HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-0903 Study Session PACKET C I T Y OF
ASHLAND
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
Wednesday, September 3, 2003 at 12:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, 1175 East Main Street
1. Housing Program Priorities and Possible Unspent CDBG Fund Reallocation.
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 (77T 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 1).
ti
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Memo
DATE: September 2, 2003
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development(O
RE: Council Study Session- Housing Program Priorities and Possible Unspent CDBG Fund
Reallocation
Staff will discuss with the Council the Housing Program Priorities (outline attached) as well as options
for unspent CDBG funds, and possible reallocation of this funds in the upcoming CDBG award process.
DEPARTMENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division Tat 541488-5305
20 East Main ShW* Fax:54148&5311
Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: BW735-2900
wwwashiand.orms -
Anticipated Housing Commission Priorities for the Year
The adopted "Affordable Housing Action Plan" sets forth six broad strategies to
facilitate the development and preservation of affordable housing in Ashland:
Strategy 1, Provide Funding for Affordable Housing
Strategy 2: Reduce Development and Operating Costs
Strategy 3: Adopt Land Use Regulations to Promote Affordable Housing
Strategy 4: Preserve Existing and Create New Affordable Housing
Strategy 5: Develop Organizational Capacity for Affordable Housing
Strategy 6: Build Understanding and Support for Affordable Housing
The Housing Commission members and staff have used these strategies, along
with Action Plan and staff recommendations for achieving them, to establish
priorities. To date, the Housing Commission has focused its efforts on Strategies
1, 2, 3, and 6. Strategy 5 is generally accomplished.
Staff has attempted to focus the Commission's efforts on Strategy
recommendations that will serve to facilitate the greatest amount of affordable
housing development given Ashland's existing resource limitations and
development constraints (multifamily land supply, zoning policies).
Staff believes the greatest opportunity currently available to facilitate the
development of significant amounts of affordable housing lies with the City's
zoning and land use policies and practices. In particular, staff believes the City
should modify its land use policies to create adequate incentives and site
opportunities for the development of rental housing by nonprofit and for-profit
developers.
Staff also believes it's important that immediate steps are taken to establish a
stable and continuous source of funding for the proposed trust fund. Without a
stable source of local funding, the City will be unable to provide development
subsidies or leverage State and Federal funding resources available for housing
development, improvement, and preservation activities.
Short of these two actions, staff believes the City will largely fail to make
progress in meeting existing and future housing needs.
It is therefore anticipated that the Commission's priorities for the year will include
the following:
Locate and zone land for high~ensity (by Ashland standards) multifamily
rental housing.' It's anticipated that densities approximating 40 units per acre
will be required to create incentives (make it prefitable) for non-profit or for-
profit developers to build rental housing and reserve some of the units at
affordable rent levels. (Given the owner's apparent interest in proceeding
with development, the Croman property presents a promising opportunity to
facilitate affordable rental housing development),
Establish an urban renewal area, increase local property taxes, or divert
revenue from other sources (e.g., hotel taxes) to create a stable and ongoing
source of revenue for the housing trust fund.
· Prohibit or establish minimum densities to prevent fudher single-family
housing development in multifamily zones.
Inventory all vacant and underused City-owned land and, where appropriate,
market its availability for affordable housing development-or sell the land and
use the proceeds to assemble other sites for development.
Encourage and provide incentives for the development of affordable
multifamily housing over surface parking lots in the downtown and other
commercial areas, at local churches, and at the university.
Launch an educational campaign to: (1) generate awareness of Ashiand's
housing preblems and needs and how they jeopardize the community's
character;, and (2) encourage community and interest group support for
proposed land use and funding strategies.
CITY Of
,ASHLAND
Memo
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
September 3, 2003
City Council
Brandon Ooldman, Assistant Planner-CDBG Administration
D~pt. of Community Development
Coramunity Development Block Grant Program Update
Dear City Councilors and the Honorable Mayor
City Staffis presenting to both the Housing Commission and the City Council on the status of the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program during the coming month. The City Housing
Commission was scheduled to review the project status of the CDBG funded projects on August 27th.
