HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-28 Housing PACKET
Ashland Housing Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda:
February 28, 2008
5:30 Î 7:30
Community Development Building
51 Winburn Way
1. (5:30) Approval of Minutes
th
Jan 24, 2008 meeting
2. (5:35) Public Forum
items not on the agenda
3. (5:45) Reports and Updates
Subcommittee Reports Liaison reports
Education (no meeting) Council (Hardesty) (10 min)
Land Use (meeting 2-13-08) (5 min) Parks (Hauck)
Finance (TOT meeting) (5 min) Schools (none)
Staff- CDBG RFP update (5 min) Planning (Ayars/Benjamin) (5 min)
Facilities Plan (Voisin) (5 min)
Croman Plan (Lewis) (5 min)
Homeless Forum (Lewis/Ayars)(5 min)
4. (6:30) Items from Commissioners not on the agenda
5. (6:40) Annexation and Zone Change Ordinances
Re-orientation and next steps
6. (7:15) Upcoming Events and Meetings
Housing Commission Regular Meeting
5:30-7:30 PM; Thursday March 27, 2008
Community Development Building
Quorum Check Î Commissioners not available to attend the subsequent regular
meeting or their assigned subcommittee should declare their expected absence.
7. (7:30) Adjournment
Public Participation
Unless an Agenda Item already has been the subject of a public hearing which has been closed,
members of the public may speak upon any item on the Agenda. If such a hearing has been held
this fact will be noted on the printed agenda. The Public Forum period is provided for the public to
speak on items that are not on the printed Agenda for tonight's meeting. The time allowed each
speaker may be limited by the Housing Commission Chair or presiding officer.
If you wish the speak either during Public Forum, or to a specific Agenda item, please complete
the Speaker Request Form below, and hand the form to a staff person before the beginning of the
meeting if possible, or before the agenda item is discussed.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
January 24, 2008
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bill Smith called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. at the Community Development Building at 51 Winburn Way.,
Ashland, OR 97520.
Commissioners Present: SOU Liaison: Alexandra Armarotico, absent
Bill Smith
Richard Billin Council Liaison: Alice Hardesty
Regina Ayars
Steve Hauck
Staff Present::
Aaron Benjamin Brandon Goldman, Housing Specialist
Graham Lewis
Carol Voisin
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Bill Smith stated that he was present at the prior meeting and that the minutes should be modified to
show that. Voisin/Billin m/s to approve the minutes with correction to add Bill Smith as present for the December 20th, 2007
meeting. Voice Vote: Approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
No one came forth to speak.
REPORTS AND UPDATES
Subcommittee Report
Education Î No meeting/report.
Land Use Î No meeting/report.
Finance Î.To report under Housing Trust Fund Agenda Item.
Staff Update Ï CDBG Program Ï Goldman provided the Commission with an update of the CDBG program. He said the
th
City had issued a request for proposals on January 11 which is due on February 22, 2008. He explained that there has
been a Federal reduction in CDBG funds of 3.2% nationally and that Ashland saw a 3.7% decrease in available funding
from 2007 to 2008. The funds decreased from $212,738 to $204831. He noted that such a reduction was anticipated
and thus in issuing the 2008 RFP the amount advertised as available included a 5% reduction. As a result $345,000
was advertised and as the reduction was not as high as 5% the actual amount available is $347,864. Goldman said that
the RFP as issued allows the City to award more or less depending on available funds.
Hardesty questioned Goldman regarding the need to expend funds. Goldman explained a HUD timeliness standard that
requires that we have no more than 1.5 times our annual award as carryover. Therefore at the end of 2008 we can not
have more than approximately $300,000 or the excess it is subject to recapture by HUD. He further explained that the
City needs to make an award to expend the funds in this program year. Hardesty followed in asking what happens if
we donÓt receive applications. Goldman explained that if the City receives no applications, or if the applications
received are not awarded the funds, then the City would likely want to draft an Action Plan that provides the City the
ability to use the funds directly to acquire property. He explained that this was the case last year and the City could
have applied the funds if an opportunity arose, but in the coming year if that same thing came to pass, due to the need to
expend funds quickly, the City would likely want to more aggressively pursue a purchase and not simply wait for
opportunities.
