HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-03-26 Housing PACKET
Ashland Housing Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
th
Thursday March 26, 2009: 4:30 – 6:30pm
Community Development Building - 51 Winburn Way
1. (4:30) Approval of Minutes (5 min)
th
February 26 2009, regular meeting Minutes
2. (4:35) Public Forum (5 min)
3. (4:40) CDBG Program Overview-2009 RFP (15 min)
4.(4:55)Sub-committee Reports (25 min)
Subcommittee Reports Liaison Reports
Finance 3-10-09 (???)
Council (Voisin)
Education (none) Parks Commission 3-23-09 (Hauck)
Land Use (none) School Board(Frost)
Planning Commission 3-10-09
(Benjamin)
SOU ( Amoratico)
5.(5:20)CDBG Applicants Presentation (40 min)
Habitat for Humanity Presentation-15 min (presentation and Q&A)
Housing Authority of Jackson County-15 min (presentation and Q&A)
Pathway Enterprises, Inc-10 min (Presentation and Q&A)
6.(6:00)CDBGAward Discussion and Recommendation (20 min)
Award Recommendation to the City Council (motion)
rd,
7.(6:20)April 23 2009 MeetingAgenda Items (5 min)
Homeless liaison discussion
CDBG stimulus funds update
Students rights/Fair housing
Commissioner items suggested(5 min)
Quorum Check – Commissioners not available to attend upcoming regular meetings
should declare their expected absence.
8.(6.25)Upcoming Events and Meetings (5 min)
th
April 7 2009 7PM Council Chambers-City Council Meeting-CDBG Awards
Next Housing Commission Regular Meeting
rd
4:30-6:30 PM; Thursday April 23, 2009 Community Development Building
9. (6:30) Adjournment
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the
Community Development office at 541-488-5305 (TTY phone is 1-800-735-2900). Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to the meeting(28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title 1).
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
February 26, 2009
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Bill Smith called the meeting to order at 4:30 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering Services
Building, 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520.
Commissioners Present: SOU Liaison: Alexandra Amarotico
Richard Billin
Council Liaison: Carol Voisin
Graham Lewis
Steve Hauck
Bill Smith Staff Present::
Aaron Benjamin Linda Reid, Housing Specialist
Commissioners Absent:
Carolyn Schwendener, Account Clerk
Nick Frost
Alice Hardesty
Regina Ayars
APPROVAL OF MINUTES AND AGENDA CHANGES
Voisin/Hauckm/s to approve the minutes of the January 22, 2009 Housing Commission meeting with the correction
of adding Carol Voisin, Council Liaison, who was present. Voice Vote: Approved
PUBLIC FORUM
Mike Faught, Ashland Public Works Director introduced himself. The City will be submitting a grant application to
fund a Transportation System Plan (TSP) update. The Public Works Department is preparing this application to
help pay a portion of the fees that will be incurred. Mr. Faught pointed out that the Housing Commission would
have a direct benefit from the TSP in terms of the multi-modal transportation aspect and how it relates to affordable
housing.Mr. Faught asked if the Commission Chair would be willing to sign a letter of support that talks about the
impact of affordable housing in the community, more specifically in the transit side of it. Mr. Faught briefly
discussed the TSP.
Hauck/Lewis m/s that they direct the Commission Chair to sign the letter in support of the Transportation System
Plan Grant application. Voice vote: approved.
CONSOLIDATED PLAN OVERVIEW AND DISCUSSION
Reid reviewed the timeline for the Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is due next year and prior to that
there must be two public hearings. Next in the timeline will be the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
th
applications which are due tomorrow Friday February 27. At next month’s meeting, March 26, 2009, applicants
for CDBG awards will make presentations. Reid is planning to review in detail the Consolidated Plan at the
Commissions April meeting when there would be more time available. Reid is anticipating a possible Housing
Commission Ad Hoc committee with the role of research and information gathering, putting together survey
questions, taking data and putting it all together. The Consolidated Plan must be done 45 days before the end of
the grant year, same cycle as the CDBG. Two public hearings must be held, one to get public input and the second
hearing is to adopt the final draft and take public comments.
The Consolidated Plan is important because it gives a new snapshot of our community to see if the greatest priority
need is still the creation of affordable housing units. It may now be that the City needs more home owner housing
developments, rental housing units or social services stated Reid. It’s important to get that picture so we can set
our priorities for the next five years. Then, when CDBG applications come in and when they are reviewed they can
be evaluated based upon the priority goals addressed.