However due to lack ora quorum the review wes reseheduled to September 10th, 2003. The City
Council will review the CDBG program and the issue of accumulated carry-over on September 3rd at a
study session, and again on September 16th at the regularly scheduled Council meeting.
Recently it has become evident that es the program is currently structured and due to a lack of progress
in projects previously awarded CDBG funds, the City could potentially face reductions in future CDBG
funding. The intent of tlds correspondence is to inform the Commission and Council of the recent
program history, and pmbhims experienced. In tlds way the City can begin the process of evaluating the
program to determine whether changes are warranted.
CDBG Purpose
The goal of the CDBG program, es defined by HUD, is to develop viable urban communities by
providing decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities
principally for low-and moderate-income persons. Low- and moderate- income persons are defined es
members of families earning no more than 80 percent of the area median income. The CDBG funds the
City receives must be used for "eligible" projects that address the federal CDBG program goal.
Recent Program History
The are several problems with the City's current CDBG program. The primary problems are tho
backlog of projects and the aecomulated carryover as a result of this backlog. The City is supposed to
complete the projects identified in the annual Action Plan within the year.
In order to increase efficiency of administration and complete projects within the program year the city
modified its CDBG program in March of 2002 in order to limit the number of projects to one,
potentially two, per year. By reducing the number of CDBG projects funded in the city's Action Plan
the intent was to relieve administrative requirements, and/or stage larger development projects. This
change was in part a response to HUD questioning the prior usc of CDBG dollars for projects not related
to the provision of affordable housing, specifically identifying the use of funds for sidewalk
construction.
The number of projects undertaken in each program year is directly related to the amount of time
required for administration because of the federal docmentafion and reporting requirements. Ashland
receives the twentieth smallest annual CDBG allocation out of 1,031 entitlement cities in the United
States. The federal project administration and ~porting requirements are disproportionately
burdensome in relation to the relatively small amount of CDBG funds the City receives. However, this
reality does not exempt the City from complying with all requirements for participating in the CDBG
program.
In recent years the City of Ashland has directed the yearly allocation of CDBG funds in the following
way:
75% - competitive award to Affordable Housing project (specifically land acquisition)
20% ~ Admiulstmtion of the CDBG Program
5% - Accessibility (ADA) improvements to public facilities.
The concentration of the competitive award allocation to just one subrecipient in each program year
since these changes were initiated has had the unfortunate consequence of accumulating a considerable
amount of carryover as the subrecipients have yet to complete the activities (land acquisition).
Carryover and T'~neliness
An unanticipated result of the changes to the distribution of funds primarily to one selected subrecipient
has been the accumulation cfa substantial amount of carryover. The City of Ashland directed 75% of
each year's grant amount to subrealpients for the purchase of property to develop affordable housing. In
this way it was our hope that the land purchases could be an expeditious way to expend the majority of
funds while addressing our highest priority need. Unfortunately the purchase of property in Ashiand's
highly competitive real estate market has proven to be a difficult undertaking for the subrccipients.
Specifically, the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) was awarded $120,000 in 2001, and the
Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) was awarded $168,750 in 2002, and
$214,000 for 2003 CDBG program year. Of these awards only $7200 has been expended on the
development of a relocation plan at the Lower Pines Trailer Park site.
Obviously these few grants account for a considerable mount of carry-over Ashland has accumulated.
The City has been in the position of relying upon subrecipients to identify property and execute a
purchase under the federal requirements for use of CDBG funds, while competing directly with an
aggressive development community that can, and does, purchase available property within days on
being listed on the market. This competitive disadvantage is in large part responsible for the inability of
non-profit housing providers to complete the projects within the year of receiving a grant award.
The Federal requirements for use of CDBG funds limit the amount of accumulated carryover to be 1.5
times the annual grant amount. In program year 2003 the City anticipates receiving $256,000, therefore
the City can not accumulate more than $384,000 in carryover without being subject to HUD sanctions
policies that would reduce the available line of eredit to no more than thc 1.5 threshold.
