Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-1104 Council Mtg PACKETCouncil Mceting Pkt. BARBARA CHRISTENSEN CITY RECORDER CITY OF SHLAND is the subject of a public hearing which has been closed. The Public Forum is the time to speak on any subject not on the printed agenda. If you wish to speak, please fill out the Speaker Request form located near the entrance to the Council Chambers. The chair will recognize you and Inform you as to the amount of time allotted to you. The time granted will be dependent to some extent on the nature of the item under discussion, the number of people who wish to be heard, and the length of the agenda. AGENDA FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL November 4, 2003 - 7:00 p.m. Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street IV. VI. VII. VIII. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Regular Council Meeting Minutes of October 21, and (two) Executive Session Minutes of October 21. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: 1. Mayor's Proclamation of November 8 - 15, 2003 as "Recycling Awareness Week." CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Termination of a Public Utility Easement located in the Skycrest Hills Phase II Subdivision. 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 the Modification of the 1995, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plans for reallocation of unexpended CDBG funds. 2. Public Hearing on Grant Award for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Affordable Housing Project Proposal for Program 2004. PUBLIC FORUM: Business from the audience no~t 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.) UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Status Report on 2003-2004 Council Goals and Suggested Timeline and process for 2004-2005 Goal Setting (continued from October 21 City Council Meeting). CO1JN('II, MF3~'I'INGS ARE BROADCAS I' 1,IVt'; ON CI IANNEI, 9 VISIT TIlE CITY OF ASHI,AND'S WEB SITE AT WWW.ASltI,AND.OR.US IX. XI. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: 1. Ashland Housing Commission Request to allocate Strawberry Lane Property as an Asset of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund. 2. Request from Allan Frank Sandier to Purchase Air Space above Hargadine Parking Structure for 20-unit Affordable Housing Project. 3. Adoption of an Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan. 4. Economic Development Strategy and Reallocation of Transient Occupancy Tax. ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: 1. First reading of "An Ordinance Amending Ashland Municipal Code Section 2.04.040 by Revising Rules of the City Council with respect to Public Hearings and First Reading of an Ordinance Pertaining to the Public Hearing." (continued from October 21 City Council Meeting). 2. Reading by title only of'% Resolution amending Resolution No. 2002-22 entitled 'A Resolution Amending the Pay Schedule for Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2002-2003' by amending the Pay Schedule for the Municipal Judge and City Recorder." (continued from October 21 City Council Meeting). 3. Reading by title only of"A Resolution amending Resolution No. 2003-24 entitled 'A Resolution Amending the Pay Schedule for Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2003-2004' by amending the Pay Schedule for the Municipal Judge and City Recorder." (continued from October 21 City Council Meeting). OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS: XlI. ADJOURNMENT: REMINDER A Study Session will be held at noon on Wednesday, November 5 in Council Chambers. Topics of discussion will include: 1) Citizen Survey Results; and, 2) Discussion regarding redesign of Council Chambers. 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 (54 I) 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). COUNCII, M I~;ETIN G S ARI,~ BROAI)CASTI.IV E ON C IlANNEI, 9 F,~ V1SIT TftE CITY OF ASItLAND'S WEB S1TI! AT WWW.ASIILAN D.OR.US MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR MEETING ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL October 21, 2003 Civic Center Council Chambers, 1175 E. Main Street CALL TO ORDER Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chambers. Mayor DeBoer armounced that the Council had held an Executive Session for the Labor Negotiation with the Ashland Police Association pursuant to ORS 192.660(2), and an Evaluation of the City Attorney pursuant to ORS 192.660(1 )(i). City Attorney Paul Nolte introduced Mike Franell, the new Assistant City Attorney, to the Council and City. ROLL CALL: Councilor Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison, and Hearn were present. Mayor DeBoer read a statement informing the public they were allowed to speak on any Agenda Item and during the Public Forum, but asked that they stay on topic and respect the opinions of others. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Regular Meeting Minutes of October 7, 2003 and Study Session Minutes of October 8, 2003 were approved as presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS & AWARDS: Mayor's Proclamation of October 20 - 25, 2003 as "World Population Awareness Week" was read aloud by Councilor Hearn. Eric Navickas / 711 Faith Ave/Presented a few slides depicting an area of the proposed expansion. Navickas stated water is an international crisis, and stated it is inappropriate for the City to endanger the water supply without knowing how much water is coming through this section of land. CONSENT AGENDA: 1. Minutes of Boards, Commissions and Committees. 2. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of Paul Westerman to the Airport Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2006. 3. Confirmation of Mayor's appointment of J. David Wilkerson to the Public Arts Commission for a term to expire April 30, 2004. Councilor Morrison / Jackson m/s to approve Consent Agenda. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Public Hearing regarding Planning Action 2003-112, Clover Lane (Annexation). Ashland City Council Meeting Page 1 of 8 October 21, 2003 Councilors Hearn and Amarotico disclosed they had been members of the Planning Commission during the previous request, and were assured by staff that they did not have to abstain from voting since this was a new request. Senior Planner Bill Molnar explained the request is for an annexation and zoning map change from a RR-5 (Residential) Zone to an E-1 (Employment) Zone for a 1.32-acre parcel at the end of Clover Lane. The Planning Commission approved the Land Partition and Site Review request on September 8, 2003, as well as unanimously recommended the Council annex the property. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN: 7:15 p.m. Bob Robertson/1175 E. Main, Medford/Applicant/Robertson gave a brief history of the actions leading up to this request, and explained how he would like to develop an office/warehouse on this site. Robertson explained that all o£the conditions have been met, and feels that this would be an attractive and low impact addition to the City. Councilor Hartzell asked where the generated numbers for traffic trips came from. Robertson explained they used the manual, which showed the projected number of trips that this type of usage would normally generate. He also stated they had performed their own car count, and found that the present usage is much less than the manual indicates. He concluded that even if all of the projected trips out of the manual were generated, there is enough street capacity to handle it. Daniel Rueff/240 Ohio St. /Spoke in opposition to the request. Rueff voiced his disapproval of ongoing development is Ashland, claiming traffic is outrageous compared to a few years ago. Council briefly discussed with staffhow this request would affect traffic, and the site history of this project. Bob Robertson /Applicant/Delivered his rebuttal stating he hoped the Council approved this request, as it is the only way they will be able to do anything with this property. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED: 7:51 p.m. Councilor Morrison / Hearn m/s to approve Planning Action 2003-112. Roll Call Vote: Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison, Hearn; YES. Motion Passed. PUBLIC FORUM: Tracy Bungay/334 Bridge St. / Claimed the Council has disregarded the values of the World Population Proclamation and the Valdez Principles by allowing the Mt. Ashland Expansion. Tom Rose/430 Wiley St./Explained his concerns regarding the Mt. Ashland Sewage Plant, citing the plant is out of compliance with its' permit, and that the permit expired on May 31, 2003. Jeff Hanson / 13880 Hwy. 66 / Stated the plant received a notice, not a citation, and it is not out of compliance with the permit. Upon receipt of the notice, thorough research and measures were taken, and the plant is currently well above the DEQ standards. Ashland City Councd Meeting Page 2 of 8 October 21, 2003 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 1. Mount Ashland Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Councilor Jackson presented her proposal "Additional City of Ashland Comment for Phased Construction and Detailed Study in the Middle Fork". Councilor Heam stated Jackson's efforts are admirable, but that this proposal does not seem to be embraced by either side of the debate. Heam stated this proposal would increase costs 15-20%, equipment would need to be removed and then put back which could cause increased damage to the ground, and due to the phasing, funding would be a challenge to obtain. Councilor Morrison stated it is their role to act responsibly. He noted after the previous council meeting, he felt they could have done more, and is happy to see they are making improvements. Morrison stated it should be the Council's goal to put together the best comment package possible. Councilor Hartzell stated she would prefer to work directly with the lessee, not the Forest Service. Hartzell explained the City is the permit holder and whatever building that is done is on the City's behalf, and therefore it is within their control to ensure construction is completed in a way that protects the resoumes. Hartzell stated she could go along with Jackson's proposal if it stated they