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
1
MINUTES
February 26, 2009
SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS
Sub-committee Reports
Finance – No report
Education – No report
th
Land Use –The minutes from the February 11meetingwere included in the Housing Commission packet.
Smith commented that the committee had a good discussion onCo-housing.
Liaison Reports
rdth
Council – Voisin reported at the February 3 and 17 meeting the Council dealt with the cougar episode.
Voisin said that the State law trumps everything and the City had no choice but to kill the cougar on site or
tranquilize it to remove it and then kill it. The Mayor is going to ask for a citizens group to work on wildlife
issues to figure out a policy for Ashland, though again the State law will trump all City policies. Council
talked about the budget, the Croman site and the Transient Occupancy Tax. There will be a discussion
between the Parks and the City regarding the money that comes from property taxes. The Council will be
having a retreat in March for the purpose of goal setting. The Gun Club is holding off on signing a lease
while an environmental assessment is being done.
City employee, Adam Hanks has been given the position of Economic Development Project
Manager/Strategic Planner.
Parks Commission – Parks has decided to move forwardwith purchasing the land on Clay street
School Board – Noreport
th
Planning Commission – Benjamin said the meeting on the 10 was quite robust. There were quite a
number of people present who were absolutely against the Clay Street project for a variety of reasons.
Apparently they didn’t know that the council had already approved the project conceptually and this was the
required Planning Commission hearing with the final plan, stated Benjamin.
SOU – Amarotico reported that Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group (OSPIRG) has put out new
revised renters handbooks which are guides for students specifically that state “Know your rights.”
Seven students are currently in Salem lobbying for higher education and the Governors recommended
budget. SOU is opposed to becoming part of the University of Oregon and the students are protesting
against that.
The Vice Present of Students Affairs, John Eldridge has recently put out a new student reorganization plan.
The goal is to have students and faculty work together to come up with the best solution for everybody. An
issue on the State wide level is the Safe Schools program. The purpose is to develop programs to help
stop bullyingin Kindergarten through Twelfth grade Helping people at a young age be happy in school
hopefully will create an atmosphere where they will want to continue with their education.
CITY LAND USE INVENTIVES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING DISCUSSION
Reid discussed and answered questions regarding the list of planning and financial incentives. It was decided that
this project would be handled by the Education Sub-Committee. Voisin proposed a Carbon incentive for green
building. Also discussed was System Development Charge incentives for green building.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND UPDATE AND DISCUSSION
th
The Committee did not meet last month. The next meeting will be Tuesday March 10 at 4:00 p.m. at the
Community Development Building.
HOMELESS LIAISON DISCUSSION
The discussion was postponed until the next meeting when hopefully Nick Frost will be present. Graham would like
to have this discussion before they begin to work on the comprehensive plan since many items in that plan deal
with the homeless. It was suggested that careful consideration be taken with the election process of a homeless
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
2
MINUTES
February 26, 2009
liaison. It could possibly be someone who has the knowledge and understanding of the needs the homeless
population may have with regard to housing rather then actually being a homeless person.
Voisin encouraged the Commissioners to check out the Ashland Community Health Center. They are in need in
funding and provide direct services for low-income people. Reid said they could certainly apply for funding from the
City. They would be eligible for Public Service Grant funds.
UPCOMING EVENTS AND MEETINGS
Next Housing Commission Regular Meeting – Thursday, March 26th, 2009 between 4:30–6:30p.m., Community
Development Building
th
Retreat set for March 28between 1:00-4:00 for goal setting at the Community Development Building.
ADJOURNMENT – The meeting was adjourned at 5:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by, Carolyn Schwendener
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
3
MINUTES
February 26, 2009
Staff Evaluation
TO: Ashland Housing Commission and City Council
Title:Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2009 RFP
Date: March 26, 2009
Submitted By: Linda Reid, Housing Program Specialist
The City of Ashland has received three applications for 2009 Community Development Block Grant
funds that are competitively available. The total City of Ashland allocation of CDBG funds for the 2009
program year is expected to be $204,818. The funds that have been offered competitively are estimated
from the previous year’s allocation and have had the administrative portion of 20% removed (or $40,963
for administration of the CDBG program). Of the available 2009 funds a set aside of 15% or
approximately $30,000 is available for Public Service projects. An unallocated balance of $1,512 in
carryover funds may be added to the Capital Improvement project funds. In total there is $165,367
available for award.
