Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-0917 Council Mtg PACKETCouncil Meeting Pkt. C I 'i' ¥ 0 F BARBARA CHRISTENSEN CITY RECORDER "m.s H LAN D AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL September 17, 2002, 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street I. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ,,. III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of September 3, 2002. IV. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: 1. Mayor's Proclamation of "Race Equality Week." 2. Announcement in Memory of Ken Hagen. V. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Liquor License Application from Christopher Ashenbrener dba Plaza Inn & Suites at Ashland Creek, 98 Central .Avenue. 3. Liquor License Application from Thomas Kohler dba Tom's Golf Shop, Inc., at 3060 Highway 66. 4. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Brian Almquist as Interim City Administrator. 5. Consider Granting the State of Oregon a Permanent Slope Easement. VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS: (Testimony limited to 5 minutes per speaker, unless it is the subject ora Land Use Appeal. All hearings must conclude by 9:30 p.m. or be continued to a subsequent meeting) 1. Public Hearing on Grant Award for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Affordable Housing Project Proposal. VII. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience not included on the agenda. (Total time allowed for Public Forum is 15 minutes. Speakers are limited to 5 minutes or less, depending on the number of individuals wishing to speak.) COUNCIl., MEETINGS ARE BROADCAS'I' I...IVE ON CHANNEl., 9 VISIT 'l'[ll,~ ('?ITY OF ASHI,AND'S WEB SITI~ AT WWW.ASIfI.ANI).OR.tJS VIII. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Consideration of an Ordinance to Add Chapter 2.17, Public Arts Commission, to the Ashland Municipal Code. 2. Potential consolidation of the Ashland Police Department 911/Dispatch Center. 3. Update on City-owned property. IX. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: X. ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: (None) Xl. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS: Xll. ADJOURNMENT: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Administrator's office at (541) 488-6002 (TTY phone number 1-800-735-2900). Notification 72 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 I). (X)lJ NC I1.. M El i;'l'l N( Ti SAR E B R( )A D ('AS "1" H VE ON C! t ANNE 1 ..9 F~ VlSl'l' '1'1 IE CITY OF AStiI.ANI)'S WI';B SITE AI WWW.ASHLAND.OR.[J.S Office of the Mayor Alan DeBoer MEMORANDUM DATE: September 12, 2002 TO: City Council Members F,ROM: Mayor Alan DeBoer ~ RE: Announcement in Memory of Ken Hagen Almost four years ago, on September 21, 1998, Ashland City Councilor Ken Hagen passed away. For those of us who knew Ken, it was a time to reflect on his vision for Ashland, and to ensure his vision would continue to live on. Ken was a remarkable person. In spite of his disabilities with multiple sclerosis and being confined to a wheelchair, Ken worked tirelessly to promote a healthy environment for all of us. It was his dream to sec every Ashland street bike and pedestrian friendly, and encouraged alternative forms of transportation for everyone. Aside from his alternative transportation mission, Ken was a founding member of PACT (People Acting together can Change Tomorrow), a county-wide organization that promotes recycling. He was involved in numerous recycling projects throughout the county. When you visit the Recycling Center on Water Street in Ashland, you will see a plaque that has been dedicated to Ken for his unwavering commitment to recycling and conservation efforts. I would like us all to remember Ken and his intense dedication to our community. Let's take a leaf out of his book and try and recycle more and conserve our resources, and use alternative forms of transportation when we can. The bus is free in Ashland! And lastly, on behalf of our citizens, I am proud to dedicate a plaque in Ken's name for the stretch of bike path by the Railroad Park, made possible by donations in memory of Ken Hagen and his quest for bike paths in Ashland. This bronze plaque will be mounted in concrete, along by the bike path at the Railroad Park, so we may always remember Ken and never forget his dedication and commitment to the City of Ashland. The plaque will read: DEDICATED TO KEN HAGEN, ASHLAND CITY COUNCILOR, 1995- 1998, AND HIS EXTRAORDINARY VISION AND COMMITMENT FOR BIKEPA THS IN ASHLAND City of Ashland · 20 East Main Street ° Ashland, OR 97520 · (541) 488-6002 · Fax: (541) 488-5311 · Email: awdb@aol.com ~ - CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Liquor Licence Applications from: Christopher Ashenbrener dba Plaza Inn & Suites at Ashland Creek, 98 Central A venue Dept: City Recorder/Treasurer Date: IJt'I /9/17/02 Submitted By: frY" Barbara Christensen Approved By: Greg Scoles Synopsis: Application process of Oregon Liquor License as provided by OLCC. Recommendation: Endorse the application with the following recommendation: The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC now proceed in the matter. Background Information: Application is for liquor license for a new establishment at 98 Central Avenue. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Ch. 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Ch. 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license applications. T "" ,. ~ CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Liquor Licence Application from: Thomas Kohler dba Tom's Golf Shop Inc. at 3070 Hwy 66 City Recorder/Treasurer J",. ~17 /02 r~arbara Christensen Greg scole~ Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Synopsis: Application process of Oregon Liquor License as provided by OLCC. Recommendation: Endorse the application with the following recommendation: The city has determined that the location of this business complies with the city's land use requirements and that the applicant has a business license and has registered as a restaurant, if applicable. The city council recommends that the OLCC now proceed in the matter. Background Information: Application is for liquor license for a change in ownership at 3070 Hwy 66. The City has determined that the license application review by the city is set forth in AMC Ch. 6.32 which requires that a determination be made to determine if the applicant complies with the city's land use, business license and restaurant registration requirements (AMC Ch. 6.32). In May 1999, the council decided it would make the above recommendation on all liquor license applications. T T rr ... - Office of the Mayor Alan W DeBoer MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Mayor Alan DeBoer (j) September 12, 2002 DATE: RE: Confirmation of Appointment of Brian Almquist as Interim City Administrator Greg Scoles' last day of work will be Friday, October 11. It is therefore appropriate to appoint an interim City Administrator and former City Administrator Brian Almquist has been selected for this position. The appointment is effective October 14 and will remain in effect until our new administrator is on board which should be in late February or early March of 2003. I am appointing Brian Almquist as Interim City Administrator, and request your confirmation of this appointment. City of Ashland . 20 East Main Street. Ashland. OR 97520 . (541) 488-6002 . Fax: (541) 488-5311 . Email: awdb@aol.com T I'i CITY Of ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Consider Granting the State of Oregon a Permanent Slope Easement Public Works Department September 16, 2002 Paula Brown~ Paul Nolte ~ _ Greg Scoles~ Dept: Date: Submitted By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Synopsis: On June 5, 2001, the City granted approximately 17,200 SF of the City owned "Impreatrice Property" as a permanent slope easement to the State. The State of Oregon, Department of Transportation, offered the City $750.00 for assignment of a permanent Slope Easement on a portion of the City owned land so that the State could widen and pave a deceleration lane from 1-5 to the Port of Entry below the City owned "Impreatrice Property" . The State is requesting additional permanent slope easement space to construct and maintain a drainage swale along the easement area so that the irrigation and all other natural drainage will not run off onto the highway. The State is offering the City $3,200.00 for assignment of a permanent Slope Easement on a portion of City owned land. Approximately 43,777 SF of additional area along the same line of the initial easement will be provided as a permanent slope easement to the State. The City owns the "Imperatrice Property" originally purchased for the effluent reuse program. The property is dedicated as EFU land and is currently leased for cattle grazing. Recommendation: It is recommend that Council accept the State's proposal of $3,200.00, in exchange for granting a permanent slope easement above the Port of Entry and authorize the Mayor and City Recorder's signature on the attached agreement. Fiscal Impact: The City will be given $3,200 for this easement. The impacts to the land and to the grazing property are negligible and should not impact future property values or grazing use. Background: The City purchased the 840 acre "Imperatrice Property" for effiuent and biosolids reuse purposes. The property is within the County, not within City Limits nor is it within the City's Urban Growth Boundary. The property is currently being leased to a farmer for cattle grazing. For safety reasons, the State intends to construct a deceleration ramp leading off 1-5 to the Port of Entry. The topography requires that the land surrounding the proposed deceleration lane be cut back into the hillside to provide the necessary space - hence a slope easement on the City's property is necessary. In total, the State needs a strip of land that is roughly 215 feet wide by 203 feet deep encompassing 43,777 SF or just over an acre of land (1.0 acres = 43,560 sf), the description of which is attached and minimally impacts two of the City's "Imperatrice Property" parcels. The State has used similar comparative prices for pasture land, and the valuation is fair. The State will provide new fencing along the easement and will seed the cut bank to prevent erosion. CC State More Perm Slope Easement Sep02.doc r., ,. '" ODOT File 6913-002 10B-15-14 PERMANENT EASEMENT CITY OF ASHLAND, a municipal corporation of the State of Oregon, Grantor, for the true and actual consideration of $ 3.200.00 does grant to the STATE OF OREGON, by and through its DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Grantee, its successors and assigns, a permanent easement to construct and maintain slopes, and to construct and maintain drainage facilities upon, over, under and across the following described property: A parcel of land lying in Tracts 11, 12 and 18, ASHLAND ACRES, Jackson County, Oregon and being a portion of that property described in that deed to the City of Ashland, recorded as Document No. 96-11715 of the Official Records of Jackson County; the said parcel being that portion of said property lying between lines at right angles to the center line of the relocated Pacific Highway at Engineer's Stations 41+819 and 42+180 and included in a strip of land variable in width, lying on the Northeasterly side of said center line which center line is described as follows: Beginning at Engineer's center line Station 41+800, said station being 976.991 meters South and 1 625.521 meters East of the Southwest corner of the William C. Myer OLC. No. 45, Township 38 South, Range 1 East, W.M.; thence South 620 20' 59" East 600 meters to Engineer's center line Station 42+400. The widths in meters of the strip of land above referred to are as follows: Station to Station Width on Northeasterly Side of Center Line 41 +819.000 41 +922.000 42+137.000 41 +922.000 42+137.000 42+180.000 57.287 in a straight line to 62 62 62 in a straight line to 57.497 Bearings are based upon the Oregon Coordinate System of 1983, south zone. The parcel of land to which this description applies contains 4 067 square meters more or less. RETURN TO AND TAX STATEMENT TO Account No.: T38, R1 E, Sec. 32, TL 200, T38, R1 E, Sec. 33, TL 200 OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY SECTION 355 CAPITOL STREET NE, ROOM 420 SALEM OR 97301-3871 Property Address: Butler Ck Rd. 8/22/02 Page 1 of 2 - EA gmh T J1 ODOT File 6913-002 10B-15-14 IT IS UNDERSTOOD that the easement herein granted does not convey any right or interest in the above-described property, except as stated herein, nor prevent Grantor from the use of said property; provided, however, that such use shall not be permitted to interfere with the rights herein granted or endanger the lateral support of the public way. IT IS ALSO UNDERSTOOD that Grantee shall never be required to remove the slope material placed by it on said property, nor shall Grantee be subject to any damages to Grantor and grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, by reason of any change of grade of the public way abutting on said property or by reason of the drainage facilities constructed thereon. Grantor covenants to and with Grantee, its successors and assigns, that Grantor is the owner of said property and will warrant the easement rights herein granted from all lawful claims whatsoever. Grantor agrees that the consideration recited herein is just compensation for the property or property rights conveyed, including any and all damages to Grantor's remaining property, if any, which may result from the acquisition or use of said property or property rights. However, the consideration does not include damages resulting from any use or activity by Grantee beyond or outside of those uses expressed herein, if any, or damages arising from any negligence. In construing this document, where the context so requires, the singular includes the plural and all grammatical changes shall be made so that this document shall apply equally to corporations and to individuals. It is understood and agreed that the delivery of this document is hereby tendered and that terms and obligations hereof shall not become binding upon the State of Oregon Department of Transportation, unless and until accepted and approved by the recording of this document. Dated this day of ,20 APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY OF ASHLAND By By Mayor By Auditor STATE OF OREGON, County of Dated , 20 Personally appeared and , who, being sworn, stated that they are the Mayor and Auditor of the City of Ashland, Oregon, a municipal corporation, and that this instrument was voluntarily signed on behalf of said municipal corporation by authority of its Ordinance No. , passed by the Council of said City on this day of ,20 Notary Public for Oregon My Commission expires Accepted on behalf of the Oregon Department of Transportation 8/22/02 Page 2 of 2 - EA gmh r n STAlE'S OBLlGATION(S) AGREEMENT File No.: 6913002 Date: August 27,2002 State is in agreement that any water from the ditch will be channeled into a drainage path that extends to a natural waterway. If any of the construction under the terms of this agreement is outside of the highway right of way, Grantors hereby grant State, its employees or contractors, permission to enter upon their remaining property for the purpose of performing any of said construction work. It is understood and agreed that State's performance of this agreement shall be a portion of the consideration for the concurrent real property transaction evidenced by deed between Grantors and State. This agreement shall not be effective or binding until Grantors receive notice from the State accepting the conveyance of the real property interests. City of Ashland Date 734-3931 (8/96) T I"T CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Consideration of an Ordinance to Add Chapter 2.17, Public Arts Commission, to the Ashland Municipal Code. Administration September 17,2002 J2 Greg Scoles, City AdministraL_ ~ Dept: Date: Submitted By: Synopsis: At the beginning of 2002, the "Pre-Public Art Study Group" asked that the city consider forming an official Public Art Study Group. Following discussion at a study session on January 16, 2002, it was agreed at the February 5, 2002 council meeting that council adopt a public art statement to show its support of such a policy. The Public Art Statement reads as follows: "The city council recognizes the value and importance of public art in the community and is committed to the development of a public art policy. To this end, the council agrees to participate with an informal study group to research and develop possible alternatives for such a policy and to collaborate with the study group in the writing and implementation of a final proposed policy." Recommendation: Staff recommends that should council wish to adopt the proposed ordinance, they should instruct staff to bring the ordinance back for first reading at a future council meeting. Fiscal Impact: Programs developed in connection with the Public Arts Commission may have fiscal impacts, including additional staff time, which will need to be analyzed after such programs are identified. Background: The Public Art Study Group has met on a regular basis on their own and with the City Administrator since February 5 and discussed the various possibilities for establishing a formal Public Arts Commission. Following several meetings, the group has crafted the draft ordinance for consideration by council. ,., ,.. .. The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City Hall City of Ashland 20 East Main Ashland, OR 97520 9 September, 2002 Dear Mayor DeBoer and Council Members, Since its creation on February 5, 2002, members of the Public Art Study Group have met on a monthly basis to discuss possibilities for art policy in the City of Ashland. The group has created the attached draft of an ordinance adding a Public Arts Commission to the Ashland Municipal code, and we submit the document for your consideration. This letter is a formal request that the City Council place the ordinance on the agenda for review. We would recommend that with the creation of the Public Arts Commission, a member of City Council be assigned as a non-voting liaison to the Commission. Because the arts play such a large role in the cultural and economic character of this city, our observation is that the time is right for the establishment of a commission to enhance this valuable asset. The advantages are great for creating an official entity to advise the Council and City Commissions in artistic components of city projects. With oversight by the Public Arts Commission, a consistent and effective process regarding art policy can be insured. We look forward to notification of an agenda date. If you feel more discu'ssion is appropriate prior to making this an agenda item, please feel free to contact Bruce Bayard at 482-2253 or Amy Richard at 482-2111, ext. 240. Sincerely, [2/~~ Bruce Bayard Chair, Public Art Study Group 'T n ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 2.17, PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION, TO THE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the arts are an important part of the cultural and economic life of the entire community of Ashland and enrich the participants in the arts as well as those who observe them; and WHEREAS, the continued vitality of the arts in the City of Ashland is a vital part of the future of the City as well as of its citizens; and WHEREAS, several organizations which exist in Ashland, including the Ashland Gallery Association, Southern Oregon University including the Schneider Museum, the Ashland Schools, Lithia Arts Guild and the Southern Oregon Arts Council, are active in the arts and provide leadership to the community on arts related matters; and WHEREAS, the creation of a Public Arts Commission for the City of Ashland will assist those organizations, as well as many other organizations and individuals to make arts a more important part of the City's life, and WHEREAS, the mi aesthetic quality of spaces and servin NOW THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND ORDAIN AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 2.17 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code, as follows. Chapter 2.17 PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION Sections: 2.17.010 2.17.020 2.17.030 2.17.040 2.17.050 2.17.060 2.17.070 2.17.080 2.17.090 Created Members; Terms Officers Secretary Meetings; Quorum; Voting Rules and Regulations Powers and Duties Compensation Policies ORD-PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION Page 1 T n 2.17.010 Created. There is hereby created a Public Arts Commission for Ashland having the powers and duties provided in this chapter. 2.17.020 Members: Terms. The Public Arts Commission shall consist of seven (7) members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by City Council. The Commis~~shall contain at least five (5) members from a broad spectrum of citizens representin~1ii'rs) 6- ~ organizations, education, structural and landscape architecture, and at least two (2) citizens at large. At least five members of the Commission shall reside inside the city limits. The aPR9intees shall have three-year terms. The original appointees shall be appointed: t~ for one year, ~ for two years and three for three years, thereafter all terms will be for three years. All members may vote on any matter coming before the Commission, except as the Ethics Laws of the State of Oregon may provide. After a member has three unexcused absences, the Commission may remove that member. Should a member be removed, the Mayor will make a new appointment for the remainder of the term. 2.17.030 Officers. At its first meeting The Public Arts Commission shall elect a Chair and a Vice Chair who shall hold office for one year, except that the first Chair and Vice- Chair shall serve until the end of the calendar year. At the first meeting of each calendar year, the Chair or Vice-Chair from the previous year shall preside over elections for Chair and Vice Chair.' C' ice Chair all se . ore than two consecutive te 2.17.040 Secre Secretary who nee accurate record 0 2.17.050 Meetinas: Quorum: Votina. The Public Arts Commission shall hold an official meeting at least bimonthly (once every two months) and may hold special meetings as set by the Commission. A majority of the members constitutes a quorum for meetings. Provided a quorum is present, any item must be approved by a simple majority of the voting members present at a meeting to pass, unless otherwise provided. 2.17.060 Rules and Reaulations. The Public Arts Commission shall establish such rules and regulations for its government and procedures consistent with the laws of the state and the ordinances of the City. 2.17.070 Powers and Duties. A. The Public Arts Commission shall be specifically responsible for, but not limited to, the following: ORD-PUBLlC ARTS COMMISSION Page 2 T n 1. The Commission shall ensure the arts continue to be of value as an integral part of Ashland. 2. The Commission shall promote the arts in Ashland to enrich the lives of its citizens through education and demonstration. 3. The Commission shall assist the City Council, Parks & Recreation Commission, Historic Commission and the Planning Commission in using public art to enhance continuing development, including public structures. 4. The Commission shall advise the Planning Commission, Parks & Recreation Commission, other city commissions and city departments regarding artistic components of all projects under consideration by the city. 5. The Commission shall develop and recommend to the City Council adoption of ordinances and policies for the review, planning and maintenance of public displays of art in the community. 2.17.080 Compensation. Voting members of the Commission shall receive no compensation for services rendered. The Commission may receive gifts, bequests or devises of property on behalf of the City to carry out any of the purposes of this Chapter. These shall be placed in a special account for use of said Commission. 2.17.090 Policies. A. The Public Arts Commission shall operate as a nonprofit organization devoted exclusively to its mission. B. The Public Arts Commission shall operate in the general public interest serving the community as a whole. It shall serve no special interests. C. The Public Arts Commission shall not endorse any commercial product or enterprise. ORD-PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION Page 3 .. - The foregoing ordinance was first read by title only in accordance with Article X, Section 2(c) of the City Charter on the day of , 2002, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ,2002. Barbara M. Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Reviewed as to for Paul Nolte, City Attorney ORD-PUBLIC ARTS COMMISSION Page 4 T rr CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Reviewed By: Consideration of the disposition of potential surplus real property. Administration September 17, 2002 Greg Scoles, City Administrator Paul Nolte, City Attorney Synopsis: During the city goal setting process the council requested that staff prepare an inventory of lands not designated for parks or open space but which were owned by the city. During the last council meeting the council determined that they wanted additional information on six specific properties, which have the potential for being considered surplus. Recommendation: It is recommended that the council direct staff to take the actions indicated on the six properties listed under background information below. Fiscal Impact: There should be no adverse fiscal impact from any ofthe recommended actions, with the exception of moving the material storage yard on Glenview Drive, which might result in additional operational costs. Background: At the city goal setting workshop conducted on February 1,2002, the council requested that staff prepare an inventory of property that was owned by the city. The intent of reviewing this inventory was to determine if there were any properties, which were owned by the city but were not committed to any particular use and could therefore be considered surplus. At the meeting on September 11 th the council indicated that they wanted to evaluate 6 specific properties to determine if there was a potential to declare them surplus. Following are the properties identified by the council and the staff s recommendations as to how best to deal with them. 1. Single Family Lot - Twin Pines Circle This is a vacant 6,000 sq. ft. single-family lot adjacent to the Oak Knoll Golf Course. The property is designated as Single Family Residential in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned R-l-lO. A portion of this lot is currently being used as part of the access drive to the golf course. It appears as though this property was never dedicated for parks purposes and staff has determined that there is no need to retain this lot in city ownership. T r.l' TT ,. T ..,. Recommendation: It is recommended that the council direct staff to take the steps necessary to modify the access drive to the golf course and to develop a plan to market and sell the property. Prior to any sale of the property, ORS 221.725 requires that the city hold a public hearing concerning the sale. This hearing would be conducted after a market value for the property is developed. All costs associated with modifying the drive, moving utilities and marketing the property would be charged to the sale ofthe property. 2. Nevada Street Storage Lot This property is approximately 21,000 sq. ft. and is currently utilized for pole storage for the Electric Department. The property is designated as Single Family Residential in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned R-1-5. There is also a small out building on the site which houses some communications switch gear. The property was previously an electric substation and an environmental assessment would be required prior to any sale of the property. The property has the potential for being developed with 2-3 single-family homes. Other than its current use, there are no plans for the future use of the property. Recommendation: It is recommended that this property continue to serve as a pole storage facility until the city acquires a replacement property, which might be better suited for storage activities. At that point the city could consider selling this property. (See No.6. below) 3. Westwood Street/Strawberry Lane This property is approximately 2.1 acres and is currently vacant. The property is designated as Low Density Residential in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned RR-.5. It can be developed with up to 4 single-family homes (1/2 ac. min.). The property is subject to the Strawberry LID, which will provide all of the required street improvements. There are no uses planned by the city for this particular property. Recommendation: It is recommended that the council direct staff to take the steps necessary to develop a plan to market and sell the property. Prior to any sale of the property, ORS 221.725 requires that the city hold a public hearing concerning the sale. This hearing would be conducted after a market value for the property is developed. r.t. , .. T - ? ,,~,I.~~ .;.:; - 4. Imperatrice Property This property is approximately 840 acres located outside the city's urban growth boundary. It is currently zoned for EFU (exclusive farm use), which has a minimum lot size requirement of 80 acres. There are currently 6 separate parcels on this property. The property was purchased as a spray irrigation site for the wastewater treatment facility. Since the property is no longer required for use in the wastewater treatment process it could be considered surplus. There are no uses planned by the city for this particular property. Primary access to the site is provided through a separate tax lot owned by the City off of Butler Creek Road and there is a potential that access is available from N. Mountain Avenue but it would take further research to determine with any certainty. The City did obtain a temporary construction access off of Eagle Mill Road, but it is also unclear ifthis could be a long-term access as it is adjacent to ODOT right of way. Recommendation: It is recommended that the council direct staff to take the steps necessary to develop a plan to market and sell the property. Prior to any sale of the property, ORS 221.725 requires that the city hold a public hearing concerning the sale. This hearing would be conducted after a market value for the property is developed. 5. Gun Club/Lithia Springs Property This property is approximately 66 acres outside the city it is currently zoned Open Space Reserve. The property is subject to a long-term lease to the parks department which has been sub leased to the Gun Club. The Gun Club has leased the property since 1968. The current lease expires on May 30,2009. The property also includes the "headwaters" of Lithia Spring, which is then piped to Ashland. Recommendation: Since this property is subject to a long term lease, it is recommended that no further action be taken and the property not be determined to be surplus. r~' T 1"[ T n 6. Glenview Drive Storage Areas These storage areas are not separate parcels and are part of Lithia Park. The property is designated as City Parks in the Comprehensive Plan and the area to the west of Glenview Dr. is zoned as R -1- 7.5 and the area to the east of Glenview Dr. is zoned Woodland Residential. The property is currently used for the storage of material for the public works department. At this time public works is looking for an alternate storage area and plan on eliminating the storage activities at this site when such a site can be acquired. There are no other planned uses for this site. Recommendation: It is recommended that this property continue to serve as a storage facility until the city acquires a replacement property, which might be better suited for storage activities. (See No.2. above) rA' .. .. ~ '"' CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Title: An Ordinance Authorizing the Mayor to Add Student Liaison Members to Commissions and Committees. Administration September 17, 2002 Greg Scoles, City AdministratorQ.( Paul Nolte, City Attorney yv G' Dept: Date: Submitted By: Reviewed By: Synopsis: This ordinance will authorize the Mayor to add student liaison members, one from the High School and one from Southern Oregon University, to commissions and committees. The youth liaison members will be non-voting. Recommendation: Staff recommends the council approve the ordinance for first reading. Fiscal Impact: There is no fiscal impact anticipated with the adoption of the ordinance. Background: One of the elements of the City's Strategic Plan is for improved citizen participation and involvement, and to develop methods to encourage participation by seniors, youth and other identifiable groups. Part ofthat goal will be met by adding two youth liaison members to each ofthe commissions chosen by the Mayor. The youth liaison member from the High School will be selected by the Leadership class, and the youth liaison member from Southern Oregon University will be selected by the Student Senate. Terms will run for the duration ofthe school year, and it is anticipated that the selection process will begin in the next few months. Although the youth liaison members will be non-voting, they will be encouraged to participate in all of the regularly scheduled commission meetings and to actively take a role in the activities of the commission. This issue was discussed at length at a study session on August 7, 2002, and it was agreed to bring an amended ordinance back before council at the September 17 city council meeting. ~., ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ADD STUDENT LIAISON MEMBERS TO COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. Section 2.04.082 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: Section 2.04.082 Student Memberships on Commissions and Committees. The Mayor with consent of the Council may appoint one student liaison from Ashland High School and one student liaison from Southern Oregon University to each commission or committee of the City, whether such commission or committee was established by ordinance or resolution. The student liaisons shall be non-voting ex officio members of their respective commissions or committees. The high school student to be appointed shall be chosen by the Ashland High School leadership Class and the university student to be appointed shall be chosen by the Associated Students of Southern Oregon University Student Senate. The requirements of section 2.04.081 shall not apply to the students appointed under this section. The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of ,2002, ,2002. and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of Barbara Christensen, City Recorder day of ,2002. SIGNED and APPROVED this Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor r;;:;~ Paul Nolte, City Attorney 1 - ORDI NANCE G:\Iegal\PAUL\ORD\Youth Liaison Members to Commissions and Committees ord.wpd ,.. T n ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO ADD STUDENT LIAISON MEMBERS TO COMMISSIONS AND COMMITTEES THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOllOWS: SECTION 1. Section 2.04.082 is added to the Ashland Municipal Code: Section 2.04.082 Student Memberships on Commissions and Committees. The Mayor with consent of the Council may appoint one add to the membership of any city commission. two positions for student liaisons from Aahland Hgh School and one atudent tiaiaon from Southern Oregon Univeraity to each commiaaion or committee of the City. whether such commission or committee was established by ordinance or resolution. The student liaisof1s shall be non- voting ex officio members of their respective commissions or committees. Once the liaison positions have been added. =Fthe liaison from the high school atudent to be appointed shall be a hiQh school student chosen by the Ashland High School leadership Class and the liaison from the university atucJent to be appointed shall be a university student chosen by the Associated Students of Southern Oregon University Student Senate. The requirements of section~ 2.04.080 and 2.04.081 shall not apply to the students appointed chosen under this section. The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the day of ,2002, ,2002. and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this day of Barbara Christensen. City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ,2002. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor Reviewed as to form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney 1 - ORDI NANCE G:\legal\PAUL\ORD\Y\Youth Liaison Members to Commissions and Committees ord2.wpd ~ T - We.. (~) V -:, Q:, \~.(( ,fA - \r- \, (' t -", \..(. C l c) (,,:..- ( ~.~ (lc r- , CITY OF ASHLAND Memo DATE: September 12, 2002 TO: FROM: Mayor and City Council Paul Nolte r'\. RE: Update on Status of Mobile Home Park Conversion or Sale Ordinance The council considered but did not adopt "An Ordinance Adding Chapter 10.114 to the Ashland Municipal Code Relating to the Conversion or Sale of Mobile Home Parks" at the May 7,2002, council meeting. At that meeting, the council tabled consideration of the ordinance for three months at the request of Rich Rohde, Oregon Action, to provide an opportunity for the manufactured home park owners and the manufactured home owners to meet and develop state legislation addressing the problems associated with park closures. Also at the May 7 meeting, the council was presented with several legal opinions, one advising that the proposed ordinance violated state law and the others countering such view. In July Rohde advised that the park owners and the home owners were going to meet in early September to determine if both sides could agree on a solution. For that reason, the ordinance was not brought back to the council as originally scheduled. The September meeting did not occur at the request of the park owner association and is now in the process of being rescheduled for early October. It is Rohde's desire to continue trying to meet with park owner representatives, prior to this coming back to council, to see if a solution can be reached on a statewide basis. G:\Iegal\PAUL\ORD\Mobile Home\mobile home park sale memo 9-02.wpd LEGAL DEPARTMENT 20 East Main Street Ashland, OR 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: (541) 488-5350 Fax: (541) 488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 noltep@ashland.or.us stephens@ashland.or.us rA' T T n T T I"T Speaker Request Form City Council MeetingslPlanning Commission Meetings The followin1! information is reauired in order for vou to soeak. ifvou need to be contacted. or if information on a Plannin1! Action needs to be sent to vou ALWAYS COMPLETE THIS TOP SECTION OF THE FORM I , ' Printed name:-KP.,\( 0 \ W\\\\;m~ Complete Streetaddress (No P.O. Boxes): ;) q 5 \JJo..cb e ~ ~ 'Q.O. ~ ~\~ Email addressVJ\\h~\c.e.As\\Ql\"\d . ~X)S Phone No. S~J-O~\S Please insert information on the blank lines below and check boxes that apply to you. I wish to speak during the Public Forum section of the meeting on the following topic. I do understand that this subject is not on the printed Ae:enda for tonig~t's meeting. ~+ sml'<-~\)\~~~~ (Please note lime dllring PIIblic Forum of City COllncil meeting is limited to 5 minlltes per speaker, and to a total of 15 minutes.) , the subject of which is: I wish to speak about Agenda Item number o o o o Please complete the following for Land Use Hearings If vou wish to vrovide evidence, vlease indicate if vou are in favor of or opposed to the proposal. I wish to speak in favor of the application. (If you are infavor of the proposal, your evidence should show that the approval criteria is satisfied by the facts you are providing.) I wish to speak in opposition to the application. (If you are an opponent, your testimony should show that the applicant has not introduced evidence which satisfies all the approval criteria or your testimony rebuts the applicant's testimony by showing the facts relied upon are incorrect.) I wish to speak, but I neither favor nor oppose the application. (Your testimony is to address criteria only.) I do not wish to speak, but have submitted comments on the back of this form. Unless an Agenda Item already has been the subject of a public hearing which has been closed, members of the public may speak about any Item on the Agenda. If such a hearing already has been held this fact will be noted on the printed Agenda. The time allowed each speaker may be limited by the Mayor or presiding officer. Please hand this form in to the City Recorder during Council Meetings or staff person at the head table during __- Planning Commission Meetings before the beginning of the meeting if possible, or before the Agenda Item is discussed. . -- -T- I /Ilatl. - L~ MeA /114 ~ ~ ....../I..........