Liaison Reports
Council Î Alice Hardesty mentioned that the City Council was looking at acquisition potential for property on Clay
Street. Goldman explained what had been previously reported in the Daily Tidings regarding this project. Hardesty
notified the Commission of upcoming meetings that may be of interest to them including the scheduled community
th
meeting on the Croman Mill site scheduled for 7:00 January 30 at the Bellview Grange. She mentioned the ongoing
City Facilities Master-planning process, of which she and Carol Voisin are members of the committee, and she noted
that Paula Brown is the project manager. It was suggested that future Housing Commission agendas include updates on
this process under liaison reports.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
1
MINUTES
January 24, 2008
Parks Î no report
Schools Î no report Î it was noted that with Bill StreetÓs resignation from the Commission there is no longer a
designated liaison to the Ashland School Board. No members of the Housing Commission expressed interest in filling
that vacant position.
Planning Î no report
HOUSING TRUST FUND
Goldman spoke regarding the development of the Housing Trust Fund platform as it is currently presented to the Housing
Commission. He explained that the Finance Sub-committee has examined a number of sections for inclusion in the
platform of the trust fund to be considered by the full Commission. These items included:
¤ Section 1 - Eligible Applicants
¤ Section 2 - Eligible Uses and Activities
¤ Section 3 Î Preferences
¤ Section 4 Î Fund Administration
¤ Section 5 Î Match Requirements
¤ Section 6 Î Allocation of Funds
Goldman noted that at prior meetings of the full Housing Commissions Sections 1, 2, and 3 have been discussed as shown and at
this time the finance subcommittee requests that the full Commission concentrate review the sections 4, 5, and 6 which have not
been previously been seen by the Commission. He further stated that as it is a draft the Commission can revisit any part of the
document including the sections previously reviewed.
Goldman began to go over the components of section 4, 5, and 6.
Goldman explained that at the subcommittee level there was some question regarding whether the amount of funds available
through a Notice of Funding Availability should be a fixed dollar number ($20,000) or a percentage of the annual amount of
revenue available. The Commission believed the NOFA should be limit to 10% as opposed to a fixed amount.
Goldman explained that early discussions by the Commission indicated that the HTF was not intended to be the sole source of
funds for projects, rather that the intent was for the HTF to leverage other funds in support of projects. He explained that the
50% limit was included to ensure that the HTF was not the majority interest in a project. Hauck explained that from his
experience 50% would be a substantial contribution as most grantors want to provide only 10-20% of the project funds. There
was concurrence that a 50% as a match limit was acceptable.
Concern was raised regarding how the City would verify land value in relation to meeting a match requirement. To address this
it was suggested that the value be determined Ðby a City Approved certified appraisalÑ in section 5.
Voisin recommended finding out how Bend administers its Housing Trust Fund. Goldman stated that he recalls Voisin had
previously requested such but he had not yet obtained that information.
Cate Hartzell was recognized to speak from the audience and she questioned whether the HTF as drafted directs funds to the
ÐgapsÑ identified in the City for various types of housing. Goldman responded that the selection criteria ÒDÓ is intended to
address this and he read the following: The project addresses the unmet housing needs as identified in the Ashland Housing Needs
analysis or Consolidated Plan. The lower the income level that is targeted, the higher the ranking the project shall be given.
The Commission discussed whether this criteria addressed the concern and there was concurrence that it would better address
the desire to provide needed housing types if it was split into two separate weighted criteria as follows:
D. The project addresses the unmet housing needs as identified in the Ashland Housing Needs analysis or Consolidated Plan (0-
15).
E. The lower the income level that is targeted, the higher the ranking the project shall be given (0-15)
Voisin recommended that the platform include wording that precluded the use of HTF to pay for City Staff. Billin suggested that
the final bullet point in section 2 under eligible uses could be modified to explicitly exempt the use of the HTF to pay for City
Staff.
