal documents, the form and content of which are approved by
the city manager, to secure the cityÓs interest in receipt of the deferred cash-in-lieu
contribution.
Boston, MA
Subject to the approval of the head of the relevant City agency, developers may
also propose to achieve these affordable housing obligations by making a dollar
contribution to an affordable housing fund calculated by multiplying the total
number of dwelling units in the proposed residential development by 0.15, and by
multiplying the result by the Affordable Housing Cost Factor, currently standing at
$52,000. This Affordable Housing Cost Factor is defined as the average total
public subsidy per new construction affordable housing unit permitted in the City
for the previous calendar year, and will be adjusted annually on July 1 of each
year in an amount commensurate with the cost of producing affordable housing.
16
Prescriptive Path or Expedited Review Process
Given the difficulty of annexation and zone change applications there is
considerable financial risk involved in proposing such developments. In
consideration of increased provision of affordable housing, reduction in this risk
by offering a prescriptive path to approval may also be an incentive to encourage
more affordable units on a voluntary basis.
For example if a developer were to provide 5-10% more affordable housing
(rounded up to the nearest unit) than the minimum otherwise required by
ordinance the standards relating to demonstrating a public need, or establishing
that there is less than a Ðfive year supplyÑ of available land, could be considered
met. Assuming all other criteria of approval and development standards are
complied with, this Ðprescriptive pathÑ would effectively reduce the applications
burden of proof and thereby reduce the risk of denial by having these standards
automatically considered satisfied.
Reduction in processing time for new developments that will provide affordable
housing is an incentive based strategy to create affordable housing opportunities
through reducing the developer cost associated with standard review times The
legislative review process for an annexation or zone change request can be a
long undertaking for a developer. Given holding costs and risk on property
ownership while going through such a process can be considerable, offering an
accelerated review process (ie 120 days or less) for proposed projects that
exceed the minimum requirements by a specified amount could provide an
incentive to developers to increase the provision of affordable housing.
Santa Fe NM
Developments built to the CityÓs affordable housing standards, where at
least 25% of the new homes will be affordable, are given priority in the
development review and permitting processes. Developers must have
proven track record for successful completion of projects and evidence of
having satisfied the cityÓs performance criteria. In addition, the developer
must assume any risk.
17
Housing in the NEWS
Ashland Housing Commission Packet
Central Oregon
Workforce Housing
Needs Assessment
July 2006
Executive Summary
Prepared for:
Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority
dba Housing Works
Prepared by:
Rees Consulting, Inc.
Crested Butte, Colorado
In Collaboration with:
RRC Associates, Inc.
Boulder, Colorado
July 2006
E XECUTIVE S UMMARY
C ENTRAL O REGON W ORKFORCE H OUSING N EEDS A SSESSMENT
The Central Oregon Regional Housing Authority (dba Housing Works) and its community
partners sponsored this study on workforce housing needs in Crook, Deschutes and
Jefferson counties. The study found that there is an imbalance between the demand for
and supply of workforce housing in Central Oregon and a mismatch between prices and
household incomes.
Key findings include:
Home prices have been rising and are no longer affordable for most members of
the workforce;
Growth in demand for workforce housing has been outpacing the production of
units;
Employers are being negatively affected by problems that can be directly
attributed to the insufficient availability of affordable workforce housing;
Growth in demand for workforce housing will continue yet will not be balanced
with construction of affordably-priced units given development now underway in
the pipeline.
This report was prepared utilizing information from numerous sources including a survey
of 118 private- and public-sector employers in the region, interviews and published data
from the following:
Central Oregon Association of Realtors;
2003 US Economic Census;
Central Oregon Rental Owners Association;
Bratton Appraisal Group, LLC;
US Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Economic Development for Central Oregon (EDCO);
Oregon Housing and Community Services; and
Worksource Oregon Employment Department.