~........... I. /tZV'I'~_. ~ _ . t/. ~ I I I I I I 1 I I j I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I sb~1lAfr CITY OF 4kSHLAND Council Communication Title: Potential Consolidation of the Ashland Police Department 911/Dispatch Center Dept: Police Date: September 17, 2002 Submitted By: Scott Fleuter, Chief of Police Reviewed By: Greg Stoles, City Administrato~ Synopsis: Mayor and Council have received several documents over the past few months in regard to the potential for 911/dispatch consolidation. These documents have been attached to this communication for reference. The main issue is whether to maintain the current 911/Dispatch center at the Ashland Police Department, or have service provided by either Southern Oregon Regional Communications or the Medford Police Department. Recommendation: Any of the above three options would provide adequate service to the city. The State has made it clear that only one center in Jackson County will receive all 911 dollars. It is also clear that as the workload increases at the Ashland Center, there will be a need to add more dispatchers. Regardless of the loss of 911 dollars and the additional dispatchers, staff believes there would still be a significant cost savings to the City of Ashland if an outside agency provided service. Based on this, staff recommends that the Council determine that 911/dispatch services should be provided by either SORC or Medford, and direct staff to bring back a preferred consolidation alternative for council consideration. Fiscal Impact: The City of Ashland budget could be reduced nearly $400,000 a year by opting to use an outside agency for 911/Dispatch services. Please refer to the attached memorandum entitled "staff analysis of 911/Dispatch proposals" (June 24, 2002) for details. The table at the end of the memo summarizes the breakdown of the costs for the various alternatives. Background: The attached documents provide extensive background on the 911-consolidation issue in Jackson County. Summary Table Ashland Todav Ashland Tomorrow Medford Solution SORe Solution Requirements: Operational costs $ 727,371 $ 727,371 $ 337,210 $ 318,142 911 Maintenance 2 30,000 Additonal Staff 3 112,000 Retained Staff 4 60,000 60,000 CAD/RMS 5 139,000 139,000 Gross Cost 727,371 869,371 536,210 517,142 Revenues: Ashland 911 Funds 6 (86,000) (55,000) $ 586,371 (86,000) (86,000) SOU Participation 7 (55,000) $ 814,371 $ 450,210 $ 431,142 Net Cost Notes: 1 Current program expense or contract expense if out-sourced. 2 Additonal cost to maintain Ashland PSAP. 3 Additonal 2.0 FTE to provide service level comparable to out-sourced proposals. 4 Ashland 1.0 FTE included in operational costs that is retained if PSAP out-sourced. 5 Ashland expenses included in operational costs that are retained if PSAP outsourced. 6 Current state revenue that would be lost if Ashland did not consolidate. 7 Current revenue that may be lost with consolidation. ~ WI" MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Scoles, City Administrator FROM: Scott Fleuter, Chief of Police SUBJECT: PSAP Consolidation DATE: July 25, 2002 On Monday, July 22, 2002 I attended a PSAP consolidation meeting. The meeting was well attended by both elected officials and agency administrators including Mayor DeBoer and Council Member Hartzell. Significant progress was made toward an outline for a consolidation plan. The State was there and, along with clarifying that we have no choice but to submit the plan, was satisfied with our outline. The following agreement was reached: · A separate, independent 190 organization will be formed specifically and exclusively to provide consolidated PSAP for Jackson County. This tentatively will be referred to as Rogue Valley 911 · It will lease seismically appropriate space from a facility to be constructed by the City of Medford and SORC at a mutually agreed upon location (most likely a new Medford communications center on County property at the airport). Such a facility will have the capacity to absorb countywide dispatching as well as PSAP. This new facility will be available on September 1,2004. · All state PSAP funds will be provided to this new PSAP organization (approximately $800,000 annually). Strict accounting procedures will be in place to ensure all PSAP funds are dedicated to PSAP operations. · Governance of the new PSAP organization will be determined by a weighted or non-weighted policy developed by the partners to the agreement. · During the construction of the new facility (two year period) all three Jackson County PSAP's can maintain the status quo or choose to have another PSAP/dispatch center provide service. All parties at the table appeared to be satisfied with the above. It would seem we are all in agreement that all PSAP service will go to one location. Since we were in attendance, that indicates that the City of Ashland will not pay for and maintain its own 911/PSAP. As outlined in the Council Communication dated July 2, 2002 and the staff analysis dated June 24, 2002, it was recommended that if we lose our 911 funding, our dispatch services would also be outsourced. Probably the best case scenario would be to have one central communications center for the whole County that provides all PSAP and dispatch services. Medford does not want to give up their dispatch service but is willing to consolidate their PSAP/911. Medford is going to build a new center regardless and that is why the the recommendation is to have that building house aU PSAP/911 and be designed to expand in case SORC chooses to add on the structure and house their dispatch service in the same building (SORC is also unwilling to give up dispatch but will consolidate PSAP/911). Mayor DeBoer made a statement at the meeting that he feels we should move to SORC in the near future and not wait the two years. While I see some significant advantages to this (not having to increase our staffing or experience two years of uncertainty for our dispatchers) I would like us to discuss the pros and cons of SORC versus Medford. As pointed out in the staff analysis, we should consider the following: . SORC has experience dispatching ambulances (Mercy Flights). Although Medford does not dispatch ambulances, they do perform emergency medical dispatching and provide service to fire departments. . A board governs SORC and Medford is by contract. There may be some advantage to being on the board but it could also prove problematic when there are over twenty voting members. A solid contract with Medford (similar to the one with Central Point) would likely guarantee us competent service. . SORC is not PERS and Medford is PERS. This is very significant to our dispatchers, as they are members of PERS. . Medford has the MDC technology in place. We have our MDC grant and need to allocate those funds in a timely manner. We could piggyback on Medford's system versus having SORC start from scratch and likely pass on the costs to other users and us. . Medford is going to build their new facility regardless of the consolidation and have promised us that they will not charge us for the new facility. SORC will eventually have to leave their facility and those costs will be passed on to the users. If the City of Ashland does choose to outsource, I recommend that we contract with Medford for all PSAP/dispatch services. I also recommend that if we make the move, we do so in the near future. Waiting out the two years would make it impractical to add new dispatch positions to provide adequate service for our community. Under current conditions, we may lose dispatch personnel (we have already lost our part-time call taker) and it would not be productive to conduct a hiring process with no job guarantees. We still have the option of completely funding our own center but it does not appear to be the most efficient or effective course of action. UPDATE: August 6, 2002 On July 30,2002, SORC sent a letter to the City of Medford stating that they are no longer willing to agree to the above PSAP consolidation plan and that they will submit their own plan. They feel that all PSAP should be consolidated within ,. ..,. the current SORC facility. They declined to meet on August 5,2002, for any further discussion. I contacted SORC and they said Ashland is still welcome to consolidate with them. I met with the City of Medford on August 5,2002. Due to SORC's position, Medford is going to move forward with building their new facility and submit their own PSAP consolidation plan to the State. They are very interested in having us contract with their Center and reiterated that there would be no facility costs incurred by Ashland when they move into the new Center. These recent changes bring up several issues for the City of Ashland. If all the entities in Jackson County are now unwilling to consolidate PSAP, we have no way of determining where the State will award the PSAP dollars. Medford is confident that if they break ground and show they are building an earthquake compliant center, they will be in a better position to receive the dollars. They feel if Ashland joins with them, then it would be a unified response by the three largest cities in Jackson County (Medford, Ashland, and Central Point). SORC has indicated that since they have an existing facility that is large enough to house a consolidated center, they are in a good position to receive PSAP dollars. They feel they can construct a new center in the future. If either center adds Ashland, that center will receive the majority of 911 calls for service. Another issue is that the consolidation report is due to the State on September 1, 2002. Now that the other two centers are submitting separate plans it becomes problematic for the City of Ashland. One alternative may be to submit an addendum to both the Medford and SORC plan stating that within a given time frame, the City of Ashland will decide if we will maintain our own center or elect to outsource with another center. If the City decides to outsource, we will negotiate with both SORC and Medford and make the decision that is in the best interests of our community. The above addendum may satisfy the State that we have a plan in place and give us time to gather more information and see where the other centers stand. It may be in our best interests to postpone any other decisions beyond the above at our August 20 City Council Meeting. ~ -~ CITY OF ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Update on Potential Consolidation of the Ashland Police Department 911/Dispatch Center Police July 2,2002 Scott Fleuter, Chief of Police Greg Scoles, City Administrator Dept: Date: Submitted By: Reviewed By: Synopsis: The 2001 Oregon State Legislature passed HB397. A major focus of the legislation is to facilitate consolidation of Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPS) in multi-PSAP counties. The bill requires multi-PSAP counties to jointly submit a consolidation plan to Oregon Emergency Management (OEM) by September 1, 2002. There are three PSAP's in Jackson County including the Ashland Police Department, Medford Police Department, and Southern Oregon Regional Communications. Each center receives a certain amount of State funding from the 911 tax. The 2001 Legislature expressed their intent that after 2003 such State tax revenues will only be used to support one PSAP in each county. In addition, over the past several years, the Ashland Police Department 911/Dispatch has seen a steady increase in the calls for service from the public. The Center is currently staffed with a minimum of one dispatcher. As this workload increases, there will be a need to add more dispatchers in the future. Recommendation: At this time, staff does not have the information available to determine whether outsourcing is the best alternative. It may also be premature to make such a move when it is unclear which 911/dispatch center will receive the 911 tax dollars for Jackson County. Staff recommends that the City Council authorize staff to continue evaluation of the feasibility of outsourcing versus maintaining a center at the Ashland Police Department. Fiscal Impact: The Ashland Police Department currently receives about $86,000 annually in State revenue from the 911 tax that can be used for any 911 related costs. OEM also pays for PSAP maintenance costs at around $42,000 per year. It appears that the new law would only allow that funding to be used for one primary PSAP for all of Jackson County. T -.r There are two "fiscal" scenarios to take into consideration. The first would be to absorb all those costs and continue to operate the current Ashland Police Department PSAP/Dispatch Center (eventually adding staff to adequately maintain minimum staffing). The second would be to have another PSAP/dispatch center provide communication services for Ashland and compare those costs to the current PSAP/Dispatch Center budget. The other two 911/Dispatch centers have each submitted proposals to provide services for the City of Ashland (proposals attached). Also attached is a comparison of salaries and benefits between the three centers. The last attachment is a staff analysis of each of the proposals including overall costs, service levels, technology, governance, and facilities. Background: Seven dispatchers and one supervisor staff the Ashland Police Department 911/Dispatch Center. Service is provided seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. Because the Ashland Police 911/Dispatch Center is relatively small (the smallest of the three in Jackson County), it is staffed with from one to two dispatchers depending on workload, vacation, training, sick leave, etc. Normally, there is only one dispatcher on duty about 50% of the time. The Center provides service for Ashland Police, Ashland Fire/Rescue, Ashland Ambulance, SOU Security, and after hour's Public Works. SOU contributes about $55,000 for dispatch services. Because there is often only one dispatcher on duty, attempts have been made to increase resources by inviting Talent PD, Phoenix PD, and Fire District Five to use Ashland's center versus SORC. Adding their financial resources would have allowed a minimum of two dispatchers on duty at all times and the costs would have been lower for those three agencies. To date, this has not been politically viable. Now that there is a mandate to develop a consolidation plan, it would benefit the City of Ashland to explore all possibilities. Listed below are several issues or concerns that tend to either support consolidation, or make a case for retaining a 911/Dispatch Center at the Ashland Police Department. . As activity increases, one dispatcher is inadequate to provide service to Ashland. . There are seven City employees whose jobs may be at stake if another center is used. Consolidation would likely include the opportunity for many of those employees to be hired by that center. . When considering personnel costs with the attached benefits, training, equipment, etc., there would likely be a cost savings contracting with another center. T ..,. . Both Medford and SORC claim they can provide service and each would hire at least five of our dispatchers. . The Ashland center currently uses "field staff'to provide breaks and back-up for the dispatchers. This reduces field staffing (Patrol Officers) and places someone with limited training in the dispatch center. . If Ashland does not receive the State revenues and chooses to run a full- service 911/Dispatch Center, there would be a need to absorb the extra costs and still be dealing with understaffing issues. . If Ashland absorbs those 911 costs, it would include some costs related to maintaining the 911 lines. . If another center provides services, it would impact monitoring the level of service to Ashland's citizens. Medford contracts with Central Point and SORC maintains a user board with about 18 voting members. . The Ashland Police Department recently received a federal grant for installing Mobile Data Computers in police vehicles. Medford has purchased the interface for MDC's and they (as well as Central Point PD) are already using the technology in the field. The other two centers would have to pay a certain amount to Medford for activating MDC's. . By contracting with another center, the vacated office space could be used for future growth of the Ashland Police Department. There are other issues to take into account when considering consolidation of 911/Dispatch Centers. Ashland would still have to maintain radio towers and support the Computer Aided Dispatch/Records Management System (CAD/RMS). Ashland dispatchers provide some clerical support and there would likely be a need to retain one FTE to handle the workload and liaison with the providing center. If there ended up being only one center for the whole county, there is the issue of an emergency back up center. Both SORC and MPD have plans for a back up center if they become the sole 911/Dispatch Center. All three centers have competent personnel and quality equipment. The Ashland Center is already capable of handling the expansion of its staff. SORC has adequate room at their facility and, with some remodeling, may be able to house all Jackson County 911/dispatch services. Medford has just enough space to accommodate our needs and they are building a new center that could potentially provide space for all 911/dispatch services in Jackson County. Both SORC and Medford currently occupy buildings that are poorly rated for withstanding an earthquake, which is problematic for essential emergency services. Consolidating with Medford or SORC would lower Ashland's 911 /Dispatch costs. Medford also has two significant advantages. They already have the Mobile Data Computers up and running and Ashland could piggyback on their technology while using the MDC grant to cover other hardware and software costs. Also, both Medford and Ashland are covered under PERS (SORC is not PERS). That means Ashland employees could transition over without effect on ~ ...r retirement and seniority. All three centers are part of the same bargaining unit and Medford and SORe provide a higher salary than Ashland. Please refer to the attachments for details. T 'IT MEMORANDUM TO: Greg Scoles, City Administrator FROM: Scott Fleuter, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Staff Analysis of 911/Dispatch Proposals DATE: June 24, 2002 The Medford Police Department (Medford 911 Central Communications Center) and Southern Oregon Regional Communications (SORC) have submitted proposals for providing 911/dispatch services to the City of Ashland. The following analysis includes an examination of each of those proposals as well as an assessment of what resources would be required for the Ashland Police Department to continue providing 911/dispatch services. MEDFORD 911 CENTRAL COMMUNICATIONS CENTER (CCOM) CCOM is a primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) that provides 911 and dispatch service for the Medford Police Department, Medford Fire Department and the Central Point Police Department. They are located at the Medford Police Department. They have expressed an interest in providing 911/dispatch services for the City of Ashland. They propose to provide the following services: . Answering point for all Ashland PSAP calls, non-emergency phones, and after hours utility phones . Full-time dispatch service to Ashland Police, and Ashland Fire/Rescue (SOU Security would have a separate contract). Cost Considerations: (Figures based on estimate of 26% increase in workload to CCOM) Additional CCOM staff required to provide services to Ashland: One (1) dispatcher position, 24 hrs X 365 days = 8,760 hrs. One full-time dispatcher works 1,824 hrs per year = 4.8 full-time employees. Five (5) Ashland Dispatchers by lateral transfer Overtime for five (5) dispatchers X 50 hrs yr X $3.1.00 Supervisor at $70,500 X 10% Manager at $84,000 X 10% Increase in materials and services $270,000 $7,750 $7,050 $8,400 $22,950 ~ ...,. Administrative cost at $81,000 X 26% J21.060 $337,210 ($86,000) Current Ashland 911 funds that would be transferred to Medford. Ashland's annual PSAP/dispatch costs (CCOM) $251,210 Other Considerations: . CCOM participates in PERS which would allow APD dispatchers to transfer over without impacting their retirement benefits . Teamsters represent CCOM and APD so Ashland dispatchers would maintain their seniority, vacation time, etc. . Medford would hire five of our seven dispatchers . APD Officers would not have to provide breaks for dispatch thus leaving resources on the "street" . Medford PD would manage our warrant files 24 hours a day . Medford PD already has infrastructure in place for Mobile Data Computers which would reduce our costs . The City of Ashland would contract with CCOM for services similar to how Central Point currently contracts with CCOM . CCOM's current facility is adequate to expand services to Ashland. They are in the process of planning a new facility (in part, due to a poor "earthquake rating" for their building) and there would be no additional costs passed on to the City of Ashland for the facility. SOUTHERN OREGON REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS (SORC) SORC is a primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) that provides 911 and dispatch services to 25 jurisdictions including Jackson County, Talent, Phoenix and a number of fire districts. They are located in Medford at the old Jackson County Court House building. They have expressed an interest in providing 911/dispatch services for the City of Ashland. They propose to provide the following services: . Answering point for all Ashland PSAP calls, non-emergency phones, and after hours utilities . Full-time dispatch service to Ashland Police, and Ashland Fire/Rescue (SOU Security would have a separate contract) Cost Considerations: (Figures based on SORC funding formula) SORC would hire five (5) Ashland dispatchers and install one new call-taker console. Ashland would be included in the SORC funding formula and be a voting member on the Council. - - The user rate formula is based on 50% usage (from the previous calendar year) and 50% assessed value of each jurisdiction. There are two exceptions: 1) agencies with very low usage are assessed a minimum fee; and 2) agencies without a tax base, such as Mercy Flights, are assessed based on their usage only. The costs to the Ashland Police Department would be: The costs to the Ashland Fire Department would be: $227,210 390.932 $318,142 (86,013) Current Ashland 911 funds that would be transferred to SORC. Ashland's annual PSAP/dispatch costs (SORC) $232,129 Other Considerations: . SORC does not participate in PERS so APD dispatchers would not be able to continue in that retirement system. SORC does have a retirement plan based on deferred compensation. . Teamsters represent SORC and APD so Ashland dispatchers would maintain their seniority, vacation time, etc. . SORC would hire five of the seven dispatchers . APD Officers would not have to provide breaks for dispatch thus leaving resources on the "street" . Jackson County Sheriffs Office would manage the City's warrant files 24 hours a day . SORC does not currently provide service for Mobile Data Computers but could purchase access to such service through Medford PD. The cost to SORC to purchase access is unclear at this time. . The City of Ashland would serve on a Users Council, along with 18 other jurisdictions, which provides governance over SORC. Each member has an equal vote. . The current SORC facility has plenty of space to accommodate Ashland. Due to the poor "earthquake" rating of their building, they may be considering a new facility in the future and would pass those costs along to their users. MAINTAINING 911/DISPATCH SERVICE AT THE ASHLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT 911 CENTER The Ashland Police Department currently has a primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) that provides 911 and dispatch service for the City of Ashland. The Center is located within the Ashland Police Department building. There are seven full-time dispatchers, one dispatch supervisor and one part-time call-taker. The two major issues facing the Center is a need to increase staffing to maintain service levels and the State law that will remove 911 tax dollars used to support the Center. - Cost Considerations: The current APD communications budget (fiscal year 2001-2002) is $850,915. The proposed 2002-2003 budget is $727,371. The differences are primarily due to internal projects that vary from year to year but the main portion of the budget consists of personnel related costs. The center is staffed with one dispatcher, about 50% of the time. In order to maintain an acceptable level of service in the future, there should be two dispatchers on duty at all times. This would require a minimum of two additional dispatch positions at a total cost of aprox. $112,000. Based on the language of the recent State legislation, Ashland would lose $86,000 of 911 dollars and an additional $42,000 in 911 maintenance dollars (the $42,000 is not incorporated into the Ashland communication's annual budget. If the decision were made to retain the 911 center, there would be some maintenance cost involved). Southern Oregon University pays Ashland $55,000 per year for security dispatch service. If either SORC or CCOM were used, SOU would negotiate with those centers. At this time, it appears that each center could provide service to SOU at a lower cost. Any difference would have to be considered in the total budget. The above figures do not take into account administrative costs for the Chief of Police, Support Lieutenant, and Administrative Services Manager. The proposals from SORC and CCOM do not include the CAD/RMS contract or any retained personnel. The current Communications budget includes CAD/RMS costs at $139,000. Since Ashland dispatchers perform a certain about of records work for the Department, one FTE would need to be retained at approx. $60,000. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED COSTS FOR 911/DISPATCH SERVICES Central Communications Center (CCOM/Medford Police Department) CCOM Proposal CAD/RMS One FTE $337,210 139,000 60,000 $536,210 (86,000) Ashland's 911 Funds TOTAL ESTIMATED COST J450,210 Southern Oregon Regional Communications (SORC) .,. Tr SORC Proposal CAD/RMS One FTE $318,142 139,000 60,000 $517,142 (86,000) Ashland's 911 Funds TOTAL ESTIMATED COST J431 ,142 (If Ashland utilizes either CCOM or SORC, the $55,000 paid by SOU would be removed from the City of Ashland general fund) Ashland Police Department Communications Center Less SOU $727,371 30,000* 112.000 $869,371 (55,000) 2002-2003 Budget 911 Maintenance Two Additional Dispatchers TOTAL ESTIMATED COST J814.371 * Estimate (exact figures unavailable at this time) CONCLUSION If it were as simple as saving money, outsourcing would clearly be the preferred alternative. I believe that the level of service would, in the long run, be about the same regardless of which center provides the service. However, if two more dispatchers are not added to the Ashland center, it is likely service would be better with another center in that there would be multiple dispatchers on duty at any given time, and APD officers would not be taken off of the street to relieve dispatchers At this point, the State intends to go through with the mandatory PSAP consolidation and all 911 dollars will go to one center per county. The confusing part is that it's not clear what SORC or CCOM will do if only one of them ends up with all the 911 dollars. They have not shown any inclination to combine their resources and it appears that they both would like to be the primary PSAP for Jackson County. Currently, there is no way of predicting which agency will receive the funding. For example, if Ashland contracts with Medford and the State gives all the 911 dollars to SORC, Medford would be out their 911 dollars, Central Point's 911 dollars, and Ashland's 911 dollars (over $500,000). SORC would then be the primary PSAP for the County and all 911 calls would be routed to them. Medford ~ ...r would keep their dispatch center and have SORC transfer 911 calls for Medford. Ashland and Central Point. Although not having 911 at the Medford Center may reduce the workload. the reality is that 911 calls are a fraction of the total calls for service. Thus, such a financial hit to Medford may result in Ashland having to pay more for 911/dispatch services. The same scenario applies if Ashland commits to SORC and the 911 dollars go to Medford. Staff anticipates three options for the City Council: 1) maintain the 911/Dispatch. Center at APD; 2) outsource with one of the other centers in advance of the potential county-wide consolidation; or 3) wait to see which center is awarded the 911 dollars by the State and then move to that center. .,. wr CITY OF ASHLAND Memo TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Mayor and City Council Scott Fleuter, Chief of Police if August 14, 2002 Status Report - PSAP Consolidation PlanlFireworks on Bridge Street PSAP consolidation Plan: As you know, the State has mandated that all counties with multiple PSAPs must submit a consolidation plan by September 1, 2002. On July 22,2002 there was a consolidation meeting where the parties in attendance tentatively agreed to submit a plan for a single, consolidated PSAP center for Jackson County. However, on July 30,2002, SORC (one ofthe three PSAPs) sent a letter to Medford stating that they were no longer interested in pursuing such a plan. SORC stated that they felt they should be the PSAP for the entire county and they intend to submit their own plan to the State. Medford's reaction was to also submit their own consolidation plan stating that they should be the only PSAP for the county. At this point, we have received the SORC consolidation plan (attached), and are still waiting for the Medford Plan. We will hopefully have the latter available for the August 20, 2002 City council meeting. As far as the City of Ashland's consolidation plan, staff recommends that we submit an addendum with both the SORC and Medford plans. The addendum would state that the Ashland City Council will decide by September 17,2002, whether to fund the Ashland PSAP/dispatch center or to outsource with either SORC of Medford. If Council decides to outsource, staff will recommend which center would best serve the interests of the citizens of Ashland. I contacted the State Office of Emergency Management (OEM) and they stated that a letter from the City of Ashland outlining the above strategy would be acceptable. The letter would be sent before the September 1 st deadline. Bridge Street: During the last City Council meeting, there were some residents from Bridge St. who were concerned with the escalating 4th of July celebrations that have been occurring on their street for the past several years. I met with the citizens and we have agreed to hold a neighborhood meeting this spring to gather ASHLAND POLICE DEPT. 1155 East Malll Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.Of.us Tel: 541-488-2211 Fax: 541488-5351 m: 800-735-2900 ,., ~ ...,. input from as many residents as possible. The Ashland Fire Department will participate in that meeting. Based on the citizens' feedback, the Ashland Police Department will develop a plan to facilitate a safe and enjoyable 4th of July for 2003. ASHLAND POLICE DEPT. 1155 East MalA Street Ashland. Oregen 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-2211 Fax: 541-488-5351 TTY: 800-735-2900 ~., l' ...r August 28, 2002 Ken Keirn, 911 Program Manager Oregon State 911 Program 595 Cottage Street NE Salem, OR 97301 JACKSON COUNTY PSAP CONSOLIDATION PLAN The enclosed plan for the consolidation of 911 Public Safety Answering Points is submitted in accordance with HB3977. The contents of this plan details the consolidation of 911 call-taking services at Southern Oregon Regional Communications (SORC). The plan was adopted by the SORC Intergovernmental Council on August 14, 2002. (this letter would be revised and/or expanded depending upon addendums or action taken by the SORC Council, the City of Ashland and/or the City of Medford) Mildred R. Tirapelle, Director ~ "IT 911 PSAP CONIOLIDA TION PLAN JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON Adopted - August 2002 LEGISLATIVE MANDATE HB 3977 Section I (2)(a), signed by the Governor on July 3, 2001, states for each county with more than one primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), the primary PSAP's shall jointly submit to the Office of Emergency Management (OEM), by September 1, 2002, a written plan for the consolidation of the PSAP's, including, but not limited to, requirements for the consolidation of facilities, equipment and personnel. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following plan for the consolidation of 911 Public Safety Answering Points is submitted in accordance with HB3977. The 28 public safety members and users of Southern Oregon Regional Communications support the concept that through an integrated multi-jurisdictional PSAP the delivery of 911 call-taking services will be enhanced within Jackson County. The content of this plan details the consolidation of 911 call-taking services at Southern Oregon Regional Communications (SORC). SORC is prepared to activate the service 90 to 180 days after being assigned the primary PSAP responsibilities, with no additional expenditure from local General Fund revenue. Further, SORC is prepared to embark upon the development of a strategic plan focused on the relocation of the PSAP to an essential services rated facility. Timellnes within the plan would be based on the availability of funding and project feasibility. JACKSON COUNTY PROFILE Jackson County 911 call-answering area encompasses 3057 square miles which includes Crater Lake National Park in Klamath County and a small portion of Siskiyou County, California. The county terrain is made up of valleys and mountainous regions. 911 calls-for-service are relayed to first responders by a combination of mountain top and local radio transmitter sites owned and maintained independently by SORC, Jackson County, the City of Medford and the City of Ashland. SORC serves a 911 wireline population base of 83,370 citizens, however, due to numerous areas of overlapping responsibility, SORC dispatches public safety personnel (in response to 911 calls) for a base population of 174,550 citizens. Medford CCOM and Ashland 911 process 911 wireline calls and dispatch for populations of 79,480 and 19,490, respectively. The population of the call- 1 ,. ~ answering area is heavily impacted by summer and winter tourism and broad- based special events. In addition, a significant number of wireless 911 calls are generated by the passage of Interstate 5 through Jackson County from North to South along its western boundary with Josephine County. Southern Oregon Regional Communications is an Intergovernmental Agency formed in 1986 under the statutes of the State of Oregon ORS 190.010, et seq. SORC provides enhanced 911 call-taking services for 28 urban and rural public safety entities which includes: 8 city police and fire departments, the County Sheriff, 12 rural fire protection districts (including Medford Rural Fire District #2), 2 ambulance services and 6 state and federal public safety organizations. The organization has a record of successful operation as a member driven multi- jurisdictional PSAP for a period of 17 years. Medford CCOM is a division of the City of Medford Police Department and operates under the authority of the Chief of Police. Medford CCOM provides enhanced 911 call-taking services for the City of Medford police and fire departments and the City of Central Point Police Department. The City of Central Point Police Department has contracted with the City of Medford for 911 call-taking services and dispatch services for a period of 5 years. Ashland 911 is a division of the City of Ashland Police Department and operates under the authority of the Chief of Police. Ashland 911 provides enhanced 911 call-taking services for the City of Ashland police and fire departments (which includes ambulance services for the City of Ashland) and the Southern Oregon University Police Department. Southern Oregon University has contracted with Ashland 911 for 911 call-taking and dispatch services for a period of 15 years. Call-takers at all three PSAP's provide pre-arrival medical instructions to callers and respond to EMS calls in the following manner: 1) SORC monitors the status of the trauma hospitals and surgeons and deploys both emergency and non-emergency ambulances in Jackson County and parts of Klamath, Siskiyou and Josephine counties. Ambulance services consist of Rogue River Ambulance and Mercy Flights. Rogue River Ambulance is operated by Rogue River Fire District #1 and Mercy Flights is a private 501 (c) (3) EMS provider with ground ambulances, fixed-wing and rotary transport aircraft. 2) Ashland 911 deploys Ashland EMS to both emergency and non- emergency medical situations in and around the City of Ashland. 3) Medford CCOM deploys the Medford City Fire Department to emergent medical situations within the City of Medford. Requests for an ambulance (emergency and non-emergency) for the City of Medford are currently forwarded to SORC for resource assignment. 2 ~ wr CONSOLIDATION GOVERNANCE 17he ClJrrent SORe ORS 190 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) will be rewritten to more appropriately define the role of the consolidated PSAP. Each of the member agencies shall have one equal vote on the Agency Intergovernmental Council with regard to PSAP mission, policy and financial commitment. The name of the organization may also change, depending on the will of the members, to reflect the consolidation of PSAP's in Jackson County. TIME LINE Task Start ComDlete Assignment of the Primary PSAP 09/01/02 10/01/02 Revise IGA to include new members 10/01/02 11/01/02 Order and install consoles 10/01/02 12/30/02 Order and install 911 monitors 10/01/02 12/30/02 Order MSAG chanaes 10/01/02 12/30/02 Activate MSAG chanaes 02102103 Order & install fiber connection 10/01/02 12/01/02 Order & install local call forwarding 10/01/02 12/01/02 Order and install lockers 10/01/02 12/30/02 Complete hirina and trainina 10/01/02 02/02/03 Activate the consolidated PSAP 02/02/03 02102/03 Develoo Site Relocation Plan 11/01/02 01/01/03 Relocation 01/01/03 As per site plan The equipment needed for this project has been pre-ordered through Motorola. They are awaiting our final notification to activate the order. 911 PASS-THROUGH FUND MANAGEMENT 911 pass-through revenue will be deposited in a separate, dedicated, interest bearing account. All interest earned will be reinvested in the account. Funds from the account shall only be expended on State 911 eligible items. All deposits and expenditures reports will be provided to the members on a monthly basis and audited annually. Expenditures from the account shall be accomplished by resolution of the governing Board. 3 T IT FACILITY, SHORT TERM No remodel of the current SORC facility will be needed in order to accommodate PSAP consolidation. SORC currently occupies 7,800 square feet of floor space on the fourth floor of the Jackson County Offices Building. The space was previously occupied by the Jackson County jail, but was remodeled in 1990 for the specific purpose of housing the countywide emergency communications facility. SORC holds a 50 year non-revocable lease from Jackson County at a rate of $1.00 per year with a remaining term of 38 years. Two WATSON call-taker workstations will need to be added to the current equipment configuration (see attached floor plan: Addendum B, consoles 6 and 7). Console installation will be accomplished in accordance with appropriate purchase and delivery guidelines; presumably within 60 to 90 days from the date of order. The generator, uninterrupted power supply, electrical distribution panel and site utilities are sufficient to adequately support the addition of two call-taker positions. The current facility has 860 square feet of floor space available for equipment (telephone, radio & power) expansion and a fully equipped on-site service repair bench for use by responding telephone and radio technicians. The SORC facility boardroom serves as an EOC for Jackson County during emergency situations and continues to be a designated back-up site for the State Office of Emergency Management in the unlikely event they were required to evacuate their facility. The site development (telephones and interoperable radio systems) was funded by a $166,000 OEM grant in 1993. FACILITY, LONG TERM The SORC facility (structurally) meets the earthquake evacuation standards adopted by the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) for public access facilities. It does not, however, meet the standard for new construction of essential service facilities built after 1992. The members recognize the importance of being able to continue to inhabit the countywide 911 center in the event of a major earthquake. With that in mind, the members will, upon consolidation, begin the process of developing a strategic plan for the relocation of the PSAP (and related dispatch systems) to a new or retrofitted essential services rated site. Additional financial assistance will be needed for the construction of a new facility. 