The City of Ashland Housing Commission is to hold a public hearing and review the grant requests on
March 26, 2009. The Housing Commission shall make a recommendation on a grant award to the City
th
Council. Subsequently, the City Council will hold a public hearing on April 7, 2009 to make a final
decision on the grant award.
Staff’s recommendation regarding the allocation of the 2009 CDBG funds is provided on the following
pages.
Proposals Received
Organization Proposed Project CDBG Goal Consolidated
FundsPlan Goal #
Requestedand Rank*
Habitat For Acquisition of .39 Acre site $164,000Provide 6 Goal 2.1
Humanity/Rogue to build 6 homeownership homeownership Need Rank B
Valleyunits for low income units for low-
homeowners income
homeowners
Housing Authority Infrastructure to Benefit a 60 $164,000Support the Goal 1.2
of Jackson County unit low income development of 60 Need Rank A
development affordable rental
units
PathwayHire 3 new staff members to $30,000Provide supportive Goal 6.2
Enterprisessupport independent living living services to 5 Need Rank B
for developmentally disabled special needs
populationadults
Funding Requested/Available
A total of $165,367 in CDBG funds is expected to be available to distribute to eligible recipients for
projects meeting the CDBG national objectives, and which are consistent with the City of Ashland 2005-
2009 Consolidated Plan. The maximum allocation allowable to be used to support public services is
limited to approximately $30,000.
These funds will be available upon approval of the 2009 Action Plan, and upon the completion of any
regulatory requirements including but not limited to environmental review clearance.
Upon completion of the Action Plan amendment a public hearing for review and approval will be held
before the Housing Commission to insure consistency with the awards designated by the City Council.
The US department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) must review the annual Action Plan
submitted by the City to ensure the activities funded are consistent with federal requirements, and with
the local Consolidated Plan.
Assessment Criterion
Staff has assessed all proposals to determine whether they meet the Federal CDBG regulations and the
proposals address the priorities within the City of Ashland 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan.
Three areas are evaluated for each proposal regarding compliance with federal regulations.
Projects must meet the National Objective of the Community Development Block Grant
Program.
All CDBG funded projects must be an “eligible” uses under the Community Development Block
Grant Program.
If a project meets all federal requirements and is selected for award, then federal regulations
must be met throughout the course of the project.
Some examples of federal regulations which pertain to Community Development Block Grant funded
projects are; All projects funded in whole or in part, with CDBG dollars require an environmental
review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Construction projects must
use federal Davis-Bacon wage rates. Housing involving structures built prior to 1978 must be tested for
the presence of Lead Based Paint and if found steps to mitigate Lead Based Paint must be taken. Any
project involving the displacement of residents or businesses as a result of the federally funded project
are entitled to assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act. Most importantly the beneficiaries from the
application of CDBG funds must qualify as eligible populations under the Federal requirements. Areas
of concern are described for each proposal received. The Housing Commission, and the City Council
can only award CDBG funds to projects that can meet all federal requirements and meets an objective as
outlined in the City’s 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan.
Priorities within the City of Ashland’s 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan are given a priority ranking by
letter. The rankings of A, B and C are intended to assist in directing CDBG funds to the greatest needs.
In cases where there are competing projects for limited funds, the projects(s) that are ranked the highest
will be funded.
A-The City of Ashland plans to use the CDBG funds for projects that meet these needs.
B-The City of Ashland may use CDBG for projects that meet these needs.
C-The City of Ashland does not plan to use CDBG funds for projects meeting these needs but will
consider certifications of consistency for other entities which are applying for federal assistance to meet
these needs. Additionally such needs may also be addressed by the City through the allocation of
Economic Development and or Social Service Grants from the City General Fund.
Proposal Evaluations
Habitat for Humanity/Rogue Valley (HfHRV)
Staff has reviewed the Habitat for Humanity proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG
regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland 2005-2009
Consolidated plan. HfHRV has requested $164,000 to acquire property for the development of 6
affordable homeownership units.
This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national
objective.
