Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-11-29 Housing PACKET Ashland Housing Commission Regular Meeting Agenda: November 29, 2007 5:30 Î 7:30 Community Development Building 51 Winburn Way 1. (5:30) Approval of Minutes th October 25 Minutes 2. (5:35) Public Forum items not on the agenda 3. (5:45) Reports and Updates Subcommittee Reports Liaison reports Education (Street) Council Land Use (no meeting) Parks Finance (Voisin) Schools Planning 4. (6:10) Regulatory Barriers and Incentives 5. (6:50) Project Updates Croman Property Master Plan update Clay Creek RFQ update (full review to take place in December) 6. (7:10) Presentation to Council Discussion about topics for annual presentation 7. (7:25) Upcoming Events and Meetings Housing Commission Regular Meeting Î 12/20/07 @ 5:30-7:30 Education subcommittee Î 12/5/07 @ 5:15 -6:15 Finance subcommittee Î 12/11/07 @ 5:30 -6:30 Land Use subcommittee Î 12/13/07 @ 11:00-12:00 Quorum Check Î Commissioners not available to attend the subsequent meeting(s) should declare there expected absence. 8. (7:30) Adjournment ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES October 25, 2007 CALL TO ORDER Chair Bill Street called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520. Commissioners Present: SOU Liaison: None Carol Voisin Steve Hauck Council Liaison: Alice Hardesty Regina Ayars Bill Street Staff Present:: Aaron Benjamin Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist Graham Lewis Absent Members Richard Billin Bill Smith APPROVAL OF MINUTES Voisin/Ayars m/s to approve the minutes of the August 30, 2007 and September 27, 2007 meetings. Voice Vote: There was unanimous approval of the minutes. The Commissioners welcomed new member Graham Lewis to the Housing Commission. Street discussed Ambuja RosenÓs requests regarding the Tethering Ordinance and it was determined that individual Commissions would discuss the Ordinance with CouncilorÓs but it would not be addressed as a Commission item. PUBLIC FORUM No one came forth to speak. GUEST SPEAKER Larry Medinger, Chair for the State Housing Council was the guest speaker. Mr. Medinger explained to the Commissioners what the Council does. He stated that it is a wide ranging organization that funds a variety of activities from food, emergency housing, permanent housing, mental disabled as well as farm worker support. About 65-70% of the agency is centered around Housing. Mr. Medinger said that he had previously served on the Housing Commission for 13 years during which time they primarily focused on workforce Housing. It is the opinion of Mr. Medinger that Workforce Housing is a critical need in Ashland. OHCS does not necessarily focus on that segment they primary focus on 60% AMI and under, highly subsidized projects. Mr. Medinger explained that they use tax credit dollars to allow banks to lend millions of dollars. The income they make on that is tax free. The Fall Financial cycle funding is as follows: 588 Units were created. 57 of them are below 60% Area Median Income (AMI) 186 are below 50% AMI 283 are below 40% AMI 54 are below 30% AMI 8 Managers Units Total dollars spent was $92,685,158.00. From that amount the largest two numbers were LIHTC9-$5,875,000.00 and HTC-$11,988,000.00. $200,000 housing plus account $900,000 housing trust fund money $2,231,000 home money (federally funded program that is used both as grants and loans LIHTC-tax credit) $150,000 mentally disturbed $836,000 LIWX-conservation dollars ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 1 MINUTES October 25, 2007 The money funded in Jackson County was for the Housing Authority of Jackson County. Mr. Medinger said they are a fantastic organization and do great work. This month they funded ÐScenic HeightsÑ in Central Point. A 48 Family Unit worth $8,752,000.00. Mr. Medinger gave the background of the members on the Housing Council. The Commissioners asked a variety of questions of Mr. Medinger. Mr. Medinger said that personally he believes the City of Ashland should have a program that goes after land to support workforce housing, instead of focusing on the deep subsidy needs for very-low income. As a builder the thing he sees the most is the disregard for diverse housing. th The Commissioners Invited Larry to come to the Housing Trust Fund Workshop meeting on October 30 Tuesday 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the Ashland Springs Hotel. REPORTS AND UPDATES Subcommittee Report Education Î Street said they will be presenting the Housing Notebook to the public in a display at the Public Library. The main idea is to increase peoples awareness of what is being done in the community. Finance Î Voisin reported that the Committee reviewed what will be happening at the Public Forum. Billin, Goldman, Hauck and Voisin are doing a follow up call to about 80 people that were previously sent postcards. After the Forum they will do an evaluation and report back at the next meeting. Voisin asked that the other Commissioners attend to help with the facilitating of the groups. Land Use Î No meeting Street asked if Lewis had thought about which sub committee