On February l0th, 2003 the City received a letter from the U.S. Depamnent of Housing and Urban
Developmen! (HUD) outlining the timeliness provisions of 24 CFR 570.902. It was noted that upon
approval of the 2002 Action Plan, the City of Ashland will have accumulated more carryover than the
1.5 the annual grant amount with a ratio of 2.47. lhe HUD timeliness letter indicated that the City was
currently untimely and therefore subject to the sanctions policy if the carryover did not drop below the
1.5 standard by November 2003. The sanctions involved a reduction in our subsequent year's grant ,b~
100% of the amount over 1.5, approximately $248,000. The City's response let{er dated February 12 ,
2003 (attached) cited specific regulations that supported the position that the City has technically yet to
become untimely. Upon review of our response HUD headquarters concurred with our regulation
citation, thereby giving the City until November 2004 to come below the 1.5 standard.
It is evident that should the same delays in property acquisition persist in the coming years, thc city will
shortly bo facing the same sanctions policy upon receiving the estimated $256,000 2004 CDBG
allocation, only the amount of potential reduction will increase to $464,796 if no projects are completed
prior to Nov. 2004. Thus it is imperative that the City of Ashland find expeditious ways to expend the
current carryover as ,,veil as future allocations. To address the acm~rnulated carry over StalThas
identified three strategies for proceeding with the CDBG program.
Potential strategies for potential re-capture of unexpended funds.
1) No Change
This altemative assumes that the current strategies employed to direct CDBG funds to eligible
uses will be successful, and therefore not jeopardize the City's future CDBG allocation(s). The
recipients of CDBG funds that arc currently tmexpended, ACLT and RVCDC specifically, will
have to identify property for the proposed number of units originally identified, execute an
option to buy, and following completion of regulatory steps (environmental review, contracts, arms
length purchase agreement, release of funds notificatioo, crc), purchase the property.
Unfortunately the time available to complete the land acquisition is not unlimited. If thc
affordable housing providers continue to experience difficulty in finding and exercising an
option of available property as they have in the recent past, the City will violate HUD's 1.5
timeliness standards sanctions policy. As of November 2004, any accumulated funds exceeding
1.5 times our yearly allocation will be withheld from our future allocations.
The City CDBG program has to expend $208,796 by November 1, 2003 to comply with the
maximum carryover of l.Sx annual grant. If these funds are not expended by November 1, 2003
the City will be deemed un-timely and we'll have 12 months to come under the 1.Sx limit.
Failing that 100% of the carryover beyond tho 1.Sx cap will be withhald from future allocations.
Assuming the City receives the CDBG annual award of $256,000 (approximate based on 2003
allocation) in January of 2004, the City will then have a total accumulated carry-over of
$848,796 and be at 3.32x carryover in November 2004. In the event no projects are competed by
Nov 2004, the City will have expended the 12 month window allotted to become timely and will
have future allocations (2005 and 2006 program year allocations) withheld. Thus the City stands
to lose up to $464.796 of future allocations.
2) ACLT Retains award the remaining carryover to be recaptured
Given the recent progress on ACLT's acquisition of the Horsey Patterson Street properties, and
barring any "conflicts" that would stop that project, ACLT's $120,000 allocation from 2001-02
could be directed to this purchase these identified propeffles. The City could repmgram the
remaining carryover ($472,796). This $472,796 includes both the 2002 and 2003 allocations
awarded to the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) as well as past
accessibility projects that have not been undertaken or were completed without the use of
CDBG.
3/The Recaoture of all uncxpcnded canwover
This alternative assembles all unexpended CDBG funds and reprograms them to another use.
The current total of this recapture would be $592,796 with the addition of the 2004 allocation of
approximately $256,000. In subtracting the 2004 Administration allocation of 20% thc
cumulative CDBG available to another project would be $797,596. Past awards would be
redirected to a selected alternative fiom the "Recapture Scenarios" below.