4 ,. -.r PERSONNEL SORe and Medford CCOM collectively process 230 to 250 911 calls per day. Ashland processes approximately 15 per day. The consolidation of workload will require two additional 2417 console positions, which equates to 11 additional 911 call-takers. Telecommunication personnel currently employed by the Ashland and Medford PSAP's shall be encouraged to apply for employment with the consolidated agency. It is expected staffing obligations can be accomplished within 90 to 180 days. In preparation, SORC has begun the process of training additional provisional 911 call-takers. On-hand pass-through funds shall be used for this purpose. CALL PROCESSING AND TRANSFER Through a transparent redirection of ESN's, the countywide, wireline and wireless 911 calls-for-service will be routed to the consolidated PSAP for processing. Seven-digit business calls will continue to be routed to the appropriate dispatch agency. The 911 call-taker will enter the call-for-service into the countywide Tiburon CAD system. The System will route the incident to the appropriate dispatch group. In the case of an in-progress or just occurred law enforcement and/or fire service incident, the caller will also be transferred to the appropriate dispatch group as that agency may require. In the case of a medical call, where pre-arrival instructions (PAl's) will be given, PAl's will be provided to the caller prior to the transfer of the caller. Call processing and call transfer agreements are in place with each dispatch group. DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN I ALTERNATE SITE The consolidated PSAP will use existing methods for forwarding 911 calls to alternate temporary sites in the event of a loss of service or evacuation of the center. Call-taking personnel may be deployed to alternate sites to assist with the call load as may be necessary. Disaster recovery agreements are developed and in place with all parties and dispatch groups. 5 T ..r EQUIPMENT SORC utilizes WATSON console furniture and PlanWesta 911 hardware. Consolidation of the PSAP's will require the purchase of the following: 2 Call-taker consoles 2 Chairs 2 Plant Vesta 911 monitors 2 Phase II Ma in monitors $ 31,066.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 3,000.00 NON-RECURRING COSTS Revenue on hand Revenue on hand Revenue on hand Revenue on hand MSAG consolidation Network reconfi uration Console fumiture Personnel Costs testin Ihirin Tele hone transfer installation Tele hone CPE VESTN Ma Fiber connection 12 Headsets 12 Lockers 12 Sets/Su lies RECURRING COSTS Personnel salaries & benefits Personnel 911 trainin CPE maintenance CURRENT COSTS PAID BY OEM ON BEHALF OF JACKSON COUNTY SORC CCOM Ashland FY 00-01 Recurring $ 110,800 $ 102,000 $ 11,550 Other CPE Costs $ 61,845 $ 18,450 $ 31,200 Total Total $ 172,645 $ 120,450 $ 42.750 $ 335,845 CURRENT 911 REVENUE RECEIVED BY JACKSON COUNTY PSAP'S SORC CCOM Ashland Total $378,103 $335,051 $ 86.013 $799,168 T -.r ' 6 911 PSAP CONSOLIDATION PLAN JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON SIGNATURE PAGE Southern Orecon Recional Communications. SORC Date Jim Lewis, Chairman SORC Intergovernmental Council Citv of Ashland Police Department. 911 Date Alan DeBoer, Mayor City of Ashland Citv of Medford Emeraencv Communications. CCOM Date Mike Dyal, City Manager City of Medford 7 T "IT ADDENDUM A - ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SORC AS THE PRIMARY PSAP FOR JACKSON COUNTY Jackson County Profile Consideration was given to the creation of a fourth entity; a stand-alone primary PSAP. A line-by line review of the three operating budgets revealed the cost of an independent PSAP would more than double the expenditure of local General Fund dollars. This was primarily due to added infrastructure costs. Consolidation of the PSAP's with SORC would require no expenditure of local General Fund dollars. SORC has a proven history of multi-jurisdictional cooperation. The agency is the primary contact point for state and federal inquiries and directly serves a variety of local public safety disciplines. During countywide emergencies, the SORC boardroom is used as a staging area for the Jackson County EOC. SORC is in constant contact with area hospitals, monitoring trauma centers and resources. With the exception of the City of Ashland, countywide emergency and non-emergency 911 calls-for-service involving the need for medical assistance pass through SORC. SORC meets or exceeds the standing orders for call processing times mandated by the Jackson County Emergency Medical Service Ambulance Service Agreement. Except for the cities of Medford, Central Point and Ashland (which are currently monitor-only frequencies), SORC has two-way radio communications with all the public safety agencies operating within Jackson County. Transmit capabilities with the aforementioned agencies could be easily and inexpensively accomplished by connecting to the common fiber network which terminates one city block from SORC. SORC conducts an 8 week in-house training academy and provides 16 weeks of one-on-one on-the-job-training in addition to the State required 40 hour DPSST call-taker training program. This training, combined with a profusion of automated information and resources, promotes the development of well qualified 911 call-takers. In preparation for consolidation, SORC purchased recording equipment compatible with the user agencies. All calls for service will be logged in CAD and recorded on the Stancil master voice recorder. Monthly call-processing reports will be provided to the dispatch agencies. 1 T WI" Govemance 911 is a service provided universally to the residents and visitors of the State of Oregon. Telephone tax revenue is collected statewide and passed-through to the counties as needed to ensure a common level of service (with no regard as to whose tax dollar is being utilized). With this in mind, SORC believes no single public safety entity should have a greater or lesser vote as to how the local pass- through funds are expended. SORC feels strongly the governance of the primary PSAP should be one entity, one vote. Each member shall have an equal vote on the Intergovernmental Council with regard to mission, policy and financial commitment and one vote on a PSAP sub- committee with regard to day to day operational procedures and recommendations to the Intergovernmental Council Fund Manaaement SORC has a history of vigilance with regard to the management of 911 pass- through revenues. Expenditures from the account are closely evaluated for eligibility and have often been pre-approved by the State Office to ensure strict compliance. SORC holds a reserve of 911 pass-through revenue in excess of $350,000 for the purpose of implementing a timely consolidation of PSAP's without drawing from state 911 funds. As soon as the decision is made to assign the primary PSAP to SORC, the consolidation process can begin. Facility. Short Term The Ashland 911/dispatch center is currently understaffed. The City is interested in making the move to out-source their dispatch operation at the same time the 911 PSAP is consolidated. If the move can be accomplished before the Y2003 budget year, costs for additional staff and 911 hardware, which will no longer be needed after consolidation, can be avoided. No structural changes will be needed to accommodate the PSAP consolidation and the addition of Ashland dispatch. In order to add Medford dispatch, some minimal remodeling of interior walls would be needed. Facility. Lona Term The loss of the 911 building incentive fund negatively impacted the consolidation of the Jackson County primary PSAP in a newly constructed essential services rated facility. SORC has begun exploring its options with regard to relocating the consolidated PSAP, based upon the availability of funds and project feasibility. 2 ? - Persennel Consolidation of the PSAP's, barring unforeseen circumstances, will not cause the elimination of telecommunications jobs at Medford CCOM or Ashland PD. It is expected both agencies will need to retain their current staffing levels in order to support their dispatch operations. Eleven new 911 call-takers will be needed at SORC to support the two Medford 911 positions; no new call-takers will be needed to consolidate with Ashland. Personnel from both agencies will be invited to apply for these new positions. Should Dispatcher positions be eliminated as a result of Ashland or Medford consolidating their dispatch operations with SORC, all parties are committed to protecting the jobs of Medford and Ashland's former employees, per statutory guidelines. Telecommunications personnel currently employed by the Jackson County public safety dispatch centers are members of the Teamsters Union. Over the past year, the local Teamster's business representative has striven to dovetail the three Y2003-06 labor agreements wherever possible. Consolidation of personnel would result in comparable or improved wages and benefits. PERS member retirement plans would be frozen for any transitioning Medford and or Ashland employees after the statutory effective period and a Deferred Compensation plan would take its place. Seniority would be integrated. 3 T ...r Sl'-r ") ADDENDUM B - SORe FLOOR PLAN New New T ..,. U"-&- .", ) CITY OF ASHLAND Memo TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Mayor and City Council Scott Fleuter, Chief of Police ~ August 19,2002 PSAP Consolidation Plan - City of Medford As a follow up to my previous memo of August 14,2002, I have now been provided a copy of the PSAP Consolidation Plan for the City of Medford. Enclosed is a copy for your records. Enc: ASHLAND POliCE DEPT, 1155 East Mail Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 www.ashland.or.us Tel: 541-488-2211 Fax: 541-488-5351 TTY: 800-735-2900 W.1I ._~ ~ "'Ir ~~,i?ii!~:.'~'.'.p$,~p~i?Q~Qn~~!iq~I:~:I~:65~~Q~: ....:,:: ....................'........ ......................:::::::....: N....:::'...N:.~.::':.: UU"',, . : WW: ":,.:::::w':":"t'89e.')J DRAFT F 911 PSAP CONSOLIDATION PLAN JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON City of Medford August 16,2002 Executive Summary: State law requires all counties to present a plan to consolidate their Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) into one PSAP and to present the plan to the State by September 1, 2002. On July 22, the City of Medford, City of Ashland, and Sourthem Oregon Regional Comm.mications (SORC), at a meeting held in the SORC Boardroom and attended by Mr. Ken Keirn, State 9-1-1 Director, Oregon Emergency Management, reached a consensus to submit a unified plan. See Attachment A. On July 30, SORC advised the City of Medford, in writing (Attachment B), that they had changed their minds and would submit their own plan. Therefore, the City of Medford hereby submits its own plan for PSAP consolidation under HB 3977. Highlights include: . Medford will receive all PSAP calls in Jackson County and forward them to the agency having jurisdiction for dispatching. . All Jackson County PSAP funding will be forwared to the City of Medford to apply as revenue for the costs associated with funding a countywide PSAP. . PSAP will be located in a new seismically rated facility to be located adjacent to Medford Fire Station 6 at North Phoenix Road and Barnett. Construction will begin by December 31 , 2002 with completion estimated within twelve months. . Medford-Jackson County Public Safety Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) will be co-located within this new Medford facility. . All PSAP call transfers to other dispatch centers will occur electronically through CAD. . During the construction period, PSAP will be housed in the Medford CCOM Center in Medford City Hall. . Backup facilities are available in the seismic four facility housing the Medford Fire Department and Medford Emergency Corrmunications Center adjacent to City Hall at 200 South Ivy Street. . The City of Medford will operate under a contractural agreement. Contractees to the City of Medford will participate in an advisory board to provide feedback to the City on PSAP operation. ~ ~ IRon" Noi1is:P~Pconsolid~!IQri.:f~~'16:r"'1QC .w... .u'@ ..m@ .,.. 11! ~ ....u....... 1 ..... ................w... N~..'..NNNUU ::..........J;)~~..?~. 911 PSAP Consolidation Plan August 16, 2002 Page 2 Consolidation Requirement. HB 3977 Section I (2)(a), signed by the Governor on July 3, 2001, states for each county with more than one primary Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP), the primary PSAP's shall jointly submit to the Office of Emergency Management (OEM), by September 1, 2002, a written plan for the consolidation of the PSAP's, including, but not limited to, requirements for the consolidation of facilities, equipment and personnel. There are three primary PSAP's in Jackson County. They are: 1 ) Southern Oregon Regional Communications (SORC) located at 10 South Oakdale Street in Medford. 2) Medford Emergency Communications Center (CCOM) located at 411 West Eighth Street in Medford. 3) Ashland Police Department Communications located at 1155 East Main Street in Ashland. In accordance with HB 3977, representatives of the three primary PSAP's have met on numerous occasions in an effort to develop a consolidated PSAP plan for Jackson County. These meetings repeatedly indicate that meeting the State's requirement for a consolidated dispatch is more expensive than maintaining the current status of having three PSAPs, each getting a proportionate share of the funding directed to the county. Jackson County Profile (3 PSAP's). All three PSAPs today enjoy someVvtlat different philosophies and cultures to meet the needs of their constituents. For example, Medford serves a condensed urban area and SORC serves a large rural area, and Ashland serves both types. Jackson County 911 call-answering area encompasses 3,057 square miles VvtIich includes Crater Lake National Park in Klamath County, and a small portion of Siskiyou County, California. The county terrain is made up of valley and mountainous regions; 911 calls-for-service are relayed to first responders by a combination of mountain top and local radio transmitter sites owned and maintained independently by Jackson County, the City of Medford and the City of Ashland. SORC serves a 911 wire line population base of 83,370 citizens. Medford CCOM serves a 911 wireline population of 79,480 and Ashland serves 19,490. The population of the call-answering area is heavily impacted by summer and winter tourism and broad-based special events. In addition, a significant number of wireless 911 calls are generated by the passage of Interstate 5 through Jackson County from North to South along its western boundary with Josephine County. Southern Oregon Regional Communications is an Intergovernmental Agency formed in 1985 under the State of Oregon ORS 190.010. SORC provides enhanced 911 call-taking services for 28 member agencies to include, eight city police and fire departments, the County Sheriff, 12 rural fire protection districts (including Medford Rural Fire District), t'MJ ambulance services and six state and Ir i~()6.....F!()ff!~....~.....P~~p~(),n~,()it~~!I()ri,::r::~::~~?" . .'~9,q::..... .....................................~='...:,::,::::::,::::,:,,""':, .....,:::N:..m:::.",::,::...' c_.")__.,.....,.:,, ::,,::.:~...:,"" ,,,,,,,.,....,: ......:::::............P:~9~:~.,1 911 PSAP Consolidation Plan August 16, 2002 Page 3 federal public safety organizations. Medford CCOM is a division of the City of Medford Police Department. Medford CCOM provides enhanced 911 call-taking services for the City of Medford police and fire departments, the City of Central Point Police Department, and Rogue Valley International Medford Airport Fire and Rescue. The City of Central Point Police Department has successfully contracted with the City of Medford for 911 call-taking services and dispatch services for a period of five years. Ashland 911 is a division of the City of Ashland Police Department. Ashland 911 provides enhanced 911 call-taking services for the City of Ashland police and fire departments ('lNhich includes ambulance services for the City of Ashland and surrounding south county) and the Southem Oregon University Security Department. Southem Oregon University has successfully contracted with Ashland 911 for 911 call-taking and dispatch services for a period of 15 years. Call-takers at all three PSAP's provide pre-arrival medical instructions to callers. SORC monitors the status of the trauma hospitals and surgeons and deploys Mercy Flights (a private EMS provider) ground ambulances, fixed-wing and rotary aircraft in response to both emergency and non- emergency medical situations in Jackson County and parts of Klamath and Siskiyou Counties. Ashland 911 deploys Ashland EMS to both emergency and non-emergency medical situations in and around the City of Ashland. Medford CCOM deploys the Medford City Fire Department EMS to emergency medical situations within the City of Medford and Medford Rural Fire District #2. Requests for an ambulance (emergency and non-emergency) for the City of Medford are currently forwarded to SORC for resource assignment. PSAP Governance Issue: The City of Medford shall determine final policy and procedure for the Jackson County PSAP. Each dispatch agency participating in PSAP shall participate in an Advisory Board to provide feedback to the City on policy and procedure. All PSAP funds shall be forwared to the City of Medford to apply against the cost of providing countywide PSAP service in a seismically sound facility. A strict accounting of the application of PSAP funds to PSAP operation shall be maintained and available to the State for inspection. Facility Needs: A new seismic facility will be constructed adjacent to Medford Fire Station 6 at North Phoenix and Barnett Road in Medford to house the Countywide PSAP, Medford Communications, Regional Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD), and room for future expansion of services. This facility will begin construction by December 31,2002 and be cOfll)leted within one year. Prior to completion of this new facilty, PSAP will be housed with Medford Central Communication at 411 West 8th Street. Backup capability is currently available at the Medford Fire Department Headquarters Emergency Communication Center (ECC) in a seismic four facility located at 200 South Ivy Street. The new Medford Emergency Communications Center will be designed to accommodate Incident Command System operations (ICS) and emergency backup to Medford Fire and Police Headquarters personnel. T ..,. .IJ~~~:H~,ij-i~:.F'.~I:'~ri~~i!~'~!i~ri~J~~I~~r' 'loe ::'::==~::::.:::::':::':':NNN ................:w:'.'''''=::':I...' ::'WWU:,', :::,',:::':J~~gii 4]. 911 PSAP Consolidation Plan August 16, 2002 Page 4 Power Needs: The new facility 'Will have emergency backup power, integrating an Uninterrupted Power Source (UPS), and a two-phase natural gas generator 'With propane backup, as presently provided to all five Medford fire stations, Medford CCOM, and Fire Headquarters). Emergency backup power 'Will be designed to support the entire building's HVAC (heat, ventilation, and air conditioning), long term, in the event of a power outage. Disaster Recovery Plan: Backup facilities, radios and phones, are in place at the seismic four Medford Fire Department Emergency Coordination Center facility, housed in the Medford Fire Department and Medford Emergency Communications Center adjacent to City Hall at 200 South Ivy Street. Radios will operate on emergency pO'N8r provided by a two-phase natural gas generator, backed up by a propane fuel application, UPS 'Will provide intermediary power until the generator automatically takes over operation. A full bank of phones, currently installed and available, will provide phone trunks to 'Nhich the 9-1-1 lines and administrative lines may be transferred. Radios are also programmed for battery backup, should the need arise. Personnel from Medford Fire and Medford Police Offices would be available to intercept calls until CCOM personnel arrive at the backup center. Network Routing Issues: 9-1-1 lines would be rerouted from Ashland Police 9-1-1,1155 E. Main Street, Ashland, and SORC, 10 South Oakdale Av., Medford, to the newly completed Medford Communications Center at Barnett Road and North Phoenix Rd., Medford, at the time of consolidation. Customer Premise Equipment (E911 telephone equipment): Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) for all three current Jackson County PSAPs is a Vesta solution. Each system is redundant and interchangeable. Staffing requirements: A minimum staffing level of three calltakers is planned for a period of approximately 18-20 hours per day, dropping to a minimum level of two calltakers for the remaining 6-4 hours of the day. Medford Communications Center's current staffing level of sixteen (16) full-time Dispatchers and four (4) partime Dispatchers would be augmented through increased 9-1-1 funds to a staff of up to t'Nenty seven (27). Call transfers: All call transfers shall be electronically performed utilizing CAD. Summary: This plan presents Jackson County with a single point PSAP as required by HB 3977. It achieves economy of scale through consolidation with the largest dispatch center in the county, the City of T .r '1..R~~:"f~~ij-j~:p~~J~~~i1~Q!',~~!i2,ri.~f.~~j..~?" !Qc; ':"::U'::UU' , . u :. ............w.............~.::u....,:....,:,:,.u:'::.:::::::'.::~.:,.. .............::w,...w.P.~g~ ~.I 911 PSAP Consolidation Plan August 16, 2002 Page 5 Medford CCOM. The function will be housed in a seismically sound facility constructed specifically for the purposes of PSAP, regional CAD, and dispatching. A seismically sound facilty currently exists to provide emergency backup at the Medford Fire ECC. Participants will provide feedback to the City of Medford through an Advisory Board of contractees. Representatives of the State of Oregon are invited to inspect the plans and observe construction of the new faciilty, as well as, the seismic emergency backup site. Respectfuly submitted, Michael Dyal, City Manager Date City of Medford END PICHIEfi\PSAPconsolidation-F 8-16-02.DOC T 1'1" 'I' ..,. CITY OF kSHLAND Council Communication TITLE: Public Hearing on Grant Award for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Affordable Housing Project Proposal DEPT: Community Development - Planning Division DATE: September 17, 2002 SUBMITTED BY: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development ~ Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner~ APPROVED BY: Greg Scoles, City Administrator Synopsis: The City of Ashland Housing Commission is charged with forwarding a recommendation to the City Council for the award of the 2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. A total of 75% of Ashland's yearly allocation is available for the competitive award process to serve the highest priority need established in the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. In total the three applications are requesting $274,750 in CDBG funds. HUD has not yet released the final amount available for distribution, but we anticipate a 13.8% increase in available funds for fiscal year 2003. Additionally the City will be "reprogramming" a past award of $22,000 that was awarded to the City of Ashland for Sidewalk construction in 2000-2001. However as no Davis-Bacon wage information had been received the money was not distributed. Subsequent to the original award the Consolidated plan was revised to eliminate an allocation for sidewalks and therefore the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has recommended that those funds be re-allocated to an affordable housing project consistent with our Consolidated Plan priorities. Thus the City will have approximately $214,000 available for the competitive award process available to the selected sub-recipient(s) for use in developing affordable housing. This is the tenth year that the HUD has awarded CDBG funds to the City of Ashland. The primary purpose of the CDBG Program is to fund community development projects and programs, which benefit low and moderate-income people. Through evaluating each of the proposals, and the recommendations of the Housing Commission, the City Council is to determine-which proposal(s) most effectively use the limited Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds available to address the needs, of low- and moderate-income residents of Ashland. Background: Requests for Proposals were available to th~public on July 15th 2002. Three proposals · - were received by the deadline' of August 19 , 2002. A public hearing was held on August 28th before the Ashland Housing Commission to review the submitted proposals and to forward a recommendation for award(s) to the City Council. Proposals solicited were limited to affordable housing projects, the highest priority need identified in the 2000- 2004 Consolidated Plan. Appropriate projects were to include land acquisition for the construction of affordable housing, or acquisition and repair of existing housing for low- income households. Each of the three proposals received addresses the highest priority need identified in the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan, affordable housing. Staff Evaluation: To assist in the City Council's evaluation of the proposals an overview of each proposal is provided and the strengths and weaknesses are identified frqm a Staff perspective. Staffhas assessed if the proposals received meet the federa~ CDBG regulations, and if the proposals comply with the City of Ashland 200042004 Consolidated Plan. Three areas are evaluated for each proposal regarding compliance with federal regulations. First the proposed projects must meet the natibnal objective of the Community Development Block Grant program. Second, all CDBG funded projects must be an "eligible" use under the CDBG federal regulations. Finally, if the proposals meet all federal requirements, then many federal regulations must be met throughout the course of the project. For instance, 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 mus~ use federal Davis-Bacon wage rates, and housing involving structures lluilt prior to 1978 must undergo lead-based paint abatement. Areas of concern are described fog each proposal. The City Council, can only award CDBG funds to projects tlmt meet all federal requirements. Proposals 1) Rogue Vafle¥ Community Development Corporation, Land Aeqpisifion The mission of the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) to develop residential rental units for individuals or families at 60% or !ess of median income is consistent with the City of Ashland 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. Goal 1 of the Consolidated Plan is "To increase the supply of affordable rental housing for extremely low-, low- and moderate-income families." The h~ghest priority for use of the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds is tO "Support the acquisition and development of affordable rental housing units through a sustainable program, which retains the units as affordable in perpetuity, such as a land trust." The Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC)!proposal is to use $168,750 in CDBG funds to assist in purchasing a property (2001 Siskiyou Blvd.) for the construction of 10-11 rental units on the parcel. This is tlic second site identified in a scattered site, 32 affordable rental housing unilg.develppment. Last year (FY 2002-2003) RVCDC was awarded the years entire CDBG allocation of $168,750 to acquire the first identified site (Lower Pines Trailer Park~) upon which 'they propoSed the construction 'of 14,15 rental units available to individuals and families .with incomes equal to or less than 60% of area median income. RVCDC is .searching for a third site to accommodate the remaining 6-8 units to complete their 32 unit project. It is important to note that the recommendation of the Housing Commission, and ultimate .award by the City COuncil, in 2002 to RVCDC was for the acquisition of the Lower Pines site ~one, and the relocation of the existing residents. No commitment to allocate'future CDBG awards for the additional sites or additional units was made at that time. As such Staff has evaluated the proposal to acquire 2001 Siskiyou Blvd. independent of the other" phases" of the scattered site approach. The present zoning of the subject property is R-3, High-Density Multi-family Residential, which allows for up to 20 residential units per acre. The site is ~ acre which allows for a base residential density of 10 units. The proposal for 11 units on this site is intended to capitalize on density bonus-points allocated for the provision of affordable housing. Site Review approval is required for the development which involves completion of a pre-application, a formal application. and review and approval by the Ashland Planning Commission. Of particular concern with the RVCDC proposal, as with all CDBG funded projects, is the timeliness in which the proposed project is to be completed. Federal regulations limit the City's maximum CDBG carryover to 150% the annual grant. As a result, the project must be completed and the funds used in the twelve-month period. While using funds in a "timely" manner as defined by HUD is always a challenge, it becomes imperative with high cost projects. - Staff has determined independently of the application that the subject property (2001 Siskiyou Blvd.) is available for sale and can be developed at the density proposed. However the preliminary site plan presented in the application (pg A-8) has not been through the pre-application process to establish feasibility and compliance with all City ordinances. The purchase price of the property is not disclosed in the application (although the application states $700,000 for this site + the Lower Pines Site). Staff understands the subject property to be listed at approximately $385,000, of which the applicant is seeking $168,750 in CDBG assistance. Of minor concern on this site is the demolition or relocation of the existing home on the site. As the redevelopment of the site will necessitate the removal of the existing buildings the applicant will have to complete a Demolition Review in conjunction with the Site Review approval for the development of the 10-11 unit apartment complex. Fortunately the existing home at 2001 Siskiyou Blvd. is not currently occupied and RVCDC has indicated that an option for the purchase of the property includes the stipulation that it not be rented (or otherwise occupied) prior to purchase. This eliminates the complex issues involved with relocation under the Uniform . Relocation Act (URA) and therefore Staff believes this site acquisition proposal is relatively straight forward. ..,' -:: ---r-- ~ ...~ ~ RVCDC - 2001 Siskiyou Blvd. Property strengths weaknesses . Meets one of highest priorities in . $168,750 requested toward purcHase price, Consolidated Plan - provision of the remainder of purchase price ~as been not affordable rental housing. been secured to Staffs knowledg~. In general most of the requited funding for ~e project has yet to be secured) . Provides a high density development . Preliminary development assess~ent is not along a major thoroughfare (Siskiyou complete, complex land-use pro~ss at local Blvd.) and therefore provides housing level. in close proximity to public transportation. . The target group for this II unit site is . Application for 2003 Oregon Afl ordable families making less than 600/0 of Housing Tax Credits (OAHTC) t [)be median income. submitted in August 2003 (timer ness issue) . Rental units developed will remain . Administrative c~ity issues, tI e large affordable for a minimum of 60yrs with scale proposal is substantially lar ~er than any a deed restriction on the property. endeavor RVCDC has complete' to date. However RVCDC is using consu tants . experienced in such projects. I i . RVCDC is proposing a scattered site . Affordable Housing development i which distributes the units to be completed as opposed to a concentration of affordable housing in i anyone area. I . $10,000 Challenge Fund grant awarded to be applied toward pre-development costs. 2 Ro ueValle Communi Develo ment Co oration Technical sistance RVCDC submitted two applications during this funding round. The 1, for Land Acquisition, is outlined above. The second application RVCDC skIbmitted is a proposal to receive a total of$21,000 in CDBG funds to provide tec~1 assistance. The technical assistance funds, if awarded, would be used to develo a relocation plan by Right-of-Way and Assoc. for the Lower Pines trailer park si at a cost of $7500 (RVCDC was awarded $168,750 in 2002-2003 to acquire the Lower Pines trailer park property). Additionally RVCDC intends to use technlcal assistance funds to contribute $6000 toward Architectural costs to conduct preliminary site planning and complete the City pre-application process for all sites irelated to the project (total architect costs estimated at $10,800 of which $4800 to be covere~ by a Challenge Grant). RVCDC would like to apply $7500 in CDBG funds to the: development consultant fee of $15,000 (the remaining $7500 to be paid by RVCDC). The development consultant (Neilson Group LLC) will direct the activities of the other consultants as well as provide financing consultation and prepare applications for frtants and City Land Use Planning submittals. Staff views this proposal as directly relating to the provision of affordable housing, and. as such is considered meeting . the highest priority need outlined in the Consolidated Plan. r.," L1 l' r Upon review of the proposal Staff fmds the activities in this proposal do not qualify under the "technical assistance" criteria. Technical assistance as defined by HUD aims to increase the capacity of public or nonprofit entities in carrying out eligible neighborhood or economic development activities. These are activity-specific administrative costs related to carrying out eligible CDBG activities, which are considered part of the cost of those activities. However, the particular uses identified do qualify as eligible uses of CDBG funding as related to the provision of affordable housing. As stated above the three activities include: I) Relocation plan ($7,500) for the Lower Pines Trailer Park Site 2) Architectural costs ($6,000) to conduct site planning and complete the city pre-application process for all sites related to the project 3) Development consultant fee ($7,500) to direct the activities of the other consultants as well as provide financing consultation and prepare the applications for grants and City Land Use Planning submittals. It is staff's finding that the frrst 2 items, relocation planning and architectural services are appropriate uses of the CDBG funding as their completion is necessary prior to construction. The third item, development consultant, is viewed by staff as a cost that is ongoing throughout the project and as such is difficult to clearly distinguish a portion as a "pre-development" cost. As such, after consultation with HUD, Staff has determined that CDBG funding may not be the most appropriate source of funds for this particular fee. RVCDC - "Technical Assistance" strengths weaknesses . Will allow RVCDC to complete . Consultant fee more of a total project related purchase of Lower Pines Property and cost, therefore not exclusively related to pre- execute a relocation plan development. 3) Creative Alternatives Foundation The Creative Alternatives foundation is a non-profit organization (50Ic3) established to "better serve the community and the area in which we live". This organization applied for $85,000 to be used to complete required street improvements and service improvements directly related to a 19 unit senior housing project targeted to households (65 or over) with incomes between 40-800/ci of median income. Seven of the 19 apartments will be targeted to households with incomes less than 50% of the area median income. In this case the proposal to utilize CDBG funds to complete the required street and service improvements is directly related. to the creation of the 19 unit affordable senior housing project. Thus Staff finds that . the proposal is directly related to the provision of affordable housing as required by Ashland's Consolidated Plan. This project has received some applicable lOcal land use approvals, namely a zone change and completion of the pre-application. The Site Review portion of their land use action was initially reviewed by the. Planning Commission and is to be presented to the Commission for final review in the coming months. ,., r:. 7 The application indicates that Jackson County Housing Authority will be providing professional management of the apartments. The applicant will receive the land located at 631 Clay Street as a donation (valued at $300,000) abd anticipates receiving additional grants and tax credits to complete the housing construction. Application for Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credits (OAHTC) Wa$ submitted in August 2002 for review and award in this fiscal year. On and off--site improvements proposed to be completed with COBO flUnds include, curb-gutter, storm drain, water and sewer extensions, and sidewalk installation totaling $81,985 as listed below: Excavation and haul off $3432 Rock placement and grading $2458 Shale, % minus and DO $2416 Curb and Outter $3130 Paving $3747 Sidewalk and approaches $4925- Storm Orain $4685 Electrical fees and Transformer $12900 Fire Sprinkler vault, hydrants $25960 Utilities from street to building $3058 Parking lot changes and striping $2134 City water. sewer and fees $5687 Subtotal $74532 Administration 10% $7453 TOTAL = $81.985 The use COBO funds to pay for the installation of infrastructure (e.g~, water/sewer lines, streets and sidewalks) are eligible activities (~570.201(c)). P~rtions of this proposed project are eligible under the category Low-Moderate ~/M) Income Housing. The improvements exclusively assists in the provision of housing to be occupied by L/M income households at affordable rents upon cOJ!npletion. Site improvements to publicly-owned land is acceptable provided the improvements are undertaken while the property is in public ownership. Public improvtiments include streets, sidewalks, curbs and gutters, park, playgrounds, water and se~r lines, flood . and drainage improvements, public parking lots, and utility lines. In ~s particular proposal the subject property (631 Clay S1.) is not under public ownership, thus the improvements listed pertaining to actual on-site development are not el~gible, such as the private parking lot upgrades, on-site grading, and utility extensions trom the street to the building. Therefore these items, and any other improvements~n the private property, can not be funded through the COBO program. The use ofCI!