he might like to be on. He will get together with Goldman and discuss this. Liaison Reports Council Î No report. Parks Î No report. th Schools Î Hardesty reviewed the results from the goal setting meeting on Sep 10. Housing did not make it on to any of the goals of the School Board. They had research and development items one of which was to consider strategy for staff recruitment that will help the district work towards the diversity goals. Planning Î Benjamin attended the Planning Study Session He reported that they spent quite a bit of time discussing the amendments to the Land Use Ordinance, especially the minimum size of ARUÓs. Goldman commented that the Planning Commission did recommend approval of the Land Use changes to go to Council for consideration but pulled two sections of it. One was regarding the inclusion of residential on the ground floor of Commercial. The Planning Commission thought that was more of a substance issue and pulled that out of their recommendation and will look at it further. PROJECT UPDATES Condominium Conversion Ordinance Ï Has gone through first and second reading before the City Council. It is now a new Ordinance that the builders will have to adhere to. th Clay Creek RFQ Issuance Ï City Council directed staff to issue the RFQ on October 15 with a return date of th November 16. Ayars and Hauck volunteered to be on the review Committee for the RFQ. Goldman will also ask a Parks Commissioner to be on the Review Committee as well as someone from the non profit community. Lithia Lot Housing Development - Goldman gave an overview of this project. The newspaper represented that the property could not be built downtown due to land use requirements that wouldnÓt allow that development. This was not the case stated Goldman. The concern was from Kendrick not having a utility plan of where the storm water would go. The state said that they may require them to retain water on site though typically this is what they do for multi- family developments. In this case an Urban Development, 7000 square foot lot, which is currently a parking lot, could not retain water on site. The truth is they never submitted an application so that was never tested before the state as to whether they would fund it in spite of not meeting that more rigid standard. The Council reviewed and did recommend as the Housing Commission did that the developer agreement be rescinded. They received the Housing ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 2 MINUTES October 25, 2007 Commissions other recommendation that the new RFP go forward. Ultimately they felt they needed to look at other options before making a determination on what to do with Lithia Lot specifically. They have asked that a committee be formed that would include, City Council, Planning Commission and Housing Commission. When a date is determined for the meeting Goldman will let the Housing Commission know. MEETING DATE CHANGES November meeting will be on Thursday November 29, 2007 due to the Thanksgiving Holiday December meeting will be on Thursday December 20,2007 at the Council Chambers. UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS th October 30 7:00 -9:00 p.m. (Ashland Springs Hotel) Commissioners will arrive 15 minutes early. ADJOURNMENT Î The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION 3 MINUTES October 25, 2007 Incentives and Regulatory Barriers Ashland Housing Commission November 29, 2007 In order to enable market forces to develop needed housing types a two pronged approach is needed. In identifying what regulatory barriers exist a community can take measures to limit such policies, rules, processes, or procedures that function to prohibit, discourages, or excessively increase the cost of new or rehabilitated housing without sound compensating public benefits. The other action communities can take is to identify what incentives are available to encourage the development of needed housing types. In October of 2007 the Ashland City Council expressed an interest in examining what could be done to promote the development of multi-family housing. To accomplish this goal it is important to evaluate the tools within the City of AshlandÓs control to promote the development of needed housing. These tools include the municipalityÓs regulatory powers, taxing authority, and direct financial support. The effort of reducing regulatory barriers involves identifying what local and state policies or procedures impede the production of housing that is most needed by the community. Many policies and regulations that restrict housing are implemented or promulgated with other worthy goals. Each community should aim to evaluate any and all restrictive policies or regulations to ensure that the countervailing interest that functions to increase the cost of housing production, is necessary to protect the public interest. In addition to removing existing regulations that impede affordable housing, cities and counties can enact new ordinances that support development of needed housing. Listed below are a number of such policies and procedures to assist local governments in