Other uses as deemed appropriate by the Ashland City Council as supporting the development or
preservation of affordable housing within the City of Ashland with the exception of funding City Staff.\[italics
shows language discussed for inclusion\]
There was concurrence from Commissioners that housing trust funds should not be used to support staffing, and that limitation
should be noted clearly under the uses section.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
2
MINUTES
January 24, 2008
PRESENTATION TO COUNCIL Î Goldman stated that the presentation has been postponed and will be on February 19 at 7:00 pm.
Goldman went over the memo listing individual topics for discussion. The Commissioners were comfortable on the topics on
which they will each speak.
Smith questioned whether it would be appropriate to make an impassioned plea to people watching to become involved with the
Housing Commission and attend regular meetings. The Commission felt it was a good opportunity to do so.
It was suggested that the Commissioners each provide a personal testimonial as to what they do in their professional lives and
what brought them to serve on the Housing Commission. Commissioners agreed that such testimonials would be valuable in the
presentation provided they are brief and limited to just the main presenters.
Goldman suggested that the presentation could conclude by mentioning the Housing Commissioner Vacancy in the interest of
recruitment, as well as stating the time and place of the regular commission meetings..
ASSIGNMENT OF COMMISSIONERS TO SUBCOMMITTEES
Goldman explained that heÓd forwarded this item to Smith for inclusion on the Agenda as with Bill StreetÓs recent resignation
the Education subcommittee was now a committee of one, Aaron Benjamin. He also noted that heÓd spoken with Graham Lewis
regarding subcommittee assignments and that Lewis had expressed interest in serving on the land use subcommittee. Goldman
further explained that subcommittee membership has been relatively fixed for a while and this would be an opportunity to switch
subcommittees if commissioners wished to follow other interests. However, he did note that in the finance committee for
example the consistency was valuable.
Commissioners discussed their interest in remaining on their present subcommittees although Hardesty stated she would be
willing to serve on the education subcommittee. It was also stated by Smith that Streets replacement and Alexandra Amarotico
(SOU Liaison) would be available for appointments to subcommittees or liaison positions.
Current subcommittee membership was listed as follows:
Finance: Voisin, Billin, Hauck
Land Use: Ayars, Lewis, Smith, Hardesty
Education: Hardesty, Benjamin
Smith noted that the School Liaison position was also at issue.
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS
Graham Lewis noted that the League of Women Voters was sponsoring a meeting on Homelessness at the Ashland Public Library at
st
noon of February 21, 2008.
Croman Mill Site Redevelopment Plan Public Workshop 7:00 PM Î 9:00 PM; Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Bellview Grange; 1050 Tolman Creek Rd.
City Council Regular Meetings
th
7:00-10:00PM: Tuesday February 19, 2008 Î Housing Commission Presentation
th
7:00-10:00PM: Tuesday February 19, 2008 Î Clay Creek (Chitwood) Project RFQ review
Housing Commission Regular Meeting
5:30-7:30 PM; Thursday February 28, 2008
Community Development Building
Finance subcommittee Î 2/12/08 @ 5:30 -6:30
Education subcommittee Î 2/13/08 @ 5:00 -6:00
Land Use subcommittee Î 2/13/08 @ 4:00-5:00 (Subcommittee members made a one time change to this date and
time due to schedule conflicts)
Steve Hauck mentioned due to scheduled surgery he will not be in attendance at the February or March regular meetings of the
Housing Commission. Commissioners wished Hauck well.
Adjournment at 7:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Brandon Goldman, Housing Program Specialist
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
3
MINUTES
January 24, 2008
Housing Commission Memo
TO: Housing Commission
Title: Annexation and Zone Change ordinances review process
th
Date: February 28, 2008
Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Senior Planner
Over the course of the last two years the Housing Commission and Planning Commission have
examined AshlandÓs current annexation policies specifically as they relate to the development of
affordable workforce housing. As drafted the existing ordinance achieves the primary goal in this
regard and is seen as a model that other communities in the state have examined in their efforts to
address the increasing lack of housing affordability. However experience in application with any
ordinance functions to highlight areas that could be adjusted to better suit the intentions of the
community.