Acquisition of Land to benefit low-income populations is an eligible use of CDBG funds
Staff finds that the Habitat for Humanity’s proposal is consistent with goal number 2.1 of the
City of Ashland’s 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan.
Goal 2: To increase the homeownership opportunities for extremely low-, low- and
moderate-income households. Where possible, give funding priority to those
projects that will provide benefits to residents with the lowest incomes. 2.1:
Encourage the acquisition and construction of affordable housing by private
developers (B)
In evaluating the proposal it is evident that the classification of “B” as a priority indicates that though
this is not the highest priority use for the CDBG funds it is an activity which could be funded provided
that there are not other projects which meet a higher priority need competing for the funds available.
B-The City of Ashland may use CDBG for projects that meet these needs.
Staff sees that Habitat for Humanity’s proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds and is consistent
with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity supports
the acquisition and development of affordable housing for low income households earning between 30%
and 60% of Area Median Income. Further this project meets and exceeds the 10% leverage requirement
of the City of Ashland’s CDBG program offering a 5 to 1 match ($829,000/164,000, CDBG funds will
contribute just fewer than 20% of the proposed project’s funds) which will serve to promote economic
development within the City of Ashland. This project as proposed will serve to meet the requirements
of an annexation completed in 2004. This property know as Old Bud’s dairy received planning approval
for annexation and a density bonus conditioned upon providing 6 units affordable housing. The
annexation ordinance specified that a portion of the development (15%) be affordable and available to
qualifying buyers or renters making at or below 80% of AMI for a period of 20 years. This project will
offer a period of affordability of 30 years which is 10 years longer than the annexation ordinance
required for the original affordable housing development at that time. The current annexation ordinance
which was revised in 2007 requires a 60 year period of affordability. Though the initial homeowner will
be qualified at 30%-60% AMI, which is a lower income than was required under the original Planning
approval, subsequently the property can be resold at any time during that 30 year period to a qualified
low to moderate income household (80% or below) which still meets the requirements imposed by the
original approval but does not offer added benefit to the city beyond that of the original approval with
regard to level of affordability.
Housing Authority of Jackson County (HAJC)
Staff has reviewed the Housing Authority of Jackson County’s proposal to determine whether it meets
the Federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland
2005-2009 Consolidated plan. HAJC has requested $164,000 for public facilities improvements (roads)
to benefit a 60 unit low income housing development.
This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national
objective.
Public Facilities Improvement and Infrastructure are an eligible use of CDBG funds.
Staff finds that the Housing Authority of Jackson County’s proposal is consistent with goal
number 1.2 of the City of Ashland’s 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan.
Goal 1: To increase the supply of affordable rental housing for extremely low-, low
and moderate income families. Where possible, give funding priority to those
projects that will provide benefits to residents with the lowest incomes. 1.2 to
support the acquisition and construction of affordable rental housing units through
a sustainable program, which retains the units as affordable in perpetuity, such as a
land trust (A).
In evaluating the proposal it is evident that the classification of “A” as a priority indicates that this is the
highest priority use for the CDBG funds.
A-The City of Ashland plans to use CDBG funds for projects that meet these needs.
Staff sees that the Housing Authority of Jackson County’s proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds
and is consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This
activity supports the acquisition and development of affordable rental housing for low income
households earning between 30% and 60% of Area Median Income. This project was awarded $345,000
in CDBG funds in the 2008 program year, and at that time notified the City of Ashland that the
applicants intended to apply for the 2009 CDBG funds as well.This project leverages a substantial
amount of federal, state and Housing Authority funds ($11,314,000/$509,000 which is a 22 to 1 match)
as match which also serves to promote economic development within the City of Ashland. Similarly the
Housing Authority offers programs to promote the self-sufficiency of residents, examples of services
that may be provided are computer classes, budgeting classes, and second language classes, due to this
development’s proximity to the Ashland Family YMCA the project will offer memberships to the
children living in the project and discounted memberships to adults. Staff feels that these types of
support services serve to benefit the residents both socially and economically while also promoting long
term self-sufficiency and goal attainment. The applicant also ascertains that the project will “meet or
exceed” earth advantage standards, this will be the first multi-family rental project built in the City of
Ashland to receive an Earth Advantage rating. This project also allows the City of Ashland to meet
Policy 6.1.1.4(b) of the City of Ashland Comprehensive Plan, to cooperate with the Housing Authority
of Jackson County to provide affordable housing within the City.