reducing the cost of producing affordable housing. Affordable housing in a community serves a vital public interest and removal of barriers is one step, within government control, to encourage well-designed, attractive affordable housing as an economic and social asset to a community. Instituting specific incentives to entice the development community to provide the needed housing types can be another effective means of fulfilling the CityÓs housing needs. Barriers Barrier Insufficient land zoned and available for multi-family development at medium and high densities. Impact A high percentage of total municipal land area is frequently zoned for larger lots and/or houses with lot coverage requirements that limit the number of units permitted per acre. Lack of land available at the densities necessary for high density development drives up land costs and limits opportunities for affordable housing development. Specifically in Ashland much of the land area outside the existing City Limits but within the Urban Growth Boundary has a Comprehensive Plan Designation of single family housing. The Affordable Housing Action Plan identifies rezoning of Single Family land to multi-family higher density zones as one strategy to promote a needed housing type (Goal 3, A.1) Oregon Law 197.307 Effect of need for certain housing in urban growth areas; placement standards for approval of manufactured dwellings. (1) The availability of affordable, decent, safe and sanitary housing opportunities for persons of lower, middle and fixed income, including housing for seasonal and year-round farmworkers, is a matter of statewide concern. (2) Many persons of lower, middle and fixed income depend on government assisted housing as a source of affordable decent, safe and sanitary housing. (3) When a need has been shown for housing within an urban growth boundary at particular price ranges and rent levels, needed housing, including housing for seasonal and year-round farmworkers, shall be permitted in one or more zoning districts or in zones described by some comprehensive plans as overlay zones with sufficient buildable land to satisfy that need. 4) Subsection (3) of this section shall not be construed as an infringement on a local government's prerogative to: (a) Set approval standards under which a particular housing type is permitted outright; (b) Impose special conditions upon approval of a specific development proposal; or (c) Establish approval procedures. Potential Remedies Evaluate existing land supply by zone and comprehensive plan designation to ensure adequate supply for medium and high density development. Evaluation should consider the percentage of total housing stock necessary to accommodate population growth within the established Urban Growth Boundary. Additionally jurisdictions can examine existing densities allowed and consider increasing base densities to maximize the utilization of available land. Zone a greater amount of land for medium and high density residential development to promote multi-family housing development. Barrier Density limitations do not currently provide a density bonuses sufficient to offset the cost of building below market units as an incentive for any market rate residential development that includes a portion of affordable housing. Impact Developers can be enticed to build affordable housing if it is shown to be in their financial interest. Increasing the density allowed, without discretionary land use decisions, can be a valuable tool to encourage affordable housing development by the private sector. The same mechanism could be utilized to promote market rate apartment development if that was seen as a community goal. Potential Remedies Increase or establish Density Bonus opportunities for affordable housing development. In cases where a developer can increase density 1 for 1 (meaning an increase equal to the % of affordable units provided) there is little incentive to build the additional affordable units. To develop an affordable unit it costs more to build than can be captured through rent and or sale price. Thus there is no financial incentive to take advantage of AshlandÓs existing density bonus allowance. A more attractive density bonus to developers would be one where additional market rate units could also be provided in addition to any affordable housing units. For example if a developer of a sixteen unit development could get a bonus of 25% where all four bonus units had to be affordable, bringing the total number of units up to 16, they would forgo the density bonus and develop only 16 units. With an incentive based bonus if those four bonus units were allowed to contain two market rate units and two affordable units, there would be a financial incentive to develop the 20 unit development. Barrier Land zoned for multifamily uses can be developed as Single Family housing thereby reducing supply of land for higher density uses and reducing the development of multi-family apartments. Impacts Urbanizable areas are developed inefficiently and the per unit cost of development is higher than if the properties were developed to