would not go into the Middle Branch. Councilor Morrison read aloud "A Resolution Requesting the Forest Service to Consider a Community-Based Alternative in the Final ElS for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area." Councilor Hartzell presented "Amendments to the DEIS Comments ", explaining it is important to have some clarification for the QA/QC team. William Forester/500 Ashland Loop Rd, /Forester's written request supporting the Community- Based Alternative was read aloud by the Mayor. Eric Navickas/711 Faith Ave. /Stated Alternative 3 and Jackson's proposal are illegal. Voiced his support for Alternative 5. Darwin Thusius /897 Beach St./Read aloud comments received by the Council after the October 7th Meeting that expressed conflicting opinions. Bryan Holley/324 Liberty St. /Suggested the Council could have gone about things differently at the last meeting. Holley noted the Mayor was the past president of the Mt. Ashland Association, and feels he should have excluded himself from voting. He also would have liked the council to do a straw vote on each alternative, so the citizens know where each of them stands on the issue. Holley asked that Mt, Ashland Assoc. state how much money the expansion will take, and noted this money could have gone to save one of the schools. Holley voiced his support for Councilor Morrison's Resolution. Ryan Navickas/711 Faith Ave. /Voiced appreciation for Councilor Hartzell's comments, and stated he does not feel the community's voice is heard in the comments. Navickas suggested the Council require the Forest Service to extend the deadline using the authohty of the 1929 agreement. Ashland City Council Meeting Page 3 of 8 October 21, 2003 Tonya Graham / 418 Lit Way / Headwaters Executive Director / Explained Alternative 3 was inspired by their work, however was modified to an extent that does not make it a viable solution. Graham voiced support for a modified Alternative 3, and also supports Councilor Hartzell's suggestions. Graham noted the lack of data and stated scientific analysis needs to be completed. Tom Reid/92 Walker Ave. / Stated Councilor Jackson's proposal would add significant costs, the delay between construction would be difficult to accommodate, and would make fund raising virtually impossible. Nicl{ Joslin /32 7 Morton St. /Stated that Hartzell and Jackson arc the only two councilors who recognize that there is a lack of data, and would like to see the infa-structure problems with Mt. Ashland fixed before an expansion takes place. Jeff Hanson /13880 Hwy. 66/Stated the solutions to the problems that Mr. Joslin mentioned are included in the expansion proposal, and stated the City's comments have been strong and effective, and are appreciated. Linda Richards/245 E. Nevada St./Explained that if it had been determined that the expansion was safe, she and others would be for it. Richards noted the beauty of the area that would be clear- cut, and stated there are better ways to spend money, including the schools, healthcare, and homelessness. Richards also mentioned the leading cause of extinction is habitat destruction, and urged the Council to save their water, mountain, and wildlands. Greg Williams / 744 Helman St./Expressed his concerns with Councilor Jackson's proposal, especially Sections C and F. Williams stated he is worried the proposal will be half done and will not serve their purpose or needs. Daniel Rueff/240 Ohio/Asked the council to practice what they preach, and explained it is up to the people to unite in order to stop the government. Michael Donovan / 110 Westwood / Stated Jackson's proposal would not work with the given timeline, and urged Alternatives 2 and 6 would be the best at protecting the resources while providing alpine recreation enjoyment. Donovan stated they can not stop the expansion simply because of potential, waiting for zero risk and zero harm. Tom Dimitre / 901 Beach St./Sierra Club/Stated he supports Councilor Mordson's resolution, but not Jackson's proposal because they are against expansion in the Middle Branch. Chris Fowler/966 Tyler Creek Rd. /Thanked the Council, but in particular Councilors Morrison, Jackson, and Hartzell for their efforts during this process. Stated this is a huge issue, and the Council should take the time it needs to make an appropriate decision. Lyn Horstemeier/920 Cambridge/Noted the similarities with Pelican Butte in Klamath, and noted a National Geographic article regarding the Cascade-Siskiyou National Monument. Debbie Jones / 1163 Bellview / Feels the expansion will be done in the most environmentally beneficial way possible, noting that only 40 trees with a 12" diameter or larger will be cut down. Ashland City Council Meeting Page 4 of 8 October 21, 2003 Would like to see the Council treat Mt. Ashland Assoc. as they would any other non-profit organization, and to stop drawing this out and come to a conclusion. Councilor Amarotico asked why Morrison had chosen to do a resolution over other means. City Administrator Gino Grimaldi explained that doing a resolution would spell out the reasons, where a simple vote would leave the Forest Service guessing. Councilor Amarotico also asked if the language could be altered in the resolution to read "additional alternative" instead of"separate". Councilor Laws stated he thought that they were limiting themselves to comments, and does not feel that a resolution is a comment. Laws expressed his concern that tonight is the first he has seen or heard of this resolution, and does not think it is necessary or serves a purpose. Councilor Hearn stated he would not vote for this resolution because it appears to give a strong endorsement over the other alternatives. Hearn did state that he would accept this resolution if language was inserted stating "the City does not intend to imply that the City endorses the Community Alternative, only that it should be analyzed along with the other 6 alternatives". Councilor Hartzell stated she supports the current language, and explained that the councilors on the losing end of the vote have been scrambling to find a way to have their concerns heard. Hartzell added the original comments did not reflect the values of the community. Councilor Jackson stated she supports this resolution, and feels there is value in respecting an alternative that a community group has been working hard on. Jackson stated she does not believe it endorses any particular alternative, and feels this combination of components is worth analysis by the Forest Service. Councilor Morrison stated he has erred on the side of thoroughness, and noted if this resolution meets the Forest Service's criteria, new information would be included. Councilor Laws stated that he does not feel that this resolution would do any harm, but feels it could be an insult to the Forest Service. Councilor Hartzell / Jackson m/s to approve the Resolution Requesting the Forest Service to Consider a Community-Based Alternative in the Final ElS for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area, with the exception the last sentence should read "The Forest Service should analyze the Community Alternative as an additional alternative in the final Environmental Statement for the Mt. Ashland Ski Area. This request is not intended to imply endorsement of the alternative itselfl" Roll Call: Laws, Amarotico, Hartzell, Jackson, Morrison, Hearn; YES. Motion Passed. In regards to the Amendments to DEIS Comments, Councilor Amarotico asked about #7, and wanted to know how the Ashland Fire Department would analyze fire danger differently than the Forest Service, Fire ChiefKeith Woodley stated the nature of the vegetation and the elevation are the main factors. Woodley stated there will be more buildings after the expansion, and explained that the structures need to be built with the understanding that they are building in a wildlands area, and noted the potential of a building fire becoming a watershed fire. He also clarified that the Forest Service only handles the wildlands, and any structural fires are not their responsibility. Ashland City Council Meeting Page 5 of 8 October 21, 2003 Councilor Hartzell / Hearn m/s to accept the Amendments to the DEIS Comments as presented. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed. Councilor Jackson stated she feels her proposal is valid because it takes a closer look at the Middle Branch and adds the consideration of the forest health as they move into construction. Jackson explained she would be willing to alter the language in the proposal to say "that the Forest Service consider...", and also stated she would be willing to remove the last sentence under Section C that stated "...after 4-5 years of monitoring". Councilor Jackson / Hartzell riffs to extend meeting to 10:30 p.m. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed. Councilor Hartzell stated she is concerned that they have empowered a QA/QC Team, and now they are adding on a different team in conjunction that has no authority. Councilor Jackson explained this team would not make the decision as to whether to go into the Middle Fork, but rather would bring the forest health evaluation into the decision about how to install if that alternative is chosen. Councilor Jackson / Laws m/s to accept the Additional Comment for Phased Construction and Detailed Study in the Middle Fork, with the exception the second sentence of the first paragraph under Proposal should read: This proposal requests that the Forest Service consider restricting activity in the Middle Fork until Phase Two but allows the installation of Chair LC-6 toproceed in Phase One; And the last sentence under Proposal Section C is removed. Roll Call: Laws, Jackson, Morrison; YES. Amarotico, Hartzell, Hearn; NO. Mayor DeBoer, YES. Motion Passed. Councilor Hartzell mentioned that a specialist with the Forest Service has offered to come to Ashland in November to meet with members of the community, and asked if the City would like to take him up on his offer. NEW AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 1. City Forest Lands Restoration Project. Keith Woodley, Fire Chief and Forest Lands Commissioner, explained this project is aimed at restoring the balance in the forest ecosystem. This project is planned for the lower watershed, which is approximately 183 acres, and would remove 460,000 board feet of timber by helicopter means. Steve Jensen thanked the Ashland Forest Lands Commission for their hard work, and described this restoration project as "the best in the west". It was also noted that the primary extraction route would be Granite Street. Eric Navickas/711 Faith Ave. /Stated 150 log trucks will be utilizing Granite Street, and noted that thin forests don't bum any less hot than thick forests. Navickas feels the removal of trees will set a precedent with the Forest Service, and hopes that this will raise the awareness in the community. Councilor Morrison asked how it was determined which trees to remove. Marty Mane explained each tree was given a number and a reason if it needed to be removed. Some reasons include the trees are dead, some ware severely infected by bark beetles, and occasionally they chose to remove one of the smaller trees in order to save one of the larger, dominant trees. Ashland City Councd Meeting Page 6 of 8 October 21, 2003 Councilor Jackson stated she is very impressed with the quality of the proposal. Jackson stated the City is trying to achieve a healthier situation for the forest, which means having to remove some trees. She noted her concerns for the traffic, but feels the health of the watershed is a more important issue. Councilor Hartzell stated she hopes the precision taken in this proposal does set a precedent with the Forest Service. In reply to the public concern of logging tracks on Granite St., Hartzell posed the comparison of log trucks coming down or fire trucks going up. Councilor Hearn / tlartzell m/s to endorse the Forest Lands Restoration Project. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed. 2. Designation of Voting Delegate for LOC meeting. Council nominates Mayor DeBoer and alternate Councilor Hartzell to be the delegates for the League of Oregon Cities Conference. 3. Request for Waiver of Community Development and Engineering Fees Associated with the Building Permit for Affordable Housing at 41 Garfield Street. Director of Community Development John McLaughlin stated staff recommends that the Council waive the $7800 in fees for the affordable housing project at 41 Garfield Street. Councilor Hearn / Jackson m/s to waive the Community Development and Engineering Fees Associated with the Building Permit for Affordable Housing at 41 Garfield Street. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed. 4. Acceptance of the dedication of the west half of Ann Street. Councilor Morrison / Jackson ln/s to accept the dedication. Voice Vote: All AYES. Motion Passed. 5. Status Report on 2003-2004 Council Goals and Suggested Timeline and process for 2004- 2005 Goal Setting. Item was tabled due to lack of time. 6. Motion Authorizing to Pledge City Assets to Secure a $10 Million Borrowing by Ashland Community Hospital for New Construction. City Administrator Gino Grimaldi explained the Finance Director has reviewed this proposal and agrees with the council action that is proposed. The reason this is before the Council is because they are linked with the Ashland Community Hospital and the hospital needs permission to encumber the assets in order to move forward with securing a loan. Jim Watson, ACH Administrator, explained their lease agreement requires the hospital to seek permission from the City, as the owner of the hospital property, and ask that they release those assets. The hospital is proposing to expand their exterior walls in order to build additional surgical capacity, as well as a number of other features that are designed to meet the growing needs of the community. The City property has been appraised at $16 million, which if approved, will serve as collateral for /~shland City Council Meeting Page 7 of 8 October 21, 2003 the loan. Councilor Morrison / Itearn m/s to authorize the pledging of hospital property assets. Voice Vote: Ail AYES. Motion Passed. ORDINANCES~ RESOLUTIONS AND CONTRACTS: 1. First reading of "An Ordinance Amending Ashland Municipal Code Section 2.04.040 by Revising Rules of the City Council with respect to Public Hearings and First Reading of an Ordinance Pertaining to the Public Hearing." Item was tabled due to lack of time. 2. Reading by title only of "A Resolution amending Resolution No. 2002-22 entitled 'A Resolution Amending the Pay Schedule for Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2002-2003' by amending the Pay Schedule for the Municipal Judge and City Recorder." Item was tabled due to lack of time. 3. Reading by title only of "A Resolution amending Resolution No. 2003-24 entitled 'A Resolution Amending the Pay Schedule for Management and Confidential Employees for Fiscal Year 2003-2004' by amending the Pay Schedule for the Municipal Judge and City Recorder." ltem was tabled due to lack of time. OTHER BUSINESS FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS/REPORTS FROM COUNCIL LIAISONS: Councilor Hartzell expressed her concern that it appeared that the Plamfing Commission Study Session was cancelled, and commissioners were encouraged to participate in the Public Charrette instead. ADJOURNMENT: Meeting was adjourned at 10:30 p.m. April Lucas, Asst. to City Recorder Alan DeBoer, Mayor Ashland City Council Meeting Page 8 of 8 October 21, 2003 PROCLAMATION · Ashlanders appreciate our area's natural beauty and natural resources, and want to preserve them for the future. Every individual's action of preventing waste, reusing everything possible, and recycling becomes a cumulative part of the solution toward protecting our rivers, lakes and streams; keeping toxic materials out of the environment; and protecting our air quality. · Reducing waste and using resources wisely saves our natural resources, creates jobs, and provides for future generations. Local governments, schools and businesses, along with concerned citizens, are working together to recycle more and to adopt environmentally sustainable buying practices. WHEREAS, Ashlanders and Oregonians are recycling more than ever. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council and Mayor on behalf of the citizens of Ashland, hereby proclaim November 8 - 15, 2003 as "RECYCLING AWARENESS WEEK" in Ashland and encourage each Ashland citizen to practice essential habits of reducing, reusing and recycling in their homes, workplaces and schools. Dated this 4th day of November, 2003. Alan DeBoer, Mayor Barbara Christensen, City Recorder CITY OF -ASHLAND D R A F T ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes October 21,2003 At 5:30 p.m., the Historic Commission met in the Siskiyou Room in the Community Development/Engineering Services Building. Present were members Dale Shostrom, Terry Skibby, Jeanne Krippaehne, Tom Giordano, Rob Saladoff, Jay Leighton and Sam Whitford. In addition, Secretary Sonja Akerman was in attendance. Alex Krach was unable to attend. The meeting was requested in order to discuss issues on design and how to interpret the standards adopted by the City of Ashland and the Department of Interior Design Standards for Rehabilitation. Members focused mainly on additions and remodels to historic residential buildings. Giordano began the discussion by stating that because design matters are so subjective and each piece of property has special circumstances, there needs to be some latitude in the design process. In addition, he would like to see the Historic Commission have more authority with respect to approving and denying projects rather than only being a recommending body. Kdppaehne said she feels the Historic Commission ends up designing more than it ought to out of fear that a design won't be compatible. In her opinion, cultural progress, social conditions and technological conditions should dictate design. For example, she cited Craftsman and Queen Anne styles as being completely different at the turn of the century; however, now they are compatible styles. She related if people did not have the foresight then, we wouldn't even have the Craftsman style. Leighton added each era has its own style and each era overlaps to a certain extent. Skibby stated he would like to keep a certain look in the Historic Districts. He does not want new designs to overwhelm the historic buildings. Saladoff observed, however, that there is a problem with always going toward conformity. There is a need to be open to new technology and trends. Skibby conveyed his desire to have samples of designs and photographs of local buildings. Krippaehne said it would be helpful to develop boards that will explain this. In her opinion, one of the biggest threats to the Historic District is mucking up histodc buildings by using inappropriate materials, windows, etc. Whitford commented that he considers it appropriate, however, for new structures to use contemporary materials. It is essential the Commission look closely at remodels and additions on histodc buildings. Also, for additions on historic structures, he said scale is very important. Shostrom offered the Old House Web articles about New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings according to Department of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation as a discussion topic. An addition to a historic building is considered acceptable by the National Park Service standards if it: 1. Preserves significant historic materials and features, and 2. Preserves the historic character, and 3. Protects the historical significance by making a visual distinction between old and new. Shostrom stated that as a preservationist, he wants to see as much of the old building as possible. Is that good or bad? Discussion ensued regarding the matching of details and materials. If too much matches, it is sometimes difficult to tell the old from the new. Giordano provided input on the benefits of having the Review Board critique designs, noting that better designs are often the result. Regarding additions, members agreed the goal is to keep the street side of the building as unchanged as possible. The locations of additions, as well as the use of matching materials were also discussed. Krippaehne mentioned the work of architect Hugh Newall Jacobsen, whose restoration work integrates contemporary