Pathway Enterprise, Inc. (PEI)
Staff has reviewed Pathway Enterprise, Inc’s proposal to determine whether it meets the Federal CDBG
regulations, and if the proposal addresses the priorities within the City of Ashland 2005-2009
Consolidated plan. PEI has requested $30,000 for social service activities
This project proposal qualifies under the Low-Moderate Income (LMI) benefit national
objective.
Public Service positions that provide direct services to special populations to promote self-
sufficiency are eligible use of CDBG funds.
Staff finds that Pathway Enterprise, Inc’s proposal is consistent with goal number 6.2 of the City
of Ashland’s 2005-2009 Consolidated Plan.
Goal 6: To support housing and supportive services for people with special needs.
People with special needs include the elderly, the frail elderly, persons with
developmental disabilities, persons with physical disabilities, persons with severe
mental illness, persons with alcohol or other drug dependencies and persons with
HIV/AIDS or related illnesses. 6.2 Provide assistance to non-profit organizations
that provide support services for extremely low and low income special needs
populations (B).
In evaluating the proposal it is evident that the classification of “B” as a priority indicates that though
this is not the highest priority use for the CDBG funds it is an activity which is could be funded provided
that there are not other projects which meet a higher priority need competing for the funds available.
B-The City of Ashland may use CDBG for projects that meet these needs.
Staff sees that the Pathway Enterprise, Inc’s proposal is an eligible use of the CDBG funds and is
consistent with the City of Ashland Strategies as outlined in the 5 year Consolidated Plan. This activity
provides supportive living skills and promotes the self-sufficiency of special populations. PEI has
experience administering funds from the Ashland CDBG program. In 2002 PEI was awarded $7,605 in
CDBG funds to re-roof one of their group homes located at 655 Normal Ave. The proposed service
exceeds the 10% match requirement, leveraging $108,327/30,000 or $3.61 in Jackson County DD54
funds and PEI organizational funds for every dollar of CDBG funds the city provides. One question that
staff feels should be addressed before a recommendation of award for this project be made, is the
question of service within the City of Ashland. Program funds must primarily serve clients who reside
within the City of Ashland. Thought PEI cannot guarantee that 3 out of the 5 clients identified who are
wanting to transition from a group home to independent living will choose to live in Ashland, program
funds would have to taken back and reprogrammed if 51% (at least 3 of the 5) of those clients served did
not reside in Ashland.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Due to a limited amount of CDBG funds staff recommends that The Housing Authority of Jackson
County’s proposal be funded. Staff’s recommendation would be to fund the HAJC proposal since it
meets the highest priority need ranking as outlined in the Five year Consolidated plan and ranks highest
under the CDBG Project Proposal Rating Criteria (attached). Staff is supportive of funding HAJC with
either the full grant amount of $165,367 or $135,367 should PEI receive a public service award. Staff
would also recommend that HAJC provide full street improvements rather than half street improvements
on the interior (south side) street to improve the safety of its residents and to facilitate pedestrian traffic.
Staff recognizes that full street improvements to this section of the interior streets is not provided for in
Housing Authority’s project budget, however, given the cumulative CDBG contributions requested staff
believes a greater measure of public improvements may be warranted.
Staff sees the value that Habitat for Humanity’s project would provide to the community. Although
low-income homeownership is a priority as outlined in the Five year Consolidated plan, this application
does not differ substantially from the approval requirements currently in place for this property.
Habitat’s project ranked lower than the Housing Authority’s project on the CDBG Project Proposal
Rating Criteria. Staff also sees that the period of affordability of 30 years is not in keeping with the long
term affordability goal stated in the Five year Consolidated plan and reflected in the current Annexation
Ordinance, which would have given the project a higher ranking under the CDBG project proposal
rating criteria. If Habitat did provide a term of affordability that was aligned with the current annexation
ordinance (60 years) their application would have received a higher ranking and may have been more
competitive.
The proposed PEI project to provide life skills training and support for clients with developmental
disabilities would be eligible under the current City of Ashland Social Service Grant program and
therefore could be awarded up to $30,000 pending a guarantee of 51% client benefit in the Ashland area,
thereby reducing the Capital Improvement award amount accordingly. Staff is supportive of the project
although has concerns regarding the area residency requirement as stated previously. Provided PEI can
guarantee 3 of the 5 beneficiaries are ultimately Ashland Residents staff would be supportive of an
award of $30,000 to PEI.