Recapture Scenarios based on re-programming of past carryover
Strategy 1 above = no reprogramming- 2004 allocation through new RFP
Strategy 2 above - $472, 796 + 2004 allocation (approximately $677,596 total)
Strategy 3 above - $592, 796 + 2004 allocation (approximately $797,596 total)
i) Reauost for Pmnosals.
The City would issue a Request for Proposals in which housing providers could propose a use for
the available funds including reallocated carryover and the 2004 allocation. The applications
recoived would identify the development type and property to be acquired.
ii) City Purchase Property
Some community's use a portion of their CDBG allocation to purchase property and then issue
an RFP to developers that outlines the specific project to be completed (ie 10 unit affordable
housing development) on the subject pmporty.
It is important to note that in this scenario the City assumes the role of purchasing the property,
and issuing a request for proposals to develop the property. This role would be new to the City of
Ashland and would require coordination with non-profits or for-profit developers to create the
new affordable housing. By working with non-profit affordable houffmg organizations (ACLT,
RVCDC, Access Options, Habitat for Humanity, or the Housing Authority of Jackson County)
the City could be assured the units are permanently affordable and rely upon those organizations
to provide the development services. City would be in a position to identify, negotiate, and
purchase property and could potentially find difficulty in finding available property just as
ACLT and RVCDC have experienced. Ifa property is not identified the City would again have
carryover in excess of 1.5 times our yearly distribution.
iii) Social Services in conjunction with scenarios i and ii above.
From the Desk of:
erandon Goldman
Assistant Planner
The City had previously distributed up to 15% of the yearly CDBG grant to non-profit
organizations providing direct services to individuals with extremely low, low, and moderate
incomes.
The modification of the Consolidated Plan in 2000 limited awards to I or 2 per year in an effort
to streamline the administration of the program. In speaking with our regional HUD office he
City could again direct up to 15% of the yearly CDBG grant to such social set,Aces.
This change would increase administrative costs, however it is important to note that historically
such awards were expended by the subrecipicnts upon availability. Note the restriction in our
Consolidated Plan to limit awards to 1 or 2 recipients would limit the social service 15% award
to one recipient, as the other recipient would have a proposal relating to affordable housing.
Program revision
Although thc lack of progress on past project awards is regrettable in that execution of the proposals
wood have provided needed housings, staff does see an opportunity in the potential aggregation of
funds.
Members of the Housing Commission and City Council had previously expressed dismay over the HUD
1.5 timeliness standard in that the City was restricted from accumulating multiple years worth of awards
to direct toward purchasing property for a larger scale affordable housing project. Although not by
design, thc City now has accumulated a significant amount of carryover that could be redirected to a
large scale development that addresses the priority need of affordable housing.
Staffhas significant concern over the potential loss of thture CDBG allocations due to a violation of the
1.Sx Timeliness Standard. All told the City could potentially lose $464,796 in CDBG funds ifthet same
amount is not expended by November 1, 2004.
As outlined above the City should investigate ways in which CDBG funds can be re-directed on eligible
uses, in a timely manner. Upon review of the 2002 Action Plan, and recognizing the difficulties
Ashland has experienced, our HUD Field Office has forwarded recommendations regarding program
modifications. Although somewhat contrary to recommendations received in 2001, HUD has now
suggested that the City broaden our scope of projects in a given program year. Specifically, by again
providing awards to Social Services, the City could be assured that such projects wood be completed
within the program year. This recommendation is in light of the state's serious budget shortfalls that
will adversely affect the City's low-income and special nee:is populations. Increased CDBG funding to
social services would assist in off-setting these shortfalls. Additionally HUD believes providing the
entire yearly competitive allocation to one subrecipient puts the City at significant risk if the awarded
projects ;xre not completed in a timely manner. In this way, diversification of the program subrecipients
reduces such risk.