>BO funds for "administration" is also not considered an eligible activity. S.taff. believes the applicant is prepared.. to provide a break. down of whic~ items are on public property at the public hearing. Initially staff can clearly dete~e that of the $81,985 itemized, a minimum of $12,645 of the items listed are ineli~ible ($7,453 - admin, $2,134 - parking lot, $3058 - utilities to building.) Additionally, it may ~ that the Fire Sprinkler vault , water service, and hydrants ($25,960) are to be 10cJited upon the subject property and would therefore . not be eligible for COBO a$sistance. The ., ? T 'I"' ~ itemization also lists fees that are proposed to be paid with CDBG funds. It is Staffs understanding that these fees are not eligible under public facility improvements as they are not technically "improvements". However fees can be eligible uses under a special assessment of pre-award costs however the reimbursement of fees would have to have been applied for separate of the public improvements application. In total staffbelieves approximately only $24,793 of the $81,985 cost may be eligible for reimbursement through the CDBG program as proposed. This $24,793 relates entirely to the estimated cost of off site improvements on the properties Clay Street frontage. Unfortunately these estimates were not incorporating Davis-Bacon wage scales. All projects receiving more than $2000 in federal assistance are required to provide Davis-Bacon wages. Staff has some concern regarding the proximity of the site to the 10Oyr. Flood plain of Clay Creek. Although the subject property is outside the flood plain, the flood plane does extend into the street frontage (public right of way) adjacentto the property. As the actual proposed improvements are likely to be wnside of the floodplain environmental regulations relating to developments within floodplains may not be a significant issue. However, this has not be conclusively determined and would need to be resolved to ascertain compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) through an environmental review. Staffs primary concerns with the project involve the timely expenditure of funds. As the project site is on an unimproved street a more comprehensive approach to the full street improvements has been suggested by the City Public Works Department. The creation of a Local Improvement District (LID) for improvements to the entire length of Clay Street (Ashland Street to Siskiyou Blvd.) will allow the City to complete the improvements to Clay Street in a more efficient and economical way than by having individual property frontages improved independantly. The formation of a Clay Street LID has not yet occurred and is not anticipated in the 2000-2004 Capital Improvements Plan. Therefore Staff believes the actual improvements would not be completed until some time after 2004. The anticipated date of initiation of these improvements subsequent to the formation of a LID is undetermined. Should an award be made to Creative Alternatives Foundation for these street improvements, the CDBG funds would not be dispersed until such time as the improvements are complete, and documentation is received that demonstrates that Davis-Bacon wages were provided. For this reason Staff feels that it is highly likely that an award of $24,793 for off-site public facility improvements would contribute to Ashland's carryover ofCDBG funds for a number of years. The City must not accumulate more than 50% of our yearly allocation in carryover or it is subject to recapture by HUD. Should the funds be directed toward a Local Improvement District (eligibility under review by HUD staft) the total project will receive more than $2000 toward the full improvement of Clay Street.. This will require that the entire project be subject to Davis-Bacon requirements as well as monitoring by City Staff for compliance with Federal requirements. The improvement of Clay Street in its entirety will be considered an "Area Benefit Activity". Under the area benefit criteria the public facility improvements are to receive CDBG assistance only when it can be demonstrated that within ~ mile of the improvements that at least 51 % of the residents meet income eligibility requirements (low-moderate incomes). The r.,> ~ -----r-- ~ determination of the income characteristics in the service area is to be demonstrated by conducting a survey (door to door) of all households. At this point no determination has been made as to whether the area qualifies for Federal assistance. It is important to note that should the improvements be isolated to the frrontage of the proposed affordable housing project, these improvements are seen to benefit the particular development (not the area) and would therefore be eligible without completing an area benefit survey. Creative Alternatives Foundation (CAF)- 631 Clay St. Improyements strengths weaknesses . Meets one of highest priorities in . Fees ineligible as a public facility . Consolidated Plan - provision of improvement, On-site work ineli$ible use of affordable rental housing. CDBG funds. . The target group for this 19 unit site is . The public facilitiy improvement$ to be seniors less than 80010 of area median completed willi CDBG funds w~ot be income, of which 7 apts to be reserved undertaken until a Local Improv ent for extremely low income (less than District for full improvements to lay Street 50% AMI) .Rental units developed will are complete, thus CDBG funds ould not remain affordable for a minimum of 51 be expended unti~-5 (timer. ess issue) yrs with a deed restriction on the I property . Property for the development (631 Clay . Administrative capacity issues, the Street) is to be donated to CAF with a organization CAF has yet to acco~plish the value of approximately $300,000 development of housing. . Experienced contractor (Medinger . Davis-Bacon wage scales not in~~ded in Const.) selected, familiar in the estimated construction costs with the development of Affordable Senior application. I Housing Projects. . Application for Oregon Affordable . Full Clay Street improvements (npt just Housing Tax Credits (OAHTC) was isolated to the site frontage) woutkl be submitted in August 2002 for review considered area serving, therefor~ a door to and award in this fiscal year. door income survey of all househ~lds within . Completed Zone Change, preliminary a 1,4 mile of the improvements w~ld be application & initial review by required to determine that the ar~ qualifies Planning Commission. Proposal very as Low-Moderate income. far along in planning process. Housine Commission Recommendations The Housing Commission reviewed all three proposals at their regular njleeting on August 28, 2002 and have forwarded a recommendation to the City Co$cil to provide CDBG funds to each of the three proposals. Of the approximate! $214,000 in CDBO funds anticipated, the Housing Commission's recommendation Was to grant Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) a total ~f$186,250 ($172,750 toward land acquisition, and $13,500 toward predevelopmentl costs), and an award of $27,750 to the Creative Alternatives Foundation (CAF) forlhe off-site improvements to Clay Street required of a 19 unit Senior affordable hOl$ing project. RVCDC proposal #1 = $186,250 RVCDC proposal #2 = $13,500 CAF proposal #3 = $27,750 . .l i T r All members of the Housing Commission are supportive of each:. of the three proposals and would like to find a way to grant funds to each proposal. Although questions remained regarding the CAF proposal's ability to be completed in a timely manner the Commission endeavored to award CAF the funds if it would not jeopardize the 1.5 carryover rule (no more than 50% of the yearly allocation in carryover permitted). The Housing Commission determined that the two RVCDC proposals were effectively "one project" as they both relate to the larger multi-phased project. In this way, although the Commission opted to recommend awards for all three proposals it was their finding that this recommendation was consistent with the recent Consolidated Plan revisions that restrict the allocation of awards to no more than two projects. The completed Minutes from the August 28th Housing Commission meeting are included as an attachment to this Council Communication. Staff Recommendations: In the past the City has awarded funds annually to multiple agencies through the Budget Committee process. In 2001 the City Council approved modifications to the Consolidated plan that included a reduction in the number of projects to be awarded CDBG funds in a given program year to one, potentially two. This modification was made to simplify the grant process, to be more effective in specific programs with what funds are available and to help the City be compliant with federal reporting requirements. With this modification in mind, as well as concerns relating to the timely expenditure of funds Staff recommends that the RVCDC proposal for land acquisition at 2001 Siskiyou Blvd (#1). receive a CDBG award in this program year. Additionally staffviews the 'lechnical assistance" request (#2) by RVCDC as having merit in ensuring that the federal and local requirements for their proposed development at the Lower Pines site are met. Particularly the relocation plan and preliminary architectural services assistance would assist the applicant in complying with requirements that have been established to be completed prior to site acquisition. However, staff would suggest that any award be tied to the submittal of information delineating pre-development and actual construction related architectural design work. Staff concurs with the Housing Commission that the two RVCDC proposals can be considered related to one project. This relates directly to the Consolidated Plan amendment restricting awards to one, potentially two, projects per year. The Creative Alternatives Foundation (CAF) proposal also has merit, unfortunately many items identified in their proposal are not eligible for CDBG assistance. Staff believes approximately $24,750 plus $3000 in engineering costs ($27,750 total) relates entirely to the off site improvements of Clay Street and would be an eligible use of CDBG funds. The allocation of awards to more than one proposals would add administrative burden to City Staff, as such the relatively small grant award of27,750 to CAF would require the same meas~ of review as a large scale project. Particularly this project would involve Environmental Reviews, Davis Bacon wage ..,' ... r monitoring, and potentially an area of benefit survey be completed prior to the final determination of eligibility (in the case of a complete street improvement from Ashland St. to Siskiyou Blvd). Thus Staff is not recommending an award to CAF at this time however as a number of the improvements identified in their application are eligiple uses of funds, it is suggested that CAF apply for CDBG funds during the prog~ year that construction is actually to oceur. Staff recommends directing the available funds toward land acquisition and pre- development cost for RVCDCs multi-phased affordable housing project Staff Award Recommendations: RVCDC proposal #1 = $200,500 RVCDC proposal #2 = $13,500 CAF proposal #3 = $0 in this program year I r.,' 1/ T r CITY OF ASHLAND ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 28, 2002 CALL TO pRDER - The meeting was called to order by Chair Nancy Richardson at 4:07 p.m. Other commissioners present were Joan Legg, Jonathan Uto, Richard Seidman, Andy Dungan, and Diana Shavey. Larry Medinger, Kim Blackwell and Cate Hartzell were absent. Staff present were Brandon Goldman and Sue Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Shavey moved to defer approving the minutes until the September meeting in order to spend more time discussing the CDBG proposals. Legg seconded the motion and everyone approved. AGENDA CHANGES - Dungan wants to report on last night's Planning Commission meeting. Richardson has a short message at the end of the meeting. PUBLIC FORUM - No one came forth to speak. CDBG APfLICAIIQNS - PUBLIC HEARING - Goldman distributed his memo dated August 28, 2002 regarding the CDBG Award Selection Calendar Year 2003. This is the tenth year the City of Ashland has been allocated CDBG grant funds. He is anticipating a 13.8 percent increase in the yearly allocation. This means there will be funds in addition to the $168,750 already noticed in the RFP. In 2002, $22,000 was awarded to the City of Ashland for sidewalk installation. Although the project was completed, we did not receive Davis-Bacon wage determinations from the contractor showing the employees made Davis-Bacon wages. As a result, the funds were not released and are now to be reprogrammed and available yet again for another project. The Consolidated Plan has changed during that time period, eliminating the use of funds for sidewalk installation. The funds have now been added to the pool for this RFP. There is approximately $214,000 available instead of the $168,750 originally anticipated. Three applications were received requesting CDBG funds before the August 19,2002 deadline. Staffhas evaluated the proposals and has made their recommendations as outlined in Goldman's memo of August 28, 2002. Goldman reviewed his memo with the Commission. ue 0 m n Dev mentC on ~ -Land n They are pro g to purchase a half-acre site at 2001 Siskiyou Boulevard and construct ten to eleven units on the property. The application bas not gone through the pre-application with the city and has not been completely evaluated for conformance with all ordinances, however, it appears to be appropriate for the site. Staffhas spoken with the property owner and found the property is indeed for sale and available for acquisition. The existing house on the property is unoccupied. Goldman identified the strengths and weaknesses associated with the proposal as outlined in his memo of August 28, 2002. Shavey asked if the money coming back from Davis-Bacon is jeopardized by the 150 percent carryover role since it is year 2000 money. Goldman said we have a backlog of carryover money. Shavey asked what the drop-dead date is for the carryover money. Goldman said July of2003. It is Staff's endeavor to expend the funds in a timely manner and that's why they are reprogramming them instead of waiting for the Davis-Bacon requirements. Goldman said RVCDC could purchase the property once it has passed an environmental review, establish site control and then apply for tax credits. The project hitting the ground will be delayed, but Goldman does not anticipate land acquisition will be delayed. ProDOsalf2 - Raaue Vallev CommunItY DeveloDment Comoratlon (RVCDC) - Technical Assistance. Goldman said our HUD representative, Nancy Donovan, said this application does not technically qualify as technical assistance, however, she said the uses are eligible as related to the affordable housing development for the Lower Pines Trailer site. RVCOC is requesting $7500 toward the creation of a relocation plan, $6000 for architectural costs and $7500 toward their consultant's deVCllopment fee. In conversations with HUD,they determined the relocation plan as a prerequisite imposed by the City priOft9 the purchase of the property. The $7500 for a relocation plan is considered eligible as a pre-development cost and directly relates to the relocation approved by the Housing Commission and City Council last program year. The architectural costs will need to be more clearly delineated. CDBG eligible activities would not relate to those constluction activities. CDBG funding may not be the most appropriate source to fund the development consultant fee ($7500). The development consultant works throughout the project and it may be very cumbersome to delineate what portion of their work is isolated to pre-development. Goldman addressed the strengths and weaknesses of this proposal as outlined in his memo of August 28, 2002. ProDOsal t3 - Creative Alternatives Foundation. ICAF} The application relates to a 19-unit senior housing proje~t located at 631 Clay Street. The request is for ~ total of $85,000 to complete required street improvements and service improVements related to the housing project. Staffh~ determined it is an eligible use of funds, in part. Eligible use offunds includes improvementto "public" facilities that total ~pproximately $23,893 (as related to improvements to Clay Street). The Housing Commission and City Council will need to d:fEine whether the limited CDBG funds are best used to reimburse city required fees. The City would impose the fee, the plicant would pay the fee, and CDBG funds would reimburse the City. The floodplain encroaches onto the public right-of-wa and Staffhas some concerns with regard to environmental review. Will improvements in that area be possible? Goldman noted the strengths and weaknesses of the application. Strength of the application is that CAF ~ill be contracting with Jackson County Housing Authority. STAFF ~OMENDATIONS . Staffmadt their recommendations based on the revisions to the Consolidated Plan to limit the number o~grants awarded to one, or potentially two, in any program year. The purpose of limiting the number of grants is to make m~e effective use of the limited funds and to limit staff time to each of the projects. Staffhas recommended that llYCDC's pro al for land acquisition be funded this project year and receive a grant award for CDBG funds in the amount of $20 I 00. Staff also recommends funds be awarded to RVCDC in the amount of$13,500, delineating any pre-development d actual construction related work and how the technical development is pre-development. The CAF proposal also has merit, however, Staff is not recommending an award of funds at this time. QUESTIONS Seidman asked if limiting the awards to two was hard and fast. Goldman said it is. It is in the Consolidated Plan and approved by the City Council. It was initially proposed it be limited to one but expanded to potentially two in the qvent there are multiple projects that have merit. It is possible there could be some latitude with the technical assistanceiin the RVCDC proposal. Dungan wondered if the two RVCDC proposals can be called one. Goldman thought they could not bec~use one proposal is for land acquisition at 200 I Siskiyou Boulevard and does not involve relocation. Yet, the technical assistance is related to relocation on Ashland Street. Even though it is a multi-phased project, Goldman does see a distinction ~tween the two and Staff has approached them as separate propo~ for each land acquisition. The technical assistance rela~ to architectural services, preliminary application for the 200 I Siskiyou application, Goldman would say yes, but the rel~ation plan is related to last year's approved project. Seidman asked Goldman how much of a burden is it for staff to administer another proposal. Goldman $d the land acquisition project would have the same requirements of staff as any other project. The smaller project (~AF) also involves construction and is a little more cumbersome because the City would have to monitor Davis-Bacon. He $aid the technical assistance does not significantly increase staff time. It does increase staff time at the end of the year in iqentifying action plans and accomplishments. PRESENTATIONS OF PROPOSALS Proposal 11 Ron Demele, Executive Director of RVCDC introduced Sharon Neilson, developing consultant and co-d~veloper on the project. He introduced Carlos Delgado and Doyle Brightenburg who will be doing the design and archiulctural work on the ~~. I Demele said they are intending to use CDBG funds for the acquisition of the Faith Street property (200 I ~iskiyou Boulevard). He explained that a synthesis of the proj~ is outlined.in the chart on page A-7 of their submittal. It giv~ a perspective of how this fits in with the other sites. The only major difference in the original p. roposal to the present, is that tbfee sites will be needed instead of two. They believe it is important to have scattered sites. They expect some of the pie~s they started in the first round of funding to be forthcoming. Their purchase option is pending on the first proj~ and have ~ letter stating they are close. on their terms. . Demele said the Faith Street project is close to transportation, access to schools and jobs. There will be SIOme three-bedroom homes on the site. They believe this will lend itself to families. ASHLANDHOUSINO COIIIIISSION ..uTES AUGUST 28, 2lI02 2 T T'" Neilson spoke to the weakness outlined by staff. They are negotiating with the seller to have the balance of the site acquisition on the Faith Street site on a land sales contract. The seller would carry the paper, RVCDC would get funding, and they would take him out once they get full fmancing. They would anticipate, as shown on their timeline, having all sites closed by March 2003. They anticipate closing the Lower Pines site by December 1,2002. Neilson explained they are working on preliminary assessment and they are beginning to prepare the fIrst site and the Faith Street site. That is part of the request for technical assistance. They will soon be ready to do a pre-application on two sites. She does not believe the 2003 low income housing and affordable tax credit application will affect the CDBG timing issue. Neilson said she is the consultant and reminded the Commission she has done a number of projects in the state. Shavey wondered why they submitted two applications this time instead of one. Demele said it was offered as a result of a site visit done by Nancy Donovan. They were talking to her about some need for technical assistance up front to jumpstart the project. There was discussion at that time about the availability of Davis-Bacon funds that may not have been accounted for by the City. They asked if they could put forth an application. Seidman asked what kind ofa burden would it put on RVCDC if they received just $168,000. Neilson said they could live with that. Would they like more money? Yes. If the seller needs to be cashed out, it means RVCDC has to borrow less to bridge fmance. Proposal 12 Demele said the request for technical assistance is because there is money to be spent before the project gets going and to move this project through the pre-development stage, they have outlined some of the identifIed costs. Neilson said all of her activities have involved acquisition. They are at the phase of assembling the site for the project. It is pretty easy to delineate her activities and believe it could be documented. She believes all of the $21,000 would be eligible. Goldman said in the spring round the applicants stated they had administrative capacity and at this point staff is concerned they are retroactively asking for funding. Goldman said it was HUD's initial impression the consultant fee was not necessarily eligible but the application was not outlined to the degree it could be evaluated closely. IfRVCDC is willing to submit further information, the Housing Commission is in a position to make a recommendation to the Council to award that money, and it could be worked out prior to the Council hearing it on September 3, 2002. Shavey wondered ifRVCDC would be willing to accept an additional $7500 for land acquisition. Demele said they are willing to accept more than they have asked for. Proposal 13 Bob Vos, Medinger Construction, was just informed today that the funds would only be eligible for public off-site improvements. They would like to revise the amount they are asking for to $27,793. On their breakdown, the items excavation through storm drain are directly related to public facilities. Those items add up to $24,793, not $23,793. They would also be asking for engineering and survey fees of $3,000. They would like to place COBG money in a trust fund for the improvement of Clay Street that should happen in a couple years. Goldman said the money is a reimbursement for costs incurred. In order to reimburse the applicant, CAF would bave to present to staff the actual costs after completion and that the costs were paid. The City reimburses that cost. The trust fund it would be sitting in would be BUD's bank account. There might be other alternatives. Vos said they have been planning to do the half-street improvement but were told that rather than improving a short section of Clay Street, the City would rather wait and do the whole street at once. Goldman said they can clarify this issue before the City Council. Seidman asked the CAF representatives to speak to their background in running this type of project Elycia Witters said she wrote the.application. She said Medinger and Jackson County Housing Authority are driving the project The Creative Alternatives FoUndation has had this idea for awhile and hired Larry Medinger. Legg said the strongest part of this application is that it involves a donation of land and the commitment to do this project and make it work. The land is valued at around $300,000 and she believes this is a strength of the application not mentioned in the staff report. Goldman said there is some concern with the donation of land. The approval of the zone change was tied to the development of 19 affordable housing units based on the density of the entire parcel. As far as donating the rear portion of ASHlAND HOUSING COIIIISSION ...,-n:S AUGUST 21, 2102 3 T r property, Goldman did not know if this was actually feasible. He agrees that having the land identified atld paid for is ~mitely a strength. Seidman asked the applicant the consequences to CAF if they are not awarded $27,000. Vos said it woulld not sink the project, but it would make it harder. Legg said if we gave the two RVCDC projects $168,750 and $13,500, and we receive $214,000, that wo~ld leave $31,650. Dungan asked what's involved if the Housing Commission and Council want to give CAF $28,000. Gol4man said his major concern has to do with the timeliness of the expenditure. His recommendation if they choose to give the funds to Proposal #3 is to tie it to an improvement date. The $28,000 is more than ten percent of our yearly allocation, so with the 1.5 carryover for the next two to three years, they are assuming ten percent is already accounted for. As far as the administrative burden by staff, they would be looking at an additional project. The additional project would involve the environmental review pre- construction conferences with the contractors. He's hearing the conferences may not happen for two to tliree years. At that point in time, that would be on top of whatever CDBG allocations were made in, let's say, 2005. [Shavey moved and Dungan seconded to extend the meeting one-half hour. Everyone approved.] It is Goldman's understanding that CAF has to make application for any eligible CDBG mn..ts, but the Cfur is not obligated to award funds to them. All members of the Housing Commission are supportive of all three projects and would like to find a wa~ to grant funds to all three. Dungan said there is not enough information to make the best decision now. Could they suggest s~pport of three projects and let Goldman work out some of the questions. Goldman said the meeting is scheduled for September 3, 2002, but he will check to see if they can hear it on September 17, 2002. Goldman said the correct figure for CAF funds is $24,793 plus $3,000 in engineering costs for a total of$27,793. Goldman said the figure should be $214,000, not $215,000 (total funds requested by RVCDC). Staffw01l11d recommend Proposal #1 amount to $200,500. Uto wondered if staff considered the Housing Needs Analysis in making their recommendation. Goldmap. said all three proposals address the highest priority need identified in the Needs Analysis. Uto remembered at the AC4T meeting, they were showing the population of Ashland was aging and we needed to target young families. Goldman said his recommendations are not based on the Housing Needs Analysis but on the Consolidated Plan. Richardson closed the public hearing. Shavey moved to find a way to combine Proposals #1 and #2 for RVCDC on the theory it is all one proj~ct in multi-phases. And, recommend to the City Council that since RVCDC told us last spring that it was a multi-phase proj~t, they would be coming back. We knew then it was one project and we know now it is one project. She would propose \lite fund $27,750 for CAF and whatever the balance is to RVCDC in a combined proposal that includes $13,500 for the techni~al assistance and the balance for land acquisition. She recommends we fund RVCDC and CAF for the other amount ofmone~, subject to the solution to the off-site problem. If they can't get it solved by September 17, 2002, give RVCDC the whol~ amount of money and ask CAF get the technical issue solved and come back again next year. (Aside: Shavey believes a lot of non-profit organizations get started on a shoestring and get managed by professional management. She is convinced the more affordable housing we can get on the ground, the better off we *e. Even though there are technical problems with the application, she would like to give CAF a chance to rectify it.) Dungan seconded the motion. Shaveysaid if we can't combine RVCDC's request, then it is really importailt to keep the integrity of what we pushed for and that is two grants. She does not make a motion tQ fund three, only two. Goldman said the previous awar4 was already identified in the last action plan--the land acquisition for the. Lower Pines. 200 1 Siskiyou would be a separate action. There is only one site tbat has relocation needs and has a relocation plan associated with it. The City took the position of separating it into two projects so the City was bound to monitor the activity on additional sites. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION IlliUTES AUGUST 28, lOO2 4 Dungan said what the Commission wants is if Goldman cannot work out the details, to give RVCDC the remaining funds for land acquisition. Goldman added ifCAF is not workable as far as posting the bond or other methods, then the $27,750 goes into land acquisition. Seidman thought if the funds were all lumped into one for RVCDC that it might mean that one portion of it cannot be applied to the relocation. Would that free up other funds that would apply to relocation from other sources? Neilson raised the relocation this time to $100,000. They don't know until they get the plan how much it will cost. That cost includes hiring the person to help RVCDC. It was not made clear in her first application. Goldman will check with public works to fmd out a timeline for a LID for Clay Street. In the event a bond cannot be done through HUD requirements, would CAF still be permitted to have the $27,750 three years hence or when the actual improvements are done? The intent of Shavey's motion was to expend the money in a timeframe that we do not jeopardize the 150 percent rule. Shavey restated her motion. She moved that we recommend to the City Council that they grant RVCDC $186,250 composed of$I72,7S0 for land and $13,500 for technical assistance, either as one contract this year or as part oflast year. And, we grant $27,750 to CAF for eligible off-site improvements on the Clay Street property if it can be spent in a timely fashion (by December 31,2003). If it cannot, then the balance of that money would go to RVCDC. Dungan again seconded the motion. Shavey amended the motion. If the money cannot be spent by CAF, roll it over and reallocate it in an applicable round. Legg seconded the amendment. The vote was unanimous for the motion with the amendment. [Dungan moved and Shavey seconded to extend the meeting to 6: 15 p.m. All favored.] MEETING LENGT - Dungan moved to extend the Housing Commission's meeting time from this date forward to two hours. Shavey seconded the motion. All Commissioners voted in favor. ADJOUR*lENT - The meeting was adjourned at 6: I 0 p.m. Richardson said she would be gone most of September. She will not be at the Jackson County Coalition meeting. She asked is someone could chair that meeting. Dungan offered to chair the September meeting. Shavey will not be at the September meeting. ASHLAND HQU8ING co.sslON MlftlTES' AUGUST 28, iID2 5 ~~ T - "1" ..... CITY OF ASHLAND Al.\~ 21, too2... Dear Housing Commissioners, The City of Ashland requested proposals for the use of CDBG funds for 2003 and three proposals were received by the deadline of August 19th, 2002. Each of the proposals is enclosed to allow the Housing Commission to become familiar with the proposed projects prior to the Public Hearing scheduled for August 28th, 2002. Staff will also be evaluating each proposal and will be prepared to present our recommendations to the Commission at the public hearing. In total the three applications are requesting $274,750 in CDBG funds. HUD has not yet released the final amount available for distribution, but we anticipate a 13.8% increase in available funds for fiscal year 2003. Thus the City will have approximately $192,000 available for the competitive award process. In brief each of the proposals received is outlined below: 1) Rogue Valley Community Development Corp. (RVCDC) submitted a request for $168,750 toward the purchase of a .52 acre, multifamily zoned property at the comer of Faith a Ave. and Siskiyou Blvd. No relocation is required, as the existing house on the property is currently vacant. The subject site will accommodate 10-11 units of their 3-phase scattered site project to ultimately develop a total of 32 rental units targeting households with less than 60% of median income. . 2)RVCDC also submitted.a second (independent) application to receive a total of$21,000 in CDBG funds to provide technical assistance. The technical assistance funds, if awarded, would be used to develop a relocation plan by Right-of-Way and Assoc. for the Lower Pines trailer park site at a cost of . $7500 (RVCDC was awarded $168,750 in 2002-2003 to acquire the Lower Pines trailer park property).. Additionally RVCDC intends to use TA funds to contribute $6000 toward Architectural costs to conduc;t site planning and complete the City Pre-application process for all sites related to the project (total arChitect costs estimated at $10,800 of which $4800 to be covered by a Challenge Grant). RVCDC w6\1ldlike to apply $7500 in CDBG funds to the development consultant fee of $15,000 (the remaining $7500 to be paid by RVCDC). The development consultant (Neilson Group LLC) will direct the activities of the other consultants as well as provide financing consultation and prepare applications for grants and City Land Use Planning submittals. / 3) Creative Alternatives Foundation applied for $85,000 to be used to complete required street . improvements and service improvements directly related to a 19 unit senior housing project targeted to households (65 or over) with incomes between 40-800,4 of median income. Seven of the 19 apartments Will be targeted to households with incomes less than 50% of the area median income. This project has received ..pplicable local land use approvals including a zone change and Site Review approval. The appli~tioninclicates that Jackson County Housing Authority will be providing professional . From the DeIk Of: . Brandon Goldman Asailtant P""'I8f DIpIrtmInt ~'ll~I\fDl.-.....m 2Oe.aMU1~ ',; , AIhIInd. 0NIJ!IJa17.; wwwJllllllndAt.. ' Tel: 541-488-6305 Fa: 541-488-6311 m: 8QG.735-2llOO 'A' ---.--- T .. management of the apartments. The applicant received the land located at 631 Clay Street as a donation (valued at $300,000) and anticipates receiving additional grants and tax credits to complete the housing construction. Off-site improvements proposed to be completed with CDBG funds include, curb-gutt~r, storm drain, water and sewer extensions, and sidewalk installation. Staff will provide a detailed analysis of each proposal including findings related to CqBG eligibility and consistency with the Ashland Consolidated Plan at the scheduled public hearing on A~gust 28th, 2002. Sincerely, ~ From the Desk of: Brandon GOldman Assistant Planner Dlpaltmlllof c......, DMlopment 20 East MaIiJ S1nlet AIhIand, 0ItI0n 97120 www.ashIMII.or.us Tel: 541--488-5305 Fax: 541-488-5311 TTY: 800-735-2900 ,., CITY OF ASHLAND Staff Report TITLE: CDBG Award Selection Calendar Year 2003 Housing Commission Public Hearing Community Development August 28, 2002 Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: Synopsis: The City of Ashland Housing Commission is charged with forwarding a recommendation to the City Council for the award of..the 2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. A total of75% of Ashland's yearly allocation is available for the competitive award process to serve the highest priority need established in the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. In total the three applications are requesting $274,750 in CDBG funds. HUD has not yet released the final amount available for distribution, but we anticipate a 13.8% increase in available funds for fiscal year 2003. Additionally the City will be "reprogramming" a past award of $22,000" that was awarded to the City of Ashland for Sidewalk construction in 2000-2001. However as no Davis-Bacon wage information had been received the money was not distributed. Subsequent to the original award the Consolidated plan was revised to eliminate an allocation for sidewalks and therefore the Dept. of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has recommended that those funds be re-allocated to an affordable housing project. Thus the City will have approximately $214,000 available for the competitive award process available to the selected sub-recipient(s) for use in developing affordable housing. This is the tenth year that the HUD has awarded CDBG funds to the City of Ashland. The primary purpose of the CDBG Program is to fund community development projects and programs, which benefit low and moderate- income people. Through evaluating the proposals received the Housing Commission, and ultimately the City Council, are to determine which proposal( s) most effectively use the limited Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds available to address the needs oflow- and moderate-income residents of Ashland. Background: Requests for Proposals were available to the public on July 15th 2002. Three proposals were received by the deadline of August 19th, 2002. . Proposals solicited were limited to affordable housing projects, the highest priority need identified in the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. Appropriate projects may include land acquisition for the construction of affordable housing, or acquisition and repair of existing housing for low:-ineome households. Each of the three proposals received addresses the highest priority need identified in the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan, affordable housing. 