Since 2003 with a number of applications for annexation and zone changes processed, potential
revisions to the existing ordinances have been identified to ensure the provision of affordable housing is
both timely and equitable. These issues are as follows:
Construction Timing
Distribution of Affordable Housing
Construction Standards
Percentage of affordability
Cash-in-Lieu fees
Land Dedication
The City will complete the review process and determine what revisions, if any, should be implemented
to modify the Annexation and Zone Change ordinances to better reflect policy objectives for affordable
and workforce housing. The schedule provided below outlines a public review process that would be
undertaken to complete this activity.
Annexation Ordinance Review and Adoption Process
March April May June
Housing Commission and Planning first Ad Hoc
Measure 56
Commission Ad-hoc Committee Meeting Revise Draft Ordinance
notice
selected Legal Review
Notice DLCD
Housing
Draft Ordinance Language for (45 days prior Planning Commission Study
Commission
Review - send to ad hoc members to first Session
Review
and Legal Dept. evidentiary June 24, 2008
April 24, 2008
hearing)
July August September October
Planning
Commission City Council
City Council
Public Hearing First Reading
Final Draft Second Reading
Ordinance September 16,
October 7th, 2008
Recommendations 2008
August 12, 2008
Housing Commission Public City Council Study
Hearing Ordinance Session Notice DLCD
Recommendations, July 24, 2008 August 19, 2008
Commission Communication
Discussion Item Annexation/Zone Change Ordinance Amendments
Dept: Planning Department
Date: March 27, 2007
Submitted By: Brandon Goldman, Housing Program Specialist
Over the course of the last year the Housing Commission and Planning Commission have examined
AshlandÓs current annexation policies specifically as they relate to the development of affordable
workforce housing. As drafted the existing ordinance achieves the primary goal in this regard and is
seen as a model that other communities in the state have examined in their efforts to address the
increasing lack of housing affordability. However experience in application with any ordinance functions
to highlight areas that could be adjusted to better suit the intentions of the community.
Prior to 2003 the annexation ordinance required that 25% of the units be affordable but did not establish
a period of affordability and established that covered affordable housing units (25% of the base density)
were all targeted to households at the 120% Area Median Income level. In 2003 the ordinance was
further amended to provide a range of income levels that could be targeted with the affordable units
from 60%AMI to 120%AMI. This menu of options for satisfying the affordability provision provided an
incentive for a developer to provide units to lower income ranges as the number of units to be provided
was also a sliding scale based on income level:
60% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI 120% AMI
15% 20% 25% 35%
The 2003 revisions established a 60 year period of affordability in an effort to retain covered units as
affordable as long term affordable housing and address a failing that had allowed units that were
annexed under the prior code to be annexed as affordable and immediately convert to market rate
units. Additionally the 2003 revisions allowed for the dedication of a sufficient amount of land to be
transferred to a non-profit or community development corporation to be a means of satisfying the
annexation requirement relating to provision of affordable housing.
Since 2003 with a number of applications for annexation and zone changes processed, potential
revisions to the existing ordinances have been identified to ensure the provision of affordable housing is
both timely and equitable. These issues are as follows:
Construction Timing
Construction Standards
Distribution of Affordable Housing
Percentage of affordability
Cash-in-Lieu fees
Land Dedication
Construction Timing
Issue: Under the existing ordinance there is no established criteria that addresses how a project is to
be phased, specifically identifying at which point affordable housing units are constructed relative to the
market rate units within the development.
Remedy: Develop code language consistent with the intention to meter in affordable units with the
market rate units.
Example language:
For all residential annexations, a development schedule shall be provided that demonstrates that
that the Affordable Housing Units per 18.108.030(G)\[the section of code that established the
required percentage of units\] shall be made available for occupancy on approximately the same
schedule as the projects market rate units including:
a. That 50% of the affordable units shall have been issued building permits prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the last of the first 50% of the market rate
units.
b. Prior to issuance of a building permit for the final 10% of the market rate units, the
final 50% of the affordable units shall have been issued certificates of occupancy.