maximum density allowed. Multifamily zoned land is developed as ownership housing, even at intended densities. Land zoned for multi-family is in limited supply, its use for housing types that do not provide for the housing type of rental housing undermines AshlandÓs ability to meet our land/housing need balance. Potential Remedies The City of Ashland established Minimum Densities within multi-family zones. This ordinance amendment passed in 2005 ensures maximum utilization of multifamily and single family zoned properties through adoption of minimum density requirements (i.e. 80% of base density). This effectively precludes large lot single family development in an area intended for apartments or small lot single family units. Regarding the development of ownership housing on multi-family zoned property the Affordable Housing Action Plan addressed this concern in recommending the strategy of restricting or precluding Single Family development in Multifamily zones. By stipulating clearly that a mulit-family zoned land must be developed as rental apartments the City would be assured that the limited land supply would be developed with this needed housing type. Barrier In Ashland Accessory Residential Units (also known as ÐAccessory Dwelling UnitsÑ and Ðmother-in-law unitsÑ) are currently conditionally allowed in single family zones. In some communities they are permitted outright, and in others they are precluded entirely. Impact ARUs address a needed housing type and are consistent with the infill strategies employed by many Oregon jurisdictions. It is important to note that evaluation of such units is necessary to ensure the additional dwellings can be appropriately accommodated on site. Evaluating issues such as parking availability, lot coverage, solar access are a few of the is issues that are involved in the approval of such units. The Conditional Use permit process can be seen as discretionary and a costly undertaking and as such may be a disincentive to creating accessory residential units, and thereby limit their development. Conversely it can be argued that a discretionary review process can function to encourage illegal secondary units completed without City oversight. Potential Remedies Ashland could consider allowing ARUs as a permitted use subject to a staff review of parking, and other site design standards. Elimination of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process would encourage both the creation of new ARUs as well as provide a more streamlined opportunity to allow illegal units to be brought up to current standards to become legal dwelling units. Further, without the complicating factor of CUP process developers can more readily incorporate ARUs into planned unit developments and subdivisions to provide a mix of housing types and maximize the use of common facilities. Barrier Discretion within the planning approval process leaves affordable housing projects vulnerable to NIMBY (not in my backyard) concerns and resulting appeals and possible denials. Impact Elimination of discretion in the approval process for affordable housing units would require local governments to eliminate any such discretion for like, non- affordable, housing types per Oregon State Law. However, as noted above eliminating discretion (IE Conditional Use Permit requirement) on a specific housing type, such as Accessory Residential Units (ARUs) would encourage their production. Oregon Law 197.312 Limitation on city and county authority to prohibit certain kinds of housing. (1) No city or county may by charter prohibit from all residential zones attached or detached single-family housing, multiple-family housing for both owner and renter occupancy or manufactured homes. No city or county may by charter prohibit government assisted housing or impose additional approval standards on government assisted housing that are not applied to similar but unassisted housing Barrier Zoning ordinance that allows, as-of-right, the conversion of apartments to be individual condominiums. Impact Condominium conversion of existing apartments effectively removes existing rental stock from the marketplace and displace renters Remedies The City of Ashland recently passed a oerdinance limiting the conversion of multi-family housing into for-purchase housing to address this trend. Further the establishment of tenant rights was completed to protect households from some of the negative impacts of displacement. Barrier Commercial and Industrial Lands precluded from incorporating high density residential development. Impact Limitations on Mixed-Used development opportunities essentially require housing to be outside of employment centers. Allowing High density development in ndrdth Employment Centers (2, 3, 4Èstories) is a cost effective development strategy which encourages multi-family and affordable housing in areas with immediate proximity to jobs. Potential Remedies Allow as a permitted use, high density residential development within commercial zones provided the target use of the zone (commercial development) is included. Barrier Development of Commercial and