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