Exception:
Alternative proposals by the applicant not meeting the requirements of 18.06.030.G(X) \[the
section establishing the timing requirement above\] may be approved as exceptions by the
Planning Commission or City Council when the applicants proposal demonstrates:
That the alternative phasing proposal not meeting 18.106.030(G)5 provided by the applicant provides
adequate assurance that the affordable housing units will be provided in a timely fashion
Construction Standards
Issue: Staff believes that to ensure that units developed to meet AshlandÓs affordable housing program
meet a minimum standard of acceptable space that it is imperative to add language to the annexation
and zone change ordinance that clearly establishes minimum unit sizes.
Remedy: For a clear and objective standard, and consistency in state funding opportunities, it will be
recommended that the ordinance reference the limits established limits from the State of Oregon Home
Program in the table below:
Studio One Two Three Four
Unit Size
bedroom bedroom bedroom bedroom
Min. sq. ft. 350-375 600 800 1000 1250
Further the concern has been raised that the affordable units should be commensurate in type and
materials, to the market rate units provided but with recognition that final interior selection of materials
may not be directly comparable (e.g. Formica counters versus granite, carpet vs. hardwood floors etc).
Example language:
The affordable units shall be comparable in bedroom mix, and design and materials, as the
market rate units in the development. The minimum square footage of each affordable unit
shall comply standards applied by the Oregon State HOME program based on number of
bedrooms. 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
Distribution of Affordable Housing
Issue: The desire articulated by the Housing Commission and other community members has
consistently been to ÐscatterÑ affordable housing throughout the community and on individual projects to
reduce the potential for stigmatization of a Ðlow-income areaÑ and further to support income integration
as a community value. In large developments the ÐclusteringÑ of affordable housing can function to
create an economic/income division between the future households and as such distribution thought a
development of the affordable is preferable. Concern had been raised by non-profit housing providers
that mandating a method of scattered site development may impede funding sources, specifically state
funding sources. The State representative from the department of Housing and Community Services
has indicated that this is not the case and that scattered site proposals can be funded without
compromise. The Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation has indicated that the economy
of scale of ÐclusteredÑ development is beneficial to their application of the Self Help Program and as
such did not recommend language that required scattering of units.
Remedy: With these considerations in mind, articulating in the ordinance language that affordable
units shall be distributed throughout the development could be beneficial. However allowing an
exception to be approved by the planning commission would be prudent to allow senior assisted living,
special needs housing, or proposals such as RVCDCs to be approvable without meeting the standard
for distribution. However projects not meeting the test for an exception would be held to scattered
integration.
Example language:
That affordable housing units shall be distributed throughout the project, and that no more than
four affordable housing units be located adjacent to one another.
Exception:
Alternative proposals by the applicant not meeting the requirements of 18.06.030.G(X) \[the
section establishing the distribution requirement above\] may be approved as exceptions by
the Planning Commission or City Council when the applicants proposal demonstrates:
That the distribution of affordable units within the development not meeting 18.106.030(G)X is
necessary due to local, State, or Federal Affordable Housing financing limitations that require
a clustering of the affordable units, or;
That the distribution of affordable units within the development as proposed would accomplish
additional benefits for the city, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development
meeting the distribution requirement of 18.106.030(G)5
Percentage of affordability
Issue: As mentioned previously the existing ordinances do provide a menu of options to meet the
affordability standards, yet as crafted they can only be applied by selecting a target income range and
providing all required affordable units in that specific range. For instance, an application for annexation
could not propose to provide some units to very low-income households, some to low income
households and some to moderate or median income households in an effort to develop a mixed
income project and meet the ridged percent allocation standards in the current ordinance.
Remedy: A modification that allows affordable units to be provided at various income levels to meet the
standards for inclusion of affordable units within a project may be beneficial. In aiming to address this
desire for flexibility in targeting various incomes the idea of establishing an equivalency value to a unit
provided at a particular income range has been devised. This would allow an applicant to provide a mix
of housing targeted to households earning 60%, 80%, 100%, and 120% of the area median income.
Example Language:
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):
The total number of affordable units provided to qualifying buyers or renters shall be equal or
exceed 25% of the base density as calculated using the unit equivalency values set forth herein:
a) Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 120% the area
median income shall have an equivalency value of 0.75 unit
b) Ownership units restricted to households earning at or below 100% the area
median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.0 unit.
c) Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 80% the
area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.25 unit.
d) Ownership or rental units restricted to households earning at or below 80% the
area median income shall have an equivalency value of 1.5 unit.