Industrial Lands places additional demand on the housing market in its need for qualified workers to fill the jobs created. Impact The economic development fostered by the establishment of new businesses, or the annexation of new commercially zoned lands into the City, has many benefits to the community . However, if the jobs created by the new businesses do not provide wages that are not commensurate with existing housing costs this can place additional demands on existing transportation systems as workers commute from lower cost areas. Specifically if the employment created is essentially comprised of low-income jobs, that will place added demand on limited low-income housing stock and a need to develop new housing to accommodate the workforce. Potential Remedies Many communities have attempted to correlate the housing demand created by new businesses through the establishment of commercial Ðlinkage feesÑ in which a new development contributes either housing for its workforce directly, or provides funding to assist in the development of housing elsewhere. As mentioned above it is also possible to incorporate housing within commercial developments to create mixed-use areas which have the benefit of both providing additional housing, and reducing reliance on a commuting workforce. Barrier Excessive off street parking requirements Impact Requiring a substantial number of parking spaces per affordable unit requires dedication of land area as well as the added cost of developing the excess spaces. Parking standards often do not relate to the number of cars or trips generated by a particular use. A small apartment may be required to supply the same number of parking spaces as a large single family home. Potential Remedy Local governments can evaluate their parking requirements to determine whether a reduction for multi-family units, or for affordable housing developments in the proximity of public transportation, is advisable. Further standards can be examined to see if dimensions of required parking spaces can be reduced (IE a percentage of compact spaces). Barrier Landscaping requirements, such as large minimum tree sizes, inflexible street tree requirements, and screening buffer standards. Impact Landscape requirements can add considerable cost both in terms of dollars as well as dedication of land area. The dedication of land and the expense of landscaping can limit development potential in some cases, and add upfront development costs. It is important to balance the long term value of the landscaping both to the housing development and the public (Street trees, stormwater retention, etc.) when evaluating the public benefit of landscaping requirements. Potential Remedies Examine existing site design standards relating to landscaping to ensure they are appropriate and not too cumbersome for needed housing developments. In support of needed housing types (IE Affordable Housing) the City could consider financial assistance to help reduce the cost of public street tree installation, or through the planning review process consider reductions in landscaping and openspace requirements as a variance to established standards when doing so promotes a public benefit. Barrier Traditional zoning frequently uses a proliferation of residential districts with rigid prescriptive lot size, lot coverage and bulk requirements for each district. Impact Performance zoning, as an alternative, recognizes that all land is not created equal. It tailors density to the natural carrying capacity of the site and protects environmental features. Care must be taken to avoid stifling construction of affordable housing by demanding excessive performance standards that reduce the net buildable area. Potential Remedies Ashland currently allows for ÐPerformance StandardsÑ subdivisions which enables clustering on the "net buildable area". Further refinements to a form based approach to land development could allow for a broader mix of dwelling types and densities on a given property. This flexibility can both assist in accommodating natural conditions as well as being more responsive to the marketplace and housing needs. Further this approach can be used to incorporate mixed use developments clustering both commercial and residential uses. Barrier Lack of uniformity among land use ordinances adds time and, therefore, increases costs to developers. Impact Land use ordinances vary tremendously from one community to the next. This lack of uniformity in format and substance adds time to the process of understanding the requirements. This confusion also adds unnecessary costs because small builders must hire a consulting planner or engineer. Land use ordinances can be poorly drafted. Poorly drafted ordinances consist of a collection of amendments tagged onto an outdated base, lack an index or only contain an out-of-date table of contents, and are devoid of illustrative material. Confusing and vague ordinances are difficult to understand and administer, and engender appeals resulting in more expense and delay. Potential Remedies Ashland has completed an audit of our land use ordinance and a