technologies with existing historic buildings. Ashland Historic Commission Discussion Minutes October 21, 2003 CiTY OF ASHLAND Saladoff stated the existing house needs to reveal itself. Designs for additions need to address not only the existing house, but also how the owner can be accommodated. Leighton added the social norm has changed. People now need more. Historically, people would add on, but the additions were kept modest. Saladoff stated and the Commission agreed that it is not trying to design buildings and additions. Kdppaehne remarked that each property needs to be looked at. Existing buildings need to be retained, but additions can be designed by nearly duplicating the shapes and volumes while still making them different. All the members agreed the front of a house is sacred and it is very important to keep front as original as possible. Shostrom pointed out that many historic outbuildings use the same pitch roof, materials and shapes. He asked if they should look the same? Saladoff said the function of the new outbuilding is important to know in determining this. What is the hierarchy? Should it reflect the same period? Are architecturally inaccurate elements used, such as brackets? Shostrem inquired if the Commission should come up with an outline for a guide or a companion booklet. Although there was not a consensus this should be an end result, the members agreed that if a guide were made, it would have to be specific for Ashland. Also mentioned were before and after photographs and illustrations. In summary, the members agreed that additions should generally match the exiting structures. Also, there needs to be a visual transition between the existing building and the new construction. Techniques to accomplish this would include stepping back the new portion and making a visual distinction between the old and the new. Concerning new construction, the members felt it is important to mimic the existing setbacks of the neighborhood. Krippaehne would like to see more contemporary architecture that doesn't just mimic historic buildings but does meet the standards. The Histodc Commission decided to have meetings like this quarterly. The next one will be scheduled in December for a January meeting. Members will bring in pictures of existing houses, books and magazines. At 7:40 p.m. the meeting adjourned. Ashland Historic Commission Discussion Minutes 2 October 21, 2003 CITY OF , SHLAND D R A F T ASHLAND HISTORIC COMMISSION Minutes October 8, 2003 CALL TO ORDER At 7:05 p.m., Chairperson Dale Shostrom called the meeting to order in the Siskiyou Room, located in the Community Development/Engineering Services Building at 51 Winbum Way. In addition to Shostrom, members present were Alex Krach, Jay Leighton, Tom Giordano, Joanna Krippaehne, Robert Saladoff, Terry Skibby and Sam Whitford. Also present were Associate Planner Mark Knox, Council Liaison John Morrison and Secretary Sonja Akerman. Member Keith Chambers is on sabbatical. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Whitford stated he had a correction on page 5 (under Carnegie Library Restoration) of the September 3, 2003 minutes. He is on the Jackson County Library Foundation, not the Library Board. Leighton then moved to approve the September 3, 2003 minutes as corrected and the September 17, 2003 minutes as submitted. The motion passed with a unanimous vote. CITY SOURCE DISCUSSION City of Ashland Management Analyst Ann Seltzer met with the Commission to discuss articles she is seeking for the monthly City Source publication. She began by quoting from City Council Goal 10, which is entitled Historical Sites and Structures and states "Ashland seeks to preserve its dch history through the preservation of its historical buildings and places." Seltzer explained the Council sets goals and that staff, with the help of the commissions, committees and boards, implements them. She informed the members she would like articles (approximately 250 words) relating to historic preservation in Ashland that she can use as space allows. She made it clear that she would most likely have to edit the articles in order to make them fit. Although these articles would not be published every month, Seltzer said she would like a variety. She also stated that she would make every effort to print articles that are timely and if the members want something specifically printed, they should speak with Knox about it. PUBLIC HEARING Planning Action 2003-110 Modification of Previously Approved Site Review and Variance 230 and 232 Van Ness Avenue Serin Eggling Knox explained the Histodc Commission heard this proposal at the September 3re meeting. Since it was a Type I action and the neighbor called it up for a public hearing last month, it had to be re-noticed as a Type II action for this month. The neighbor who called it up was not present and Knox stated the issues were more of a Planning Commission nature than Historic Commission. Basically, the applicant is asking for a modification of a previously approved proposal because the parking arrangement of sharing a driveway with the neighbor to the west has changed. The neighbor who was going to give the applicant an easement decided against that so the applicant is asking for a Variance in order to use a 20-foot wide access on the property to the east to get another on-street parking credit. Shostrom opened the public hearing. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 1 October 8, 2003 CiTY OF kSHLAND Whitford asked if the agreement had actually been signed. Doyle Brightenburg (designer for the project) replied it was never signed. Giordano asked if there had been any changes since last month and Brightenburg replied nothing has changed except that he now has support from the City's Engineering Department. Since there was no one else in the audience to speak on this application, Shostrom closed the public hearing. Giordano moved to recommend approval of this proposal to the Planning Commission and Whitford seconded the motion. It was passed with a unanimous vote. Planning Action 2003-122 Conditional Use Permit and Site Review 249 "A" Street John Fields Whitford noted he had visited the site, talked with the owners and was shown the front porch area that is proposed to be enclosed with black iron railings. Knox explained this application encompasses two components. The first is the enclosure of the front pomh with a wrought iron fence. This area will be used to create a secure display area for garden and outdoor products. It won't be used for storage. The second component will create an outside covered area in the rear of the building that will be used for storage. It will still provide a drive-up loading area. The roof material will be galvanized metal. No new additional walls will be added in the front or the back. Knox added the roof over the storage area in the rear will not be visible form "A" Street. The merchandise behind the iron railing in the front will be visible. Shostrom opened the public hearing. Giordano asked if the new storage area in the rear would still accommodate bike parking. Knox said he would make sure it would still be provided. Since there was no one in the audience to speak either for against the application, Shostrom closed the public hearing. Whitford moved to recommend approval of this application. With a second by Giordano, the motion was unanimously approved. Planning Action 2003-127 Land Partition, Site Review, Variance, and Administrative Variance and Exception 212 East Main Street Ed and Tanya Bemis Knox reported this application is a big project for Ashland due to the grade, complexities of the project, oddity of spaces, multiple levels, floor plan requirement and various mixed uses (parking, commercial/retail and residential). It consists of a partition to divide the property between the existing Ashland Spdngs Hotel and the parking lot in the rear, which will accommodate the new development. The new development will consist of four and one-half levels. Enclosed parking will inhabit the lower two and one-half levels. Commercial and residential units will be located on top of that. The entry to the parking structure will be on the First Street side and alley side. The project also consists of a plaza area facing the Ashland Springs Hotel and will link with the New Theatre at the other end of the block on Pioneer Street. Overall, Staff believes the applicants have done a great job so far; however, not enough detail has been submitted. Therefore, Staff is recommending a continuance in order to give the applicants time to turn in more information. Knox further explained Variances and Exceptions to the Site Design and Use Standards are being requested relating to the separation between buildings and to allow balconies on the street facing elevations. In addition, Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 2 October 8, 2003 CITY OF -ASHLAND a Variance to allow less than 65% of the total gross floor area of the ground floor to be occupied by a permitted or special permitted use. Staff does not feel the separation issue is a problem in the downtown area because structures can be built up to the property line. He noted that this condition would be for buildings on the same tax lot. He stated balconies are rare downtown, however, considering they will be facing Hargadine Street (which is residential on the south side) and the fact that they are on a side street, they may be appropriate. He noted the City is encouraging living in the downtown area. Nevertheless, he noted that additional detail is needed in order to evaluate the significance of the Variance request. Shostrom opened the public headng. Applicant Ed Bemis introduced himself and his wife, Tanya, to the Commission. He stated that he has lived in Ashland a long time and he and his wife have finally found the ideal place to live - in one of the residential units of the proposed development. He stressed the necessity of keeping the project moving. Architect Ken Ogden said he agrees with Knox this is a big project. He related those involved with the development want to improve what is on the site now - a parking surface with no landscaping. The design was kept Iow out of respect for the Hargadine neighbors across the