Population
Growth in the population is fueling demand for housing. The regionÓs population now
surpasses 182,000. Since 2000, the regionÓs population has grown by approximately
28,630 persons. Deschutes is the fastest growing county in Oregon. While population
growth has been slower in Crook and Jefferson counties, it has exceeded the state
average for four out of the last five years.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 1
July 2006
Income
Approximately 37% of the regionÓs households have incomes equal to or less than 80%
of the Area Median Income (AMI), and are therefore considered to be low income. The
percentage of households with low incomes (80% AMI) is very similar in all three
counties. Bend has the lowest percentage of low-income households (38%) and Sisters
has the highest (52%) with the other communities falling somewhere in between.
Approximately 21% of the regionÓs households have incomes in the moderate range
(81% - 120% AMI) while 42% are middle- to upper-income households.
Housing Affordability
In the region, the maximum affordable purchase price for low-income households ranges
from approximately $110,000 in Jefferson County to $134,000 in Deschutes County.
The most that low-income households (80% AMI) can afford to pay in rent is $889 in
Crook County, $1,058 in Deschutes County and $870 in Jefferson County.
Employment, Unemployment and Job Growth
Between 2000 and 2005, employers in Central Oregon produced 12,240 new non-farm
jobs. This equates to an average increase of 2,448 jobs per year. In 2005, Central
Oregon experienced widespread economic gains. Deschutes County led the state in
job growth followed closely by Crook County. While growth in employment has not been
as robust in Jefferson County as in its neighboring Central Oregon counties,
unemployment was low and gains in jobs are expected with several commercial and
residential developments underway.
Since 2003, the unemployment rate has been declining in all three counties. It has
recently reached levels where labor shortages are being reported, particularly for certain
types of positions including accountants, skilled technicians, engineers, entry-level
production employees and workers skilled in the construction trades.
Job growth and the demand for workforce housing that it generates is expected to
continue into the foreseeable future.
The Worksource Oregon Employment Department forecasts that Central Oregon
will have the fastest job growth in the state -- 24.4% between 2004 and 2014.
This equates to approximately 17,520 additional jobs or an average of 1,752 jobs
per year.
94% of employers surveyed as part of this study indicate they plan to have a net
increase in jobs in the next three years.
Economic Development of Central Oregon (EDCO) is working on approximately
50 business expansion and recruitment prospects which combined could
generate 1,400 new jobs.
Numerous commercial, industrial, residential and mixed-use projects have been recently
approved for development or are now being planned. These developments will generate
jobs that fuel demand initially for housing for construction workers followed by demand
from permanent on-site employees. These developments include:
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 2
July 2006
Eight destination resorts;
Major residential subdivisions in Bend, Sisters, Prineville, LaPine, Redmond, and
unincorporated Jefferson County;
Expansion of aircraft manufacturers and aviation-related facilities;
Retail growth in PrinevilleÓs downtown area, construction of a Wal-Mart
Supercenter in Redmond and the possible location of one in Bend, potential
construction of a LoweÓs and Home Depot in Redmond, the second phase of the
Old Mill in Bend and a new commercial subdivision in Sisters;
Construction of a correctional facility east of Madras;
Development of the Desert Rise Industrial Park in Redmond and two business
parks in Sisters with a total of 40 lots;
Construction of a 30-bed rehabilitation center in Bend and expansion of Oregon
Dental Services in Redmond;
Expansion of Fuqua Homes in Bend; and
Development of a water park in Redmond.
While jobs will be produced at all wage levels, many will be low-paying positions in retail,
hospitality/recreation services, and residential support. Only a portion of the residential
development underway will house the workforce. Much of the housing being
constructed will be occupied by retirees and other residents who are not members of the
workforce, or used as vacation properties. These units will generate demand for
workforce housing both on site (maintenance, domestic service, etc.) and indirectly
through stimulation of retail trade and commercial services.
Impacts on Employers
The insufficient availability of housing that is affordable for the workforce is negatively
affecting employers in Central Oregon. Half of those surveyed felt it is the most critical
problem or one of the more serious problems in the region. Another third felt it is a
moderate problem. Relatively few felt it was one of the regionÓs lesser problems (10%)
or not a problem (7%).
Opinions about the extent to which the availability of affordable workforce housing is a
problem vary somewhat by county. Employers in Crook County are most likely to feel it
is a critical or serious problem (64%), followed by responses from Deschutes County
(57%). In contrast, only 28% of the employers surveyed in Jefferson County felt the
availability of affordable workforce housing was a critical or serious problem and 28% felt
it was not a problem or a lesser problem.