number of recommended changes are presently being forwarded to the City Council for review. The intention of ensuring the ordinances is clear and free of conflicting provisions should clarify existing standards for both developers and the regulating body. Additionally coordination with nearby communities to identify areas where consistency between codes could be implemented could alleviate confusion by providing a uniform target for developers working within the region. The Uniform Building Code is a good example of consistent standards from one jurisdiction to the next, however in the Land Use Planning arena mush of the land use code is reflective of community values that may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction making such uniformity difficult to obtain. Barrier After planning approval, a long permitting processes through the planning, engineering, and building departments can add significant cost to an affordable housing development Impact Communities can consider Ðfast trackÑ permitting and approvals for all affordable housing projects, or multi-family rental housing, as a way to reduce the costs associated the approval process. Potential Remedies The issue of efficient use of the limited time available before the Planning Commission has been a topic of much discussion in recent years. However to be efficient it is incumbent upon applicants to ensure that their development plans are complete and include all required supplemental materials. (Most delays are due to incomplete plan submissions, the need for zoning amendments or prior zoning approvals and hearings related to special exceptions and conditional uses.) Expedited reviews have been employed by other communities where the project proposed meets a specified target, such as affordable housing goals. In Oregon it would be imperative that an expedited review process did not have the result of delaying other projects beyond a 120 limit established by state law (see below) Oregon Law Under Oregon State law there is established time limits for government review and approval or disapproval of development permits in which failure to act, after the application is deemed complete, by the local government within the designated time period (120 days), results in automatic approval. Typically applications are addressed on a first-come-first-served basis by municipalities. In Ðfast trackingÑ affordable projects a jurisdiction would have to ensure other applications did not inadvertently exceed the 120 day period to avoid automatic approval due to prioritizing affordable projects. Incentives Land Use Incentives Higher density allowance Examine providing a higher density allowance for development of apartments in exchange for commitment to retain as rentals for a set period (essentially a density bonus for workforce rental housing as opposed to condominium development). Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) Expansion The City may be in a position to examine the potential for UGB expansion to meet the housing demand in keeping with the State law requiring municipalities to maintain at least a 20 year land supply. The inclusion of a property into the UGB, and ultimately City limits adds considerable value to a property due to the increased densities that can be achieved. This incentive would enable the City to balance the value of such an inclusion through application of specific affordable/workforce provisions. To consider an UGB expansion for affordable/workforce housing it would be necessary to ensure the benefit exceeds the minimums established through the annexation standards as part of the consideration. Rezoning of lands within the Urban Growth Boundary Similar to the UGB expansion noted above, the rezone of property currently within the UGB that is anticipated to come into the City as single family, to a comprehensive plan designation of multi-family would increase the density allowable and as such provide a greater incentive to build multifamily housing. Coupled with the minimum density standards for multi-family zoned lands recently adopted by the City, such a rezone would ensure a greater number of units per available acre. Financial Incentives Tax exemption for affordable housing Requires adoption of implementing ordinance with 20 year exemption for deed restricted low income housing (ORS 307.515) Î units must be built by 1/1/2010 benefiting households at below 60 percent of median. The point of this exemption would be to encourage these project owners not to convert to market rents. Housing owned by non-profit organizations or the Housing Authority routinely recive an exemption through the County Assessors. However this enabling legislation allows the City to adopt an ordinance, with concurrence of the School District and potentially the County, wherein privately owned low-income housing units could be exempt from property taxes. Tax exemption for Multiple Unit Housing in Core Areas: ORS 307.600 to .637 A municipality within Oregon can use its taxation power to promote the development of multi-family housing within core areas (designated by the City) by