street. Maximum height is not an issue, as they are well below the limit. He said he is perplexed about Staff wanting a continuance because the design of the building is compatible with the Downtown core and it is also conducive to living in the building. He related they took some of the elements found in downtown buildings and introduced these features into the proposed building. He also explained where the vehicle entrance points are located off First Street. Concerning the building separation, Ogden said they are getting separation of the mass by the vertical lines. Ogden then turned the meeting over to his associate, David Wilkerson, who said this building makes great strides in improving the downtown residential living. In order to make the building work, it must replace the parking capacity that currently exists for Ashland Springs Hotel plus provide parking for the uses in the building. Since the proposed building is large and the elevations that were submitted are small, Wilkerson used a 3-D computer modeling program show a portion of the structure. He proceeded to demonstrate and explain the image on the screen. The arcade, or plaza area, has an arch at each end and is an open canopy. Railings on the balconies will be wrought iron. The projecting balconies are on the corner, which diminishes the bulk of the building and creates a vertical orientation. Giordano asked how much higher the new building will be than the existing parking garage. Ogden responded it will be two levels higher. Wilkerson reminded the Commission it is the City's desire to accommodate residential living in the Downtown area. Krach inquired about the height of the Cabaret Theater and Wilkerson said he didn't know the exact height but that the new building will be lower, He also maintained the vertical lines break up the mass. Bemis said the architects were careful not to copy the architecture of the hotel, but the architecture of buildings in the downtown area was utilized in the design of the new building. Saladoff asked about the materials and Wilkerson replied stucco pilasters, brick and granite will be used, which will balance the amount of glazing that was scaled back to comply with the Standards. Giordano commented the portion of the building on the computer helps and he feels the project is heading in the right direction. Knox agreed the applicants have taken great strides to comply with the ordinances. Ogden and Wilkerson stated they could use the computer to show more detail when more information is entered. Bemis added he would like to work to NOT continue the hearing. For the Planning Commission meeting, they will have a more powerful computer for the program and can print large 3-D drawings. At this point, not all the information has been entered into the computer, thus only a portion of the building can be seen. Ogden then stated the basic materials have been identified. Knox asked what type of block, finish, and window style and transparency will be used. He said it is necessary to know how the matedal will be used together. Cross sections of specific areas would help in the evaluation. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 3 October 8, 2003 CiTY OF : SHLAND Saladoff stated the project can be examined at several different levels, but it is difficult to grasp the whole project. He agreed this is a great beginning. He would like to know what design elements were taken from the neighborhood. If approval is granted, he said it would be necessary to see more detail as they go along. Giordano added that he feels the applicants should get support on the Vadancas and that they are proceeding in the right direction. However, he also feels that more detailing is necessary. A portion of the building should be blown up to show the details. Photos of buildings used in the design would help. He also said he thinks a project of this proportion takes time to evaluate and shouldn't be rushed. He would like to see more and have more information. Leighton stated the project needs to be looked at as a concept using the entire block and more detail is needed. She also noted the colored drawing has a different roofline than the computer rendering. Ogden explained the colored drawing takes precedence. Wilkerson stated he will take the articulation of the colored drawing and relate it to the 3-D computer program. Leighton questioned the large mass in the middle of the building and Ogden said it was the elevator shaft. He also said that where the railings are drawn, the balconies are located. Knox said there is nothing to indicate the depth or projection of the balconies. Wilkerson stated the structure will be pre-cast concrete with a stone veneer on the base. Bemis again stated he would like to move ahead with this project and that with all due respect, the plans had been submitted a month prior and they just found out Staff is asking for a continuance. Knox countered this is a huge project for the City and Staff does not want to rush this through without knowing or understanding the design components. Aisc, this is the first time all of the members of the Historic Commission had seen the design of the building. Wilkerson interjected there is only a small window for construction here. Tanya Bemis added the parking portion of the building needs to be completed by next June for the hotel. Furthermore, Wilkerson said they have been working on this project for the past six months and they are just now getting to the point to where they could bring it to the Historic Commission. They have been taking a little at a time and fine tuning the many components. Krippaehne said she personally feels she is getting a lot of information and that she thinks it is premature to ask people to come in with cross sections at this time. She sees the concept with what was submitted. Knox explained the ordinance does not say anything about conceptual approval. With the drawings that were submitted, it is difficult to pick up what is recessing or projecting, where the entrances are, and overall, if the design meets the required standards. Kdppaehne argued that to expect a cross section from top to bottom and details at this point is premature. Saladoff stated that even if the Commission were to say the applicants are going in the right direction, it seems to be counter to the Planning Commission because there is not enough detail. Knox agreed and said this project is of such magnitude given the size and variances being requested, that if Staff doesn't have a good feel or understanding that the proposal meets the criteria, then what about the Planning Commission? Ogden argued that details are never defined at this stage no matter what size the project. Aisc, many details won't be known until the structural details are worked out. Knox asked where the doors would be located, noting he can't see how the project meets the design standard for "sense of entry". Ogden stated they would like to get approval and keep the Historic Commission involved at each stage because the design has to evolve through a sense of discovery. Skibby declared approval would be premature at this point because more details are needed in order to make a decision. Witkerson said that no where in the Standards does it call for such details. The plans will be about 200 sheets of drawings anyway. It is premature to provide such details that might change. Knox related that every project that comes in almost always ends up having some changes, especially with those of this magnitude. For those minor design changes, the process is to come back to the Historic Commission. The question is what percentage of change should be allowed? Bemis maintained they need to be able to go to the next stage. He would like conceptual approval, but would come back for final approval. Ogden agreed that they would come back with each stage. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 4 October 8, 2003 CiTY OF ,-ASHLAND Saladoff explained that the Commission has been deceived in the past because the design that gets approval is not what is built. Ogden said they would like to get Historic Commission endorsements before they go on to each stage. Wilkerson added their goal is to win several design awards so they would be willing to agree to whatever it takes, and it behooves everyone to get approval before they go on. Ogden stated that when the Bemises first came to his office, they conveyed their respect of the downtown and their desire to live on this site in a first rate quality building. They are totally willing to come back several times. They now have the opportunity take a derelict parking lot and turn it into a jewel. This is a win/win situation. He assured the Commission they would get its approval before they go on and they will work until everyone is on board with this. Knox stated that to be fair to the Historic Commission and the public, there are design issues that need to be addressed prior to granting approval. Shostrom added that other major projects have come to the full Commission very eady in the process to get direction, including the applicant and the architect. Construction of this magnitude is a long process and there is plenty of work to do in the meantime if there is a continuance. He said that typically, architects would have come before the full Historic Commission prior to this point. Wilkerson said he would like the Commission to separate the Variances with the design issues. He again stressed the necessity of breaking ground in November to be finished by April. Knox stated that with a Type II planning action, the Planning Commission makes a decision one month, the Findings of Approval document is adopted the following month and then there is a 15-day appeal period. This process typically takes 45 days. He stated the Planning Department could possibly work with the applicants in adopting the Findings at a study session meeting to knock a couple weeks off the time period if the continuance is agreed upon. Saladoff repeated the applicants and architects need to give more information to the Commission prior to a recommendation for approval. Bemis asked the Commission to seriously look at the project and give enough input so they could still go before the Planning Commission next