Existing Ordinances Proposed Remedy
100 unit annexation or zone-100 unit annexation or zone-change with 25 ÐEquivalency unitsÑ
change with 15-35% of the required to be affordable.
units required to be
affordable depending on
120%AMI = 0.75 unit (ownership only)
income range targeted as
100% AMI unit or greater = 1 unit (ownership only
required under the current
61- 80% AMI unit = .1.25 units
ordinance.
60% AMI or less = 1.5 units.
120%AMI 35 33
100%AMI 25 25
80%AMI 20 20
60%AMI 15 17
Land Dedication
Issue: Currently AshlandÓs Annexation requirements do allow the potential to satisfy the affordability
requirements if a developer transfers land to a non-profit affordable Housing provider. The land needs
to have infrastructure in place for future development. This method of satisfying the affordability
requirement has merit as many for-profit developers have little experience in developing affordable
housing and as such providing the set aside land (consistent with any scattering requirements) is a
method they can choose to move forward with a development. However, if changes to the ordinance
discussed previously are incorporated that address distribution of affordable units, construction timing,
and construction standards, it would be necessary to modify the land dedication section accordingly.
There may be circumstances in which the Planning Commission and City Council would wish
to retain some measure flexibility to entertain an alternative offer of land that may ultimately
succeed in the provision of more affordable housing than would otherwise be expected on the
specific development site. For example an annexation of a 12 unit development may provide
3 units onsite, however if the applicant proposed to dedicate alternative property that could
accommodate 6 affordable units this option may be something to consider.
Remedy: Modify the land dedication section to address any newly applicable criteria and to allow the
City to evaluate alternative land dedication proposals at the CityÓs discretion.
Example Language
In lieu of providing affordable units per section 18.106.030(G)(1) the applicant may provide
Title to a sufficient amount of buildable land for development through transfer to a non-profit
(IRC 501(3)(c)) affordable housing developer or comparable Development Corporation for the
purpose of complying with subsection 18.106.030(G)(1)(b). The land shall be located within
the project meeting the standards set forth in 18.106.030(G)(\[construction standards section\]),
18.106.030(G)(\[construction timing section\]) and 18.106.030(G)6 (\[distribution section\]) 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 City, affordable housing developer, or
Development Corporation prior to commencement of the project and shall be deed restricted to
comply with AshlandÓs affordable housing program requirements.
Exception
Alternative proposals by the applicant not meeting the requirements of 18.06.030.G(2),
18.06.030.G(5), and/or 18.06.030G(6) may be approved as exceptions by the Planning
Commission or City Council when the applicants proposal demonstrates:
That the alternative land dedication as proposed would accomplish additional benefits for the
city, consistent with the purposes of this chapter, than would development meeting the
distribution requirement of 18.106.030(G)\[land dedication\].
Cash-in-Lieu fees
Issue: 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 another site or
support of housing programs.
Remedy: Should the City wish to examine in-lieu fees as a viable option in the future it seems
appropriate to incorporate language in a modified annexation or zone-change code at this time that
would maintain that option.
Example Language
A cash-in-lieu equivalent contribution as an alternative to the provision of affordable housing
through 18.106.030(G)(1) or the provision of land through 18.106.030(G)(\[land dedication
section\]) may satisfy affordable unit obligations by making contributions to the cityÓs
affordable housing fund if authorized by city ordinance or resolution*.
a) The city administrator is authorized to adjust the cash-in-lieu contribution on an annual
basis to reflect changes in the median sale price for detached and attached housing,
using information provided by Jackson County Assessor records for the City of
Ashland.
b) The city administrator shall establish an affordable housing fund for the receipt and
management of permanently affordable unit cash-in-lieu financial contributions.
Monies received into that fund shall be utilized solely for the construction, purchase,
maintenance of affordable housing or for the costs of affordable housing programs.
* No ordinance or resolution has been enacted for cash-in-lieu fees and the
methodology to establishment of actual contribution amounts has not been done. This
section of code would allow the City to develop such a program in the future, until then
the applicants could not exercise a Cash-in-lieu option.