The CDBG categories of digible activities are quite varied and through re-evaluating the way the
program is currently administered, and how the limited CDBG funds are directed, the City can design
the program to address our local needs, achieve compliance with the CDBG regulations, while ensuring
that funds are expended in a timely manner.
I I
CDBG Funds Carryover and Timeliness Ratios
Aug-03
95-96 Unprogrammed $21,000
99-00 ~,ccessibilit¥ $4,041
2000-2001 Accessibility $11,05(~
2001-2002 ACLT $120,00~
Accessibility $11,500
2002-2003 RVCDC $161
Accesslbllit~ $11,25(}
2003 RVCOC (acquisition) $193,000
RVCDC (ta) $21,000
admin (6 mos ovedap) $25,60~
accessibility $12,80(~
for 11.1.03 total carryover $592,796
timeliness ratio = ~arP/over/annual grant 2.31560937E
$592,706/$256,000
car~ver $592,79~
less 1.5x annual grant 384,00C
to spend by 11.1.03 $208,79(
for t t .t.04 total carlTover $848,79(
timeliness ratio = car~over/annual grant 3.31560937.~
carr~ver $848,79(
less 1.5x annual grant 384,00(
to spend b~/11.1.04 $464,796
carryover_Aug03.xls
CITY OF
,ASHLAND
The City of Ashland requested in April of this year that the applicants with outstanding CDBG funds
provide a project status update. The content of thc infurmation request letter scot to each subrecipient is
provided below. The responses received fi.om the subreeipicnts (ACLT and RVCDC) are attached.
Letter sent by City requesting project Status Updates.
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program requires that recipients of federal funds be
evaluated annually to provide information about the program effectiveness, managemant efficiency, as
well as ensuring the projects are delivering services to the target population, or are on target for
completion. The City of Ashlcod will be evaluating our CDBG program participants to determine the
progress of the current projects with uncxpended CDBG funds. Although a final date for a City Council
review of the CDBG program has not been set, we would like to request status updates fi.om recipients
to be received in our office by May 9th, 2003. Your assistance in providing us with the requested
information will be invaluable in helping the City examine the effectiveness of our local CDBG program
to provide needed benefits to low and moderate income individuals and families.
Evaluation to include assessmcot of:
Financial resources
Staffing
Scope of projects
- Accomplishments
- Project development benchmarks
The extent to which program participants account for and manage financial resources in accordance with
approved financial management standards is one concern relating to amount of potential monetary
exposure to the City, and the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In order to address this
the City requests that rccipients of CDBG funds provide us with the following information:
1) The organizatious most recently audited financial report reflecting activities prior to
December 31 ~, 2002.
2) An accounting of project activities specifically related to the CDBG funded project(s)
should be provided that clearly demonstrates what Innds have been, or will be, allocated
to the project, including the amount and source of such funds.
3) If the funding package for the CDBG project includes other grants, tax credits, or
donations, please provide details regarding the mount(s) secured, or submittal deadlines
for such grants as well as anticipated award notification dates.
By providing general information regarding the scope of projects (CDBG or othenvise) that the
organization currently is undertaking, city staff; and ultimately the City Council will be in a position to
better evaluate the organizations staffing resources available for the CDBG funded project(s). Please
include in the response to this request;
4) A list of ongoing projeets your organization is engaged in.
5) A listing of staff and eontraeted consultants working on said projects will be useful in
allowing the City to determine to what staff resources are directed toward the CDBG
funded project(s).
6) Any changes in staff, working on the CDBG funded project, during the last year
The project history and project development benchmarks are vital in evaluating the potential of the
project to be completed within the proposed timeframe. Please include in your response descriptions of
the;
7) CDBG project history
8) Effectiveness/ancemplishments in carrying out program activities and delivery to [arget
population within the 6meframes as proposed.
9) Problems sanh as lack o f progress in implementing antivities
10) Proposed timeline for completion, including project development benchmarks cempleted
and/or pending.