Employers in Prineville, where growth in retail and services sectors is being spurred by
multiple large-scale residential developments, are the most likely to feel that the
availability of affordable workforce housing is a critical or serious problem.
Employers were asked to indicate the type and frequency of problems that have been
experienced in the past two years that Ðcould be attributed to the price or availability of
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 3
July 2006
workforce housing.Ñ Having unfilled jobs was the more frequently mentioned type of
problem, often followed by having unqualified applicants and employee turnover.
Applying survey results to total employment resulted in an estimate of approximately
5,200 unfilled jobs.
Consequences associated with not being able to find qualified employees to fill needed
positions or operating at less than optimal employment levels are numerous. An
employerÓs competitiveness, profitability, service levels, customer satisfaction, hours of
operation, and product innovation capacity can all be negatively affected by workforce
housing deficiencies.
The availability of affordable workforce housing is not just a problem for low-wage
employees but can affect all categories of workers. On average, employers felt that
retail/service clerks have the most difficulty. The second highest rating, however, was
assigned to entry-level professionals and 23% of employers surveyed indicated that
upper management had moderate to major difficulty locating housing in the region.
Some employers do not acknowledge the relationship between workforce housing and
unfilled jobs. They indicate that their positions are unfilled due to deficiencies in the
labor force (no applicants, unqualified applicants, etc.) Other employers, however, see a
correlation between an insufficient labor force and the lack of affordable workforce
housing.
Even though employers are reporting difficulties finding qualified employees, few (8% of
those surveyed) have provided housing assistance in the past two years. There is a high
degree of uncertainty regarding the likelihood that employers will be providing increased
levels of housing assistance to their employees in the future. While nearly half of the
employers surveyed indicated they are not willing to support housing for employees,
almost as many (42%) indicated they are uncertain.
Homeownership Market
While the homeownership rate in 2000 was relatively high at 72% compared with 66%
for the nation as a whole and 64% for Oregon, the price of homes today suggests that a
much lower percentage of employees will be able to afford to buy in the future. This
should create a shift in the characteristics of the region with proportionately fewer
residents owning their homes.
In 2005, the median price for homes ranged from a low of $90,000 for a manufactured
home in Jefferson County on less than one acre to $394,250 for a single-family home in
Sisters. Manufactured homes are the least expensive option for homeownership. While
condominiums and townhomes are typically more affordable than single-family homes,
high-end townhomes in Bend are now priced above the median for single-family homes.
Home prices in Central Oregon are climbing upward. The median price for all typos of
units in all areas of the region has increased by approximately 40% to 100% since 2003.
Overall, the escalation in home prices throughout the region averaged about 65%.
Although home prices in Crook and Jefferson counties are lower than in Deschutes
County, they are increasing at similar rates.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 4
July 2006
Residential real estate prices are continuing to escalate this year. The median prices of
single-family homes listed for sale in April were 40% (Jefferson County) to 90%
(Redmond) higher than the median prices of homes sold in 2005. This suggests that the
upward climb in the cost of homes is getting steeper.
Approximately 1,600 residential units were listed for sale during the last week of April
2006. This equated to an inventory of about 2.6 months based on 7,500 units sold in
2005. Just over 25% of the listings were in the $500,000 to $1 million price range. The
median price for single-family homes was nearly $560,000 in the Sisters area and
approximately $456,000 in the Bend area. Prices in Crook and Jefferson County used to
be very similar but the median in Crook is now over $93,000 higher than in Jefferson
County. There were few listings under $200,000 Î only 15% of the total.
Incomes and home prices in Central Oregon are incongruent. The mismatch between
what residents can afford to pay for housing and what homes cost to buy is pronounced.
In all areas of the region except Jefferson County, it would take an income more than
twice the median income to buy a home at the median price. In the Sisters area, an
income of 379% AMI would be needed to afford a home listed for the median price.