Potential Housing Commission Motion: To recommend funding the Housing Authority of Jackson
County $164,000 to fund Public Facilities improvements, Public right of way improvements on Clay
streets and on interior streets. Public facilities including; curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, sewer
line, street lighting, fire hydrants and other eligible improvements.
Potential Housing Commission Motion: To recommend funding the Housing Authority of Jackson
County $ 134,000 to fund Public Facilities improvements, Public right of way improvements on Clay
streets and on interior streets. Public facilities including; curb, gutter, sidewalk, storm drainage, sewer
line, street lighting, fire hydrants and other eligible improvements. And to also recommend funding
Pathway Enterprises, Inc $30,000 in public service funds to provide life skills training and support for
clients with developmental disabilities.
CDBG Project Proposal Rating Criteria
The final step in the process of evaluating the proposals typically is for the Housing Commission to
apply the following compliance criteria to determine which project(s) best meet the City's spending
priorities. Projects are given a rating of High, Medium, or Low on each of the criteria listed below. The
categories proposed provide a valuable way for individual Commissioners to gauge the effectiveness of
the proposal in meeting City objectives.
A.The Project provides benefit to a demographic group that has a need documented in the City of
Ashland CDBG Consolidated Plan
B.The project assists low and moderate-income households in substantially improving their living
conditions. The proposed project must have or be part of a comprehensive approach that takes clients
from the beginning to the end of the process that improves their living conditions. “Safety net”
services or services that meet basic needs shall only be funded if it can be demonstrated that clients
receiving those benefits are part of a program that will eventually help them obtain self sufficiency.
Exceptions to this requirement are projects targeted at helping people with special needs.
C.The project is a proven effective strategy to improve conditions or solve an identified problem.
D.If the project is related to affordable housing, the project retains the units as affordable. The longer
the period of time the units remain affordable, the higher ranking the project shall be given
E.If the project is related to economic development for jobs for low and moderate-income people, at
least 51% of the jobs shall be held by low and moderate income people. The longer period of time
the jobs are held by low and moderate-income persons, the higher the ranking the project shall be
given. The larger percentage of jobs held by low and moderate-income persons the higher the
ranking the project shall be given.
F.The project maximizes partnerships in the community
G.The project has at least 10% of the total project in matching funds. The larger the amount of
matching funds the higher the ranking the project shall be given
H.The project utilizes already existing resources in effective and innovative ways. The project shall
not duplicate service provided by another organization
I.The agency submitting the proposal has the capacity to carry out the project
J.The budget and time line are well thought out and realistic
K.The proposal demonstrates CDBG funds are the most appropriate funding source for the project
L.The project is ready for implementation within a year of a CDBG award notification
M.The organization proposing the project has the experience and capacity to undertake the proposed
activity.
Letter HfHRV HAJC PEI
A. High High High
B. Medium High High
C. Medium Medium High
D. Low High Low
E. Low Low Low
F. Medium Medium Medium
G. Medium High Medium
H. Medium Medium Medium
I. High High High
J. High High High
K. High High Medium
L. High High High
M. High High High
6-High,5-Med,2-Low 9-High,3-Med,1-Low 7-High, 4-Med, 2-Low
Potential questions: Staffs evaluation of the proposals is primarily based on the information provided in
the applications. In drafting this evaluation, staff thought of a number of questions which might provide
clarity in addressing some of the proposal rating criteria points, or which may serve to cast the
application in a more favorable light.
PEI:
How would you guarantee that the majority of the clients that will be served with the grant funds will
reside in Ashland?
Habitat:
Could you offer a longer period of affordability?
How does this project help clients move toward and eventually obtain self-sufficiency?
Will your project be incorporating any “green” building practices, such as Earth Advantage, could you
describe some, if any environmentally friendly components of the proposed development?
Housing Authority:
Could you complete full street improvements on the south side interior street?
All Applicants:
Could you describe how your project maximizes partnerships in the community?
Could you expound upon how your project utilizes already existing resources in effective and innovative
ways, and describe how the service that you offer is unique to this area?
Housing in the NEWS
Ashland Housing Commission Packet