I would like to thank you in advance for taking your valuable time to respond to the ten questions
outlined above. Your organizations continuing goal to develop viable urban communities by providing
decent housing, suitable living environments, and expanding oppommities principally for low-and
moderate-income persons is central to the success of the CDBG program.
Please do not hesitate to call or email should you have any questions related to this request, or regarding
the CDBG program in general.
Sincerely,
Braudon Goldman
ACL T Response to April lOth letter requestin.q a project update,
Herse¥/Patterson Property Development Plan
Located in Ashland, Oregon, this 1.2-acra property is being purchased by
Medinger Construction Co., Inc., for $800,000. Earnest money was accepted on
May 6, 2003 and the transaction is to close on or before June 19, 2003. The
property is located in an R1-5 zone in a block bounded by Hersey, Phelps,
Patterson and Carol It spans across the middle of the block between Hemey
and Patterson streets and is currently composed of 6 lots of record. Two of the
lots have existing, poor quality rental houses on them. All of the lots ars of a size
well over the 5000 square foot minimum of the zone.
Southern Oregon University owns throe homes built in the late 1940's or early
50's that it needs to move or demolish to make way for a new building on it's
campus. Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation has been looking
for land upon which it could place the structures in order to salvage them for use
as affordable housing. The Construction Company wishes to help with this
project and make available three of the lots in its new property for this purpose.
Lots inexpensive enough to accommodate affordable housing are rare or
nonexistent in Ashland, The purchase price of the Hersey/Patterson property is
based on a net resale valuation of the two rental houses and their lots at
$150,000 each and of the remaining four lots at $125,000 each. In order to make
three lots available to the CDC at a pdce more conducive to use as affordable
housing, the property will be further subdivided yielding a total of six smaller and
mom affordable lots in addition to the two with the existing rental homes. This
brings the cost split of the original pumhase pdce down to $83,333 per lot. With
development costs associated with splitting the existing lots of record and
providing vehicle access and utilities to each, the final pdce to the CDC project
will be approximately $90,000 per lot,
There is a time limit to moving the houses. Southern Oregon University is
requiring that the lots on which the homes stand be clean by May 31, 2003. That
means the structures must be moved before escrow on the property is properly
closed and before the planning process is complete redesignating the four open
lots into six smaller ones. The current owner of the property has agreed to allow
the houses to be moved onto the property before escrow closing. The senior
City planner has said that the City will have no conflict with allowing the moving
and storage of the homes as long as they are not placed on foundations until
valid building permits can be issued.
Ashland Community Land Trust has shown an interest in becoming the final
property holder in this transaction. The Trust would own the land and sell to
qualifying buyers the home and land lease at pdces consistent with the income of
the buyer. This would preserve the affordability of the homes in perpetuity. As
it's part in the partnership, Rogue Valley CDC's role would be to use its expertise
in moving and renovating the structures to modem standards.
The CDC estimates its cost in providing these services including its overhead at
approximately $70,000 per home. Intedm financing would be suppiied by
Umpqua Bank, with the possible assistance of Rural Development, USDA.
Coupled with the $90,000 cost of the lot, this would bring the overall cost of
producing each home to $160,000. Ashland Community Land Trust has
available a $120,000 Community Development Block Grant awarded by the City
of Ashland to help it produce for-sale affordable housing. ACLT proposes to
apply one-third, or $40,000, to each of the three homes. This bdngs down the
actual cost to be recovered in the final sale of each newly renovated home, not
counting overhead costs of ACLT, to approximately $120,000. Such a base cost
should allow ACLT to find income-qualified buyers who can afford to buy the
homes. Rural Development is ready to provide reduced-interest mortgage loans,
if applicable, in its next funding cycle. Oregon State Housing & Community
Services homeowner's loans may also be used for take-out loans.
May 11, 2003
RVCDC
Rogue Valley Communi~
Development Corporation
DIRECTORS
EX-OFFICIO
STAFF
Brandon Goldman
CDBG Specialist
City of Ashland
May 22, 2003
Re; CDBG project evaluation
DeasBrandon,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with an update of
a~tivities we have undertaken in Ashland in pursuing projects that
provide needed benefits to low and moderate income households.
Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation remains
confident that allocated CDBG funds can be utilized in a successful
housing project.
Evaluation of Financial Resources.
1.) Our Financial Review is atlached as requested
2.) Funds expended to date
· RVCDC has expended approximately $14,000 in staff time.
these funds come ~om general operating funds of the
organization.
RVCDC hired project consultant The Nielson Group, from
2/02 to 9/02 to assist in sites acquisition costing us $13,876
bom general operating thuds. These costs are reimbursable
from TA grant.
· RVCDC hired Tax Credit consultant Tracy Dutson from 2/03
to 5/03 to assist assembling tax credit project. He has been
paid $5,200 ~ date. Soume was a Federal Home Loan Bank
Challenge Grant.
· RVCDC hired Architects Brlghtenburg/DelGado for
preliminary design work 2/02 to present. They have been
paid $4,800 to date. Source was Challenge Grant.
· Right of Way Associates was hired to provide requlred
relocation Plan. Their completed work cost project $7,200.
Only $2,200 has been paid by RVCDC from operating funds.
· Sehwabe, Williamson and Wyatt, PC provided legal
assistance at no cost.
· Community Development Law Center provided consulting at
no cost.
· Rural Collaborative provided project consulting at no cost.
· Sam Fung provided real estate consulting at no cost
· Some remaining costs not billed for yet include costs from
Dutson, and Delgedo.
· RVCDC has not received any reimbursements from City .
RVCDC
Rogue Valley Community
Development Corporation
PO Box 1733 Medford, OR 9750l
T 541734 2355
F 541 245 6966
DIRECTORS
STAFF
3) As originally conceived, we anticipated applying for and
receiving tax credits in the Fall. However, they are not part of the
proforma for the development of the Edwards property as
currently re-envisioned. A Bank loan will be required for
construction. We have discussed this with Bank &America and
Wells Fargo who are interested.
Scope of Projects
4) RVCDC is currently developing one project;
· In Medford, RVCDC is developing g townhouses on
propeay we own. Financing from Umpqua Bank.
RVCDC is currently in predevelopment on one project:
· In Ashland, RVCDC acquired ttuee houses from SOU
and is negotiating with Larry Medinger to purchase lots.
ACLT will pa~icipnte in home ownership rehab, project.
RVCDC has received future funding fi'om Medford CDBG
for a non- tax credit affordable housing pmj eot ·
5) Staffing for pmjeats;
· Medford project- consultant to project is Phyllis
McDonough Robinson of Rural Collaborative. Architect
is Brace Abeloe. Contractor to be bid soon. Project
oversight- Bill Brandsen, Site Supemisor RVCDC 50%.
Other staff time ED 20%, Fiscal Officer- Andrea
Miranda 40%
Ashland project- Site Supervisor time 50% ( for six
months), ED 10%, FO 40%
Medford future project-ED20%, no other staffing
required for next 10 months.
6) Changes
Consultant changes are noted under fiscal above.
RVCDC has hired a full time Site Supervisor to
oversee development projects. He is a specialist
with construction/contractor training/experience.
· RVCDC has also added a part time office
coordinator to our staff.
7) Project Historyg)Activitiesg)Problemsl 0)timelines
· The CDBG applications affecting this project
were for the acquisition of two parcels to develop
for a tax credit development project Funding was
also for the relocation process required at one
site. Those sites were; the Lower Pines Trailer
Park site and the Edwards property. After
assembling a development team (outlined under
financial resources), RVCDC began negotiations
RVCDC
Rogue Valley Communi~'
Development Corporation
PO Box 1733 Mod/oral, O1~. 9750 I
T 541 734 2355
F 541 245 6966
www,rvcdc.com
rvcdc~grrtcch.com
DIRECTORS
Ralph Monrce
EX-OFFICIO
STAFF
with the property owner who indicated a desire to sell to us.