Median List Prices and Median Incomes Compared
Affordable Price Median Price % AMI Needed to
100% AMI All Residential Afford Median Price
Deschutes County $167,400 $425,000 254%
Bend/Tumalo/Alfalfa $167,400 $471,268 282%
Redmond/Terrebonne $167,400 $391,050 234%
Sisters Area $167,400 $634,700 379%
Crook County $140,800 $322,500 229%
Jefferson County $137,700 $185,000 134%
Rental Market
The rental market in Central Oregon is generally strong with low vacancy rates and
rising rents. While the supply of rental units has, for the most part, kept up with demand
in recent years with construction of new units in response to the
in-migration of renters, there are indications that this has changed. Demand continues
to be strong as evidenced by declining vacancy rates, yet growth in the supply of rental
units is not likely to continue at recent levels. Rents should continue to increase as the
imbalance between rental supply and demand grows.
In the past year, the supply of rental units edged up while the demand jumped up.
Growth in the number of rental units is likely to remain flat in the foreseeable future and
there may even be a decline due to a combination of factors:
Condominium conversions in Bend;
The price of land zoned for high-density development having reached the level
that makes apartment development unprofitable;
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 5
July 2006
No planned apartment construction other than the eventual development of
approximately four acres in Prineville;
Rising mortgage interest rates that makes it more difficult to purchase a home
thereby forcing employees to rent; and
Competition from high-end construction.
In Deschutes County, rents start at around $525 for a one-bedroom apartment and
range up to an average of around $1,200 for a four-bedroom house. Rates are lower in
both Crook and Jefferson Counties. Based on a comparison of single-family homes,
rents are about $150 per month less in Prineville and from $200 to $400 less in the
Madras/Culver area.
Vacancy rates in Central Oregon are low and declining. As a general rule, when
vacancy rates are below 7%, markets are considered tight and construction of additional
units is warranted. Prineville had the lowest vacancy rate in early 2006 of any
community in the region at 3.9%. The rate was also very low in Madras and, in Sisters,
all of the 34 rental units surveyed were occupied.
Redmond had the highest vacancy rate but, at 7.6%, it still reflected a strong market
where the supply is so limited relative to demand that increases in rents should be
expected. Vacancy rates have been declining from 10.6% in 2004 to 6.8% in 2006. The
combined overall vacancy rate for the Bend area decreased from 5.8% in 2004 to 2.8%
in 2005.
Gap/Demand Analysis
Demand for workforce housing was estimated by examining population and employment
growth between 2000 and 2005, vacant jobs in 2006, new jobs projected through 2008
and the replacement of employees who will retire in the next three years. Population
growth in the past five years generated demand for 11,368 units. Much of this demand
was not generated by members of the workforce, however, but rather by retirees and
other non-employed persons. Between 2000 and 2005, job growth created demand for
9,057 units of workforce housing which equated to about 80% of total demand.
During the same five-year period, approximately 8,230 units of workforce housing were
produced. This resulted in a deficit of 827 workforce housing units in the region as a
whole. The deficit was actually larger in Deschutes County (1,493 units) but was
partially addressed by residential development in both Crook and Jefferson counties.
By 2008, approximately 9,460 workforce housing units will be needed to address the
deficit generated between 2000 and 2005, fill vacant jobs and sustain growth.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 6
July 2006
Workforce Housing Demand by AMI
Source of Demand Crook Deschutes Jefferson Region
Workforce Deficit 2000 Î 2005 (surplus) (256)1,493(404) 827
Unfilled Jobs, 2006 1051,404129 1,637
New Jobs, 2006 - 2008 4895,359717 6,565
Replacement of Retirees, 2006 - 2008 9630628 431
Total* 4348,562470 9,460
Demand by AMI
50% AMI 851,55082 1,722
51% - 80% AMI 781,58491 1,760
81% - 100% AMI 461,01048 1,078
101 - 120% AMI 4985650 974
121% + AMI 1753,570198 3,935
Total* 4348,571470 9,469
* Note that the totals vary slightly due to rounding.
Of the total, approximately 3,480 units will be needed to house low-income workforce
households (incomes 80% AMI). Another 2,050 units will be needed for moderate-
income workforce households (81% to 120% AMI). Given that current home prices are
generally far above what is affordable for these income groups and that there are few
vacant rental units with almost no apartment construction planned for the near future,
proactive strategies will be needed to address this need.