'A" ---r--- .. Staff Evaluation: To assist in the Housing Commission's evaluation of the proposals an overview of each proposal is provided and the strengths and weaknesses are identified from a Staff perspective. Staff has assessed if the proposals received ~et the federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposals comply with the City of Ashl~d 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. Three areas are evaluated for each proposal regardipg compliance with federal regulations. First the proposed projects must meet the nat~onal objective of the Community Development Block Grant program. Second, all CDBG funded projects must be an "eligible" use under the CDBG federal regulations. Finally, if the proposals meet all federal requirements, then many federal regulations must be met throughout the course of the project. For instance, all projects funded, in whole or in part, with CDBG dollars require an environmental review in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A), construction projects m~t use federal Davis-Bacon wage rates, and housing involving structures built prior!to 1978 must undergo lead-based paint abatement. Areas of concern are described for each proposal. The Housing Commission, and City Council, can only award CDBG funds to projects that meet all federal requirements. , ., .. - 1) Roeue VaDey Communitv Development Corporation. Land Acquisition The mission of the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) to develop residential rental units for individuals or families at 60% or less of median income is consistent with the City of Ashland 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. Goal I of the Consolidated Plan is "To increase the supply of affordable rental housingfor extremely low-, low- and moderate-income families." The highest priority for use of the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds is to "Support the acquisition and development of affordable rental housing units through a sustainable program, which retains the units as affordable in perpetuity, such as a land trust. " The Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (R V CDC) proposal is to use $168,750 in CDBG funds to assist in purchasing a property (2001 Siskiyou Blvd.) for the construction of 10-11 rental units on the parcel. This is the second site identified in a scattered site, 32 affordable rental housing unit, development. Last year (FY 2002-2003) RVCDC was awarded the years entire CDBO allocation of $168,750 to acquire the first identified site (Lower Pines Trailer Park) upon which they proposed the construction of 14-15 rental units available to individuals and families witlrincomes equal to or less than 60% of area median income. RVCDC is searching for a third site to accommodate the remaining 6-8 units to complete their 32 unit project. It is important to note that the recommendation of the Housing Commission, and ultimate award by the City Council, in 2002 to RVCDC was for the acquisition of the Lower Pines site alone, and the relocation of the existing residents. No commitment to allocate future CDBO awards for the additional sites or additional units was made at that time. As such Staff has evaluated the proposal to acquire 2001 Siskiyou Blvd. independent of the other "phases" of the scattered site approach. The present zoning of the subject property is R-3, High-Density Multi-family Residential, which allows for up to 20 residential units per acre. The site is ~ acre which allows for a base residential density of 10 units. The proposal for 11 units on this site is intended to capitalize on density bonus-points allocated for the provision of affordable housing. Site Review approval is required for the development which involves completion of a pre- application, a formal application, and review and approval by the Ashland Planning Commission. Of particular concern with the RVCDC proposal, as with all CDBO funded projects, is the timeliness in which the proposed project is to be completed. Federal regulations limit the City's maximum CDBO carryover to 150% the annual grant. As a result, the project must be completed and the funds used in the twelve-month period. While using funds in a "timely" manner as defined by HUD is always a challenge, it becomes imperative with high cost projects. Staff has determined independently of the application that the subject property (2001 Siskiyou Blvd.) is available for sale and can be developed at the density proposed. However the preliminary site plan presented in the application (pg A-8) has not been through the pre-application process to establish feasibility and compliance with all City ordinances. The purchase price of the property is not disclosed in the application (although the application states $700,000 for this site + the Lower Pines Site). Staff understands the subject property to be listed at approximately $385,000, of which the applicant is seeking $168,750 in CDBO.assistance. r.,' .. Of minor concern on this site is the demolition or relocation of the existing home on the site. As the redevelopment of the site will necessitate the removal of the: existing buildings the applicant will have to complete a Demolition Review in cqnjunction with the Site Review approval for the development of the 10-11 unit apartmept complex. Fortunately the existing home at 2001 Siskiyou Blvd. is not currently 09cupied and RVCDC has indicated that an option for the purchase of the property in~ludes the stipulation that it not be rented (or otherwise occupied) prior to purchas~. This eliminates the complex issues involved with relocation under the Uniform Relocat~n Act (URA) and therefore Staff believes this site acquisition proposal is relatively sutaight forward. RVCDC - 2001 Siskiyou Blvd. Property strengths weaknesses . Meets one of highest priorities in . $168,750 requested toward purd ase price, Consolidated Plan - provision of the remainder of parthase price 1 as been not affordable rental housing. been secured to Staffs knowledg . In general most of the required funding for he project has yet to be secured) : . Provides a high density development . Preliminary development assess~ent is not along a major thoroughfare (Siskiyou complete, complex land-use pro ss at local Blvd.) and therefore provides housing level. in close proximity to public transportation. . The target group for this II unit site is . Application for 2003 Oregon Atlprdable families making less than 60% of Housing Tax Credits (OAHTC) t be median income. submitted in August 2003 (timer ess issue) . Rental units developed will remain . Admini_ve capacity issue~~ large affordable for a minimum of 60yrs with scale proposal is substantially I er than any a deed restriction on the property. endeavor RVCDC has complet . to date. However RVCDC is using consu)tants experienced in such projects. , . RVCDC is proposing a scattered site . Affordable Housing development . which distributes the units to be completed as opposed to a concentration of affordable housing in anyone area. . . $10,000 Challenge Fund grant awarded to be applied toward pre-development costs. I J!r~. ' .a. ~ ~ 2) RoeueValley Communitv Development Corporation. Technical Assistance RVCDC submitted two applications during this funding round. The first, for Land Acquisition, is outlined above. The second application RVCDC submitted.is a proposal to receive a total of $21 ,000 in CDBG funds to provide technical assistance. The technical assistance funds, if awarded, would be used to develop a relocation plan by Right-of-Way and Assoc. for the Lower Pines trailer park site at a cost of $7500 (RVCDC was awarded $168,750 in 2002-2003 to acquire the Lower Pines trailer park property). Additionally RVCDC intends to use technical assistance funds to contribute $6000 toward Architectural costs to conduct preliminary site planning and complete the City pre-application process for all sites related to the project (total architect costs estimated at $10,800 of which $4800 to be covered by a Challenge Grant). RVCDC would like to apply $7500 in CDBG funds to the development consultant fee of $15,000 (the remaining $7500 to be paid by RVCDC). The development consultant (Neilson Group LLC) will direct the activities of the other consultants as well as provide financing consultation and prepare applications for grants and City Land Use Planning submittals. Staff views this proposal as directly relating to the provisiOR--ef affordable housing, and as such is considered meeting the highest priority need outlined in the Consolidated Plan. Upon review of the proposal Staff finds the activities in this proposal do not qualify under the "technical assistance" criteria. Technical assistance as defined by HUD aims to increase the capacity of public or nonprofit entities in carrying out eligible neighborhood or economic development activities. These are activity-specific administrative costs related to carrying out eligible CDBO activities, which are considered part of the cost of those activities. However, the particular uses identified do qualify as eligible uses ofCDBO funding as related to the provision of affordable housing. As stated above the three activities include: 1) Relocation plan ($7,500) for the Lower Pines Trailer Park Site 2) Architectural costs ($6,000) to conduct site planning and complete the city pre-application process for all sites related to the project 3) Development consultant fee ($7,500) to direct the activities of the other consultants as well as provide financing consultation and prepare the applications for grants and City .Land Use Planning submittals. It is staffs finding that the first 2 items, relocation planning and architectural services are appropriate uses of the CDBO funding as their completion is necessary prior to construction. The third item, development consultant, is viewed by staff as a cost that is ongoing throughout the project and as such is difficult to clearly distinguish a portion as a "pre~evelopment" cost. As such, after consultation with HUD, Staffhas determined that CDBG funding may not be the most appropriate source of funds for this particular fee. RVCDC - "Technical- Assistance" strengths weaknesses . Will allow RVCDC to complete . Consultant fee more of a construction related purchase of Lower Pines Property and cost, therefore not necessary prior to land . execute a relocation plan acquisition as presented .~. .~ '\ 3) Creative Alternatives Foundation The Creative Alternatives foundation is a non-profit organization (501c13) established to "better serve the community and the area in which we live". This organ~zation applied for $85,000 to be used to complete required street improvements and serviqe improvements directly related to a 19 unit senior housing project targeted to householqs (65 or over) with incomes between 40-80% of median income. Seven of the 19 apmttments will be targeted to households with incomes less than 50% of the area median ihcome. In this case the proposal to utilize CDBO funds to complete the require<J street and service improvements is directly related to the creation of the 19 unit affordable senior housing project. Thus Staff finds that the proposal is directly related to ithe provision of affordable housing as required by Ashland's Consolidated Plan. This project has received some applicable local land use approvals, ~ely a zone change and completion of the pre-application. The Site Review portion of their ~and use action was initially reviewed by the Planning Commission and is iQ..be present~d to the Commission for final review in the coming months. : The application indicates that Jackson County Housing Authority will hie providing professional management of the apartments. The applicant received the iand located at 631 Clay Street as a donation (valued at $300,000) and anticipates recei~ing additional grants and tax credits to complete the housing construction. On and off--site improvements proposed to be completed with CDBG ~ds include, curb-gutter, storm drain, water and sewer extensions, and sidewalk in~lation totaling $81,985 as listed below: . Excavation and haul off $3432 Rock placement and grading $2458 Shale, % minus and DO $2416 Curb and Gutter $3130 Paving $3747 Sidewalk and approaches $4925 Storm Drain $4685 Electrical fees and Transformer $12900 Fire Sprinkler vault, hydrants $25960 Utilities from street to building $3058 Parking lot changes and striping $2134 City water. sewer and fees $5687 Subtotal $74532 Administration 10010 $7453 TOTAL = $81.985 The use CDBG funds to pay for the installation of infrastructure (e.g., ~ater/sewer lines, streets and sidewalks) are eligible activities (~570.201(c)). Portions oftlhis proposed project are eligible under $e category Low-Moderate (LIM) Income Hqusing. The iniprovements exclusively assists in the provision of housing to be occupied by L/M income households at affordable rents uPon completion. Site improvem4nts to publicly- owned land is acceptable provided the improvements are undertaken while the property is in public ownership. Public improvements include streets, sidewalks, c1iJ1'bs and gutters, r.,' park, playgrounds, water and sewer lines, flood and drainage improvements, public parking lots, and utility lines. In this particular proposal the subject property (631 Clay St.) is not under public ownership, thus the improvements listed pertaining to actual on- site development are not eligible, such as the private parking lot upgrades, on-site grading, and utility extensions from the street to the building. Therefore these items, and any other improvements on the private property, can not be funded through the CDBO program. The use of CDBG funds for "administration" is also not considered an eligible activity. Staff believes the applicant is prepared to provide a breakdown of which items are on public property at the public hearing. Initially staff can clearly determine that of the $81,985 itemized, a minimum of$12,645 of the items listed are ineligible ($7,453 -admin, $2,134 - parking lot, $3058 - utilities to building.) Additionally, it may be that the Fire Sprinkler vault, water service, and hydrants ($25,960) are to be located upon the subject property and would therefore not be eligible for CDBG assistance. The itemization also listsfees that are proposed to be paid with CDBG funds. It is Staffs understanding that these fees are not eligible under public facility improvements as they..are not technically "improvements". However fees can be eligible uses under a special assessment of pre- award costs however the reimbursement of fees would have to have been applied for separate of the public improvements application. In total staffbelieves approximately only $23,893 of the $81,985 cost may be eligible for reimbursement through the CDBG program as proposed. This $23,893 relates entirely to the off site improvements of Clay Street. Staffhas some concern regarding the proximity of the site to the 100yr. Flood plain of Clay Creek. Although the subject property is outside the flood plain, the flood plane does extend into the street frontage (public right of way) adjacent to the property. As the actual proposed improvements are likely to be outside of the floodplain environmental regulations relating to developments within floodplains may not be a significant issue. However, this has not be conclusively determined and would need to be resolved to ascertain compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEP A) through an environmental review. Creative Alternatives Foundation (CAF)- 631 Clay Sllmprovements strengths weaknesses . Meets one of highest priorities in . . Fees ineligible as a public facility Consolidated Plan - provision of improvement affordable rental housing. . . The target group for this 19 unit site is . On-site work ineligible use ofCDBGfimds. seniors less than 8oo.... of area median income, of which 7 apts to be reserved for extremely low income (less than 50% AMI) .Rental units developed will remain affordable for a minimum of 51 yes with a deed restriction on the property . Experienced contractor (Medinger . Applieation for 2003 Oregon Affordable Const.) selected, familiar in the Housing Tax Credits (OAHTC) to be development of Affordable Senior submitted in August 2003 (timeliness issue) Housing Projects. ..,' ~ ~ . Completed Zone Change, preliminary . aplication & initial review by Planning Commission. Proposal very far along in planning process. Administrative capacity issues, ~e organization CAF has yet to acc<!lmplish the development of housing. - fA' Staff Recommendations: In the past the City has awarded funds annually to multiple- agencies through the Budget Committee process. In 2001 the City Council approved modifications to the Consolidated plan that included a reduction in the number of projects to be awarded CDBG funds in a given program year to one, potentially two. This modification was made to simplify the grant process, to be more effective in specific programs with what funds are available and to help the City be compliant with federal reporting requirements. Staff therefore recommends that the RVCDC proposal for land acquisition at 2001 Siskiyou Blvd (#1). receive a CDBO award in this program year. Additionally staff views the "technical assistance" request (#2) by RVCDC as having merit in ensuring that the federal and local requirements for their proposed development at the Lower Pines site are met. Particularly the relocation plan and preliminary architectural services assistance would assist the applicant in complying with requirements that have been established to be completed prior to site acquisition. However, staff would suggest that any award be tied to the submittal of information delineating pre-development and actual construction related architectural design work. The Creative Alternatives Foundation (CAP) proposal also has merit, unfortunately many items identified in their proposal are not eligible for CDBO assistance. Additionally in an effort to streamline the CDBO program the allocation of awards to more than 2 proposals would add administrative burden to City Staff. Thus we are not recommending an award to CAP at this time. Ideally, were issues related to efficient use ofCDBO funds and staff time not relavent, staff believes approximately $23,893 relates entirely to the off site improvements of Clay Street and would be an eligible use of CDBO funds. Staff Award Recommendations: RVCDC proposal #1 = $201,500 RVCDC proposal #2 = $13,500 CAP proposal #3 = $0 .,' ---r-- T r ~ - Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2003 Grant Application Proposal # 1 Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) Land Acquisition . I l'A' CITY OF ASHLAND 2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Request for Proposal Application Form ,~.....~,....""#~'''~'--'' '~H."~'- -",,,,:":,...,.,~_.~!,,,,~~'_-_~::~<i:~-"'~1"'-r-;":~ ...~~.- '.. ";~-;;., ._,_......c-."~,:,.:"-"..,.,-..+:-,~ .- ....<:,.,.'..~...t....."_"" -_"':"~"~'"",,\,?'.,"x',.' -~---"'Uf;:::~.<>:~~" -~~:... ~ ~_:;...: '~O:~~~L..;t ',,'.i ~ :__'~:-:';:':~~~_,:~\i;_'~~~~~f~~jll~:"~.::.:---~'-:;..'':_~'.:$L~',:~""\'.:'~1t-;~-~:".. _ !~~fj~~~~:~~~~~ .p~~~;-'~~~~~"lr:T~:;;N~~t;~'~~;;'f~-;;;'~~';_~~'~~,:~:~gr~:y!, :t ';'~',:._." ~I.C!Id-9P~.,:,.,,;.; .~i_~. Y't.."" ~':~_"",):,!'v,._ ;'k .:-:, -~~:~:fi:':-:" "!! "\';Y-;;"~~-'~ ; ",-:.,.~,~,q,~,~t~Jt' .M;~-+~;" --~'~-' sites .'>inAshland '~ CDB<rfunds ~_ted""~' "V~!r-'1"::''''" ~~,..;!, '\';',~..."" j;.::...,',,.,,..~,":'" ""'~N'.~~' !;-,,:,~:_,,,,,,"::(i"'f!l~:","':~~;' ,':",:;S:'~;;.i'.;,_\-" ~JI.,!t.::~,.~,",K,".'.. '(C)rg8llBtion-'.~".'lC"'....' ..~-Agenc \U'.'';: .,.~:.. -"'2"~..""...~.... ,". A"""'J::'.:Y :........,.'~f.~'~~'~. 4:',"..~:S.;z;:..~ ;",. ~:,-:";;~~"\,,,,,,,,'~-4~' '/;.~)r.'l!;.:~ ~'!t,.~;fr'..',,,.. -$ :168;760 . ,~,' i';": ~ 'i'.::.,:i,;....-: ,~,;~:~~~"_!'~;~;.'l""'~7:'Z.~ltt"~',7". ,;;,.~~:-~'~~-',~~'(it.'~"l .~:~:. :".~-;~:-~r;~~.t~~.~;~~;j~,~;: ' .Rog"!~~t.!y1!p.mmuntty~~lopf!tet1t~.- : ... '"; '.-< "~.; .,--;'.':..~~j ;Add....:-~::: ;":....~~:-t.:.... .-t;-'-:'~~~-'t\... #..... "';'i'~~-'J;."'.t~",~,-.,. "''1(11'"1'"'' Clty~ "l8a2i~:~" '... '-r'-~~ ,,' ,~_,,,,,,,,~~~,",,..~~...,-;.,- .~'~.~ ,",-. ~"'U'~"""''''''-'''f~>.t'~~if!-I''I+;I'''' . ."" ,"'A'h..... p..-- .:,?~.....''!'!t.,; ,~,..... .'A(UlI!'gg '~'" & ''j.''',~'.IIlill',", -----.-;~ "''''-'''''~''.... '_t~~::: ::.;.::: .J. ,'~>: "~'I..I...l' ~:l.',H_ '-"~_'-~4-,..,~ ______. _.:~,..,.~~~. ~~'t':'.!!!'i'. , '..... r~...,........,i lof;jV:"'~t:!'."~,_t~>:<:~'-"F1",~"";--,~;"""4'~~~i!"'~:o!~"~,,,,,.",:~:"~"~":'" AUGll. CnBO RFP 2003 city of Ashland Page. (t) .,. - 2) Project Summary The Ashland Villages consists of 32 one, two and three bedroom units located on multiple sites in the City of Ashland. The Ashland Villages will have rents affordable to individuals and families at 50010 and 60% of area median income ($14,000-$25,000 annual incomes depending on family size). Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC), the project sponsor, is in the process of assembling appropriate sites for the project. To date two of the three sites necessary to construct 32 units have been identified (Ashland Pines and Faith Street). RVCOC has been in active negotiation with these property owners and has submitted Option and Purchase Agreements to each. The property owners are currently reviewing the Agreements and RVCDC anticipates receiving final executed copies from each no later than August 28, 2002. RVCDC is actively searching for a third site and anticipates completing the option site control of all sites by October 2002. RVCDC will order property appraisals and Level I site assessments on the two sites immediately upon receiving the executed Agreements on each site. RVCDC has hired the firm of Carlos Delgado Architect and Associates to prepare site plans for the two identified sites as well as prepare City pre-application documents for all project sites. Attached to this proposal are the preliminary site plans for Ashland Pines and Faith Street. RVCDC received the Spring 2002 CDBG award to acquire and relocate the 8 resident families of the Lower Pines Trailer located on the Ashland Pines site. To date RVCDC has identified and received a proposal from Right of Way Associates to develop a plan and cost estimate to relocate the residents in compliance with the federal Uniform Relocation Act. This site accommodates 14 units and 5400 square feet of commercial space. Parking for all uses is five spaces less than required. RVCDC is working with the developer of the parcel behind this site to lease the needed spaces on a long-term basis. RVCOC intends to complete the purchase of this site no later than December 1,2002, pending the release of CDBG funds by the City of Ashland. The Faith Street site proposes 11 units with corresponding parking. The house located on the property is vacant and the property owner bas expressed some interest in moving the house to another site. If the Seller declines to move the house it will be demolished. The house is not an historic structure. RVCOC is cmrently reviewing two sites to determine the suitability and availability of . each. In the absence of an identified third site, the current proforma includes the minimum number and configuration of units to make the project work. In addition to the awarded and requested CDBO funds, RVCDC intends to finance this project with debt using Oregon Affordable HouSing Tax Credits, equity from an allocation of Low Income Housing Tax Credits, and a Housing Development Trost Fund grant, all through the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department (OHCSD). u) - Application for this permanent funding will be made in the Fall 2003 Consolida~ Funding Cycle process. Interim predevelopment financing has been received from Federal Home Loan ~ Challenge Grant. Additional predevelopment financing will be sought through <j>HCSD seed money loan and/or pre-development loan programs as well as the Rural Collaborative . RVCDC and The Nielson Group LLC are serving as co-developers of this proje<f' 3) ( A- If" A-b) ~ a. See attached vicinity Maps <' pages displaying parks, transportation, schools1 b.- h. See attached Project Data Chart and site layout for Ashland p~ and Fai$ Str Site( A..-"'" A...') i. A Pre 1978 building exists on site and is planned to be moved or salvaged by ~wner prior to sale to RVCDC. It will not be occupied by children under the age of six. , .j - k. N/ A L The Faith Street. site was chosen for its suitability for family households. It gvides enough space to incorporate a recreation area for children, parking for those wi cars, and an adjacent bus stop for those who require public transportation. Those ho ,holds in the 50-60% area medil;lll income range will be targeted. Tenant selection will accomplished by a to be selected management company that will follow Section 42 guidelines in placing tenants. m. This rental property will remain affordable for a sixty year period. A deed restriction will be placed upon the property to do so. . ~ , RVCDC will provide linkages to community services for residents at all sites, wII1ich will include linkages with a variety of health and social services, including after sch~l programs, free bicycling, employment counseling, credit counseling, savings pro~, and possible future home ownership opportunities. S) see attached Form A ( A-I 0) 6) FiDancial Information a. Total Project Costs: ('0 l3) ,. ..... Sources of Funding First Mortgage Debt: Assumes a thirty-year mortgage and amortization. An allocation of Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credits (OAHTC) from Oregon Housing and Community Services Department (OHCSD) writes down the interest rate on the first $837,807 to 5% for a period of 20 years, the balance of the first mortgage is financed at conventional interest of 90,10 (a conservative projection). At year 20 the project will be refinanced at a conventional interest rate for the remaining 10 years. Bank of AmericalNetwork for Oregon Affordable Housing and Keybank both have expressed interest in providing construction to permanent financing. Application for the OAHTC will be in the August 2003 Consolidated Funding Cycle (CFC) of the OHCSD. Low Iacome Housing Tu Credits: Jackson County is a HUD defined hard to develop area and therefore eligible project basis has a 3()o,Io boost and yields a $376,913 annual allocation at a credit factor of 8.2%. At $.80 on the dollar and equity amount of $3,012,288 is projected. Application for the LIHTC allocation will oein the August 2003 CFC of the OHCSD Keybank and Enterprise Social Investment Corporation have expressed interest in reviewing this project for possible investment. CDBG: Rogue Valley Community Development (RVCDC) has been awarded $168,750 in CDBG funding by the City of Ashland from it's Spring round to acquire the Lower Pines Trailer P~ site and relocate( the existing residents. RVCDC is seeking an additional $168,750 in CDBG to acquire a second site located on Faith and Siskiyou Blvd. Deferred Developer Fee: The retTlaining gap between the project cost and the sources of funding above will be filled by RVCDC through deferral of a portion of their developer fee. This fee is required by the IRS to be repaid within 10 years. RVCDC will be repaid within six years of stabilized operation at 0% interest. Uses of Funding AequWtion Net P1Irehase Price: It is assumed that the two identified sites will appraise for a total of $700,000. The third site is not yet determined and RVCDC is currently seeking an appropriate property. ClosiDg Costs: An allowance for escrow, recording, title insurance and other fees to close the acquisition transactions. Legal: Fees to prepare option and purchase agreements and review other transaction documents. LandAppraisal: An allowance for confinning offer price for each site. CoiIstruetion Costs Construction - Apartments: Per architect preliminary site layout the estimated total resideJitial square footage is 25,800 and it is estimated the cost per square foot to be $90 asSuming Davis-Bacon wage rates. Cost per square foot based upon 2001 square foot costs - 2200 Annual Edition RS Means Company, Inc. ~ <-'4)' T r Parking: The architect has estimated parking cost for three sites as preliminarilb designed to be $82,000. On the Ashland Pines site, RVCDC is currently negotia' g with the developer of the adjacent site to secure under a lease arrangement the additio 5 spaces needed to meet the City of Ashland's parking requirements. Landscape & Irrigation: The architect has estimated landscape cost for three si~s as preliminarily designed to be $77,000. Commercial Space: The Ashland Pines site projects 5400 square feet of commefial space at $65 per square foot for a basic shell that a tenant can build out. FF &E: Allowance to furnish small on-site office and community rooms on each! site. Contingency: Assumes 5% of construction costs excluding FF&E Indirect Development Costs Relocation: This is an allowance for relocating the residents at the Lower Pines railer Park in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act. Final costs will be de . ed upon completion of a relocation plan prepared by Right of Way AssOciates (a reI on specialist) based upon interviews and the needs of the each family. Costs for co ultation by Right of Way Associates is included in this line item. Appraisal and Review: Based upon experience of development consultant the cpst is for the after-value appraisal of the project needed for permanent financing. Includes Ithe cost for a market study prior to application for funding. ' Arcb.iteetlEngineer: Based upon 7.5% ofbard construction cost less contingen~. Permanent Loan Fee: Assumes a fee of 2% on the permanent loan. Construction Interestlbridge interest: Includes the interest on the constmction iloan for the period of construction and project lease up. Calculated on an estimate of a 10 month constnlction schedule and a five month lease up schedule, which based upon the consultant and architect experience. Construction Loan Fee: Assumes a fee of 1 % on the construction loan. Lender Inspections: Based upon lender information. Contingency- Soft Costs: An allowance of3% of indirect costs less reserves to cover line item cost overruns in this category. Construction Coordination: Cost for an Owner Representative with technical knowledge of construction processes during construction to ensure that architect rd contractor resolve issues and keep the project on time and on budget. ; Developer Fees/Consultant Fee: Approximately 8% of total project costs.. The; OHCSD allows up to 10% and this fee may change as the project moves forwardJ Environmental & Geotechnical: Based upon consultant experience on a similat multiple site project. ' Legal and Accounting (incl Investor Fee): Base on experience on a similar project and conversation with tax attorney and tax accountant. Investor Fee will not be d~ed . \Dltillimited partner is selected. I CODUD. ~..ty ~el~pment Fee: Assumes 1.65% of co~on cost f~ fee to s~.' bOImit appropriate application to the City of Ashland once. Application for l'eVlew and approval . will contain the design for all three sites. . Lease Up Reserve: Estimate of coSt to cover project operating costs during lease: up. Ma.aaement and Start-up Costs: Cost to Conduct ~leaseactivities and purc~ appropriate equipment.to manage the properties. ' is) MarketiDgIIease fees: Assumes the cost to advertise the units and to pay broker commission to lease the commercial space. Operating Reserve: Assumes capitalizing approximately four-month operating expense and debt reserve. PermitslSDC: Assumes cost of the building permit at 1 % of construction cost and the waiver of City Systems Development Charges. Real Estate Taxes: This is the cost of property taxes during construction. Once built the project is assumed to receive a property-tax exemption because it is affordable (60% AMI) housing. Special Inspections and Testing: Cost for structural and other construction testing and inspections based on development consultants experience on other projects. Surveys: Cost of an ALT A survey on each site. Tax Credit Reservation: Required fee to the OHCSD and is 5% of annual tax credit allocation. Title, Escrow, Closing and Mise. Bank Expenses: Estimated cost to close the construction loan, the permanent loan, and to admit the investor-limited partner based upon consultant experience. b. This is a new construction and will be given an economic life of at least 60 years. c. Operating Income and Expense Assumptions: Revenue: Residential Rents: The project will provide a minimum of one, two, and three bedroom units affordable to families at 6()oA, of AMI. The Ashland Pines site and the Faith Street sites have been designed for a specific number of units and bedroom sizes. The yet to be identified third site is just an assumption of remaining units divided The rents are net of the utility allowance as defined by the Housing Authority for gas heatlhot water etc. Vacancy: Assumes the industry standard 5% CODUllereial ReDt: On the Ashland street site there will be 5400 square feet of commercial ~ intended to house a nonprofit organ17.ation with at least 5()oA, of their clients being low income people. The schedule rent for this space will be $10 per square foot annually. Vacaoey: A 100,10 vacancy factor is the lending underwriting standard. Expenses: The total annual expenses of $3,088 per unit is within the current industry and funding underwriting standard for this type of housing serving this population. Each of the line . item below are estimates based upon experience and may be high or low, but the overall per unit Cost is achievable based upon current information. Real Property Taxes: This assumes a property tax exemption on this project because it ~ serve low income persons and, is sponsored by a non-profit agency. Ins.......ce: Estimated based upon cost in similar projects . l,) ~ T r Off-Site Management Fee: Based upon 7% of effective gross income and assunj1es that a third-party property manager will be hired. The percentage fee is slightly higher because this is a small project, on scattered sites, and has a commercial tenant in the mix.: On-Site Management: For a project of this size and configuration, RVCDC ~ not scheduled to have an on-site resident manager. Utilities (electricity, water, sewer, trash removal): These are estimates using the housing authority utility information. The electricity in this budget is for commo~ area lighting and facilities. The commercial space will be metered and pay all own utilities. Repairs and Maintenance: This is within industry standard for a well managedi new construction project. . AdmiDistrative Office Expense: Expense for a small office space on one of the ~ites. Legal and Audit/Accounting: Legal fee allowance for evictions and auditJacco~ting is the cost of the annual accounting and audit required for the limited partnership. I Reserves for Replacement: This exceeds minimum standards for ~ent ",serves and is in line with investor, bank, and funding requirements. OAHTCffu: Credit Fees: These are fees for monitoring project performance artd compliance by the Lender and Investor. d. See a .b .c above for full explanation of all development and operating costs. ~ forms 8 and C attached (fl,1I ~ A-I>) , e. See attached letter from Bank of America and Spring COBO award letter from !City of Ashland. (A-I' "1J v) f. Yes, the project will seek a property tax exemption and the value of the exempt/ion would be based upon the assessed value of each of the three properties when com!Pleted. 7). Eligibility; Property Acquisition The Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation requests the CDBO furiding for the acquisition of the Faith Street site. a. The proposed site and project as a whole anticipates beiIlg located within the ~hland City limits , I b. The project is targeting the lower income working person making 500/0- 60% of area median income or less. I Co There are no legal or financial commitments made by the project to the Seller ~f the , Faith Street site. The. Seller is currently reviewing an option to purchase agreemept that haS been submitted by RVCDC. ! I d. On the Ashland Pines site the cqrrent residents of the trailer park will be rel~ and their trailers removed. None of the trailers is in sufficient condition or of an age tb move to another trailer park in Ashland.' . t~) " ".,. e. The proposed housing is not in a 100 year flood plain. See attached map LA -Jq '" A-z.o) f. RVCDC intends to commission a Level I environmental assessment for all sites once they are under option g. The Ashland Pines and Faith Street sites are located on two major arterials Ashland Blvd. and Siskiyou Blvd. respectively. Design will include appropriate noise mitigation to meet HUD standards. h. The sites are not located adjacent to an above ground flammable storage tank. i. The house on the Faith Street site was built in 1948 but has no historic value according to SHPO. 8) See attached two pages on agency mission and service (It - ~I ,.J ~22) 9) Self sufficiency- Yes, This project will provide a greater sense of self -sufficiency by lessening the concern that they or their family will be unable to find secure housing. At rates that better reflect their ability to pay, tenants will have additional funds to invest in their future. Educational goals and proper health and nutritional needs can be better addressed by these individuals. Household self-sufficiency will be enhanced by living adjacent to free public transportation, allowing them to seek work and services easier. At the New Pines site the bicycle pool will allow tenants to improve their health while providing self transportation for nearby services. This will also reduce personal costs. Nearby childcare services offered by the Y at Walker school may help households by increased ability to work. Self-sufficiency will be enhanced at all three sites merely by the cost reduction of housing and the potential to save for their future needs. 10) Project benefits. This Ashland Villages will benefit the growing number oflow income workers in Ashland unable to afford housing in the city where they work, yet unable to afford transportation from adjoining towns to commute to work. This project will be built to benefit l000A extremely low, low and moderate income households. All 32 units could potentially be assisting 100 people at anyone time during the year for at least 60 years. a. N/ A b. N/A we will reserve at least 3 units for extremely low income disabled tenants. 11) The proposed project serves only low income people and will be income restricted for a period of 60 years through recorded deed restrictions and covenants on the land. 12) Stick-built housing will not be demolished except at the Faith Street site if the Seller does not move the existing house. This house is not occupied and so no relocation is required. At the New Pines site, no structures are being demolished or converted either. (~) ~ However relocation is required for the current tenants of trailers at the site. We $.re in contact with HUD through our representatives Right of Way Associates who are!handling the relocation. 13) Project Feasibility Preliminary consultations with City staff on the two sites appear to satisfy pla.nnihg concerns for project feasibility and no zoning changes or annexations will be reqpired. We are currently preparing for the City planning pre-application process for the tjwo identified sites and will submit all sites when we have secured the third site. Predevelopment work is proceeding at a pace that will allow the project to apply ifor the OHCSD funding in the August 2003 CFC a. RVCDC has a staff consisting of an Executive Director who provides up to 5(]o~ of his time on this project's activities, a Fiscal Officer provides up to 30% of her time $scally tracking this project. Our Construction Projects Coordinator will provide only 1 d% of his time until the project moves into construction phase. Our co developer and finan~ing consultant Sharon Nielson(see attached resume and project list) will provide si~ficant,("':l3"J A-;J.') ongoing involvement in the development of this project. Our development ream ~s being assembled and currently consists of the following: . Carlos Delgado Architects and Associates will serve as Project Architect (See II:"'~ 7 attached resume) . Roy Lambert and Jeff Davis of Schwabe, Williamson & Wyatt are the pr<j)ject tax and real estate attorneys( see attached resume)(A-.)..S ^" A-~z) . Right of way Associates are the Relocation Specialists . RVCDC has been the recipient ofCDBG funding since 1996 and staffha$ attended ,training from HUD, Oregon Housing, Rural Collaborative, AOCDO, anp T AC. b. Ongoing operating expenses are within industry and financial underwriting stfndards and are described in detail in question 6. c. The property was on the market. An option has been submitted 8/13/02 by RVtDC to the owner. Before signing, owner is exploring costs related to moving the house ~n the property. RVCDC has had several conversations with the Seller of the Ashland 'ines site and submitted an Option and Purchase Agreement for his review. RVCDC antic!pates . receiving a signed documents from both sellers by August 30, 2002. d. The relocation of the Lower Pines Trailer Park residents on the Ashland Pines :site will be performed following the Federal Uniform Reloaltion Act. All residents have been given the appropriate notice of their relocation rights. Right of Way Associates will be preparing $ specific relocation plan and. cost estimate by October 31, 2002, which will be submitted to the City for approval prior to release of the previously awarded CDBG funding for this project ' l'O ~ - e. Relocation not required for Faith Street site acquisition. f. City site review will be required for both sites as well as the to be identified third site. Submission of the site review pre-application will occur once the third site is under option. g. See f above for schedule of submission h. The Faith Street property improvements will be moved or demolished. At the Ashland Pines site the mobile homes will be removed as residents are relocated. i. The project has been awarded CDBG funding and received a Challenge Grant from Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle. The balance of the project funding will come from OHCSD and will be applied for in August 2003 14) According to SHPO the house on the property has no historic value. 15) See letters of support attached /I"':~:?N' A-'$lf 16) CDBG checklist and Form A. Forms B & C were unavailable in their entirety prior to preparing this application and the equivalent forms are attached. (I"3~ '-/1'16) lr 0) r '" Attachments: A-I through A-36 ~ - I Ii ii -- :1 il ,j ., .- . . -a-II.a.~ s o s ...a. 8 ...a. g ~ .i A-I . - ~-~ ~ ~ -~ I i III T I I r ~~=--'c=::;;:_ =- ~ lj //'....:t' rL I 1 I ~~J- ,,~\ I ii ......... II- r--l'"}- F I I ,- I it--. r - - - I- - - _ i!,~7IT-~=~Rk ~ ~l ~~:. ,"'~ ~ U /J J r- ~ J \ ,.... '" 0: _ I - ,...... I~ j '~~~~ r- II I~ ~ r- I jr I _ I J I III I ~ ~ ~' If' ~ I I ~. I Rr-n I f ~. I ~---~l . -~~llI'1> ~ \.1;- II. J , ~Jii', /"--::- ~~I'iri ~ if ~ ~I L '-- L~ ~ IA / r - //~ , f- . r-- 'I~ ~../ ~' I i I I / ~~ J f-I r I ~ sW ~ II / / /kiY/ ,- i:ES 1-1- / //l7/ .....n 1-1- J I //1/ J L I I tr hr -/- 1- ! r- I I "1-- 11 K- ~ r-" AW/ I ...c -1 1La "-I , ~I]JII i II I II ""'"- I ill _ --- ~ r-'l I- ~....... 11--1 ~ -~ ;;; "- ~"- -J f-,_r ~ \' ~ f-- '- -' / [= ii1i\1Il ~ l - ~- ... - ;::flr~~ 0 If I r-Ll, .J r. I h.1 h ~ fl~ : 1-- :::hlJ..:: It:: ~~y ,,~! c - -- -~ ~ ~ ~ -- - -..... , if- r- - \ :-.- F7 f- r--- - ..... I I I I 17' L! i I~ t1 lIP 'I ~ ~ r-f- -- - ~lrL~ - ~^- ~I -, fil' I. . ~ J 7/ t /J, J)~ ~ L ~ ~ ,/ I A ~ ~ i A,2. y A . \' .... )> en ~ " I~ z c I . ~ : UI ~ n :II g ~ ~ I . I I I I I I I I U. it ::a = ,. 1 _ - ~ n !i o r- Ut , .... r .... A--3 " ---.---- - . n o · ..... . Ie,.. .oa e ~ '. le'" "" ........: .. ... .a ~...... ::n 0 :.! E ........ III 0 .e Ill'" '00( :: .. fit II I :: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . '. )> (J) . ~ J: . m r .~ )>' Z C :3: .-8 x . .... A-LI ? r III )> -, ~. .... (I) ,~ o :I ~: ~ .- 't' ~ )> j-t. Z .: C'.,. ',. .. z .~ = o - 'a ~ o - . II 11I_ . III .. ~ III lIE ~ fII . . , : , . . , . , : , : , : , : ." . i('l)"tJ('I)~ 1~2~~ m!!1 ~ . 1__ A-S ~." T - ,-4 :.I; .,., tIlZI ' ZtIl,:.I .....10 .00 Z,=c , ~I.IIII .:....C c:.;;. ..~... , ... :.I alii 0_-< ~'.. , 11I;1 . --.iC:;.u ~_. (I)-o~~ -AJAJ- n1em:i! ~!!I ~. " )> (n oJ: ~r- z)> Z C Ir-G ~ - ..=: ~ ~ ~ Q, .g. E; - ~ ~ !G r 0 ~ en "'tJ en z ~ z ~ z i en d i ~ l>> 0 s- :::::J. .0 c: c: c: N' c: c: 3 c: 03 < c: 3 3 3 (l) 9I l>> :::::J l>> l>> l>> l>> Cil ~ 3 Cil ~ en Cil i :::::J 0" :::::J i UI 0 ::21 (l) - :::::J :::::J c: .... c: .... c: .... 0 iii" 0 ;C ~ @ 0' :::::J S' l>> 0" S' 0 3 0 3 0 - 0 :::u ~ l>> Cil :::::J .... < 0 0 Cil S- o - e- - 0" - S' 0' ~ 0 ~ g c: (l) ~ (l) (l) UI Q, l>> (') 0 8 l>> :::::J .... .... l>> c: UI Cil .... .... 3 UI :::::J 0 ~ iii" (l) (l) ffi' (l) i1 0 I a 0 (l) if l>> UI 3 - :r :7 :::::J (') :::::J 0 0 UI a c: ~ ~ 0 ~ l>> 8 C!: - Q, - fA - ~ :::::J !!!. "'0 ~. UI 8 8 c: i1 Cil 0 :::::J ~ 8 c: UI :;0 l>> 3 3 ;:;: ~ ~ c: :::::J c: 0 "0 ~' 3 3 l>> c: 3 :::::J it (l) c.. 3 6' ~ :::::J ;:;: :::::J (l) 0 UI m n :::::J (l) (j) i1 C!: :::::J 0 e!- (') ~ l>> s- UI ;:;: CD -i Cil ffi" 0" ~ s: Q, E. l>> UI ~ l>> UI UI (l) 0:: 0 fA c: Q. ~' (l) c 0 Cij" ~ 0 :7 l>> ~ l>> e- l>> UI ~ UI - ~ - - ~ ~ I\) "TI 0] . l>> 'i\) I\) ~ ~ ...... ;:;: I\) ...... I\) ~ -::;: ~ l>> ~ .~ ~ ~ 0 - 0) ~ 0 I\) I\) 0 ...... - :::::J 0 00 sa w 0 en .= ~ ~ 0" 0) Q. m ..f>o UI 0) UI UI ~ - (l) - UI i "0 0 UI ;.... ~ ;-.. c: c: c: Q, I\) w ;-.. 0 :-0. - UI 0] [ 0 0 0 c: ;-.. '- - :::::J :::::J :::::J a ~ r+ 0 0 c: c: ;:;: it it ~ ~ "'tI :::::J :::::J :::::J 0 en ;:;: ;:;: ;:;: 3 - 8 a UI ~ l>> ~. 0 l\ w 3 .:- OJ ::0 ~ I\) '" ~ ~ (7J ~ ~ r:::; l>> N iii" ~ ~ I\) en en ~ - ~ ~ :::::J ~ ...... :::::J ~ 0 0) 0 I- ~ ~ 0] Q. ~ Q. (0) I\) 0 0 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ..... .0) 0 UI UI UI ~ I\) UI "'tI "0 0 ;-.. 