RVCDC began the due diligence activities of site design,
relocation plan for tenants, and financial planning. By Fall,
the owner had determined that the contingencies required for
the sale to proceed were unacceptable and stopped negotiating.
We were told that the tenants would be evicted by the owner.
Our consultant was let go. We began working with Mr. Fung as
RVCDC attempted to purchase the adjacent property of the
Trailer Park, owned by an out of state resident. The owner
negotiated thc sale with our representatives and we felt that we
could meet the terms of the owner in acquiring it. Again the
time contingencies of 9 montlm combined with a required
exchange caused the deal to fall even though we were able to
meet the asking price. Tax consultant Tracy Dutson completed
his work for us after completing a proforma that utilized the
downtown parking garage as a site to develop low income
housing. This site is of interest to us but will require community
decisions yet to be investigated and made. The remaining
property of interest is the Edwards pmparty. We are interested
in purchasing it and have discussed a sale prim. A negotiated
commitment would be predicated on receiving approval from
either HUD on a proposed installment sale mechanism or a
city involved purchase. If we are successful, RVCDC proposes
to expend beth rounds of allocated funding to purehase the
Edwards properly. We would then construct 8-9 townhouse
units for sale to low income households. We would target thosc
homes for the 60-80% median income homebuyers using loans
from the Rural Development program. Target price would be
$135,000 for the 2 bdrm units (850sf)and $150,000 for the 3
bdrm. units(1000 sr.) Deed reslrletions would be applied.
Meanwhile, RVCDC and the City can discuss developing
a downtown rental project as originally conceived using the
parking garage in a future tax credit application. Time forbids
an application in this round of funding and much needs to be
done in predevelopment site work. Our suggested use of the
allocated CDBG funds currently being discussed does not
require any other subsidies, or grants. A bank loan for the
construction and RD 1.5% mortgage loans will allow this
project to proceed in a shorter time frame. We request the
02-03 CDBG funds be allowed to be used to purchase the
Edwards property for a development project as outlined above.
On belmlfofRogue Valley Community Development Corp.,
CITY OF
ASHLAND
Date: September 3, 2003
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council
From: Ashland Housing Commission
Subject: Pending Land Use Actions
It was brought to the Housing Commission's attention at its August 27, 2003 meeting that certain land use matters
are currently being considered by the Council that are of great importance to us. In particular, we have interest in
modifications being made to the City's Design Review Guidelines relative to building size limits and potential
expansion of the Urban Growth Boundary. The Commission feels that both of these items present excellent
opportunities to consider and encourage the development of needed affordable housing and, therefore, believes it
is appropriate that the Commission has a voice in the discussions taking place.
It is our understanding that these items are pending final decisions by the Council. We respectfully request that
the Council postpone its decisions until the Commission has time to review and comment on how the Council can
facilitate balanced housing opportunities in Ashland. We would like to delay immediate actions until a"grand
plan"is presented by staff. The study session today represents our first step in this process. Our Commission is
working with staff to craft a more detailed Action Plan and we look forward to staff's presentation of that plan. In
the interim it is vital that opportunities that arise still consider the housing issues outlined in the Needs Analysis
and adopted Action Plan. The Commission is concerned that if the Council continues on its current course, its
actions may actually conflict with recommendations of the City's Affordable Housing Action Plan and strategies
being developed by the Commission.
The Housing Commission has scheduled an emergency meeting for September 10`h to consider staff's
recommendations regarding allocation of CDBG funds and recommendations about the Big Box ordinance. We
understand that both issues will be discussed by council on September 16. It is our goal to leave the meeting on
the 10`h with well thought out recommendations.
We apologize that this request comes with such urgency, however, it was not until last week's Commission
meeting that we became aware of these discussions. As activity related to balanced housing increases,we need
improved communication between the City Council and the Housing Commission about these and related matters.
Respectfully,
Andy Dungan, Chair Housing Commission
DEPT.OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Tel:541488-5305
20 E.Main Street Fax:541-552-2050 W
Ashland,Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900
www.ashland.or.us irwa