week and then get final approval later. Ogden talked about the massing of the building, stating they wanted to create a strong base. Because the gradient is so steep, the base is brought into two levels and will be made with a stone veneer. Color tones for the base will be deeper than the rest of the building. More glazing was integrated to meet the Standards for commercial buildings. The floor entrances will be located where the sidewalks meet the grade, and will be more typical of materials found in commercial buildings. Materials will be more residential for the upper levels, using exterior pilasters and various depths. There are no details for the railings yet. Because the upper levels will be residential, lighter materials such as wood or metal will be used. The base is heavier. Steel windows with divided light will be used because they are more powerful than wood. Ogden offered to bring in samples to have the Historic Commission look at before going ahead with their usage. Light fixtures are unknown at this time, but would get input as details are discovered. Ogden then said similar details in the headers and cornice moldings were repeated (not directly copied) of the historic building across the street (Citizen's Banking & Trust) and Ashland Springs Hotel in the design of the new building. He pointed out the actual details were not mimicked or replicated. Since the proposed building will begin in 2003, it needs a little venue of its own but it will be done in such a way to respect the flavor of the Downtown area. Shostrom stated he generally likes the proposed design. He questions the amount of glazing, however on the First Street side. Also, floor plans would help to see how deep the balconies are. if more details of the building were submitted, it would help in making a decision. It is also difficult to tell what the exposed stairway on the Hargadine Street side of the building will look like. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 5 October 8, 2003 CiTY OF , SHLAND Ogden explained the stairway will create more of a defined level and the stairs will be an architectural feature that is repeated in the canopies. It will be a sense of entry to the residential units. Shostrom said it would be nice to have a drawing of how it will tie in to with the building. Ogden and Wilkerson also explained the canopy from the new building to the hotel and marquees, which will be over the entrances, including the vehicle entrances and the elevator. Wilkerson also cladfied the gdllage in the parking structure will only be seen from the alleyway and existing parking garage. Shostrom asked if there would be retail units on the Hargadine Street side. Knox answered there will be commercial and residential condominiums. Wilkerson said they are not sure if the commercial units would be retail or office space at this time. They will be designed with a flexibility that could change with time. Ogden added the architects are not defining the usage. Knox said if the units turn into residential condos, Planning would have to notice them as such because 65% of the ground floor has to be in commercial usage. Wilkerson said that they are currently proposing 58% to be commercial, thus the Variance request. Krippaehne asked about using access for parking from the alley between the hotel and the proposed building. Ogden responded they would like to keep the pedestrian flow through that area so access will be off First Street and the alley between the building and the existing parking garage. This should also reduce the vehicular trips on Hargadine Street. Saladoff noted the architects have talked a lot about the heavy base. He stated the hotel has a base, middle and top. The proposed building has a base and middle but does not seem to have a defined top. Ogden stated the tops along East Main Street are treated with cornices. Wilkerson added they picked up lines from the surrounding neighborhoods and tried to mix it up a bit by using cornices, sections, etc. Saladoff said he would like to see the top finished in a nice way. Ogden agreed with the Commission in that they want to do the building right. They want to be proud of it and want the community to be proud of it also. They are not proponents of the Historic Commission desires. They have clients who want to do the right thing also. Knox said there are traditional widths in the facades found in the Downtown and asked if additional vertical elements creating the sense of traditional widths could be incorporated. Skibby stated that it sounds like the design could change quite a bit but Wilkerson countered that no drastic changes would take place. Shostrom commented the amount of glazing proposed for the new building makes it feel a little transparent. Krach mentioned he had recently had the opportunity to visit the UCLA campus and go through the new UCLA Medical Center, which is still under construction. The building, which was designed by modernist architect I.M. Pei, backs up against a corridor that leads to the historic core of the UCLA campus, which has some very famous Romanesque buildings dating back to the eady 1920s. The transition between the historic buildings and the new building was defined by using aspects of both. Krach asked about the dialogue of the odginal hotel with the proposed new building. He wanted to know how they are integrated. Ogden replied with the replication of the base and color compatibility, the two buildings will not scream opposition. Textures and colors will also speak with each other. The vertical elements defined within the tower on the hotel are used along with the clear baselines that stop at the street. They have also created a horizontal rhythm and patterning. The clear base is a repetition of forms. It was not appropriate to replicate the arches, but the reminiscence of the arches is used in creating the separations in the new building. Krach expressed his wish that they will always keep in mind that they must retain a connection between the two buildings. Ogden said he pddes himself in listening to his clients and also taking input from the Historic Commission, which will be integrated in the design. Wilkerson added that even though there will be separate ownership in the hotel and the new building, the garage will be used by all. They wanted to develop something that would provide a high caliber and feel for the hotel also because the building will also be used by the hotel guests for parking. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 6 October 8, 2003 CITY OF -ASHLAND Giordano stated the concept is going in the right direction. There is an opportunity in the architecture to make a good transition between the two buildings. He said the base is not a true base. There is a lot of glass, but to introduce less, would create more mass. Ogden assured the Commission he heard the concerns and will integrate them into the design of the proposed building. Leighton commented the Hargadine Street and plaza area sides both work as articulation of space. The other sides repeat this. Having a heavier base than what is shown on the plans will create a stronger block between the units. She wouldn't want to see a checkerboard effect. Shostrom commented there is a lot of grill work. Giordano left at this time due to illness (9:15). Shostrom closed the public hearing. Shostrom asked if the Commission were willing to move this project forward with what has been presented. He stated this is a high-end project so it seems contrary to fast track it at this point. Since the Commission would normally see projects of this size at least a couple times prior to this point and since this is the first the full Commission had the opportunity to see the plans and talk with the architect and owner, he feels the drawings are still in a conceptual stage and not ready for approval. Skibby agreed. Krach also stated that is a very cogent point, and although the architects and owners swear to come before the Commission at various stages, he said he feels it would be forsaking the Historic Commission's fiduciary to the public to do the very best in making decisions to recommend approval at this point. He said there are strong points on both sides and the decision will be tough. Saladoff would like to figure out a way to say the applicants and architects are going in the right direction with conditions following up this review with several reviews, but he is concerned about the process. There seems to be a need to see the process go through before winter and that any delay would cause the project to come to a halt. Knox stated that legally, the Planning Commission may not be able to defer its decision te another body nor defer to another body to make sure the Findings are met. The Historic Commission needs to feel comfortable with the decision as to if the design standards have been met - not will they be met. The Planning Commission has to make the same findings. The decision the Planning Commission makes is challengeable, which would mean even longer delays. It is important to process this application as a whole. The Commission needs to be comfortable with the level of details. The Commission has heard a lot of things tonight and there may be times that the client won't agree with the Historic Commission. Saladoff said the applicants are going in the right direction, but he wants to see more detail. Obviously, the Commission is concerned. Skibby agreed and repeated there really isn't enough detail to make a decision because no one knows what the final design will look like. Everything seems too "iffy". In order to make a decision, it is necessary to look at what has been presented. Krippaehne disagreed and said she could personally make a judgement if the applicants are meeting the intent of the Standards with concerns that have been heard. Shostrom said that when he thinks of other projects of this magnitude, details are totally lacking with this. If the architects take all the input received, the building would look totally different. Kdppaehne asked if buildings should be designed from the outside in or from function. She feels the design should develop more organically. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 7 October 8, 2003 CITY OF ASHLAND Shostrom maintained this project should be looked at in comparison with other projects. What has been submitted at this point to the Historic Commission feels more like a pre-application. Leighton stated the time element is not the fault of the Histodc Commission and it should not have to worry about when the applicant is ready to break ground. It is not the responsibility of the Histodc Commission to worry about the time schedule. Whitford said that a couple months ago a completely different design was presented for the pre-application conference. At that time, Historic Commission concerns were noted and changes were made. He said he personally likes the changes that were made, but he knows the Commission is not seeing what will eventually get built. Before he makes a final decision, he said he needs to see more of the final design. Leighton questioned if two motions could be made regarding this application, one denying it as submitted and one accepting the concept with a huge list of conditions. Knox believed it would be fine. Leighton moved to recommend denial of Planning Action 2003-127 as presented. Skibby seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Leighton then moved and Whitford seconded to recommend conceptual acceptance of Planning Action 2003- 127, with the need for the applicants to provide more specific details to the full Commission based on the input and considerations expressed by the members tonight. The motion was unanimously approved. For clarification purposes, the Historic Commission would like to see plans incorporating the following details next month: · Elevations with a much larger scale · Basic floor plans in order to see the size/depths of the balconies · Cornice details · Cross sections that show the relationship of the glass and the doorways · Stairwell details · Enlarged plans showing depth and shadowing · Plans that depict the size of the proposed building in relation to the surrounding area. Saladoff commented that next month won't be the last time the Commission will see the project, as he would expect to see it throughout the process. Krach added that he wanted the applicants to know the Commission strongly supports the development of the site and that the members would like to help make the project go forward. OLD BUSINESS Review Board - Following is the October schedule for the Review Board, which meets every Thursday from 3:00 to at least 3:30 p.m. in the Planning Department: October 9th October 16th October 23rd October 30th Skibby and Shostrom Skibby, Saladoff and Krippaehne Skibby, Leighton, Whitford and Shostrom Skibby, Krach and Giordano Proiect Assiqnments for Planninq Actions PA #2000-120 485 "A" Street (Steve Hoxmeier) PA #2002-100 142 East Main Street (Earthly Goods) Shostrom Leighton Ashland Historic Commission Minutes 8 October 8, 2003 PA #2002-125 PA #2002-127 PA #2003-005 PA #2003-035 PA #2003-045/1 lO/122 PA #2OO3-O9O PA #2003-094 PA #2003-108 PA #2003-092 CITY OF -AS| ILAND 44 North Second Street (Trinity Episcopal Church) NW Corner North Main & Maple Streets Intersection (ACHF) 35 S. Second Street (Winchester Inn) 665 East Main Street (Kirk McAIlister) 230/232 VanNess Avenue (Serin Eggling/Sherri Morgan) 125 North Main Street (Lynn Thompson) 45 Wimer Street (Paul Crafft) 115 Church Street (Nancy Seward and Tim Bond) 124 Alida Street (Kirt Meyer and Vadim Agakhanov) Skibby Krippaehne Krippaehne Shostrom Leighton Krach Whitford Saladoff Krippaehne Possible National Reqister Nomination for Lithia Sprinqs Property - There has been no change on this as there is no longer an intern available to work on it. Knox will keep the Commission informed on the status. Carneqie Library Restoration - Skibby reported Mayor Alan DeBoer had called him regarding the historic Mickelson Chapman Fountain in front of the library. He would like to see the sidewalk behind the statue removed and replaced with landscaping. Also, he is asking the Public Arts Commission to spend money to restore the fountain, which has not worked for many years. DeBoer wanted input from the Historic Commission regarding these items. The Commission had no problem with the sidewalk removal and landscaping since that portion of the sidewalk was not originally there. The members also commented they were pleased the fountain would be restored. Furthermore, Skibby said the Mayor wanted the Commission to know he is still pursuing the restoration of the cornices in the rear of the Carnegie Library. The original bid was too high so he is looking for better pricing on the project. Shostrom stated it is important that the materials of what is existing be copied rather than substitute other materials. Skibby said he would call DeBoer back to make sure he understands. NEW BUSINESS: It was the unanimous decision of the Commission to extend the meeting past 10:00. Election of Officers - Officers will be as follows: Shostrom will remain Chairperson, Vice-Chair will be Skibby, and Krach and Saladoff will share Planning Commission Liaison and Council Liaison. ITEMS NOT ON AGENDA: Krach asked the members how they would feel about having links to histodc preservation sites incorporated with the Historic Commission information on the City's website. All agreed the links would be good educational tools. This will be discussed in more detail at the November meeting. ANNOUNCEMENTS The Commission was reminded there will be a meeting at 5:30 p.m. on October 21st for open discussions on design aspects and styles within the community (including form, function and exterior design), points of view, bases used in making decisions, controversial structures/planning actions, etc. ADJOURNMENT With a motion by Skibby and second by Leighton, it was the unanimous decision of the Commission to adjoum the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Ashland Historic Commission Minutes October 8, 2003 9 JOINT STUDY SESSION CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMISSION HOUSING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Problem Solving "Now x2" Call to Order: Meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m. Attendance: Council: Alex Amarotico, Don Laws, Kate Jackson, Chris Hearn, Cate Hartzell Staff: John McLaughlin, Gary Collord Planning: Russ Chapman, Colin Swales, Raymond Kistler, Cameron Hanson, Marilyn Briggs, David Dotterrer, Michael Morris Housing: Joan Legg, Jonathan Uto, Larry Medinger, Andy Dungan 1. Review and Recommendation of Potential Growth Areas Community Development Director John McLaughlin explained they are gathered to discuss the Now x2 Program, and to consider what the valley will look like with double the population and how Ashland will accommodate the growth. Councilor Jackson noted the goal is to accommodate the population growth, but this program was initially created with the serious intent of preserving farmland. John McLaughlin explained Ashland currently has constraints, including not wanting to expand across the freeway or into the hillside for environmental concerns. He also noted that Ashland and Talent are only a few hundred yards apart and they are not planning on expanding out towards Immigrant Lake. With this in mind, there are two small areas that they are looking at. The first is ADI: approximately 90 acres located south of Siskiyou Blvd, between Tollman Road and Crowson Road. And the second is AD2: approximately 96 acres located along the south side of East Main Street. There have also been the three other areas proposed by residents, including the Young Property and the Mountain Meadows Property. At the last meeting, they had put forth 2 options. Option 1 recommended the inclusion of one or more of the potential growth areas outlined, and Option 2 recommended that no potential growth areas be adopted at the present time. Option was 2 was chosen after a split straw vote. McLaughlin explained AD1 would be more difficult to build multi-family housing, due to the slopes, but noted it is close to schools and the Bi-mart and Albertson shopping centers. The flatness of AD2 would provide a great opportunity, and the proximity to services makes it a Ashland Joint Study Session Page 1 of 5 October 28, 2003 likely candidate. However ifAD2 was built up, the present views of the agricultural land and Mt. Grizzly could be affected. David Dotterrer asked ifAD2 was chosen, would East Main need to be widened to accommodate? McLaughlin replied No. McLaughlin explained the North Mountain areas have constraints that would make it difficult to develop and the closeness to services has been a concern. Also, there is a component of how people vicw Ashland from the freeway, which could be hampered by this development. Another option is 400 acres adjacent to the city limits next to the airport. This is located on the other side of the freeway, and does not have access to city streets or services and is not recommended. McLaughlin explained the next step is for this item to go to the City Council for final consideration, and that they are holding this second Study Session to give the Housing Commission and others the opportunity to voice their comments. McLaughlin stated they are looking at the long-term changes (20-50 years from now), including how will the valley look, and where the growth should take place. Councilor Hearn asked how the traffic plan related to this project. McLaughlin stated that road improvements wilt need to be made, including signals, but they will most likely not need to widen the streets. Councilor Jackson noted that the increase of traffic on East Main has been partially impacted by the construction on Siskiyou Blvd. David Dotterrer, Planning Commission, asked how many people would be accommodated by each of the two proposed sites. McLaughlin responded AD1 could create 450 potential single family homes, while the AD2 area could provide more multi-family housing which would allow for more people. AD2 could also allow for neighborhood commercial zoning. Colin Swales, Planning Commission, expressed his concern that they not only need to look at affordable housing, but also look at the Economic Development Plan to ensure that Ashland can provide decent wage jobs. Larry Medinger, Housing Commission, stated the problem is that the young professionals cannot afford to