Recommendations
Develop a common definition for workforce housing that specifies the income levels that
are not served by the free market and, therefore, should be targeted by public-sector
and non-profit initiatives. Monitor home prices and rents to make adjustments over time
to the income levels that should targeted.
Consider a variety of tools and techniques in combination for providing workforce
housing as growth continues. Comprehensive strategies that target multiple income
levels, provide both ownership and rental opportunities and use a combination of
incentives, regulatory reform, public/private partnerships and mandates to mitigate
housing demand generated by new development are recommended.
Involve employers in the development of strategies for providing workforce housing.
Include an education component since survey comments suggest that some employers
do not acknowledge the correlation between the availability of affordable workforce
housing and having an adequate labor force.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 7
July 2006
Enhance information systems to better monitor the supply and cost of housing and the
demand for workforce housing generated by new development. Specifically:
Modify building permit and Assessor records to include the number of units for
apartments and other multi-unit projects under single ownership so that the
supply of rental units can be monitored.
As the number of sales increases in Crook and Jefferson Counties with additional
residential development, modify the MLS to divide the counties into sub-markets
as is done in Deschutes County.
Conduct apartment vacancy and rent surveys during the summer peak
employment season, as well as during the winter or fall.
Develop a standardized format for display of home sales data so that changes
and trends can be easily discerned; the quarterly reports now produced by the
Central Oregon Association of Realtors provide the detailed information that
could be graphed and summarized in user-friendly formats.
Obtain job projections for all significant developments proposed within the three-
county region and compile them quarterly into a consolidated report that
forecasts employment and associated workforce housing demand.
Make County Assessor data more accessible, ideally though inclusion on web
sites, as has become a common practice in many counties around the country.
Rees Consulting, Inc. Page 8
LETTERS to the Commission
Ashland Housing Commission Packet
From: MBianco438@aol.com
To: jbstreet@ashlandhome.net
Cc: Kaciesmom21662@aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:21 PM
Subject: Oak Knoll
Dear Commissioner Street,
The report you presented tonight concerning the Oak Knoll Course was utilized in a way I believe
was not intended by its author. I do live in the Oak Knoll area. I'm not a golfer. Never hit a ball in
my life. There were issues I wanted to discuss.
The first, other than personal reasons, how can an issue such as this come up for discussion? I
am amazed how poised your committee is to address council with ideas when council has not
even asked for information. You are losing the one commissioner who came close to
understanding you have no business pushing this issue.
The other point I would have made tonight addressed an irony. I am a member of Trinity
Episcopal church here in Ashland. This past year we had a golf tournament at Oak Knoll.
Because of the cost and location, we were able to bring in $2500.00. The irony, our church
donated every cent to "Habitat for Humanity." Our money and labor will be going to a home being
built on Garfield street.
My last comment. There seems to be this continuing issue with people not affording to live in
Ashland. Get a grip, it's not just Ashland, it is the entire valley. Also, many people who do work
here and can afford to do so, do not. The reason, they do not wish to subsidize the community.
There needs to be a line drawn where our city needs to allow the market, jobs, and economics to
work in unison. My family chose to live in Ashland because we saw a future. Continued disruption
of property market values do nothing more than tax the working man out of the city and bring
down my property value. We are ready to leave. I suggest your committee stop attempting to
manipulate the market. Do not take from the tax payer what they are willing to be taxed for and
replace it with some unknown. I look at the golf course as open space and a park. Maybe you
should suggest the dog park become affordable housing. It's the same thing. I am surprised you
haven't suggested it. Stop suggesting the removal of city property for affordable housing. Look to
the market and annexation. That is the function of your committee.
Also, I wish to thank you for the professionalism and willingness to allow people to
speak. Disruptions were handled with patience and compassion, and you chaired this important
meeting with direction. Unfortunately, your meeting will not be broadcast. I find this interesting
and a concern.
Best Wishes, and thank you,
Michael J Bianco, Jr.
761 Salishan Court
Ashland, OR 97520
488-6263