0 :... ;-.. 0 5' 0 ;.... c: c: c: Q. ~ [ 0 0 UI - fA '- :::::J :::::J :::::J a ~ 0 m c ;.... - c: UI 0 0 ;.... :::::J c: :::::J ;:;: it it 0 r;::;; (7J ;:;: :::::J ;:;: 3 I\) 8 00 ;-.. "'tI ;:;: 0] a UI l>> :::u 3 0 ~, .:- (l) a I\) -t -::;: W ~ .0 l>> ~ :7 ~ ~ - a I\) .::= ~ :::::J 0) ~ ~ 0 (7J .f>o Ul - ::::; - OJ Q. 0 (7J ...... I\) 0 0 ~ 00 00 .0 0 UI 0 .::= ..:; [ ~ I\) UI en 0 UI UI ;-.. 0 if 8 0 UI ;-.. :-0. ;-.. c: c: c: ~ i 0 0 ;.... - UI :::::J :::::J :::::J 8 ':"' c: ;.... - - it it UI "'tI 0 :::::J c: c: ;:;: ~ Q. & ;-.. :::::J :::::J I\) 8 a ;:;: ;:;: ;:;: 3 OJ .:;::. UI l>> a :::u 3 0 . to=-- ~ ~ l- e>> - ...... ..... (0) .01 0] N I\) ~ ~ ~ - ~ I\) .- ~ ...... c: ~ (7J a ..., Q) ~ ~ :::::J [ us 00 :oJ oN i1 co ;.... ~ 0 c:. c: ~ ~ 8 ~ 0 :::::J :::::J - 8 I\) 0 it i1 ~ 0] ~ UI r . 0 ~ ;-.. 0 3 ~ UI ~ ~ - (0) ~ OJ ::0 J I , . A-7 .. " ="." ~~'\. - ~ .y I T' - ~," ~ ~ 0 ~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ -, ~ ." ~~ ~~~~~S8 ~ > ~~~ \ ~~~ ~~:\,~ ~~~~ ~'\. ' ~x " ~~ 'I I I I ~~( I; i ! ~ ~V "'" 0.: ~: 00 ,~'V ~~~~'-/:.:4/-~-:-i~~I~~~- ~ ',&~ ~ /, ~ ~ !I ~ ~ (/ ~_.::r/~'f I ,~ ... ~~ ~ ~ '1 ~~ 0, ./1 / ~,.c ~ ~ ~ ~ V'7 "" ,()~W ;/" 1/ Ii" ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~J.~ I A ~ ~ ~ ~s I ~~ 0. , _I 0 ~ , '-< ,4 ~ ~~ >>Cl ~ ~ v'l ", / " ~ ~~~;sz ~ ~ ", / I ~ ~ ~?< ~ 'j ,_' ~/ ;' 0 00 ~ ~!I /1 "~ Ii ~ ~ ~ ~~~ \ ... ~ i~ ~-;/ ). ~~=i ~~ ~~p \ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~..~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ' ) ') I \ / FAITH STREEt ) -) j~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \ <, ,,,' ~ ~~~ ~ ~0: ~ ~~ ~ ~'0~ ~ ,,\; ~ i ) .' ~ ~" ^~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ,< ~:\ ~ ~ ,6 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~ 0:~ ::\ ~ ~ ,< ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l~ ,~~ ,'~ ~ ~~~ 0: ~ ~ ~:\ ~ ~ ~0: ~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~,. ~ ::-... ~ '\ \ /'. ~\ /)~ ~/ . '---../ \\;\ .-..j. ~___1 I @ 11<1> ~m m-f ~I: om ~~ Cl 0< m -fCl 1>0 ~~ o L m o -f Cl I> -f I> .... ~I> . -I -:: I ~ ,- (p ~ -I II m m IJl -I. I~(p 13 - I~ m-l ~ ~ en!! 0 ~'I ' A I T H S T R I ITS I T I PLAN I.,. 6 . Daaiptioa 0.... ail ~igl ~:::.: :.__ -.. _~----- ~~t~~ R~lgado 54514_ IloMlio! ~_ UI~.. ; ~I~'l!-! D ... I .,. T" ( 7'-Y .Y.'\. " -~ ~ 0: ~ I I . - ~ e I -=-~8- ! ..... ~< , z~ ~ \ ClO- 0\ ... \ \ 00 ~~ ~ ~ 0. ." 8:: \\ . I~- . \ - Gift \ ..:.. \ :-..; \ ~ ~ '" '" "',,~ -., / '.. / A-8 ~ ,8 ~J> ~(J) I :r ~J> ~Z ~O 11 Z m I~ (p Ir (p li~ ~m i~ 1: ~: u~ mu ~o i;~ <- m. o -i U )> -i )> -..."--// \- ~ I I ~!fl j I ,~~ I I I:~ I I !CIlQia I IU~ I I I ~:s~~ C) I i ~m I a~i~ I ~~~. ~ I I ~'t:)a z ~ji ~ 61 I :r I 220 ~ I aa~ -=----=---~--- \l-'\ / ~ :4 ) ( I /' / ) ~ li ~ ~ ~ ~ ::: ~ t: ... co- '. --- -----.::::::: ./ / /./ ------=---. - ./ , L. ( ) -~- ------ .-/- ~./' ./ ( (. -- --_______.,.1__.__._ ___ .. I U~I:II..BL.O~::!!:::" .UOI :g~;= II T T Carlos D~o AIlCHITECT =:.....~~~ D A--Q ~ " FORM A PROJECT SCHEDULE Projec:t Name: ~S }J.L A- N 1> \t I U It:l7lE 5 PROPOSED DATE REVISED DATE COMPLETED DATE ACI'IVITY (moatla/year) (moatb/year) (IQoatb/year) SITE Option/Contract S I+es. 11_'S..unhle 10/31/D2. Site ACCRlisition sa-~ 4Ct'Ulr~~ '3/31/0j, " Zonina .......roval 'PQIL#lr~ US~ Site" ~. I:JJ I If)'- Building Pe:nnD &: Fees 3I,,/tJl! - " ~ -, ()ft:Site ImDl'O\Iemcnts I:PvellJ6 cell~ PRE-DEv&LOPMENT Pbms CoIDleted ~/ ~I lOll . q ""/11/ Filiai BicII CoaIractor Selected lo/ti/().;L , Jl'INANCING Coastructioa. LoIn: - . i.f /3" /03 Firm Commitment . J j:JO/tJt! Permanent Loan: - sj/3o/()3 . '/30/0'( Firm Commitment SYNDlCA110N AGREEMENT 3/';1/6'1 IW- . CO~UcnON BEGINS 1I/1S'/()if ~/!r / IS- . CONSTRUcnON COMPLETED . ~/Ii /I:f C&IUUC'IC4TE ()Jt' occuPANCY LEASE UP y/1$/fJS . . ~t_~~;hi.+~.+~!~~~~t.'o, ., A-ID . .,. .... INCOME AND E><PENSE ANAL VSIS . TAX CREDIT LATIONS to I.~~ A~1f ~' T T SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS . .000 2.984.100 1.316.999 6.026,099 Sources: Construction Construction Loan FHLB Trust Fund CDBG LP/fax credit e u' Private FoundationsJDonors H ME 1.608.316 100.000 DEBT SERVICE ANALYSIS Princi aI Interest Rate Amortization Schedule Annu Debt SeNice " 72 .000 2.984.1 00 1.166.999 4.876.0 9 4.876.099 o 3.00% 3 o f.t- J:); AahIand VIage$ ~ 17~ PROJECT COST ANALYSIS enenl no~=1 Foaa- D5T5 el :JoIrIa COIb LealII ~ ~ r'arI\I'IlI ~ ~ IU1AL UJ:>I:' ~ .~ - . IUIt8e Fee ...-..e I'" II_~ 11_.UI_~ 1 IoU:> I:> ~~ ,1=" 8/17102 T ollII I i ;:II:IH 32 2 2 ll:lH 19 1 I:IH MlInIIgln u" 11 11 0 HI . I I r.t:l.lUJ1 I I..sa. ~1.lUJ1 o 1l .(:sJ 3 Ii 8~: j I.w .T.fll ~~7Q 586.l1l61 "1i7"I 7'IIR1 E IilIible o o o 2J 2IJ 27 .lDJ1 1.6451 23.41 m 01 01 927 .2ti21 I ;:t~.ftitll ~vf~ I I I' !: ~ I A--' U I I . 9> ~ I ... Pr-/S ,. r Bank of America ~ ~ Bank of America, N.A. Communit}! Development Lending 121 SW Morrison, 7th Floor Portland, qR 97204 May 7, 2002 Jon Kline Vice Presi~nt OR1-129-07-50 503-279-33197 Fax 503-279-2937 Mr, Ron Demele Executive Director Rogue Value Community Development Corponion 328 S. Central Avenue, Suite 201 Medford, OR 97501 RE: Financing Proposed New Pines Apartments and Commercial Project Low Income Housing Project Ashland, Oregon Dear Mr. Demele: Thank you very much for taking time yesterday to show me your plans for the pr~perty opposite the Wendy's at 1624 AsWand Boulevard. Bank of America is very interested in further discussion regarding the financing needs for this project even if it were to include additional.low-income apartment units either on adjacent property, at another single location, or on scattered sites in Ashland. It appears that the low-income market is an under served segment in Ashland. As you know Bank of America's Community Development Banking group has extensive experience with, and actively seeks to support the financing of similar low-income housing and mixed used projf"cts where demanded by the market. Bank of America is please to provide the following general preliminary construction loan terms for the your project to be submitted in conjunction with your anticipated future application. Permanent financing is not currently offered by Bank of America, however, we are eager to work in conjunction with the term lender of your choice. On the other ~and, if you would . like assistance securing general permanent loan terms from other sources to complement our construction financing for your application, please do not hesitate to call, Bank of America's general construction loan terms are: · 80% Maximum loan to value · 1.15 Debt coverage ratio typically required (not applicable to construction loan) A-I' T ",. · Interest rate based on Prime plus 100 basis points; Approx. 5,75% today · Construction loan term consistent with projected construction time plus stabilization period · Amortization not applicable to construction debt · Fee of 100 basis points · All other costs (legal, market study, appraisal, etc.) paid directly by borrower The preceding terms and fees are subject to change ana modification once you have solidified exactly what your project will entail. This letter only serves as an indication of interest to finance, It is not a commitment to provide financing and must not be construed as such, Bank America Community Development Bank remains an active lender in the creation of affordable housing. This letter should serve as an expression of our interest in assisting you with securing financing and submission of an application to Bank of America, and again can not be construed as a commitment. Thank: you again for your inquiry, If you have any questions or if we can be or further assistance please call. We look forward to learning more about your project as you move along in the development process. ~ Page 2 A~li CITY OF ASHLAND. May 21,2002 Ron Demele RVCDC 328 S. Central Ave Suite 201 Medford, Oregon 97501 Dear Mr. Demele, The. City of Ashland Council reviewed the applications received for the allocation Co~unity DeVelojEent Block Grant (CDBG) funds on May 7th 2002. At this.publicbearing the city Council awarded the full grant amount of$168,750 to your organ17.atlon, the Rogue Valley Com$umty Development Corporation (RVCDC)~ RVCDC's proposal to utilize the CDBG funds to acquire property for the development of 15 affordable rental units will provide a significant benetit to the community and particularly to those low-income households that are to occupy the develpped units. The proposal also. states thRt it is RVCDC's intention to sttek additional CDBG funding in Fiscal Year 2003-2004 to develop an additional 17 rental units for a total of 32 affordable housing units to individuals and families with incomes equal to or less than 60% of area median income. Although the request for proposals (RFP) for the 2003-2004 round "of fundiDg has yet to become available, we do look forward to receiving an application from RVCDC for the available CDBG funds at that time. . . The mission of the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation to develop residential rental units for individuals or families at 6()O.Io or less of median income is consistent with the City of Ashland 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. Goal I of the Consolidated Plan is "To increaSe the supply of affordable rental housingfor extremely low-, low- and moderate-income families." The highest priority for use of the City's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds is to "Support the acquisition and development of affordable rental housing units through a sustainable program, which retains the units as affordable jn perpetuity, such as a land trust. " The City of Ashland recognizes that the RVCDC project will require additional funds and this relatively smaIl CDBG award will allow your organization to compete for additional funding. It is our sincerest hope that the CDBG award provided by the City will assist jn demonstratirig that there is local support for the project. We look forward to a continued relationship with RVCDCas current, and any ~ . prOj~ts, are developed within the City. . Smcerely, . ... , . From the ~ of: Brandon Goldman Aulltant Pllnner .. . DIpeItIMnt"CoI._~DenlOp...1t .TeI: 541-488-S305 2OElltMllln... .. . " .Fax:541-i8H311 AINInd, 0nIIiIn 97520 m: ~735-2900 ....8II1lIndM... IJ...'.... ... ,., A....f 8 I I I I , r-~ <~" ~ REFERENCE MARK RM6 ELEVATION (FT. NGVD) 1991.40 RM6 2064.28 RM7 2147.96 · ..~.~.~~~~Z;i};~~1!S!~!!;~!^:~~&''!lt-;."","...... I: '::.~5:.1Z.:~ ~.. :' ~~-o,., ....",-:~..;.;,~ ~. ~ r J ELEV A TIO~ , i Brass dls~ Street, S~ Rail road ; Road, app Establish~ i Brass dis~ Creek Ro1 .':';~~<.::1~~;,'~>>~~~<'t~..~ti~")1:~,.., ... . !'" i>J: - FlOODW A Y FLOOD BOUNDARY AND FLOODW A Y MAP CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON JACKSON COUNTY PANEL 3 OF 3 (SEE MAP INDEX FOR PANELS NOT PRINTED) COMMUNITY.P ANEL NUMBER 410090 0003 EFFECTIVE DATE: JUNE 1, 1981 federal emergency management agency federal insurance administration .; r i ( ~ i - t. , ~. .. . .,., c , , . ~ _ . _.. . . . . '. . 0", ............_............",......._. ... '.' ........ -.- ........ .,... ~ ...., --"'_..~--_..-.......... ..,.......-............................_..... ~ .......... - --.... ...........-.... ;-':::}: .'. --~~::' . ,...:~---,. '~"" . .-.,...... ..~ ",-. .-, . .,. -. .~ .. .' ",'-'0' ..__......_.._ 0' '. ".,~..._.....-.,.. -. .,- ',', .,....--................... ..~. - ~ ., 0....... .....~.. ........,._. _.- .'- 0'. ,.........' ._-.......r... . .,.' .__,.a...-.......___._._ . .' ',._. '.;...~ -~""''''."!'-.'''('t:~:'.::''~'''';;~''.' . :"':~ .....~_~ '-:.....,:::..'"'.J"..M~:'..:~.z.~. :f;~~-2- .': :5':"'\~ .. -............,..... .'. ....,... .', .. ~ ... .' . .' . . . . '" ... '" . - ~ ~ .'.~'" . ~ .'-' ..' .. ............... ..-. -...... .' _~::.:~:.. .:. -:~ :'~...~#.;.'..;-,;"G:--- -.. .' ..'-<-.:;""':'.~":,:\."":':.'o-,... . ,. ... .......-.._.......... I;:~:: A or III "-.:J 00 @- @- .... o o o ..I III Z ~ 1II @ I~ I I L, T r l' 8. Mission- The mission ofRVCDC is to "improve the quality of life of the median income and low income population of Jackson County through community development activities. " Housing has been a major focus of our efforts since 1990.Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation has successfully completed nine new affordable homes for Ashland (with deed restrictions) and 9 rehabilitated homes in Medford. All have been sold to households with incomes at less than 80% of median income. One house is cmrently in progress in Eagle Point, two in Medford and 6 new units planned for late 2002 in Medforg. RVCDC also owns and operates a home in partnership a home for homeless teenage girls with infants. We are in the process of providing a sheltering project for homeless individuals and :first time homebuyers a down payment and education program. We have partnered with local schools to train over 150 young people in home construction education opportunities. . With a county wide Board of Directors (including 2 Ashland representatives) , RVCDC has expanded our vision to see the interrelatedness of the valley-wide problem of affordable housing. Our cmrent staffing includes three(all with BA degrees) . Our Executive Director has over 15 years cultural facility development and program experience(ten as Director, and County department head, and MA. Degree), as well as over 2 years experience as Exec. Director of RVCDC. Our Projects Coordinator is an experienced contractor and oversees of on site project work. Our fiscal manager has 2 years experience with RVCDC and works with M. Piel and Associates to provide of fiscal oversight. Our Consultant / Developer to this projel.'t has a long career in housing development with over 800 units produced under her supervision and leadership in obtaining tax credits. Her resume is attached detailing her past projects. She will be the RVCDC contracted Developer with us on this project from beginning to end. hi) A--21 T - RVCDC History The organization began in 1990 following a successful campaign by Rogue Valley Fair Share to establish model affordable housing policies in the City of Ashland. A ware that the 1989 Oregon Legislature had passed legislation encouraging the development of community development corporations for affordable housing, Fair Share leadership advocated city policies that included forming partnerships for housing with enc's. No CDC existed in Oregon outside the Portland area at that time. A broad-based organization that involved low-income and minority populations was needed to create affordable housing in the Rogue Valley of Southern Oregon. Fair Share held a series of public meetings in 1990 to educate the community about CDC's. Thirty-five residents representing a cross-section of individuals and business people formed the Rogue Valley CDC in May 1990. They represented low-income people, local churches, community action groups, civic leaders, local businesses and financial organizations, and social service agencies. These residents of the Rogue Valley shared a mutual concern for the growing demand for affordable housing in Jackson County. In its formative years, RVCDC's priorities were internal development, development of housing projects in Ashland, and sponsoring two affordable housing conferences. Funding to create and develop the capacity of the CDC has come through State grants, local financial institutions, private donations of time and money, and development fees. The first two projects were primarily financed by Farm. Home Loans and created nine units of affordable housing in Ashland. In 1995, RVCDC looked into forming a working relationship with other organizations to create a new, ongoing community development project, which eventually would become self- sustaining. In 1996, a partnership formed with South Medford High School's Foundations program and the City of Medford to begin our current West Medford Rehabilitation Project" which provides low-income housing and offers alternative educational opportunities to help keep young people in high school. Recently, RVCDC formed a relationship with The Job Council, which now provides a second crew leader to the Foundations program, a tool trailer, and new tools. The Job Council also provided summer jobs to youth who continued work on RVCDC houses throughout the summer. Also in the last year, RVCDC has been fortunate to work with Eagle Point High School who established a house renovation project last year. H, ..' __.~:~~~~._~:-..----- y. 'I" . A-?z T 1F ~ SHARON NIELSON Profellion" Ou.alifieations Sharon Nielson is known as a leader and innovator in the development of affordable and special needs community development projects throughout the Northwest She has over fifteen years of demonstrated ability to stnJcture, finance, and develop projects that "push the envelope" of the development paradigm. Using multiple public and private funding sources, including Low Income Housing Tax Credits, private capital campaign funding, and local government grants, Sharon developed the first tax credit project on an Indian reservation and the first 100% affordable assisted living facility in Oregon. She has significant experience in the financing and rehabilitation of historic mixed-use projects, as welL With community partners, Sharon produces financially sound projects, on time and on budget, wmcti are sustainable assets in the community. Prof_ooal History Housing Partners, Inc., Portland, OR - Principal Portland Development Commission, Portland, OR Project Coordinator, Downtown Housing Preservation Program Cen1ral City Concern, Portland, OR Director of Housing Development Scherzer-Moore Properties, Portland, OR Commercial LeasingIProperty Manager Portland Saturday Market, Portland, OR - General Manager Family Planning Forum, Oakland, CA - Executive Director WOOlens Health Center, Oaldand, CA - Financial Director April, 2000- Present 1994-2000 The Nielson Group, LLC 1991-1994 1987-1991 1985-1'987 1980-1985 1976-1980 1974-1976 EduqJtion Marylhurst College . Bachelor of Science, Business and Management Masters of Science, Management 1989 1993 THE NIELSON GROUP' LLC "-71A .... ..n..nn .~...,. ...a.2 "".-tl..n" nr"'nn Q7??"i-~'RO ~''50'l.2Q6.7796 flIx 503.296.4806 www.thenieI5Ol1$!rOUp.net fJr- 2 3 ----. T r PROBCf NAME UNITS PROJECf TYPE LOCATION AND SPONSOR Grand Ronde Housing Plan N/A Technical assistance to develop Grande Ronde, Oregon tribal housing plan and develop Grand Ronde Tribal Housing elderly housing project Authoritv Nyssa Gardens ALF 32 New construction of assisted living Nyssa, Oregon facility Malheur Memorial Hospital District Alpha Aputments 22 New construction of residence for Gresham, Oregon individuals in recovery CODA, Inc. - Jose Arciga Apartments (scattered 50 New construction for fannworker site) Forest Grove and Cornelius, families Oregon Housing Development Corp of Washinsrton Countv Chestnut Lane Assisted Living (for 70 New Construction for deaf and deaf and deaf7blind) Gresham, OR deaf7blind population , Deaf Northwest, Inc. Ohai Housing, Wailuku Assisted 60 New construction mixed income Living Facility, Maui, Hawaii facility for Wailuku residents Mike MulJahev. Director Rick Currin, Exec Director Horizon unk Homeownership new construction Project, Inc (feasibility study) and community development Weston, OR planning Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla 40 Homeownership new construction Indian Reservation (feasibility analysis) Clements Partners on behalf of the Comprehensive Economic Karuk Tribe, Happy Camp, Development Planning California Martin Eidlinger, Fire and Earth Renovation of old school to artist , . studios and study center Center, Corbett, Oregon 1~ {t- 2.,t( PROJECT NAME LoCA.TION AND SPONsOR Golden West Hotel Portland, Oregon Central C' Concern Henry Building Portland, Oregon Central City Concern Sally McCracken Building Portland, Oregon Central C' Concern Shoreline Building Portland, Oregon Centml C' Concern Helen M. Swindells Building Portland, Oregon Housin Auth . of Portland Mark o. Hatfield Building Portland, Oregon Central C" Concern Umatilla Reservation Housing Pendleton, Oregon Umatilla Reservation Housing Authori Macdonald Center Portland, Oregon MaCdonalcl Center Viewcrest Apartments Limited Partnership 64 Henniston,OreIon Highland IDvestors,LLC, General Partner ~ PROJECT LIST SHARON NIELSON OF THE NIELSON GROUP UNITS '64 PROJECT TYPE 60 Rehab of vacant hotel to housing and storefront retail 153 Historic rehab of office to housing w/storefront retail 95 Historic rehab of SRO with ground floor retail 63 Rehab of SRO with ground floor retail 105 Historic rehab of SRO with ground floor retail 106 Office conversion to SRO with ground floor retail 88 New construction of subdivision 54 New construction of assisted living facility with ground floor commercial New construction of2 and 3 BR apartments for families THE NIELSON GROUp.LLC A-z5' T r ~ The Nielson Group LLC based in Portland, provides comprehensive project develdpment and real estate finance consulting services. Giving fonn to ideas, The Nielson Group translates vision into socially innovative, fmancially profitable, and life affinning community assets. The principal, Sharon Nielson, has over 15 years of experience in housing and real estate development and fmance consulting, representing a diverse client and project base to include special needs housing and affordable assisted living. The Nielson Group is recognized for its capabilities in the following areas: · Project and site feasibility analysis including preliminary financial stnJc~ and site review - , · Strategic planning and organizational marketing and capacity building · Coordination and analysis of project market studies · Integration of project development with long-tenn and resident support servi~ · Project finance and development utilizing multiple funding sources. Experience with a wide range of public/private finance tools including: · Syndication of Low Income Housing and Historic Tax Credits · Tax exempt and taxable bonds · CDBG, HOME, USDA Rural Development, and other HUD funds · State grants, loans and tax credit programs · Public and private credit enhancement · Federal rent subsidy, grant and loan programs · Capital Campaign: private foundations and individual donors · Application, commitment and closing of conventional pennanent, predevelopment and construction loans and grants from commercial lending institutions · Utilization of private sector funding, including foundation, corporate grantS, energy grants, tax based and in-kind contributions · Management of projects ranging from $1.510 $11 million, and teams whiclt include design, engineering and construction professionals, environmental and historic consultants, legal and accounting finns, real estate brokers, title .companies, 2q)praisers .. and bond underwriters · Oversight and coordination of residential/commercial property and services management, including management and service plan development, selection and contract n~gotiation for property and service management agents . · Assist with property acquisition and rehabilitation in compliance with the Unifonn Relocation Act THE NIELSON GROUP'LLC 6n4 M Cllnyon terr!lce. suite II DOrtIllnd. OrefOn 97225-3280 tel503.296.nQfl fIox ';O~ ~ 4RnfI wwwth..nl..I.,.,n"'"",,, n..t A-Z,b .,. T'" I. I r I i I ./ / I I I I l'),J.J,I)~ 'rUE 15:33 FAX 5415529:51% Ashland Design Group Carlos Delgado ARCHITECT Aug'D't 14t 2002 j. I I i i I R~._ V.I~ CommlUli. ~l!Ilt Coc;poratioQ RDn Demele ~28 S. Central Ave., Suite 201 Medford, OR 97501 s.t. 1. 734.2355 Attention: Subject: Ron Demclc - ERcutive Director &lUnd miJ:cd-usc a~OIda.ble housing Dear Mr. Dcm.clc: We ue pbaed to submit this proposal fot ptofesaiOllll. scmco. in eotU1edion with the mixed ute affo.rd.bJ.! housiag pmjeet, in A-hllLf1Cl OR. 'The ptOje.;t ROPe outlined below iftrh'd.. 2 .eparate pIwaL Phue 1 inc-h_ 2lOOiog '&ad p1..-., feasibility studies. site ~ studies, CDBG applir;a1ion UIistaace, aa.d ~ I.me. for . proposed 32 to 4~ housing units 0!1 3 lep8fIL~ sites.. Phuc 2 iDcluc1ea sm-..tic Desi&n ~ for 32 to 41 hoUling units (up to 56,200 8CJ'IUe feet of bJdg. conmuc:tion) 011 3 lites. In the following, we have outlined a bQic: ecope of WO!k IDd eatimm:d f'ees for GceompU,hfng tb.t!:6c tQks. This is an AgreelnCDt bctwcco. Carlo. DeJpdo .hcbitecc, (CDA) - the Architect CarlOI Delgado 54.5 A Street Ashland OR 97520 541.552.9502 and R.ope Valley CommUlUty Dcvclopmcm CotpOladoa. (R.VCDc) - the Client Ron Demclc 328 S. CCftttIlAve.t Suite 201 Mec1fotd. OR 9750t 541.734.2355 CDA shtJl ptOVidc profCllioaalllerVbs on the p.toject tefetmced above; the extent of . which is iaclbted below. 1 515 A. Street · AshJand, OflllOn 97520 ~I. 552.9502 fix 5"'.552.9512 carlos@mind.net -.----.",..-.. T r Iir 001/008 . A-21 _ . .~9/ 19/2Be2 13: 29 . 0IEGl0N Pol1land !i03.222.9981 Bend 541.330.0904 Salem 503,..77'\2 VIASHIIGltW SeA1tle 206.622..1711 Vsnc;;ouver 3eO.684.7561 wAlltlGTON. D.c. 202.628.8&70 503-296-4806 mUG THO PAGE 03 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT ATTORNEYS AT LAW Attol d.1ble Housing & Ta x Creditt-, PORTlAtm Roy D. f.$nbon Alan L P.temaek Jeffrey S.Oavia Schwabe. WlI141Tl8Ol'l & Wylft has developed a respected role In 1he affordable hou8ing and fa)( credit jrweetor communltles, bath for the quality and efftollveness cA Its repl'8llenta1ion and tor Its cooperative attitude vAth "adverse" oounsel in putltlg a tax aedlt pI1)jeOt tog9lher. Low Income Housing Tax Credits 5c::hwab8, W1llamson a. Wy'" hBs reprlillMl'rted institutiOl"lal low Income houelng:ecrSdit (LIHTC) II'MII!lIOI'8 and general partnorldevelOpel8lr1 structUltng, negCJtlldng and ntilg limited partnelShlps and limited IIabl6ty companie6 for which the wpurchue" of L . C8 repf8SBntGd the mOIllIgnlficant pOrtIon of 1he GQ1ity investment The transaGiOiis In whim t1rl!T1 clients he,. partioipated (Vt'Ih our representation) 1ndud9: · state allooated L1HTCa . Vdume cap bond financed projectS fOrwhlch L1H1'Cs aro available whhout speciOO state housing finance egency allocation · t.t.d use prcjeda · Alllated Ihllng proJects . PrtIjBcts wit! sUBlntlaJ federal or local grant 01' loan aasi8t8nC8 . PRljeClS located In Oregon. wast"llrVon, Idaho, Alaska, CoIon1do, Nevada. Utah. Mc:nana, and MIM8IOI8 The 8ervtoes we provide for 8UCI1 projeots IncludO: . Negotiatial .,d doolJmentation of the operati'ag limited pertnet8hlp or lilnlted lIabiUty ocmpany . Due dI1genoe review of aD docunltmtaIion for compliance with LIl-ITC reqUirerMnts . Prepereflon of tax oplJiOl1 1etl8lS, if required . Prep&rd<ln rl B Dev8IqmenI: Services Agl8ement appropriate to Ihe project . Preparellon Of a ~rty Management Agreement approprla1e 1Oth&~ . OrgInIzetion d cIOCu'nentatIOn fOrthe llenerBI PatNrlUanegIng MembElr · Pteparatlon t1f otherll8condElIY or il'lOiclemal agreementa RehabIlitation IIIId CertifIed Historic Credlte Schwabe. W11lllm8C11 & Wyatt has representecl dlentll" traneaCliona fora' urohB88" of <<DC oredll8 uncler section 4.7 of the InlelT1lll Revenue Code (forquallfted rehabilitated IIding8 and/or oerUlled hIIIorIcWUoturM) _ an Impol1ant component tI equity oapibIL ~ nav.~proJecllforwttlc:n botn Secllon 42 (LIHTC) IIld Se<lkln47 (nIhab atian) aeclta were .,tIdpe.ted. The eeNIoea doItlI1bOd ecu. f(If LI-41'C pmi8cltC IU9 aI90 appropriate for rMabIIltJ.tlon and certified historic ctdDIOIec*. with theobviaua .....that... due ~ c:tocumenlre\ll8w andtD: opIn1on8 entIdpete oompIla~ with bo1I'l L1HlC and rehatilbtlDn tax Cf8dIl ~ IS al)proprllde to the prcleat. . Pr ~2, g ~61JL~~BB2 13:29 5B3-296-4886 . 0I8I0N Pol'IIand 503.222.9981 Bend 541.330.0804 Salem 6QS,300.Tl12 \IM8I.61,," SMttI4i 208.622.1711 Val1COUVlilr 180.894.7851 WASHIGTON.o.c. 202.628.8870 OOUG THO PAGE 134 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT ATTORNEYS AT LAW A ff (l r d ;1 b I L' Ii U 1I "J ; n 9 C~ -r a)( C r ,- . (~ i' ~ Oregon F8rmworker Houaing Tax Credlfll Schwabe. W1111am1Ol1 & wyatt clients. with thI fiml'S ,.presentation I have purchued Oregon farmworklr hOUSIng tax crec:tts avaIabIe underORS 315.164. Thi, is . tM credit program pecular to Oregon whidl cIoeI not requll'8 pdClp8lian by1l'le tax cnKIt m.ta' In lIeownl~ entity. Approprt.. """8If8rVNTlenll do ,.qLire the invMtcrto pId8cIl&elf agalnlt pOSIlbII loss of the ~ due to prcjeot InellglJllty dUring Ita ~ tve )'181I'8. Our rep.....ntatlon 1& lntenCl8d to....nt canpllanoe of the tax oredt Irnteetor BOd the projed will the requlr&mQnts c1 the ~ housing tax credt law and tolndBmrjfy1hl CI'8dt m.torln1he eVlH1t the project'a operations cause a kls& or any portion ~ the purcha8td crecIt8. RIlpl'M8lUlIv. Client Usa · Kev COIMIunlty D8ve1cpmdCOfpor8don · K~ Nation8lA88oolatiOn . USAfford8bIe Housing CDC.lno. . HQmeStead C8pItaI (tormertyfJllll)lJ() Otegon CotpOI8IIon tor ~ HolJSIng, Inc.) 8I'lCI lis menagedtund!5. tiome8tMd EQUIty Fund LP and Oregon EquiIy Fund IV LP · GnIyco Rnouraes.lno. · e~ MHIIrtesalOregan . Klamath FlrIIt FedlMaI SIlvIngB !Sank #\.~ z'1 - 06/19/2~62 13:29 . 0flEDDN Portland 503.222.9981 Send 541.330.0804 SaI8m 603.st9.T712 WAHGrQN Seatue 206.822.1711 Vanoouver aeo.eM.7&&1 wA8illGTON,D.O. 202.828.8870 563-296-4866 OOUG THO PAGE 05 .. SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT ATTORNEYS AT LAW RoyD. Lambert rlambertO tch.8be.com ...... of bplrt* Busll'l8l8 Tra~ TBXldlon .Affordable Houelng &. Tax 0r8dti E~ Ben&fltl Tax LItIgatIon &nd Tax COntrOVerslBB Tax Exempt Orgariz8llc1ll I I I p...-oMlI!xp8rienCe Roy Lambert Joined Schwabe, WlIlamson & Wyatt In 1~75. Since th8t time, he has foa.lsed his I practICe In the areas of corporate, partnership and Imlt8d IabIHty company ta)Cation, piecing 1 specialemphas!s on Income tax Issues, property and OUter local tax disputes, compensation and employee benefit pIan8, exempt organlzBtlons and private foundations, and IOw-lnoome hOUSing credi1& \ EduCdon Muter's degree In Texatlon, New York Univ.....ty ScmoI eX Law, 1976 Juris Dootor dlgnl8. Columbia University SchOOl of Law, 1972 Bachelor of ScIence degree, Comell Unlvel'llty, 1968 PI...lonal AotivItIeI Mr. Lambert Is an active member in the Taxation section of the Oregon state Bar. Mr. Lambert is Prealden1 or the Oregon Jewish Community Foundation; and , drector of the Jewish federation of Portland. Mr. Lambert Is 8 past President of the MItlI8n18n JewiSh Community center and of the PoliCe Acdvltles League of the Greater Portland Area and a past director Of the Portland Opera AseocIation. Mr. Lambert Is an active masters competitive swiowner. Reprwl,nf8tt:v7" ClIenra Mr. Lambe...., cl.,. Include: AJI8t'gy Almates. P.C. Key Community Development Corp. PoI'tIam Fuel Faclllti&l Corp. Sikh Dh&rma and ita affiliates Admlll8d to PractIce Oregon Qtate Courts Unl18d 811d88 Clatrlet Court, District of Oragon Unlted'S1at8I Court of Appeall; NlnII Circuit Unlt8d Stat8B Tax Court . A-ic .~/1912B62 13: 29 563-296-4866 . ~0Ib p..... o.Mr 8.....1100 Po~, OR 17204 D1lVli l.PI: 6OS..,.1'02 0.-aN Portland 103.zra.t811 Bend M1.3S).0904 su.m 603._.771~ fIA8H..-roN SeettIe 206.622.111' VMCOuver 880.884.15S1 W~D.c. 202.8311.8870 ----- OOUG THO PAGE 66 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYA'IT ATTORNEYS AT LAW Jeffrey s. Davie jdllvisOechw",com ArwM of Expert- Real Estate Transactions L.ancllord & Tenant Law OffIce Leasing Buslneaa Transactlcrw Flnanclallnatltutlons Land Use &. Property R1ghts Afforcl8ble Housing & Tax CnKItt8 P,.....'....I ~ Mr. OHYle jolned the firm in 1996 and has devoted the mejori1y of his practiee to mortgage 18ndl1ll. office 1euIng, tne purctla68 and fI8Ie of real property. and other reel estatrl and business trannctIOnS. Before Joining Schwabe, WIIIl'l'llOn & Wyatt, Mr. Davie was B staff attorney tor EiIenburg CapItal CorponItlon in Portland. Oregon, and B "I Estate Analyst for North COaet MongagB Comp&ny. EduOMIOn Juris Doctor degree (Certificate In BUGlneu l.aw), Unlveraity of Oregon School of LAW, 1995 Bach8IOr of ScIence CIeSrM. Business Management. Unlvtnlty of Utah, 1988 Prof...ioNI AaIivItiM Mr" Davilla B member of the Real Eatat8 8M land UIe 8ICtlon Of the Oregon Sblte Bar. He Is aI80 a membBr of the YOWlg l.aWyQR section of the Mulnomah Bar AsIodatIon. In 1&97. he became h firm'. repr8ll8l'ltatlve to the Oregon Mortgage Bank9rS .~SOQiatiOn. Mr. Davis hu sefVed a. the post advI80r for me Law ExpIor8r Poet epoMOl'8d by Schwabe. WlllarMQn & Wyatt. He wrles a ~1y Ill!IW8I8tter for hie local church corvegatlon and.iS an active member of the J. Reuben CIaric Law SOCiety. Mr. Davlllpeaks Afrikaans. Adm.... to PI1lCtioe Oregon State Courts . Ii-- '2, , T - 06/19/2662 13:29 . ParlIand 0lfIce PICMII Cenler S,*,1_ Portllnd, OR t7204 Direat UN: eo3.718.2<409 DIIiGC>>I Portland !103.222.8981 Bend &41.930.0904 Salem 6OO.M.1712 WAlHIGTON SMttIe 206.622.1711 VanoolJ\fef seo.894.7661 WASlINCiION. D.c. 202.~.6870 503-2%-4806 OOUG THO PAGE 07 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT ATTORNEYS AT LAW Alan L. P...ernaok ~ck.IChW.be.com Ateea of E!xperti.. AflorcIable HousklQ &. Tax Cred1t8 Uergett & Aoqull1tions SecurltlU ProJe.ioNlll exp.rIenae Mr. past8rnaCkjOlned the firm in 1999 and speoIallzes In business transactlol1&. affordable housing, and advising clients on a variety of general business mattera. Most r$C9n!1y, Mr. Pasternack hie been devoting 8Ub8tantIal time to repreaentlng Ill8tItutlonal imfestOl'S in Ib'UCIIJrtng, RIgOtlatirJ;;!. and documenting Umlled Partner8hlps and Umlted Lle,blUty Companies that .... ~ng low and moderate lncomo and epecIBI n88d9 housing utlltlng Jow.lncome hOu8Ing and rehabllt8don tax credits. Mr, Pastemad< has asalsted clients with bond financed and "allocation' tr~ons In Oregon, WBShll'GlOn, Minnesota, Montana and Nevada. Raprenntative transactions lhclude assisted IvIng prOj8CII combining taX free bond f1l11lnclng and Iow-Income housing tax credits, Bsailted lYing prqectI combining taX free bond financing and rehabilitatIOn (hletoric:) ~ credits, and transacti0n8 combining IoW-lncome and martcet rate units InvoMng flnanolng .,rough the HOME and COmmunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs, 88 well as val1Qua state programs. Mr. Pasternack has aleo VIIOI'k8d on transactlonelnvotvlng Oregon Farmwol'ker Housing Tax Credits. Prior to Joining the firm, Mr. Pasternack was a corporate assodate with the New York law firm of Snow Becket Krauss. where hG practICed In the ar.. of mergers and acquisitions and 88Curities law. Education Juris Doctor degree, Cornell Law School, 1988 Bach8lor of Arts degree, Colgate UnIVersity, 1983 Pro....loNIII ActIvities Mr. Pa8t8mack Is a member of the AmerIcan Bar Association', Forum on A.,rdable HousIng and oommuNtv DeveloJlnent Law, and the American Bar AIIOCIatlOf1's Buslneasl SectIOn, Gommlttee on NegoIIatld Aoqull11t1on8. Mr. PlUiIBmaGk 18 a member of the Steering ~Itt_ Of the Jewish Federation of Portland. Young LooderehlpOlYl8lon. Mr. Paltemack 15 also 8 tnember of the Northw88t Cfvll War COUncil (116th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry, and Or8g0n Fife and Drum COrps). Admh:led to Ptw*ce 0Mgan State courts New York Courts Dllltr'lct of ColumbIa /Jr-3Z F . Frol\: OBEGON ACTION ~. .....4 ~ 5107 He Manln l.uIher J<lnllllvcl. Pcx1tJMd, Oft 1f111 =: MIIIId 33 N canlrll, Gl3 MedtonI. OR ..,801 641-772-4m8 541-7T2-0388(r) - .c-.,.. ~DIMW ...a...IlICllIIOIV -.w. ~--.:r,:r "",..5."" ~Hd PllallI CnIII DIIIolor ..... h.J. ....,... GIg ~~t\ o.q.= v........ .IIn ... QIIlII~. ~, -....... MI~ """ ... TII'W ....... MIltary..... rm.u ~~ ~ PlIIll en5nev ~ "",,*1lIIIIIIlID .::.z::. .... ...... Q ~.... =.~ 0......, EdWtFlIlde . . +5417728355 88-17-.2 1e:20 P. eOl Augu.t 15, 2002 To whom It May ConGem: Rogue Vallly Oregon Aden: i. 81i1r1lMrootS communlty orgsnlzaUon-eiit worka wllhClUr low ..d mode...lrM:OR1e members on Inu.. of ~ and economic julfice, HpecIatIy onee thet: effect loW IneolM people. W. 81"8 glllcl that this propoll8l o1T8ra .ttention 10 tne affordable hoUSing need, In Aehl..,d. The IIw' Of IIffordlltlle 1'l00000g 18 of tne hIghest priority to our members, many of whom face II daunting problem or "ndIng eny haUling that il afI"oRiabIe for "em In our 1I8I1ty. we are .... !hit Rogue ".11ey Community DevelopnB1t Corporalon ( lWCDC) wi be tarqellng the 8016 1ne MedIan Income renterlln Iblt I. c:teveIoprrwnt popelAl, .net we In oregon Acfbn lend our 8Upport fur the pq.:t. W. urge CDm funclng to ..ilt It. ~~ OntyOrl Adlon A-~3 . APP-23-2002 04:36 PM RVCOMMUNITYDEVCORP 541 245 6966 P.. ~15 APR 23 2002 BI~?RM RURRL COLLABORRTIYE 436-940-168'7 ,., 1 The Rural .laborative April 2.2, 2002 Mr. Roc De:mDle ..~ DiNoCar &ape v.De" Comnmnit)' Devllopmlmt CarpolwdeG '.0. lis J133 ~ Q1l 97501 Dear loll: TIriI.... wQl .-vc AI IA ....lora uf1Dln1t tram III JturaJ, CoIIIbonCiw 1Ia pII1Icdpu, . fa It>> 8$:,' ~ ftIlr .. ~ of land fOr. 1IIDIlDc1-uc dmllClJ7I:!XD in Am1md. 0re1Ofl. Baaed Oft my tftI1faJ ftt\'tew ,.,. ,...... it IIpINUt ~)'OW pnJoot __ OlD' elllfbiJity critwJa . W. 'WO\dd be raM iaaMttId fa ftIOd .. ..... ~ClII *om,.. ~daaW I\IPIICdDI tbII wt'Ib)' pIOJoet GatCDlett . a-~ ~ nM4 0Ur,...u ICDdjq .... 81r1aDd. tot*uaa &Dd....wIopmeat it aloc-tlOoonlue DDt10 ~ '0 J*Mlt or.. appniNd va1n 0111. ~...... IQiIlOt to fIIDIled. ftvc yan. Ocrp1'C_ maacat ra.. .. 5.5 p'rceat 'It.oith ." m~ fie equl till 1.2ft, of.. pdnotpal-.aut. 'Ole Rural ConIboratve .. . UWIp'. C-~ ~l! F'1DIDl:i&l1_UdoD Collltdod 10 pro\'ide dordablc. Ippruprim mI tiDely ~ to promcle 01 llA.m....1t)'.'buec1 houIm,~ 1ft lman dttn uad!Utal ~ fa tho Nort.hweIt.t Rial! Plan. 'I1Ie lyJe or~ 6at AVCJ)C eavlliODl in Ashltmd &r wit& botl:r die ptl~ u4 dle..:ope III ~pmded by_ bralCeI1II:Iaadw. WIlde 1bk1tatt eIaMt be: ~ at .e<a.....It......11: to preW5c ......lIutnllla.... ~cMl of ow ~in 'Mddq 'Iridt, the 1CoJIue VIIJey~~ DlMdClplD!llt ~~ 1OWM!. ....ny IIIIIIfIM:IarJ fIIHI_q IOllldon. lD;additi.oa 10 .....1endfq d1e lbua1 Co11a~ will ~ _VCDC witb Ilddidom1 ~ IerVkeI to ........ dill ptoject lad *-,e ItllUClCleU. t I loot IorMrd 110 ....w..a ~ ~ ftuther rell1'dfag thillaqWry. 111 the blteriln in QU provide you wt1b adctId.cad ~a. pac.. cIo DOt 1JGaiJMc 11:I QO, ~~~ ,.... M h1HrN:l ~ ~~aad T.a.icaJ "'..laace -: P.o. Bu .1_ .....a,a" 171' ... <___I" \. .. fr3q ~ '.. ',2003 CITY OF ASHLAND CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HUD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for CDBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HUD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project Please ftII it out entirely Indicating an items which are not .pplieable and ind1lde it as part of your proposal applieation. - A. ADDlicant's Backaround Yes No NlA 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit of government? X 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet HUD x Income Guidelines (see D82e 6 for mride1ines l? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written iDoome documentation? v 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial commitment to a ~ .ect? x S. Is the applicant a reli2ious 0 on? x B. Project location and Land Use Issues Yes No N/A 1. Has a location for the moiect been selected? v 2. Is the ~DlOiect within the }hhl,fld ,Citv limits? ' " x I 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and land use Jaws? x 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review or Conditional Use Permit . ? x S. Have these aDDrOvals been obtained? x 6. Does the project comply with current building code . ? x 7. Does 'the project meet handicapped accessibility X reQuirements? C. EnvironmentallssU88 Yes No N1A 1. Is the moiect located in the l00-vear tloodolain? X 2.Is'a wet:Iand located on the nmiect site? X 3. Has any environmental contaminAtion been identified on the site? ;. s-' -:.:~ ._ .. ~-~.'r-. :: ~-- .~-'~'-?:bS X -- 4. -Has aSbestos been identified on the site? ' X 5. Ifproject involves an exiting structure, was it built 1978 or eerlier? If year built is known. Dlease .~ X . 6. 'Is the . ,oroiect located on a maior arterial or near v COBG RFP FY2002-2003 City of Ashland Page 20 r_..a.'