providing tax exemptions for a ten year period. The State has passed enabling legislation to allow for this incentive provided construction is completed by 1/1/2012. Exemption covers the multiple-unit housing buildings only, not the land or any other buildings. The structure must have a minimum number of dwelling units as specified by the city pursuant to ORS 307.610. The city or county shall designate an area within which it proposes to allow exemptions provided for under the provisions of ORS 307.600 to 307.691. Core areas, light rail station areas or transit oriented areas may be designated by a city. A city may designate the entire city as the area in which the city proposes to allow exemptions under ORS 307.600 to 307.691 for housing subject to a low income housing assistance. Additionally the City could designate areas along transit that would be eligible for tax exemption provided they were apartments of a certain size as designated by the City. The point of this exemption would be to encourage these developers to create market rate rental apartments and not convert to Condominiums and thereby promote multifamily development. Waiver of development fees The City currently waives the development fees for units sold to households earning 80% AMI, or rented to households earning less that 60% AMI. This program is an ongoing incentive which contributes between $7,000 to $10,000 in direct assistance to each affordable dwelling built within the City. We are the only jurisdiction to provide this incentive in the region and as such it provides an enticement to affordable housing projects to develop within Ashland. Provide City owned property One way the City can facilitate the development of affordable workforce housing is through the supply of property to affordable housing providers. Providing for a mix of incomes targeted (30, 60, 80, 120% Area Median Income) the City can promote Ðworkforce housingÑ in addition to meeting affordable housing goals. This income mix also allows for some measure of recapture of subsidy provided to buy-down to affordable housing units. The City can use its resources to purchase vacant property as is typically done with annual CDBG allocations. The City can also dedicate the use of land, or airspace, currently owned by the City to promote the development of new affordable/workforce housing. An evaluation of City facilities and potential surplus property will be completed in the coming year and properties could also be examined to determine whether an intensification of use to accommodate affordable/workforce housing is feasible on given properties. The City should continue to work with existing non-profits and affordable housing developers (ACCESS, HAJC, ACLT, RVCDC, Habitat, OnTrack) to identify available property and develop mixed income or low income tax credit projects. The City has not been a ÐdeveloperÑ of housing and has relied on development partners to achieve our housing goals. Given the capacity of each local housing provider it is likely that to meet the Council Goal of 200 units no single organization could achieve this output, but rather the City should anticipate working with all of them during the coming years to maximize their individual output, and specifically to promote their development activities in Ashland. It is important to note that these housing developers would be applying to the state for the same limited subsidy amount and thus the capacities of each organization can not be viewed as additive. Regionally there are approximately 50 units developed by all affordable housing providers on an annual basis. Through incentives the City can entice affordable housing providers to focus their efforts within Ashland. Ashland is at a competitive disadvantage in this arena due to our high land costs relative to the rest of the valley. Therefore the financial incentives provided must exceed the difference in land costs at a minimum to be effective. Direct Financial Subsidy Land use requirements alone will not likely accomplish the goal of meeting AshlandÓs unmet housing needs, and the limited annual CDBG subsidy provided for affordable housing (~$160,000) is sufficient to create only 3-5 units. Thus an additional amount of subsidy will be necessary to comprehensively address out Housing needs. In order to examine potential funding streams and a mechanism for distributing such funds to support needed housing the Housing Commission has been working on the establishment of a Housing Trust Fund (HTF). This effort is a significant undertaking and was a tentative City Council Goal in 2006. To complete the development of a HTF the Housing Commission and Housing Program Specialist is aiming to complete the following over the next year: Establish award process and criteria for distribution of Trust Funds Establish administrative responsibility to oversee the operation of the Trust Fund Adopt ordinance establishing the Housing Trust Fund through public review process Determine ongoing (sustainable) funding sources to maintain the viability of the Trust Fund. Establish a sustainable funding stream to support the HTF