\ A--3~ ---- .... x x X Yes No x Yes x Yes No NVA Ie title? x 'x x the ? .x ~ '-.1. X CDBG RFP FY2002-2003 City of Ashland Page 21 (__, ~-36 T r Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2003 Grant Application Proposal # 2 Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) Technical Assistance ---- r ~ - DATE: August 15~ 2002 TO: Brandon Goldman~ Ashland CDBG Administrator FROM: Rogue Valley Community Development Corpomtion RE: Technical Assistance Proposal In reference our conversation with Nancy Donovan of the Portland HUD office during her recent site visit, RVCDC requires the expertise of several consultants to provide the necessmy information to create the Ashland Villages project that complies with all anticipated sources offunding including CDBG. RVCDC requests technical assistance fimeting through the CDBG program to cover the costs associated with this phase of predevelopment. At that time it was suggested that RVCDC submit a-proposal detailing the need and activities for the technical assistance ftmding through your program. As you know, to undertake a project of this size, complexity, and to meet City and CDBG requirements a strong development team is necessary. Following are the areas of consultation needed to keep the project moving forward: . To development of an individualized relocation plan for each tenant of the Lower Pines Trailer Park site, RVCDC will hire Right of Way Associates, experienced in URA relocation and trailers parlcs specifically. . Engage project attorney, Schwabe and Williamson & Wyatt to prepare the Option and Purchase Agreements for each of the three sites in the Ashland Villages. . To conduct site planning for all the sites and to prepare City pre-application submittals, RVCDC has hired Carlos Delgado Architect and Associates . The co-developer and finance consultant for the project The Nielson Group LLC, who along with RVCDC will direct the following activities for the above consultants: . Prepare options for Faith Street Property, Lower Pines, and third site . Develop Criteria and select third site . Prepare applications for Rural Collaborative and other loan sources . Complete assembling Project Development Team . Develop site plan for entire project . Prepare pre-application for City submittal . Meet with tenants and develop individual plans for relocation . Identify commercial tenants and secure letter of interest ' . Prepare applications for project financing . Complete reports,and updates required of funding sources Technical Assistance and PredevelopmentCosts Total T A Costs Funding Source Challenge Grant CDBGffA $7,500 $7,500 $10,800 $ 4,800 $6,000 $5,200 $5,200 $15,000 $7,500 $38,500 $10,000 $21,000 RVCDC Costs Relocation Specialists Architects Legal Development Consultant $7,500 $7,500 Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation respectfully submits this request for technical assistance from the City of Ashland for $21,000 to leverage th&other funding identified above to provide in order to move the Ashland Villages project into the next development phase. See Ashland CDBG application for description of the project details. Federal Home Loan _. . ,,~i\ Bank Seattie ....::.,.t::4.#'. ~. 1501 Fourth Aile.. S~. ;~OO Sf!AI~I,\.WA 9810',11>93 2':)0 340.23lXJ tlII z.-J6.J'IO.2~85 fiX \\w...fh'bwa.com MEMORANDUM ATTN: Challenge Fund Program Lenders and Sponsors FROII: McheelP.-"',Ch.lrman.Boardof~ P. f(~ DATE: July 17, 2002 Re: Chellenge Fund Applioetiona - 2002 Summer Round It gives me great pleasure to announce the Challenge Fund applications approved for funding. Approved applications are listed below in &COre order beginning with the highest score. These members will receNe regulatory agreements and dsbul'88ment information In Ile m811 In the next few weekS. r you have any ques1ion6 about the Challenge Fund program or how to 8Ubmit an appIIc8tIon for the next round. please cont8Ct Tony L. Alcantara. Program Admlnfttrator, at (206) 340-8712 or tl!llloentaraOthlbsea.com. w. received seven appMcatlon6 for the Challenge Fund Program for the summer ro,lnd of 2002 with requests totaling 570,000. Six applications were appnMKI for a IOIaI of $50.000. AlthQUS#l aU projects are deserving of oW' funds. our limited fund$ require us to make difficult ChOi~ based on our scoring criteria. We thank you and the atror\1abIe housing developers for your applications. The Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle applauds your eforts and we look fOrward to helping you create afardable houg,g In your communities. Approved Appllc;atlons of Amerlca 0Ng0, N.A. Cheney, WA 10,000 Loc.tiDn Awn A8h1end. OR $10. Type of Housing Cona1ruc:t OM- and two-bedroom IIpIItment campIu wIIh 10,000 ~. ft. of commeldal space. Project wil 8Y8 houaehoIds at 50%-80% of the I ... medI8n InGome. con.truot Zone- two-beclroorn ~III for tow-Income elderly. T~ an'" wm be .. aide for houaeho~ fit fJO% or blIIow C;:I1h8 ... median fnecme .KS five unItI wm be &It .Ide for hOuHhaIdII........n &OCJ4 n _ da... medlm 1nGorn., RurtI SenIor Apartmenls Rural ... f.:ederal Home Loan @) Bank Seattle 1501 Fourth Ave., Ste. 1900 Seattle. WA 98101-1693 206.340.2300 tel 206.340.2485 fax www.fhlbsea.com / Challenge Fund Agreement This Challenge Fund Agreement (Agreement) is entered into this 17th day of July 2002, between the Federal Home Loan Bank: of Seattle (Seattle Bank:) and Bank of America Oregon. N.A. financial institution (Customer) and Rogue Valley CDC (Organization) with respect to Challenge Fund financing for the New Pines Village project, Challenge Fund #: 200202001. Recitals A. The Seattle Bank has established the Challenge Fund to encourage its customer [mancial institutions, working in conjunction with nonprofit organizations, to contribut,e to the development of affordable housing in the Twelfth Federal Home Loan Bank region. B. The Seattle Bank desires to make financing available to the Organization, through the Customer, for the project (Project) described in the Organizations Challenge Fund Application. C. The Customer desires to serve as an intermediary between the Seattle Bank and the Organization with respect to such financing. D. The Organization desires to use such financing for certain predevelopment costs it will incur in connection with the Project. L The Seattle Bank agrees to ~eeam:~'~f ~:~~Ced Amount) to the ...../ '. Customer for the benefit of the Organization. The Financed..:Anlount is not considered an "advance" to the Customer from the Seattle Bank, and is not subject to th~ Advances Agreement between the Seattle Bank and Customer. 2. The Seattle Bank will disburse the Financed Amount to the Customer in installments upon receipt of written requests from the Customer for disbursements indicating that payment is due for qualifying predevelopment expense. The Customershall.retain .copies of all related InVOiCeS, contracts or other documentation pertaining to each such request. 1 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) 2003 Grant Application Proposal # 3 Creative Alternatives Foundation Off-Site Street and Utility Service Improvements " T .... ~'~~~~J: -.t" T r r., CITY OF ASHLAND 2003 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Request for Proposal Application Form CODa RFP 2003 City of Asb1lnd . Page 15 T .... " 2) Clay Street Apartments will provide nineteen affordable apartments for low and moderate income seniors in a two-story strueture, on 1.5 acres of open land~ Additional senior friendly features will include an elevator to sheltered all weather parking below, laundry facilities, common rooms, and a community garden with a path to Clay Street Park. Creative Ahernatives Foundation engaged Medinger Construction to design and develop affordable senior housing on their property. The principal of Medinger Construction is Larry Medinger, who has thirty years of experience in numerous residential and light commercial developments in Ashland. Housing Authority of Jackson County will provide professional management for the apartments. 3) See enclosed map for project location. a) Clay Street apartments are in walking distance to Rogue Valley Transit District, line number five, located on Ashland Street. Shopping centers and employment opportunities nearby are Shop & Cart, BI-Mart, Rite-Aid, and Albertson's. Each location is within a one mile radius of apartments, and suitable for aged 65 and older for residence who wish or need to work. Bellview Elementary School, Ashland Middle School, and Ashland High School are within a two-mile radius of the site. Ashland Senior Program, Ashland Police Station and Fire Station are also w;thin a two-mile radius of Clay Street Apartments, and Ashland Community Hospital is only 3.4 miles away. b) The total floor area of the two-story structure is 19,796 square feet including parking level and all storage. The size of land site is 30,099 square feet. c) The structure will have nineteen apartments. There will be 6 studios, 11 one- bedrooms, and 2 two-bedrooms. The total number of bedrooms is 21. d) There are 7 apartments reserved for 31-50% median income and the remainder is reserved for moderate income. e) One unit (5%) is accessible to the disabled and hearing impaired. f) Clay Street Apartments will provide sheltered all weather assigDed parking, totaling 2,642 square feet. Individual storage units are available to the residents, totalina 724 square feet. To provide architectural interest three top floor apartments will have planter balconies (a total of 18 square feet). g) There will be a public restroom totaling 64 square feet, and a laundry facility totaling 81 square feet on each floor. A 400 square foot fiunily activity room with kitchen will occupy the southeast corner of the first floor. There will be a small99 square foot administrative office and a 79 square foot resident interview room, also on first floor. h) Not applicable. Clay Street Apartments does not contain commercial space. i) Not applicable. Clay Street Apartments is a new building. j) This proposal does not involve acquisition or renovation of housing. k) The project does not involve rehabilitation of an existing structure. 1) The target population is aged 65 and over. The site is relatively level and will provide a very accessible environment for the aged tenants. Creative Alternative Foundation will lease the property to Housing Authority of JackSon County (HAlC). HAJC will malUlge the building and screen prospective tenants ror qualification for the program. The HAJC employs a Social Services Coordinator and other staff to assist residents in achieving self-sufficiency and to assist residents in accessing necessary social services. Tenants will be interviewed to.asse$S their individual needs with regular follow up contacts to assure currency of information. Special attention will be given to legal assistance for wills and tax preparation, budgeting and money T r .. management, low cost medical care, house-keeping aides, transportation, meals and other services as needed. Among, agencies with ongoing cooperation agreements with HAlC are ACCESS, The Ashland Senior Program, and Interfaith Care Community of Ashland. m) The property will remain affordable for 51years. The mechani!m1s that will be used to ensure the period ofaffordability are; restrictions built into the primary OAHTC loan lasting twenty years, a land use restriction given by the city of Ashland as a result of granting a zone change to the property from Rl.5 to R2, and lasting 51 years. In addition to the above, to protect the affordability of the units the primary loan will be refinanced at the end of the initial twenty year OAHTC cycle. . 4)Residents of Clay Street Apartments (CSA) will be aging persons 65 and over, with incomes between 400,4 and 800,4 of the median income of Al::hland, ~SA will provide them with affordable homes that foster independent living coupled with a safe and nurturing environment. Often seniors become vulnerable to nutritioml or other health challenges as they age because their living environment may become too expensive or it may isolate them from care givers, or other support mechanisms of their community. CSA will provide them with access to services as listed above in (I). More than that the on-site management will be aware of them on an individual day to day basis. They will be able to interact with them in such a way as to assist in solving problems such as transportation, sociali7.ation issues, meals, or any money management problems, legal problems, etc. Residents will benefit from other features designed to help them live independent and healthy lives. A few of these features are a resident garden program, where residents may reserve one or more raised, irrigated beds in the community garden. Besides the benefit of raising healthy, fresh food, residents benefit from socializing with their neighbors and the physical exercise of working outdoors in their garden. Another feature encouraging exercise is the network ofwalking paths around the building which lead to the adjacent city park. In the building, large spaces in open corridors on both floors encourage socialization and a place for residents to play cards and converse with neighbors. This is in direct contrast to traditioml buildings with long hallways lined with anonymous closed doors. Overall the Clay Street environment inside and out encourage seniors to be social and to lead active lives. 5)SEE FORM A 6)PLEASE SEE ENCLOSED PROFORMA AND ATTACHED FORM B AND FORM C. a) Costs were developed using the Builder's standard estimating package and long experience. These costs will be refined as architecture and engineering are Completed and subcontractors can bid. The costs were figured with the construction timeline bP.ginning inJanuary, 2003. b) ProfofDltl constructed so that poject cash flow of later years will support major renovatibns or re-constructions ifDec4'Ssary. ' c) All financial assumptions except one are sourced from actual bank quotes (such as interest rates) or from the management partner, Housing Authority of Jackson , County the one exception is the lower than standard vacancy rate which was moved from 5% to 3%. This was done because of the extreme need for this type of housing in Ashland as demonstrated by the market study, the typical one percent vacancy rate reported in the 2000 City Consolidated Plan, because of anecdotal survey evidence from Ashland property managers that affordable units take two to three weeks or less to re-rent and, lastly, the low turnover rate typical of senior complexes. d) There are no expenses that are non-typical for senior housing. e) Attached at the back are the letters of interest from intended funding sources so far received. t) When HAlC leases and operates the Clay Street Apartments from Creative Alternatives Foundation, the Housing Authority's property tax exemption will apply to this project. The estimated dollar value of the first year's tax exemption is $34,320, given current tax rates. Estimating taxes to increase over a twenty year period at 3% per annum, estimated total tax relief over iTie total period is $837,663. 7)The portion of the project to be funded by CDBO is the off-site Clay Street and service improvements for which there is no other source of Dlnding. Those funds are specifically development costs that must accompany the construction of the project to obtain final city approvaL a) Clay Street apartments are within the Ashland City limits. b) The proposed tenant income levels are 40 to 8001'0 of City median income, otherwise known as low and moderate income households. c) Creative Alternatives Foundation is committing $3oo,00Q in donated land to the project.(See Appendix for letter regarding donation ofland) d) There are no permanent housing units to be converted or demolished on the property. e) The proposed housing site is not in or near a 100 year flood plain. t) The site is an unimproved rear yard of an 1.5 acre in which there has never been any development or source of pollution. g) Yes, there is a railroad 700 feet away. The railroad is used twice a day. Ashland Street, one of the major arterials in Ashland, is 750 feet away and the source of bus transportation to CSA residents.. h) There are no fl~mmahle storage tanks nearby. i) There are no historical improvements on or near the proposed site. 8)Refer to enclosed Creative Alternatives Foundation's Case Statement located in the Appendix. 9)The Housing Authority of Jackson County (manager of Clay Street Apartments) employs a social services coordinator and other staff to accommodate low to moderate income residents in achieving self-sufficiency and to assist tenanb in accessing necessary social services. This service is paid for byteDaDt rents and is p8rt of what HAlC charges Creative Alternatives Foundation to mlmage the building. T - 10)Refer to the Market Assessment from the accompanying Fall 2002 CFC Application located in the appendix for information answering a and b. Infonnation derived from marketing study prepared especially for the Clay Street Apartments Application and using data and other information from Ashland's Consolidated Plan, Housing Study done by Bruce M. Ostley, May 2002, Census 1990 and 2000, CJaritas Inc., and The Thomas Group. 11)There is a specific proportion of the units that must be rented to low and to moderate income households. It is part ofHAJC's management charge to make sure that these units are rente4 to persons with the appropriate income levels. Unit income designation is to be "floating" so as to filcilitate quick re-rental of individual units to the appropriate persons applying. A "floating" system allows free access to both large and small units by all members of the qualifying population rather than limiting larger or "nicer" units to higher paying income levels. 12) N/A 13) a) Creative Altenlatives Foundation is a singkHIsset entity spedfieally created to design, build, and wminkter the dordable semor housing property defined in this propolllL The Foundation was formed IeVenl yean ago. One of our board memben, Ted FIetd1er, pojIsesses long term buiIdiDg desigD aad coostructioD experience. Some initial desip and Oty "'nning aetivity led tile foanden to combine foras with more experienced providen in housing and ...~.gement so as to produce a suecessful projed. '!be following orpnmatioDs will be combining their aperience with Creative Alternatives Foundation to produce and manage Oay Street Apartments: . MedinJ!er Construction Co..lnc. was chosen because of their 30 years of experience and commitment to dordable housing and their experience working with the target senior group. Some ofMCCI's background is as follows: > In 1979/1980, they developed and built Jessica Lane, a IS-unit passive solar, affordable housing subdivision in Ashland using Farmers Home Administration funding. )> Developed and built the Struve subdivision combining State Housing Division funds administered through the newly formed Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation with FmHA funds to produce a portion of the subdivision as housing affordable to low and moderate income families. > Involved in producing the500 person Mountain Meadows Community targeted specifically to serve the needs of seniors. . Bnace AbeIoe. Ardri~ has been involved in many affordable housing projects. Recent projects he has been involved in are as follows: >Li1ac Meadows a 42-unit apartment building funded by OHCS. )> Summit Apartments a 6 unit building was developed fur the Housing Authority of Jackson County. > Berrydale Apartments a 12-unit building was developed for Housing Authority of Jackson County. . . ~o Autb,~ of "'~D Countv was chosen for their aperieoce in creating and JIItln.gjng maay projects uSiD& Departmeu.t and Federal fimdn.g. Among the many subsidizedprojeets are being mpnaged by Housing Audlority of Jackson County, a few > ;4:1:s~~y housing financed with Trust Fund, LIHTC, and a conventional mortgage. Also, are the General Partner fur this project. > 57 units ofHUD 236 muhifamily housing. These are owned by two, Housing Authority controlled non-profit corporations. ~ 84 units in a multifamily LIHTC project with ACCESS being the General Partner. In condusion, the assistance from the above developer, property manager, and architect will provide the applicant with the capaq", to sUcces$fuUy complete and manage Clay Street Apartments. b) Operating expenses for CSA were developed with consultation with HAJe. The Housing Authority has a great deal of experience in operating similar properties and is reliable source of realistic numbers. c) Yes, there is a Sales Agreement on the property that assures that the property is available for acquisition.(See Appendix) d) The project does not require any temporary or permanent relocation of other persons. e)N/A f)The project property has been awarded a Zone Change from the Planning Commission in July 2002. Further land use approvals required are a Site Review and a Conditional User Permit. g)An application has been filed with the Ashland Planning Department for Site Review and Conditional Use Permits. h)N/ A i)Please refer to the Proforma located in the Appendix. We have applied for HOME Funding in the Fall 2002 CFC. We have received letters of interest from banks nmarding both construction and permanent funding. Also, we are applying for a Community Incentive Fund Grant and a Grant from the Federal Home Loan Bank. 14) There are no historical improvements Qn or near the proposed site. 15) SEE APPENDIX 16) See attached checklist and forms A,B,C. ... 2003 CITY OF ASHLAND CDBG APPLICATION CHECKLIST In order to determine compliance with all applicable HOD regulations and to help to ensure that projects will be eligible for COBG funding, the City of Ashland will need to address all HOD requirements. The purpose of this checklist is to point out areas where potential problems could arise. Obviously, this is a comprehensive list, which must evaluate a wide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indieating aD items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal applieation. ,88~, X X X X ,1M. ~ "" '):188; , X X X X X X x 1. Isthe roe located in the 1~ ear flood lain? 2Js a wetland located on the ro. site? 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified on the site? '4. Has asbestos been identified on the 'em site? X 5.' lf project involves an exiting stiucture, vvas itbuih 1978 or X earlier? If ear built is known, lease . . Year 2001 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or near X railroad? ' T CDBG RFP 2003 city of Ashland , Page 22 ".. x x V_ No x x x x x CDOO RFP 2003 City of AsbJand Page 23 ~ - .~'.. FORH A PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE Project Name: Clay Strut Apa..I......b ACTMTY SITE OptionlContract executed Site Acquisition Zoning Approval Site Analysis Building Permits & Fees Off-Site Improvements A . 12 2002 Feb~ 15 '"2003 3i "~'''1iICJ02 """-:-"I"'2CKj2 DiC.7'2002 M'. 2003 PRE-DEVELOPMENT Plans Completed FiDalBids Contractor Selected FINANCING eo.tnlctioD LoaD: ~ Finn Commitment New. 10 ',' 2002 ~ .... _._..<L....~...... _..__.._._.~ beC.2002 PERMANENT LOAN: Proposal Finn Commitment NW:1~ DeC~"2002 SYNDICATION AGREEMENT CONSTRUCTION BEGINS ~ 2003 CONSTRUCTION CO LETED CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY LEASE UP ~.~ ...-.......-.... _.._....:~ ~~, I.j . 0;" t ... .. . I. ' .. ~ , <t>l ----. T - FORM B USES OF FUNDING Project Name: Clay Street Apartments CDBG application is for offsite improvement for which there is no other funding source. See accompanied OHCS sheets for funding and cost details of the larger project. ACQuisition Costs Purchase Price: Land S N/A Improvements S N / A Liens and Other Taxes S N/ A ClosingIRecording S N / A Off-site Costs/Improve S 82, 00 0 . ~er ~nginppringS 1.000 Subtotal S 85.000. Deve100ment Costs Land Use Approvals Building PennitslFees ~ystem DeVelopment Charges Market Study Environmental Report (typically a Levell) Soils Report (Geotechnical) Swvey Marketing Insurance Fees Ardlitectura1 S Engineering S Legal! Accounting S Cost Certification S Appraisals S Lender Inspections S Lender Title Insurance S Construction Loan S Permanent Loan S Tax Credit Fees S Closing Fees S Developer Fee S Consultant Fee S T COST S N/A S N/A S N/A S N/A $ N/A S N/A $ N/A S N/A S N/A N/A 3,000. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A SOURCE r FORM C SOURCES OF FUNDING Project Name: Clay Street Apartments Source ORCSD PROGRAMS Home Trust Fund LI Weatherization GRANTS (Doa-ORCSD fuds) CDBG FHLB City of HOME Match (check) Committed $ $ $ $ - $ Ashland: SDC Hai ver $ $ . LOANS (Doa-ORCSD faads) Permanent Loan APPLICANT CONTRBIUTIONS Cash Def.erred Dev. Fee OTHER Thqmas Group Donation SUBI'OTALS TOTAL POND SOURCES $ $ $ $ JilA.. BlA.... ~ $ S $ $ $ $, $2,314,027. Other OIDD aon-equity 8OUI'C08: 'Oroaon Aftbrdablo HousiIig T8X Credit (OAlITC) sOed Moaey Advance Loan , 0tIier HOMBMa1dl (0.'" tax exemption) . Conditional Tentative S $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $581,852. $100,000. $ 50,000. S 85,000. $ 95,000. $ 52,600. $ $ 988.000. $ $ $ $ 300 ,000. $ 60,000. $ $ 1,575. $ $2,314,027. Anticipated or Finn Commitment Date Nov-2002 Nov-2002 01/10/2003 (Note: Total Pad Soaras .ut..teIa "Total Project ea.t" fro. Uses ofll'bumebaJ page.) $ 988,000. $ $34,230. (loan amOUDt, not crocIit amount) (loan amount) ~:Housinq Authority of Jackson County - APPENDIX Support Letters are as follows: eSenior and Disability Services .city of Ashland eAccess, Inc. eRVTD .office of the Mayor Letters of Interest for funding sources are as follows: eNetwork for Oregon Affordable Housing eUmpqua Bank eWells Fargo Bank Documents eEvidence of donated land eApprovalletter for zone change from the City of Ashland eCase statement from the Creative Ahernatives Foundation eMarket Assessment eSales Agreement 'eProforma -Ashland City map for project location and local services available r r Fax: 541-664-7927 Area Code: 541 Administration Office Senior and Disabili!y Servic.es COUNCIL To call locally: Central Point 664-6674 '~ Medford 779-6785 · Grants Pass 474-5947 "f CUVBaN~E~TS August 8, 2002 To Whom It May Concern: Senior and Disability Services of Rogue Valley Council ofOovemmeiitS (SDS RVCOG) is pleased to support the Clay Street Project, which is being proposed by Medinger Construction. Our organi7Ation serves elders and adults who are disable, most of whom have very low incomes. We are aware that there is an acute shortage of housing that is affordable to our Jackson County clients. For instance, the waiting list for subsidized housing throulh the Housing Authority is about 1,200 D8IDeS long and the wait may extend to two yearS. The Clay Street Project, which will house seniors who have incomes of300A. to 60% of the Jackson County median, will address an important need. SDS RVCOO offers case msmJ\8ement and long term care services for people who qualify and are 65 years of age and older. Long term care includes assistance with activities-such as bathing, dressing, cleaning, meal preparation and protection from abuse-which allow the person to remain at home instead of moving to a care facility. Seniors who live at the Clay Street Project may also receive food stamps, medical transportation or other assistance from our Senior Services Office in Medford. Individuals over 60 years of age of any income level are also eligible for services, such as home-delivered meals and legal assistance, from other community agencies. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (541) 664-6676 ext 225. ?lJ~{J Donald. 0 Bruland Director . C 1 T Y o F ASHLAND .. C IT Y HAL L ASHLAND. OREGON W520 telephone (code 503) 482-3211 July 31, 2002 To whom it may concern: Through Janelle at Medinger Construction, I learned of the prQPosed senior citizen housing at the Clay Street Project. I am pleas to hear of this potential resource for Ashland's 10""'8r income sen ors. As a service provider through the City of Ashland Senior Prog m, 'I can attest to the need for safe and adequate housing for resid ts as they age. The City of Ashland has provided assistance to older residents for over 25 years. Our goal is providing a support system for seniors, enabling them to live independently and with dignity in our ' community. We provide Information/Assistance and Outreach to assist with needs of a physical, social, mental, financial or living situation nature and what resources are appropriate to meet flose needs. Where necessary, ""'8 will advocate on behalf of the senior to an agency or program that can provide a~istance. At our senior center, ""'8 provide a variety of social, educational, recreational and health-related programs that are open to all Ashland area seniors. The City provides a 20 or 30% discount on city utility bills for income- qualifying persons 65 or older. In addition to our activities, the Rogue ,Valley Council of Governments Food & Friends senior nutrition program is served five days a week at our facility, All persons 60 or older and welcome and there is not a charge (only a suggest~ donation) for the noontime meal.. On a WfJ8kly basis approximately 300 Seniors utilize the center. Our monthly, newsletter is sent to 480- 500 persons. pg.45 T ... . " .. Please contact me at 488-5342 if I can provide other information. Sincerely, I -:ilt/l-~c:i:~, v-<- '- Sharon Laws, Director City of Ashland Senior Program/Center T rr ~"".~.,. ~""(i "i-." ~, '~ [j" "ElI'lf"C'~ r\ !N~I G'~(~~ r E~'~GL~~'~~ U[Q)@c Community Action Agency J6~O Aviation W"y · [>,0, Box 4M6 · Medford. OR tJ750 l July 23, 2002 Janelle Banick Medinger Construction PO Box 702 Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Janelle, ACCESS, Inc. is pleased to hear about, the affordable housing project that your company is pursuing in Jackson County and specifically, Ashlan~ Oregon. - As a part of our long-standing, continuous effort to community service, ACCESS, Inc. is committed to providing the residents of the Clay street senior housing development project services and suppo~ as requested, through the following programs; SENIOR OVTREACH- The ACCESS Senior Outreach Coordinator working in. cooperation with Ashland Senior Services, helps to establish linkages with other community r.um:s when necessary, to help address specific needs for seniors, including Social Security, Medicare, 8Dd others. The coordinator visits seniors in their homes to process evaluations, make recommendations and coordinate services. In this way. seniors can ICC?Civc information and support which assists them in worlcing through important issues they face each day. The Gatekeeper Program is another part of the community effort to identify seniors in need. This program is a partnership between ACCESS and employees of the post office, bankers, utility and television companies, newspaper carriers and others who can alert our outreach workers to those who need assistance. ' HOME MEAL DELIVERY -Dlle to infinnity, many seniors and disabled persons are unable to prepare nutritious, hot meals for themselves. ACCESS, Inc. addresses this problem through the delivery _ of meals directly to their homes. Through the' ACCESS Meals Club,ready-macle, affordable meals are available delivered ready to heat and 'Serve. MEDICAL EQUIPMENT -ACCESS, Inc. makes medical equipment available to anyone, who needs it, free of charge for as long as the item is needed. Hospital beds, walkers, wheelchairs and most other home care items arc loaned. for as long as the need exists. , EMERGENCY FOOD BOXES-An emergency food box CODmining 3S to 40 pounds of food canbc provided if needed. With many seniors facing reduced benefits, there may be a great need for this type of assistance. Many seniors qualify for the Brown Bag supplemental food program. OI1i~~: ~5~1) 771,).6(191 · Client: (S~I)77lJ-9()1U · FAX (S4I) 779-K8S6 CCB #11 IIW- pg.46 - ~.c a program where members sign up for a six months and receive nutritional information. recipes and J to 2 bags of groceries each month. ENERGY ASSISTANCE-Seniors who are low income qualify for a one-time-per-heating season assistance payment toward their winter heating bill. Energy conservation education can also be provided to assist senior residents in spending their energy dollars wisely. ACCESS, Inc. constantly searches for new ways to address the affects of poverty in our community .while improving the daily lives of its citizens. Living in our service area ensures residents continued access to the full range of programs we administer and the dedicated service for which we stand. Good luck on your proposal and please feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Sincerely, ~~&~ Patricia Claeys, CEO AOCESS. Inc. --- ~ - ~ ~~ '...-J...._ . RVr I ) 3'-00 Cr.....". 1.,,1l1! Av" P.fl~fott%, OR !l7~.04 (~') U!).:>lS21 r QJl (S4 11 "'3.-2& II rrv. (541) 734-0292 August 9, 2002 Ms. Janelle E. Banick Secretary Medinger Construction Company P.O. Box 702 Ashland. OR 97520 Re: Letter of Support for affordable housing for elderly at 631 Clay Street Ashland, Oregon Dear Janelle. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to document RVTO's support for your proposed affordable housing project at 630 Clay Street. Ashland, Oregon. We are very supportive of tI1is project because it is located where we can provide door to door and curb to curb service respectively with our American's with Oisabifrties Act Service (ADA) Valley lift Service and our Senior Shopper Shuttle. In addition, RVTO's new door 10 door, TransUnk Medicaid Transportation Service is also available to medicai~ eligible individuals in Jackson County. The VaHey Lift ADA Service is available, by appointment, Monday through Friday from 5:00 A.M. to 7:45 P.M. Shopper Shuttle Servic:e is also available by appointment. Monday through Friday from 9:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.m. The TransLink, Non-Emergency, Medicaid, Transportation Services is available. by appointment. to any eligible Medicaid client on a 24-hour basis. We are also supportive of your housing project because it is within a few hundred feet of our regular Ashland to Medford, Route 10 bus route. The actual cost to the elderly for each of those services is as follows: Service Cost/Rider Trip Type 1. Valley Lift- ADA in Ashland $0.00 One way Valley lift- ADA outside Ashland $2.00 One way 2. Shopper Shuttle $1.00 Round Trip 3. TransUnk Medicaid Transportation $0.00. One way .4. Route 10 Bus Service in Ashland $0.00 One way 5. Route 10 Bus Service Outside Ashland for Elderly $0.50 One way -For Eligible Clients pg.47 ~. , .' Funding for the VaJley Lift and Route 10 Bus Service is provided through a combination of local and federal funding sources. The Senior Shopper Shuttle is funded through Oregon's Department of Transportation Special Transportation Fund (STF) which is a special transportation fund set aside to support transportation services for Oregon citizens who are at least 60 years old or who are disabled. Revenue for the program comes from a two-cent tax on each pack of cigarettes purchased In Oregon. The TransLink Medicaid Transportation program is funded through Federal Medicaid funds administered by the Oregon Medical Assistance Program (OMAP). Again. we at RVTO are pleased to hear about your project at 631 Clay Street in Ashland. The need for affordable housing for senior citiZens in Jackson County is great. We are especially pleased that your project will be located within easy walking distance of RVTO's Route 10 Bus Route. It is with considerable pleasure that I write this letter of support for your affordable housing project at 631 Clay Street in Ashland. .... Sincerely, ..,... c.:. .7 I .,. l, ,,' ~ f!:J.L l~~" ~.Jl . --I- ll. (--. -- . . Sherrin Coleman General Manager Rogue Valley Transportation District (RVTO) -' - i 1l , '\1~ Office of the Mayor Alan U7. DeBoer , . ..'f.!........~<(._ .~.~~~ '~~J' '~" , ::~. ,~~ 11'\.\' August 16, 2002 To Whom It May Concern: I want to express my full support for the 19-unit affordable senior apartment building proposed to be built at 631 Clay Street. This is exactly the type of facility we need in Ashland. As many long-time Ashland residents in our local wprkforce age and must seek safe, age-appropriate housing, they are finding it inc"asingly difficult to compete with more affluent retirees and with University students for the small amount of multifamily product available in Ashland. I would like to congratulate the founders of this proposed facility for their willingness to tackle one of the most difficult parts of Ashland's affordable housing dilemma and offer the full support of my office to aid in their success. Sincerely, ~t:?~ Alan DeBoer Mayor pg.48 City of.A8h1and . 20 East MaIn Street · AshIend. OR 97520 · (M1) 488-8002 · Fax: (M1) 488-5311 . 'EmaiI: awdbOaol.com ~ - I, ..T_... ... .....0. A....DA.L. Ii.u.... August 14,2002 Mr. Larry Medinger P.O. Box 702 AshlIDd. Oleson 97520 1tE: Clay Street ApartmeDu in AtbJaad, OrepD Request for Permanellt FiDand:.Dg Dear Mr. Medinger: Thank you very much for submittinl your application to NetWOrk for Oreson AfTordable HousiDg (NOAH) for permAnmrt fi.Dancing for the Clay S1reet Apartments, 19 units of housing for low:and moderate income seniors in Ashland. We are pleased that you arc interested in obt-ifti.,g penTlAftent fi~1\I for tbeproject ftom NOAH. We have reviewed yo. pIdimirmry documents and find them to be satist8ctoIy. aod we are happy to provide you with dus letter of interest. The purpose of this letter is to advise you ofthc next steps in NOAH's JentUI'lg p~ and to request additional information that is needed to eDable NOAH to determine its ability to issue a commitment. ThIs Is Dot, however. a COmBlliM'Dt to IeIld money. Before NOAH would be able to issue any commitment to ~ NOAH would need to obtain a full nmativc appraisal of the property and perform all standard underwriting to review and approve the specific asPects of the loan request. Nevertheless, based on the information provided to NOAH to-datc, the following is a possible structure for a loan on the project. Borrower: Creative Alternatives Foundation loan Amount: The loan amount will be the lesser of: a) $994.000; b) an amount wbith is no greater than 75% of apptaised market value: c) an amount which is serviceable at a 1.15: 1.00 ratio of net , operatiDg iDcome to NOAH debt service; d) an I1DOUIlt which is serviceable at a 1.10: 1.00 ratio of net opcDdna iDcoIIle to totaldcbt service. 1020 SW Taylo, St,eet . Suite .85 . Por~l.nd. OrDIIDn .72011 . T 1103,223,3211 . ~ 1103.223,0883 Gl =u= ----- pg .43 - Clay s"ftl A.JXII'I1'Isnts - Leuer of lnlerssl 0IJI14102 PageJ 2) $9,840 will be collected at execution of the commitment, if any. 3) The remaining $4,570 will be collected at loan funding. Recourse: The loan will be fully n:course to the assets of the bol1'Ower. Appraisal: NOAH will require an acceptable appraisal report ordered by NOAH or a regulated financial institution to complete the un~ting, and prior to loan commitment NOAH may require that the appraisal be reviewed by a regulated financial institution or MAl fee appraiser. NOAH may also require that the original appraiser re-a:rtify, upon completion of construction, that the improvements 'as ~t conform to the plans and specifications used to prepare the appr$isal, and that no adjustments in value are necessary. Commitment Tenn; The term of any forward commitment will be fifteen months, to allow time for completion of construction. Two three-month extension options wiD be availabI~ for a 0.25% fee, C84h. Fundiug Requirements: NOAH will require, among other thin~ that the project attain 95% economic occupancy and a 1.15X debt coverage ratio for at least one full month prior to closing of the permanent loan. Financial Information: NOAH will require the Loan Applicant to provide complete current (not more than 6 months old) financial iDformation on $e project, as well as the project sponsors and partners in order to underwrite the loan. Project Subsidies: NOAH understands that the project may receive an allocation of HOME funds, Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credits, and Oregon Housing Development Grant funds. among other subsidies. All the agreements and documents used in ~unction with such programs and subsidies must be acceptable to NOAH at its sole discretion. If the BOJrOWCl anticipates that the Project will be exempt from property taxes or will participate in a PILOT program, NOAH will .require, prior to fimdirJg, satisfactory evidence that such an exemption or PILOT program is available and has been committed to Borrower and Project EnvironmtlmtJ\J: NOAH will require evidence that the risk of environmental contamination on the proposed development site is minimal. P:\IAaIn oflDtlrat 300Z\Aaplll a:c:\CJ1)' 1'-'1<02 CfC.~ T - Clay SIre<< Aparlmenu - Laler of lnurul (JI/UI02 Page 4 Cons1nlCtion: Fees and Expenses: Property Management: Replacem.em Reserve: Operating R.esmve: Appropriate evidence shall include: a) a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by a reaistered professional engineer or geologist and containi"i an adequate review of the history of the site. Any recommended 1'emediation will be required prior to the closing of any loan. b) a completed Environmental Questionnaire and Disclosure Statement. to be prepared by the seller, and acknowledged by Borrower to be true to their knowledge; c) any other information deemed appropriate by NOAH man_gement and legal counsel to dcterminl! the zisk or presence of environmental C()1'lt~i1Wion on the site. NOAH will require evidence that the project as built will conform to all applicable laws and regulations. This would include. but not be limited to compliance with: all state and federal regulations regardiog wetlands; the Fair Housini Amendment Act of 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as applicable. The Borrower will be required to pay all fees and expenses associated with NOAH's underwriting. commitment to, documenting and closing the proposed loan, including, without limitation, all legal f~ appraisal fees, title insurance. escrow and recordiug fees. architectural and engineering review and iDspcctiol1 fees, if any, survey fees, credit report fees, etc. NOAH will collect a Five hundred dollar ($500) document pzeparaliOD fee and a Two hundred aud fifty dollar ($250) miscellaneous expense fee at the time of commitment. NOAH will require that a qualified third-party professional property management firm or agency be engaged to manage the property during the term of the loan. NOAH will require that a Replacement Reserve be established and ftmded each month out of project operations. The amount of sud1 montbly reserve contribution will be 5250.00 per writ per year, and iDcrease at a rate not less than 3%. or the amoWlt required by the pannmhip aareement, ifhigber. The reserve shall be pledged to NOAH as additional collatcral. NOAH will require that an o~ reserve of not less than 535,000 be established prior to NOAH fimdi"g. The reserve shaD be F:\l.earn ofln:nlr 2OO2\,\quIt CFC\CJa7 SlIWlI-G ('''PC,,* r r Clay Strut A.panme"ts - Len" of /11lere.f1 08114102 Papj available to fund cash flow shortfalls from operations. The operating reserve shall be pledged to NOAH as additional collateral. Documentation: The loan documents will need to be satisfactory to NOAH at its sole discretion. This is not a complete list of the requirements for a permanent loan with NOAH, Dor is this a comlBibDent to lend money. It should provide you with a good idea of the structure of the loan contemplated, however. If the terms' of this letter of interest are agreeable to you, please sign below in the space provided and return a copy oftbis letter to NOAH. Please also provide the outstanding itcm$listed on the 1bllowing page so that we may complete our UDdcrwriting review. The letter, additional documentation and fee should be received in our oBi" no later than QGtober 31, 2002. The following disclosure is required by law; UNDER OREGON LAW, MOST AGREEMENTS, PROMISES, AND COMMITMENTS MADE BY NOAH AFTER OCTOBER 3, 1989, CONCERNING LOANS AND OTHER CREDIT EXTENSIONS THAT ARE NOT FOR PERSONAL, FAMILY, OR aOUSEBOLD PURPOSES OR SECURED SOLELY BY THE BORROWER'S RESmENCE MUST BE IN WRITING, EXPRESS CONSIDERATION, AND BE SIGNED BY AN OFFICER OF NOAH TO BE ENFORCEABLE. We look forward to worldDg with you on this trausaction. Sincerely, W~. tuJ~ ~11iam A. Van Vliet F.xccutive Director ;) f:\lAfters (1{~ 2OQ1\,\quIr CF<XJIy S1reer 1-02 CfC.doc - Clay Slrut AptlI'tmDlts . un.,. of l"ttl1'ut 08114102 Page 6 ACCEPTS THE TERMS OF THIS LEITER OF INTEREST. AND REQUESTS NOAH TO PROCEED WITII LOAN UNDERWRITING. WE ENCLOSE OUR CHECK FOR THE APPLICATION FEE OF 5500.00. By: Title: Date: , I':~ otJaleral2OOl\Aqulll C!'C\CIay SlrwIloOZ CfC.doc; T ,..,. Clay Strut Aparllrten/S - LelttIT of 11'11erut 08114102 Pag~ 1 Reeeivcd .DocamcDt Note ITEMS NEEDED FOR UNDERWRITING PNlimiftary Title ~ PreJiminazy PIaas. i&:ludine site plan X FiDaDcial Proformas Sponsor backgroUDd iDfomwion Sponsor financial intOrmaDon Development team iDformation Market information to demOASD'lle Deed Consolidated Fundin& Cy<:le Application Evidence of community support Leuers of iDteat -ax cndit iDvestor Appraisal Environmental Phase [ Environmental Questioaaaire Evidence of property tax exaDptioD InfocmatiOD about propen)' maoaccmClGt aguarJpJan r o Clay Street 19 994,000 360 3.75% 4.603 4% Avg Balance Tax Credit 1 984,156 39,_ 2 965,503 38.820 3 946.139 37.846 4 926,035 37,041 5 905,165 36.207 6 883,488 35,340 1 881,005 34.440 8 837,854 33.506 9 813,411 32,536 10 788.244 31,530 11 762,117 30.485 12 734.993 29,400 13 706,834 28.273 14 877,801 27.104 15 847.252 25.890 16 615,746 24.630 17 583.038 23.322 18 549.081 21,963 19 513,830 20.563 20 4n,233 19.089 TOTAL 607.141 OAHTC SUbsidylUnitlMonth 133 M 55,240 (annual) 30,357 (avg) NOAH makas no representations as to its ability to make . Io8n on this project. If NONi cIecid_ to issue a commitment to lend on this project. NOAH would be , . to pMicipateln the Oregon bIB Housing Tax Credit progrtlm. T TOTAL P. 09 r f.lUG-15-2002 14: 55 LI1PQlJA BOD 541 776 7427 p . .02~~ UMPQUA B-A-N-I< August 1 S, 2002 Larry Medinger Medinger Construction Company, Inc. P.O. Box 702 Ash1and,OR.97520 .RE: Creative Altemative FOWldation Dear Larry, Umpqua Bank (Bank) is plC'4Scd to offer the following term sheet for your consideration. This is not a commitment to lend. The terms and conditions below, however, outline the basic structure ot financing the Bank expects to be willing to offer once all information necessary to make a decision has been provided. Constnlction Loan: Borrower: Creative Alternative Foundation LoanlLine amount $1,000,000 Purpose Construction of a 19 unit affordable housing apartment building Collateral First Dccd of Trust on a 19 unit apartment complex. Interest Rate Wall Street Journal Prime Rate plus 2.0% fully floating Loan Fce 1% . 510,000 Construction Monitoring Fee, $2.000 w.dCord 0tulcIl Mill: PO Box 4tOO. Medford, ~ 97501 . s.r- AdcInIu: 220 e.c 10th s~ Medioni. OR 91501 ""-: ($41)173'-1 · ,Fu. (541) 176014?,7 00.47 T r l'::-'~ rv. ":::-15-2002 14: 55 1;-Jl;Z:-;';~j-~~ , t.' UMPQUA BOD 541 776 7427 P.03/04 Teml Up to 12 month construction period with _ interest pa}1Ilents due monthly. This loan would be subject to a fee appraisal. n,e bank would advance up to 75% the lower of the appraised value or actual cost of the project. Disbursements during the construction phase will be monitored to a line item budget and administered through Umpqua Bank's construction loan department. Any out of pocket costs related to the loan such as the appraisal fee, appraisal review, title insurance, environmental reports, flood hazard determination, and recording fees are to be borne by the borrower. Other Provisions: I. Borrower will execute an rndertmity Agreement holding tfte bank harmless against any action related to environmental waste on the property to be pledged. 2. If a Vista environmental database search shows any areas of concern then a Phase I environmental report satisfactory to the bank on the property to be financed will be required. 3. Firrca compliant appraisal and third party appraisal review wiU be required 4. Assignment of Rents to be provided S. If Umpqua Bank is not the lender on the pcnnanent-ta1ce out loan a verified commitment from that lender will be required Pcnnanent Loan: Loan Amount $1,000,000 Purpose Payoff of construction loan on 19 unit apartment complex. Collateral First Deed of Trust on a 19 unit apartment complex. Interest Rate , 20 year Federal Home Loan Bank intermediate advance rate plus 3.25%. This is a fixed rate loan for a 20 year period. CWTeD.t rate 01110811 today would be 8.76%. It is intended that the borrower will apply for the Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit Program. Under suCh program the interest rate on the loan would be reduced by r AUG-1~-2~2 14:55 UMPGllIA BOD 541 776 742:7 P.04/04 , l 4% to give an effective rate to the borrower of 4.76%. The amortization of the payments can be for a term of up to 30 years. Loan Fee 1.0%. $10,000 Term 20 year term loan with payments of principal and interest based upon an amortization schedule of up to 30 years. Minimum Debt Service Coverage 1.20 Prepayment Penalty To limit the risk: of 20 year fixed rate financing Bank will be doma match rate financing with t.M. Federal Home Loan Bank. This loan will have a prepayment penalty that mirrors the penalty that the bank will endure upon early payoff of this loan. As with the construction loan we will maintain an assignment of rents for the property. Any closing costs shall be bome by the borrower. Borrower will need to qualify fot" the Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit Program. Funding ofeithcr loan is dependent upon this approval from the State of Oregon. The preceding information is not intended as a complete list of Umpqua Bank's loan requirements and conditions for making the loan and is not a commitment to lcn.d. This letter is intended for discussion purposes only in support of a potential loan to bc made under the Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit (OAHTC) program. , . Thank you for considering Umpqua Bank as your lender on this project (EeIY., ,'~ tfD. Benham VP/Commercial Loans 541-613-6732 .. TOT~ P.04 . Katy Patricelli Vice President RECEIVED AU6 1 9 2002 Real Estate Group Community lending Department 1300 S.W, Fifth Ave., 12th FI. Portland, OR 97201 503 886-1031 503886-2181 Fax patricek@Wellsfargo,com August 15,2002 Creative Alternative Foundation C/O Larry E. Medinger P.O. Box 702 Ashland, OR 97520 Re: Real estate construction loan for the proposed Clay Street Apartments, a nineteen unit affordable housing development, to be located in Ashland, Oregon. Dear Larry: You have inquired with Wells Fargo Bank regarding possible construction financing for an affordable rental housing development for families. The purpose of this letter is to outline some of the preliminary, but not all, of the proposed loan terms. ThIs letter is not a conmdtment letter and contains no colDlllltlneDt to lend. The Bank's preliminary analysis with respect to the proposed loan structure described in this letter is not, and must not be construed to be, an evaluation of the project for investment purposes or otherwise. Based upon a preliminary review of the proforma operating statements, development budget, cash flow projections, estimated sources and uses of funds schedule, as of 8/11/02, the Bank anticipates that the structure of the proposed loan would include, without limitation, the terms listed below. The proposed loan structure and pricing may change based upon the Bank's analysis of additional information you will provide, or the Bank may elect to decline to make a loan at its sole discretion. Borrower: Creative Alternative Foundation Guarantors: Larry E. Medinger, and other guarantees that the Bank may require. Collateral: The loan will be secured by a first lien deed of trust on the property , along with an assignment of leases and rents and any other collateral deemed appropriate. The Bank will.not,a11ow 'any secondary financing on this project without the Bank's prior ,written approval. 'The Bank acknowledges that there may be subordinated debt and or restrictive covenants relating to the T 1" RECEIVED AU6 1 9 2002 \, Clay Street Apartments August 15, 2002 Page 2 HOME funds, AHP Funds, a Community Development Blpck Grant, and Oregon Housing Trust Funds. CONSTRUCTION LOAN: Purpose: To provide monies to assist in the acquisition, development, construction of the proposed project. Loan Amount: The loan amount will be the lesser of: a) Approximately $1,100,000 b) 85 % of the cost to construct or 75 % of the reviewed appraised market value c) The amount of the loan used to finance the real property shall be serviceable by a 1.15:1.00 debt service coverage ratio (DSCR) as defined by the Bank, or greater DSCR, as may be ~ by the permanent lender. The DSCR is defined as the sum of annual net operating ibcome plus all non-cash charges plus interest expense divided by the sum of annual debt service of principal and interest on the permanent loan. Cash Equity: Prior to the funding of the construction loan cash equity representing at least 15 % of the total construction cost must be funded. The Bank reserves the right to determine the exact amount of cash equity based on the fmal structure or the transaction and loan. Term: The maximum term shall be fifteen (12) months from the date of closing. The maximum term will not exceed the commitment term of the permanent lender. Extension Option: Two three (3) month options to extend the loan term will be available to the Borrower, provided the loan is in good standing. Each extension will require a fee equal to one quarter of one percent (0 .25~) of the loan commitment amQunt. In addition, the first extension is contingent upon the property bavuig obtained a Certificate of Occupancy and being at least 50% leased and occupied, and the second extension is contingent upon the property being at least ~S % percent leased and occupied. Any extension ,must also fail within the committed term of the permanent ~ r Clay Street Apartments August 15,2002 Page 3 RECEIVED AU6 1 9 ZOOZ lender. Any extension may be contingent upon the Bank requiring the Borrower to replenish the loan's interest reserve account. Interest Rate: Wells Fargo's Prime Rate plus one percent (1 %), fully floating. Based on the Bank's current Prime Rate of 4.75 %, as of the date of this letter, the rate would be 5.75%. Repayment: Interest only monthly on funds disbursed. Prepayment: No restriction or penalty. Fee: The fee will be one and one-quarrer percent (1.25 %) of the commitment amount. In addition, the Borrower must pay all of Bank's out of pocket expenses incurred in the transaction, including without limitation, documentation fee (estimated at $5(0), all closing costs an4 attorneys fees, appraisal and appraisal review fees (estimated at $9,0(0), environmental review fees (estimated at $5(0), third party . architect/engineer review of the plans (estimated at $1,850), and inspection fees (estimated at $350/inspection), and etc. GENERAL CONDmONS: Documents: Any loan must contain all the terms and conditions desired by'the Bank. The loan documents must be satisfactory to the Bank and the Bank's attorneys at the Bank's sole discretion. Construction Contract: Bank reserves the right to review and approve ,the construction contractor and construction contract as to form, content, and'values. The construction contract shall be a fixed price contract. Take out Commitment: The loan is subject to a take out commitment from a lender acceptable to the Bank.m Appraisal: The Bank will require an appraisal ordered by the Bank, at ,the Borrower's expense, in form and substance satisfactory to the Bank prior to any fundi", of the proposed loan. T r Clay Street Apartments August 15, 2002 Page 4 RECEIVED AU6 1 9 2002 EnviromnentaI: The proposed loan will be contingent upon the Bank's satisfaction with a Phase I Environmental Audit, to be submitted by the Borrower to Bank as Borrower's expense, ADA Compliance: Acknowledgment from an engineer, architect or professional inspector, prior to closing, that the project complies with ADA. Financial Review: This loan is contingent upon the Bank's satisfactory review of the Borrower and Guarantor's financial statements. ORS 41.580 (3) (A) NOTICE UNDEl\ O~N LAW. MOST AGIIRRMR~ PROMISES AND COMl\P'fMENTS M4f)E tv THE BANIC All-l'.KR OCTOBER 3. 1989 CONCERNING LOAN$ AND ~:~=c:,~.~~~~YOR II14SIDENCE MUST BE IN WRITING. EXPRESS CONSIDERATION. ANl>Jm SIGNED BV THE BANK. Enclosed with this letter is the Equal Opportunity Act Notice that is being provided in conformance with Federal Law. We look forward to working with you in the tinancing of the proposed project. Please call me at (S03) 886-1031 if you have any questions. ~incerlY.' ?~., ,.--' ~ A ~/" J ~.~~. ." . ty Patricelli Vice President T r August 14, 2002 Dear First Church of God of Ashland: .. i"JDEWC.E OF )cNA"tI:O ~D Because federal funds from the HOME Program may be used in the project, either for acquisition, rehabilitation, or new construction, we are required to disclose to you the following information. 1. This agency does no~ have the power of eminent domain. Your property will not be acquired through condemnation. If negotiations fail to result in an amicable donation agreement, your property will not be acquired. 2. Weare also required to inform you, in writing, of the fair market value oftbc property. The estimated fair market value will be determined by a fee appraisal or other approved means. Yau will be informed of the fair market value when it is established. At that time you may withdraw ftom the traDsaction. 3. The HOME program requires tbat the purchase price be the lesser of: the fair market value or the agreed upon price in this agrccmcnt. 4. If in addition to being the seller of the property, you occupy the property, you should be aware that you will not be eligible for relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended. This transaction is considered a voluntary, ann's length transaction. If you are willing to donate the property based on the above disclosures, please sign this letter and return it to us within 10 days. It is our understanding that no tenants are occupying the property. If this is incorrect please provide us with the names of the tenant-occupantsofthe property. Sincerely, ~~ (namdtitle) go ~O MGvvr8c-1'2- . J..8C... ccpt.-1l!.. e conditions of this purchase offer disclosure. #:~ ~ t!,/,;, Jj,..;} 4' -/r- tf) '? (Name) . Date pq . 49 -- ~ - O~/l:>/O~ 1~:38 tt5U ~88 5311 CITY HALL-ADMIN. 141 0011001 # CI1'Y OF ASHLAND Larry Medinger MediI1gcr Construction POBox 102 Ashlmd, OR 91520 Au8USt 1St 2002 Dear Larry: This letter is to confirm that the senior housing project recently approved by the Plaunmg Commission with plAnfting Action 2002-062 cunently qualifies for deferral and ulrift'Ull_dy exemptiqnltcrmination of local systemS development charges per Ashland Municipal Code 4.20.08S. Condition #2 of the planning action approval qualify the project for the above listed deferral and ultimate termination and is stated below for your reference. 2) 1711II,. zone chang~ for the property from Sln6/e Family lWldatial (R-J .$) 10 Low dPIS~ Multi-Family bsidMtiaJ ()II/y "-come WJIid 14POII Site Rmn1 oppro'lfJ/for 111I qffordable 6'nlor ~P'Oj.a ct>>ISis,.", with tM tzpp/iCQ1ll:S ducrlption containd within ,. record. Tht1 ",pllCtltlon stipulca thDt all ..",.,., JIII!lS slrDll "- qffowkIble 10 SIIIII07' htJus,1Joltb with incomu rangbrg bdwa J() tl1Id 60H of the QHQ mMIan./n addition, the llJ1P'icazion stipulales ,hat the ~nt bvIlding will b, restricted'o ,eniOl"s as will the qffordohililJl of the rents IJrrouth proposed deed restrictions plt:fJUd on 1M properly that nmfor 51 ~Q/"$. If you have any questions regardina this maner. please feel free to give me a call at SS~2046 or e-mail to adn@abJand.or.us Sincerely. ~ Adam Hanks Development Services DiPMJJI8IT OF ~nU.lftcee.crIaT aD~" at Flit 54'....... AIIIIInlf. 0..-11520 TT't': D.73So2IllO _.IIIlIInd.ar... ,., ,;,.', .'>' . . ,,: 'I ~;-~;.. ...' .CREATIVE ALTERNATIVES FOUNDATION- 631 CLAY STIlEET. ASHLAND. OlEGON 9750.... THE CLAY STREET COMMUNITY CHURCH OF ASHLAND. OREGON. RECENTLY CREATED A NON-PROFIT 501 (cX3) TAX DEDUCTIBLE CORPORATION AS A VEHICLE TO BETTER SERVE THE COMMUNITY AND THE AREA IN WHICH WE LIVE. OUR INITIAL PROJECT IS AN AFFORDABLE SENIOR RETIREMENT APARTMENT COMPLEX TO BE BUILT ON LAND THAT IS CU1RENTLY OWNED BY THE CHURCH AND IS FlEE OF DEB"L- OUIl GOAL IS TO COMPLETE THIS COMPLEX WITH AS Ll1TLE FINANCIAL DEBT AS IS POSSIBLE. SO THAT WE MIGHT REINVEST THE PROCEEDS INTO SIMILAR PROJECTS AND IN OTHER AREAS OF COMMUNITY NEED. THE CLAY STREET CHURCH WILL BENEFIT FINANCIALLY ONLY FROM A LAND LEASE TO THE APARTMENT PROJECT. THE CLAY STREET COMMUNITY CHURCH HAS HAD A VIABLE PRESENCE IN ASHLAND FOR OVER FIFTY YEARS. DURING THIS TIME MANY CHANGES HAVE OCCURRED. INCLUDING THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR SOME OF THE LOCAL SENIORS AS WELL AS INDIVIDUALS FROM THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT HAS BEEN WELL DOCUMENTED THAT DURING THE FUTURE YEARS THERE WILL BE AN EVER INCREASING DEMAND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. NOT ONL YFOR SENIORS WITH AN INCREASED LIFE SPAN. BUT ALSO FOR YOUNG ADULTS. AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR YOUNG ADULTS IS ALSO ONE OF OUR FUTURE MINISTRIES. SOME GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE IS" AVAILABLE FOR THOSE DEFINED AS -DISADVANTAGED-. HOWEVER. FOR THOSE . INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE AGING IN A NATURAL PROCESS WITHOUT MAJOR HEALTH PROBLEMS. THEREISLlTILE HELP. SOME HAVE OUT~UVED FAMILY AND FRIENDS AND ARE NO LONGER ABLE TO. OR WANT" TO CARE FOR PRIVATEPROPERTi RESPONSIBILITIES. SENIORS IN THIS CATEGORY WANT AND NF:ED COMMUNITY. MANY LACK THE FINANCIAL RESOURCES TO MEET THE HIGH COST OF LIVING IN "AN -AGING IN PLACE- coMPLEX. CLAY STREET COMMUNITY CHURCH HAS A VISION TO REACH OUT TO THIS CATEGORY SO THAT SENIORS IN RETIREMENT YEARS MAY HAVE . . ADEQUATE, HOUSING IN A CARINO. COMMUNITY. IN A PLACE WHERE LIKE INTERESTS OF A SOCIAL EDUCATIONAL AND CUL1URAL PAGE 1 ~" . r ~ NATURE MAY TAICE PLACE. IN ADDITION. THE CONCEPT OF MINISTRY IS AVAILABLE TO ~J:I THE"iIf,HOLlSnC NAnJRE OF EACH PERSON. HERE PROGRAMS WILL BE CONDUCTED TO .sTIMULATE nlE MIND AND BODY WITH CLASSES FOR .snJDY. SOCIAL ACTIVITIES. FIELD TRIPS. AND OUTINGS TO CULTURAL ACTIVITIES SUCH AS MUSICAL PRESENTATIONS AND THEATER. FOUNDATIO~ IT IS THE INTENT OF OUR FOUNDATION -CREATIVE ALTERNATIVES FOUNDATION-. TO OFFER OUR INITIAL PROJECT APARTMENT. UNITS TO AMBULATORY SENIORS. WE EXPEaT THAT THIS . PROJECT WILL BE A VEHICLE FOR MEmNG ONGOING COMMUNITY NEEDS IN OTHER AREAS. WE ARE WELL AWARE OF THE NEEDS OF NON-AMBULATORY. INDIVlDUAU. BUT FOR THIS INITIAL PROJECT. WE AlE NOT PLANNING FAC.ILITIES FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO CANNOT PHYSICALLY CARE FOR THEMSELVES. WE WILL OF COURSE. MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE -AMERICANS WITH DISABlunES ACr (ADA). INCLUDING AN ELEVATOR FOR nlE SECOND FLOOR UNITS. WITH FuroRE PROJECTS WE DO INTEND TO HAVE FACILITIES THAT INC.LUDE SOME -I N-HOUSE- NURSING/MEDICAL CARE FOR THOSE WHO MIGHT REQUIRE ADDmONAL ASSISTANCE. ~ PRESENr BClllIlD.OF D.l.HI:UOtlS (also Clay St. D::ImJmity 01urc:h Boazd of Trustees) Willian Bl:oWn. Chainnan . Eleanor Olsen, 'l'l:easurer Ted Fletscher Sheldori Gilliam Steve 9ni.th Ray omooff, Pastor and President of Creative Alternatives Foundation - Fal12002 CFC Application MARKET ASSESSMENT August 16, 2002 Describe the defined Primary Market Area (PMA), identifying the geographic area from which most tenants are expected to be drawn. If the project is also expected to draw tenants (rom outside the PMA. that is, also attract from a larger Competitive Market Area (CMA), an estimate of the number of persodS attracted from the CMA should be included. Provide justificatio~~o~.tb.is.~~~~~. The nortnGI CMA for most commocIitfaGrid~11ft.~ .... Medfwd ... at least the IlIUtMnl hCM"t1f:Ylar ~;; . ....;;j.;~ _,,'I"JI:,!,7~rt '~1f-.:.~Z~ \l,,,, 1 ~'~.~Zf~~~.w.i Q netioRaI zed for,.thi"~" . .< iI"'t~ ' ir~" ",.", ....'1 by Iy recogni conIpCIIIy. ,J):..,'... . ,.," ~ . ~""""'''''''~::f,...''t. - ~. statistics .... quoted that ncrtionwide"most ~ 'rnoy'r"'1V~a:lieftiOr ~ or facility COllIe from Q CMA radius of.!5 '~81niIei~",$~A':'~'\- ~. $it.. W.;hci~" found b . CMII' the last ....WIl'.:=v:gi~th<.tG';ii"Ci:.!'."_-Of.:~F;t.tt~,f;~~ who ~ ~ towns to ....."';~r4l?;.;..'~_~~~,~:,:cf,U.:";i:;,c~~+'.~.',f.;r . ~ C~~",.';::::: .. ..... . ~. vicinity. Therefore. the PMAGn4.'t~' essentfcaIlythe . of AshIaricJ' CU1ciTV. . . . Descn"be the current conditions and market trends relating to the targeted population including income and employment (if app6cable). Include a discussion of the geographic area and reponal econold, and its efl'ect on the marliet for the project. AshI..... ....., retia . ."I1..'.........l#"'" Southern~ . n 'Uni~II~/~;"., ,9): . "'I"''t.'~'~..: ..... ,; . . . ~/..: "';'t:i'iW ".,.,~(.f!" ~~."'l.:''''.'.'('>~.'''i''', ":",,,;' tha y . .' . . ~ ,--.~'-~-j',. ~~:. !.!~~:' . COIISICIirid' . Fall 2002 CFC Application , , August 16, 2002 · There care a runber of NSidentS'\~~t~:"'''~''''<'ift'thI,s.'~iftdustries whc{Wiii retire with modest or low reti . ...~.... ."".,:~ti,,~j~ th earned durf their world . """'-~>'tft'AShfana.1 cy 119119 ~.~'" ...... ....'. . . To haft such a low median inconIeifIW.'.':'..lOir :"';"l"~'?:J~iirVi' '.'-"'''~;i ,... . ,., ." ""'J.:.L'i:""""''':h!9'tY."",,,,.~..~;~!._.,.~ POP!If!Bi..J!I] alrea '.'In';~'fftUst be' ',. ....~-~~1hI~~W';~':i. "Wrts:i~,.".1 theM ~ ~ I'Ctfre....t "will ~'Wt:lietthilr~;~ needs ill housing desigMd to meet those needs.' · Loc:callow-income seniors specificaIlY'~.i".".,~tcd>>.'.~~".f~. ~_..~....~!fIf't~-.~.."....;~ retil'MS for ClWIiIablc tor-sale .. ~'. ..~". ...._'... "T .' :'~1 ...... i;...., .... 'i"-:"':.:.L.n"h'" ,,,' '.' .. ...,.,"."'P'l:i.: ';,,". ,. ,:',~ . 'I'" This.......:ftist ,am ate.iftIi . "'f, .. ~,. ','" ., ''''.. >,. Q "~('" ., "..,. ,. ... ,., ..~~_.~..b. ........ -...._.... .." ,W .~. ,i:fi.." andlor .....CIftdard housing.! Provide au overview of how many of the targeted population in the PMA rent their homes or apartments (Use this da~~~~~I~,!a~.L.>:""""i''''''''''''>'':i ,... About61. Of'.'~""""'''F'"" ..<".......,.... I .. ~,:.': ....::"y;;, .. '.' OW illCOftle . .. .?i .. .. . es1i~"'t;ti>'~:~1'~ ;";~i' .~,,~~;'~~. ,.. Identify the number of eligible persons or households in the PMA & I or CMA who are poteatial tenants. Correlation shall establish the number of eligible persons with income information and demonstrate that there is a sufficient number of targeted or low income targeted tenants to maintain project viabiUty (See table 2 ). . HouseholdincoeM data reveals, . c''<'cc:),5'C~<''('',' ,<,,,,..,,,,.~ ~".;~ .;~.ftil';'tltl;'ljhl;;r .r bl. for HUD(80S~~~~~'irL.. "._,~.i /-~..~'--,..>._.._~_.~._"'^-~'~ Describe how this project is consistent with the priorities and objectives of the state or local jurisdiction's ConsoU~ted P1an(s) and other community planning processes (such as urban renewal distrid, community ~loP~t Pla~~~:it~iv~=!.~~~ ~ . <i'" ""\S'h ,n;.>"".',:' ',"!,..f"1" ConsoIf6rted PIan_ 0ttl.4tr.. . ..... '^: · IS '~:Wr=fih'~iciar:l'~~;' of' J:_,:~~.~,':~'j":.f";'~"".~J~~' " . ":. !~ . . . Is ,;. ,*v,"::;:."i~,:;;:~".,. - ,,-~,,:"'q;;'" "W;- '1 "" .~./. .'<" . T' Fall 2002 CFC Application August 16, 2002 In the previous questions you have defined the market area and the target population proposedfor this project. Now identify the unmet housing need for these defined factors by completing the table below. ..........--. ~ - r., ~ REAL ESTATE LAND SALES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, Made as of August 1611I, In the Year of2002, WITNESSETH: Oay Street Community Church of God, Hereinafter called seller, hereby agree to sell; and Creative Alternatives Foundation, hereinafter called buyer, hereby agree to purchase the following described lot or other unimproved land or appurtances thereto (the "Property'') in Jackson County, Oregon, on the terms hereinafter stated, to-wit: Location of Land; A portion of the open lot behind 631 Clay Street, Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon measuring 30,126 square feet as defined on project site map. ARTICLE 1. THE CONTRACf PRICE 1.1 The purchase price of the Property shall be: $1.00, due and payable upon consummation of this sale. The remaining appraised property value, $299,999.00 as per Southern Oregon Appraisal Services, will be donated. 1.2 Closing costs shall be paid by buyer. 1.3 Taxes for current year are to be prorated and paid to buyer as of date sale is consummated. ARnCLE 2. GENERAL PROVISIONS 2.1 The Seller will furnish the Buyer a good and merchantable title and Warranty Deed free from any and all encumbrances except ad valorem taxes not yet due and payable, existing restrictions, easements of record and applicable zoning ordinances. 2.2 Seller agrees to give occupancy to Buyer by Febroary 15,2003. 2.3 This contract is binding upon all parties concerned, their heirs and assigns. 2.4 Said property is sold subject to any easements, building restrictions appearing on record, and outstanding leases. 2.5 Buyer has obligation to determine any and all conditions of the Property material to Purchaser's decision to buy the Property, inc~ without limitation, subsurface condition, including the presence or absence of sinkholes, minmg activity, weUs, or buried tanks and other objects; soils condition, utility and sewer or septic tank availability and condition. Buyer accepts the Property in _ its present "as is" condition, except as otherwise stated in this contract or addenda. 2.6 Buyer does not require a survey by a registered Oregon land surveyor of Buyer's choosing and at Buyer's expense. . ARTICLE 3. TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACf 3.1 Should the Buyel' or Sellei' fail to carry out this contract, with all of its provisions, the following options and stipulations shall apply:' - IDitiaIed by: B~ senel'~ ......,..--- .. Sales Agreement Property Name Page 2 of2 3.1.1 If the, Buyer or Seller shall default on the contract, the non-defaulting party may declare the contract is in default and proceed against the defaulting party for the ~very of all damages incurred as a result of said breach of contract, including a reasonable attorney's fee. In the case of a defaulting Buyer, the Earnest money herein mentioned shall be applied to the legally ascertained damages. In the event of a default by the Buyer or Seller, the non-defaulting party ~ state his intention to comply with the contract and proceed for specific performance. In the case of a defaulting Buyer, the Seller may accept, at his option the eamest money as shown herein as liquidated damages, and agree to the cancellation of the Contract. ACCEPTANCE AND OCCUPANCY 3.1.2 3.1.3 ARnCLE 4. 4.1 This transaction shall be closed within six (6) months, or as soon as a merchantable title can be effected. Conveyance is to be made by warranty deed, free of all encumbrances ex~t as set out above. 4.2 Closing shall take place on or before Febnwy 15, 2003. 4.3 This Contract shall expire OIl February 15, 2003. 4.4 Time is of the essence in this Contract. WITNESS our band and seal on this 16th day of August, 2002. Signed in the presence of: ~~ ,.,~~ WitMSs I!~ ~~ ~ Clay Street COIDIDuity C'IU'C' ofGed (Seller) ~ f/60flJP)u ~)' ,. ... PROFORMA DOCUMENT A liON ~ l SOURCES OF FUNDING I I I I project Name: CI8y S1nIet ADartmenls Date: 08111102 HOME Match Anticipated or Firm Fundlna Source I'check) Committed Conclltlonel Tentative Commitment Date OHCS GRANTS & eQUITY LIHTC Eauitv 0 HOME 581,852 Nov-02 Trusl Fund 100,000 Nov-02 HELP AICohaI & Drug Free Hou---sinQ U WealtwizalIon Proaram CF 50,000 OHCS LOANS TaK e-l Bonds HOME Trust Fund AICohaI & Drug Free Housina ORR "-OHCS GRANTS 85,000 FlfLB 95,000 I CIty of Ashland: SDC waiwlr 52.600 0111012003 NOH-OHCS LOANS Perm81ent l.o8n 988,000 APPLICANT CONTRIBUTIONS c.h 300,000 DIferred lFee 60,000 otHER: ThIlm8s Group Oclnation 1,575 c.hftow Durina Reh8b 0 SUBTOTALS SO SO '2.314.027 TOTAL FUND SOURCES $2.314027 Sun !uti or G.l (Note: TOIlII Fund SouIC8S must rnaId'I "T0IlII Prcject COlt" tom . U.. of Fundint1 DII aIt,) Other HCS ~ Oreaon Al'rardIIIlIe iCiiIiIiG Tax Credit (OAHTCl ",000 (loin emoun6 Seed Manev AcMnce l.C*l ll.C*l 1 I r 1 Oller HOME M81chCe.a.. lax -.nDlianl I Source: 1:W.230 8I1'lClUnll Fall 2002 Funding Pro Forma pg.66 OHCS ....- ArdIw-- - IRS_ _tlIl.111a: T_ "'- Alee: IAnS L-. aw_ .... ClIW: -- ---- .......... ..... ClIW: -- usn OF FUNDING - ~- II 11.'" UllZ ~ ~ 0tlIlNI -- pg.67 LIItI'O for Y' - - -... ~1lV _ CIIIIo Sf acs 1'1II2lllI2............. _ , . USES 01' I'UNDlNO - - Dolo: _ IRS_ _all.tliIa: - - " 11.'" ... - UHTCAMJlMlI78 Y ~ - EolIr?-.cI ~17i oa 0 0.00 0.011o 0 0.00 0.011o 0 0.00 0.011o ,... 110 1lS CI.ft .... '.. ~ Tn c:.wa ,..-.... 0 0.00 0.0ll0 ,.. 0 0.00 Cl.OIIo ,.. -.... 0 Cl.OIIo --..... OOIlal__ 0 0.00 0 0. Cl.OIIo 00Il~ 0 0.00 Cl.OIIo ClIw: 0 0.00 Cl.OIIo - 1.-. ClIw: ....... - -... ClIw: ClIw: c.._ SO SO 'lUTAL I'ROoIKT c:on' - 1UI 1Clll.lM SO or .... 4._ - aI"_lDlIit -- azr pg.68 0HCll ~ 11"" ;.I-o~oi j · J ~ - ~ 'tl ~ . I \Q it 000 0 . 01000 . 0'\ j \0 ii to . 0 10 0001 0000 J ~l- ,. I -ii oo~ 0001' 0000 j I - ,. . ~l .. -I a oole ooo~ 010 0 ~ - r- i ! 010000_ 00 0 ~ i ~ j 5 0010 oooF 0000 J i ~ i I 00 00 0000 i I - I 000 o~ 0000 J ~ i e 000 00010 II i . 000 o~ 00 0 II .. ~ w o~ = 000 00,00 ~ P ~ , 8 ooooooli 0000 --.--- T r: ~ i oil " a ;r ~ If r '! f "U I: -.1; _ a ~ .~ ~ Q ~ II , a ~ .. j ~ ~ i~;~1 & ~ I :. .. i !' I I ! .. ! II I ' i I lr . I; ! r I I 1 ~ _ i li ~ ! ilill~l~ I iill ..-----000 ii ~ I ~!,i I I,~ .. Uml~I:~I~::: II ! I 1:1lfUIU!~ if Ii! 1111 ____ III It I: ~, I~ 00000~~a8a~l.a II 1.1. I. I. 1'lllllal'I-I!I-11 i Ii fill flf i ~~~~~~~~~ ja ~ .............. ::af i i 0000 l;iiii~11 il;1 I ~ ! ~FF)C~~~F~ 111M il I ;. ............-.....- i i I .'" III · ................ j Illii=' :;~LI:J.. ... - oo~ ooill~ JIiII~ is ~ .~~lJ.b .. ~w ~~~i. .. L1~..L i ~ I LLU1UJ.L at o~ol.. if "0 ..~;I iW~ .. I LLLL_ w at o~ o~filililil; ;; ! I 00010 ~~~-i · LLI~~I L - ~ os .. .. o~liti .~r. j I LLU11 LLI. = .. 0 Uil&iili& 010 0 ill 10 0 I.Ll1l UJ. >1 00 10 Ri~ U.LJ1LLLI. w a a ~&Iiiti I~LLLU 1..1=, 0: 000 K"~~ .- ~ -. ......0 51 r '0 l.C -...J o & ~ I ? i ~ .. f I ~ m ! ii ( ! !l oi iooo h-.... I.. :! 1 f ~ m II i i Uii iii hii Iii i , ;: Ii i ! T r ;. ~ UTILITY ALLOWANCE IN FORMA TION Project Name: Clay Street ents Date: 'NIlell I .. _ _. UTILITY (Gas, &lee., OWNER TENANT UTIUTIES Oll,etc.) PAYS PAYS o BDRM 1 BDRM 2 BDRM 3 BDRM 4 BDRM . 26 34 38 Ugh ng Air ( :Nlditloning Hot lIater Wa. ~ Trash Removal TOTAL UTILITY ALLOWANCE 26 34 38 0 0 Source of Utilitv All ~lclJlminn: (Attach a Copy) I Local Housing Authority JACKSON Utility Company Other If allowances are calculated by other methods, attach the appropriate schedule and include unit rents, number of bedrooms, and allowances Fall 2002 Funding Pro Forma pg.71 OHCS .,. .... Housing Authority Utility Allowances Utility allowances were received verbally via phone from Scott Foster, Housing Authority of Jackson County. pg.72 .. - ... " REPLACEMENT RESERVE WORKSHEET I Proiect Name: Clay Street ts Date: 0811112002 Number of Units: 19 I I Note: Assistance in cletemJining "Years of Remaining USt1fuI Life- can be obtained by using the -t.ife ExpeGtal1cies of Housing Components- chefts found in Section XN of this AppIcaNon. Item Replacement Cost per Years of Remaining Amual Reserve Unit Useful Life Requirement Del' Unit APPLIANCES Refrlaerator 385 25 15 Renae 258 20 13 D'-hwasher 305 20 15 90 15 6 Washer 32 15 2 DMlI' 26 15 2 Other 1 - 0 Other 1 0 Section ToIaI: 53 BUILDING PlIinIIna_ exterior 160 8 20 Roof 6 20 ,23 e.tInaIAC SYStem 1,265 25 51 ... ....... 195 20 10 __ endIor FIoorIna 734 10 73 Other 1 0 Other 1 0 Other 1 0 Section T CltaI: 177 GROUNDS F~ 230 25 9 110 10 11 andfor Partdna 60 0 Other 1 0 Other 1 0 Other 1 0 Section TohII: 20 AMENITIES Recreetlon Room 1 0 Pool 1 0 T... Ccut 1 0 e.wtor 1 0 Other 1 0 Other 1 0 Section TatII: 0 FURNI8HNJS Other 1 0 Other 1 0 Other 1 0 Section TatII: 0 ToaI Ann . RamI rement for the 4752 FaI 2002 Funding Pro Forma OHCS pg.73 PRO FORMA SU~Y I I I Projed Name: C I 0..: 0811112002 !TotaI Prlljed Costs: $2.314.027 NumIItr 11 ~ilI: 19 : !TotaI : 19,798 I Total per Sq. . Total Costs Total per Unit Ft I % Total Costs % of EGI I EIfedMl Groll Income: 1045.512 7,859 7.35 I 6.29% 100.00% Less lIle 3% E Income: 141.147 7~ 7.13 6.10% 97.00% otaI I ExIlenses: SO.353 2. 2.54 2.18% 34.80% Net Income to.a: 4,771 4.59 3.82% 62.40% : 8eNICe 82. 4,363 4.19 3.5n,1 56.97% 7. 418 0..40 0.;,4""1 li.~% 8,013 ;51t1 0.30 0.28'll1 4.13% inaI ~ Flow 1,882 - 1.29% 8llo 1.10 0181 DIlIl 1.02 WIth OAHTC EIfedMl GnlIa Income: 113.1144 5.992 5.75 4.92% 100.00% Less IIlIcmcY RIlle 3% im: Enecwwe Groa Income: = 5.81 4.80%1 97.50'1(, ! EIlP8l'IIeI: 2.54 2.1~1 44zs'lll Net Income 60,645 3,182 1.06 2.12%1 53.27% :-- :I;lI~ Z,1IW 2. ~I 4tl.1lnII 1._ ;5lIO 0. it Ii -- 11,01 ;5111 O. 1.;W T.5 0. 1.1 Total 1. Fee: 92.500 4,888 4.87 4.00% ee: 4.1_ lIV.;5ll1 ;5,12li 3.00 2.li~ _ DeIiIAIll: 2.li~ % : ~ 1.1 : $1. . 83,.,n eo.50 68.8~ : 4,38% IArchllIct Fee: 1.51% I : Fee 0ft-IIIlI: 2lIlI 1t1 0.02 .01.. : Fee 0lHI8: 420 :a 0.02 .lJ2'llIol -: 718 :5tI 0.04 .W'llIII Re -: 250 13 0.01 .01 '" R8DIIis: 150 8 0.01 .01%1 MaiIMMnce: 100 5 0.01 0.00% Debt TMt Can Be Canted DY Prolec:t: Debt for worksheet IleIllWl 1.15 Wilhout OAHTC y,. 1 2 3 4 5 Aval.... tor Debt 11.111 78111 lOAM a.IIlI ......,. ...ts2 lID LOan lit OCR ts2.442 ts2.442 .... msrl 1 002.~ 1 028 701 PrIm_ Debt R_alnlna PrInclDlll 178.441 IIItn 117 13t Ml2IO 832.SOO WlIh OAHTC am II a ~ eJI 17 421 IfaK I.OIft ., OCR ....012 ::JI! ciII PfftIt:IDM "" OAHTC 0 ..u. INUII 1i III ..t ..UII ..... ..UII ~== 53.107 47.121 4t.720 35 801 2t 874 0 0 FaI 2002 Funding Pro FOlITIlI pg.74 OHCS ..... INCOME & EXPENSE This is a form and contains data from links 'red for this form. ProjKt n__: ClIIy Slr8et Apar1menIs NumberofUnlts: Z2 Dnt: 8111102 IRS Set A.,. 0 Net Square Footage 11.196 INCOME _Mo Te_ !'old Unit Unit . -- __ Rent !'or ~ IIot Mo_ _l- AllI_ por -per Pe_mol Sa Typo -. - -'" UnIt - Per UnIt lot UIIIIs ,......v_ - UnIllY..r EGl OBdr 1 'Sl7 40% 292 26 S286 o Bdr 1 C2 .al% 356 26 S330 o Bdr 1 C2 88% 643 26 a17 1 Betr 1 - 50% 3lI2 34 $358 1 Betr 1 - 80% #IlI1 34 $433 1 Bdr 1 - 100% 783 34 ST. 1 Bdr 1 IolO 105% 823 34 $781 1 Bdr 1 871 110% 862 34 1828 2 Bdr 1 146 110% 1,028 38 M) 1 Bdr 1 871 0% 862 34 1828 SUB-TOTAL Service Revenu_ ~s.w.(-.ged) SO SO SO 0.00% Priv8le ~ "nidetlla.w-(-.ged) 10 SO 10 0.00% Other Rev_ LBundIV SO 10 SO PMlInA C..-) SO SO 10 CornrnercilII....s) 10 10 10 c.bJe "TV 10 10 SO o.paejIs an TIIInIMf' $1,824 $152 10 ...... fr.- SO 10 10 ~..... SO 10 SO SO 10 SO GROSS /NCCIIE S175,320 S1....10 174,251 v.-cv F<<*lr: 3.0% (S5,211ll) ($438) (S2.ZI8) 0.030928 EFFEC1ME GROI8/NCCIIE S170,_ S1 172 S72,02I 4.17% - ........ ...... --- per EXPENSES -- .... ...... INM InIInnce ....000 $333 IDIVlOI Nan! G8s 10 SO llIDMOI EIedrIc $1,800 $1llO tDI\IlOI ....... & S-- $4,750 $3ll8 <<lMIlI GBrtI9 R__ S2,850 $238 tDI\IlOI c.bJe "TV 10 10 IDIVlOI R8IIIirs S2,850 $238 D\IlOl ,.....- ..... $1,100 $158 D\IlOl .....ldscaoAooa SIl50 m <<lMlIl ~._IlReserw $4.752 $3ll8 <<lMlIl ~ MIII...._1l a,l84 $472 llIDMOI ar-a.. ...........nt $7,_ - <<lMIlI <-. Ario......... S1,OOO 113 D\IlOl 1Aaa'~ $0 $0 tDMUI PMtsi~ t1.1XlO 183 <<lMllI PIIWI'dI T_ $0 10 tDMUI I.IiTC ManIaItr1l F_ 13,000 G:lIO <<lMIlI ReIIdent SlnbI 51.. $133 IDMUJ UnIt TlllnlMre.-.. 13,500 S282 IDIVlOI R-' Eslale Tees 10 $0 <<lMOJ ca.- $0 10 <<lMOJ TOTAL A/'tNML :rIG EXPENSES N7 $3,tII GYIDI 27.99" NET OPERA-..o INCOME tl~ $10.. MJVa DEBT SERVICE l.-.AmaunI RlIIlIl Term (Y...) I IIDMOI IDlVJOI AfN.W.. IDMDJ IDMDJ OCR IDMDJ .,. Fall 2002 F~ Pro I"ama pg.75 ~ ""'I" 0ttCS - .... DI&!5~looooooo ! 0000 a;OCtOOCtO 5 ! ~ i .. ~ "'::~4D;a~~ ! !: ... = ~ Ig!~is;;OOooooo I 0000 ~oooooo 5 ! ! I .. ~ "-~ClR~=e ! .. .. ... ; ~ :ii ~ a r:J ~ I i 0 0 olei.. 0 0 : olCloo 8000000 i ... ! II! .. ;:; ::! ..::!!.,~::!~ ! .. .. ;! . UiiEi 50000000 I 0000 ;0010000 ! 5i i ::! "'~'''N:8111 .. .. :! , UI~i!:!gooooooo I 0000 ~oooooo . .. g .. ... s: t: :: "'~:!!"liIll~ ~ ... !U filaooooooo = 0000 1000000 !I ~ ~ ~ ...~I~ liI::q ! .. ! . iU ~,~o 000 ole ~ 0000 =000 00 ... .. i1;' ea S!~ ! . I~I~ e:! 0000000 ~ 0000 "00 000 ... =' ... c; . ...,-=: -IC ! :::;;aat!:!:OOOOOOO ! 0000 ~ 0 0 ofc 0 0 ~ l'J m c..._....Clft_ .. 4"'ca x"'!! Sta a !l J!!=l:i-JloOOOOOfc i! 0000 ~oooooo ! m ~ .. ....::,!.. _Iii II: .. = 5!~I~I; is 0000000 OOOCt ~ooofc 0 l - .. .Iii'" _lll- .. \0 - ...... Ie . e Iii l!~ooooo 0000 100 000 .. ~ :: ~ 0'1 ... ... 1~"'_Ol5N - - ~ I=. a. . !gll~ ~lol" 00000 0000 iOO I" fc - ~ ... ....-...-ll:IliI - - ~ - - !! !!I~ , I~ 10000000 - 10000 ~oooooo .. I~ i ~ .. Ii .. ft_!:! _ea - - :: l -..- !!HiJ~*lE~ooooooo !! ! ... i J I - iii - C"'Ii""",,, .. = ~ .... -..- ~ 1 :t: ! t I ~ .............. . j!: I ;e !i! i~ _N...._.......N - III I I , ~ J 0 IL Z , ! ~ I ,;; "1><l><J"loeJ""" r r I j i If~! 1!1~llooooooo s I J ! ill . 'I~I'I~I~I~ . . . . . . . i If! IlUllUIUlIl u; 1= ~ III ... ~ '1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'1'" i I Jfl~ 111~nli ; I tft_ *"888aooooooo ~ I 21 I ..~I Jl liUiii ~ f I II I ~I ---....--- .. I 1 ! ! I,I,I,I,I~~,I,I~II~II~II l:i a: :! ~ j ... :> I !i OOO___N OM ,.. ~ " 'W'''' .... PAYMENTS COMPUTED AN NUAlL Y OAHTC RENT REDUCTION CAlCULATION I Clav Street Aoartments T Date: 08111102 I I WITH OAHTC WIO OAHTC I LOAN PMOUNT: $988,000 $988,000 INTER TRATE: . 3.500% 7.~ NUMB OF YEARS TO AMORTIZE: 30 30 NUMB OF YEARS TAX CREDITS TAKEN: 30 30 ~ Y PAYMENT AMOUNT: $4,437 16,908 INTER rr RATE REDUCTION: 4.~ TOTAl :AX CREDIT AlLOWED: I $590,569 I NUMBE OF UNITS: 19 RENTf; DUCTION UNITIMONTH: $87 ANNUAl RENT PASS THROUGH: $19.836 I I Required OAHTC AnnU81 Pass Throuiiii 87 19,836 Actual OAHTC Annual Pass Through 139 31,668 Amount OVIIdu"r required pal" thrOUGh 52 11.:&32 I I LOAN AMORTIZATION MAXIMUM ANNUAl TAX CREDIT ENDING PRINCIPAl AVERAGE AVERAGE TAX YEAR INTEREST PRINCIPAl BALANCE YEAR REDUCTION INTEREST BAlANCE CREDIT 1 $33,973 $19,266 $968,734 1 $19,266 $33,973 $970,645 $38,826 2 $33,287 $19,951 $948,782 2 $19,951 $33,287 $951,066 $38,043 3 $32,578 $20,661 $928,121 3 $20,661 $32,578 $930,792 $37,232 4 $31,843 $21,396 $906,725 4 $21.396 $31,843 $909,796 $36,392 5 $31,082 $22,157 $884,569 5 $22,157 $31,082 $888,053 $35,522 6 $30,294 $22,945 $861,624 6 $22,945 $30,294 $865,538 $34,822 7 $29,478 $23,761 $837,863 7 $23,761 $29.478 $842,221 $33,889 8 $28,633 $24,606 $813,257 8 $24,606 $28,633 $818,075 $32,723 9 $27,757 $25,481 $787,775 9 $25,481 $27,757 $793,071 $31,723 10 $26,851 $26.388 . $761,388 10 $26,388 $26,851 $767,176 $30,887 11 $25,913 $27,326 $734,062 11 $27,326 $25,913 $740,361 $29,614 12 $24,941 $28,298 $705,764 12 $28,298 $24.941 $712,593 $28,504 13 $23,934 $29,304 1676,459 13 $29,304 $23,934 $683,836 $27,353 14 $22,892 $30,347 $646,112 14 $30,347 $22,892 1654,057 $26,182 15 $21,813 $31,426 1614,886 15 $31,426 $21,813 $623,219 $24,929 16 $20,695 $32,544 $582.143 16 $32,544 $20,695 $591,284 $23,651 17 $19,537 $33,701 $548,441 17 $33,701 $19,537 $558,213 $22,329 18 $18,339 $34,900 $513,541 18 $34,900 $18,339 $523,966 $20,959 19 $17,098 $36,141 $477,400 19 $36,141 $17,098 $488,500 $19,540 20 $15,812 $37,427 $439 973 20 $37,427 $15,812 $451,774 $18,071 Fall 2002 Funding Pro Forma pg.77 OHCS - ....