live in Ashland, and agrees that wages should be raised. Medinger stated they could only counteract this problem by following the action plan and work on some of the great ideas brought forth, like the program that works with the 5 largest employers. Medinger also stated that they need to look at what types of housing these people would be interested in. Some of the young professionals are seeking a house with a yard and the City needs to make sure this type of property is provided. Medinger asked how binding the Now x2 plan was. McLanghlin clarified that there will be a process to update the plan over the years. Ashland Joint Study Session Page 2 of 5 October 28, 2003 Councilor Hartzell asked what the impacts would be of closing this issue until the next review cycle came about. McLaughlin clarified that the regional plan does give flexibility, and could be revised after about 5 years. McLaughlin noted some of the other areas on the valley will have a higher increase, but the goal is to have Ashland share in the responsibility fbr the growth and housing issue. Andy Dungan, Housing Commission, stated he felt the attitude of looking to other cities to accommodate their growth needs in irresponsible and morally inappropriate. He expressed his concern about Ashland becoming even more exclusive and stated the lower end housing problem can only be solved by rentals, and wants to have this in the discussion. Ali Turiel, Jackson County Planning Manager, informed the council and commissioner of an unpublished study that was done with White City. The results of which showed that people were not moving to White City to be closer to their work and community, but rather citizens were commuting further, and living in White City for its reasonable house prices. Juli DiChiro, School Superintendent, stated the young families in Ashland are declining, and would like to see good family housing provided. She stated about 90% of the Ashland school teachers are living in Ashland, but that they are also in their 50s. The schools have not been able to hire any new teacher due to the drop in enrolling children, but will be able to hire again once some of the current teachers start to retire. DiChiro also stated that the City needs good family wage job housing, not the low level affordable housing. She also noted that police officers, firemen, doctors, etc., cannot afford to live here, and that it affects the quality of life when the people you depend on are not able to be residents. McLaughlin clarified that the project at hand is long term, and way down the road. If the council wants to address the city's current affordable housing problems, that is a completely different issue. Councilor Hartzell asked if the City would be able to control how the land was developed in terms of affordability. McLaughlin stated they would not be able to state a specific percentage that needs to be affordable housing. Dungan explained that they could not apply it towards for sale housing, but they could for rentals, which is not against OR Statutes. Public Comment Eric Navickas / 711 Faith Ave. / Stated increased growth would result in a greater water use, worse traffic, and a decrease of aesthetic value as a tourist town. He stated the City has not yet developed fully within the present UGB, and would like to see that done before they look outward. Navickas noted the Railroad District as a good area to increase residential and affordable housing, and expressed his disappointment that they were putting so much focus on the Willow Wind Property. Iraj Ostovar / 389 E. Hersey St. / Stated he was representing the David Young Property off of East Nevada, and feels this would be a good opportunity for the City. He noted a portion of the property is already part of the City, and the capacity for the traffic is already there. He stated this Ashland Joint Study Session Page 3 of 5 October 28, 2003 use could be expedited and used within the next 3-5 years, of they could wait and use it 20+ years from now. Gary Collord / Housing Specialist / Stated this is a tough situation. They could address affordable housing by adding rentals and multi-family properties, but that is not typically the first choice for families. Collord stated the City needs to work on the land use development policies for incentives to developers for building low income housing, and that the City will fail if they do not take the appropriate land use steps. Jonathan Uto, Housing Commission, stated he is frustrated because the people who are making these decisions don't represent him or his peer group. Uto expressed the value of being able to live, work, and send your children to school in the same neighborhood. Uto would like the Council to give this younger group of citizens the option and to not close the door on the issue. Councilor Laws stated they all agree that they need lower cost housing in Ashland, want more children, and would like for the people who work in Ashland to live in Ashland. But also stated he does not think that has to do with Now x2. Laws believes they have areas now that can be used to address these issues, and feels they will have a much better idea of what should be done with the UGB after the 5 years has passed. Marilyn Briggs, Planning Commission, asked if Collord would be able to provide a packet that lists the tools that are at their disposal, as well as what works in other communities that might be applied here. Briggs stated there maybe something that they could start right now, and if they know they will be able to accomplish their goal, everyone will be able to relax. Andy Dungan, Housing Commission, stated the problem is putting all the tools in the same box, and then making the commitment to do something. Dungan stated they need to work with the community and work together with the use of the land use laws. He also expressed this is mainly about keeping their options open and stressed the need to keep flexibility. David Dotterrer, Planning Commission, agreed, stating this is in no way committing themselves and does not think they should cut if off right now. Russ Chapman, Planning Commission, disagrees, and stated they should stay within the UGB and develop it to its full potential, which will take at least 5 years. At the end of those 5 years, they will still have the chance to revisit this issue. He also noted the City can not sprawl its way into affordable housing. Councilor Amarotico agrees with Chapman. Expressing he thought this project was about what Ashland would look like in 50 years. Jonathan Uto, Housing Commission, asked what the danger was of creating the option. Noting they would still have to go through the process if they decided to act. Councilor Hearn stated a potential problem is that things like this tend to gather momentum. Ashland doint Study Session Page 4 of 5 October 28. 2003 Councilor Laws stated he did not want to give the property owners the false impression that they would be able to develop their land and make money. McLaughlin stated the main intention of this meeting was to get advice from the Council and to hear eveyones concerns. Colin Swales, Planning Commission, stated he has not heard anything tonight that is different, and does not feel that the majority vote from the previous meeting has changed. Councilor Hartzell stated there have been a number of options that have been put on the table, and feels there could be value in taking this back to the commissions. However, she suggests giving them the same options to choose from. Andy Dungan, Housing Comnfission, stated he would like to have this joint meeting again to discuss specifically affordable housing. McLaughlin stated this was scheduled to go the council at the next meeting, but it can be delayed if they wanted to take it to vote at the commission meetings first. Adjourn: 9:09 PM Respectfully Submitted, April Lucas, Asst. to City Recorder Ashland Joint Study Session Page 5 of 5 October 28, 2003 Ashland Traffic Safety Commission Minutes September 25, 2003 Members Present: William Snell, Doris Mannion, Terry Doyle, Keith Massie, Terry Doyle, David Chapman, Pam Hammond, John Morrison, Patti Busse Staff Present: Jim Olson, Dawn Lamb, Officer Tom Cook Members Absent:, George Fardlemann, Corey VanLandingham III. CALL TO ORDER APPROVAL OF MINUTES: July 31st Minutes approved as written. FFEMS FOR DISCUSSION: A. PUBLIC FORUM FI'EMS: 1. Request for Stop or Yield Sign on the T-5 Overpass Exit 14 Max Rolih, 2290 E. Main Street, requested that staff and commission consider adding a stop or yield sign to stop vehicles that are traveling onto Ashland Street from the overpass. Vehicles cued to turn left to access I-5 northbound have to wait for traffic going straight across the overpass. The number of cars turning appears to be higher then those turning. It would seem advantageous to stop the traffic heading into Ashland and let the vehicles turning left turn unimpeded. Mr, Rolih is also in support of legislature restricting underage DUI violators from receiving their license until the age of 21. He also asked what the law was regarding signaled intersections affected by power outages. Officer Cook informed the commission that in the case of a power outage the intersection becomes a four-way stop until power is restored. B. REVIEW OF TRAFFIC REQUESTS / PROJECTS PENDING/ACTION REQUIRED 1. City Council Transportation Goals Staff was forwarded a copy of Section 6 of the Council goals for 2003-04. Section 6, Transportation and Transit, lists five goals the council considers high priority. The third goal directly impacts the Traffic Safety Commission and requires the Public Works Department, Engineering Division and Traffic Safety Commission to measurably improve traffic safety in neighborhoods. This is a very worthwhile goal and one that requires a high degree of commitment and effort to accomplish. It is one we should be prepared to spend several meetings discussing. Following is a list of the activities suggested by the council and a brief summary of our actions to date and probable or possible obstacles yet to overcome: DEVELOP A PROCESS TO MONITOR TRAFFIC VOLUMES AND SAFETY IN NEIGHBORHOODS In the early 1970's the Engineering Division began collecting traffic volumes on many of the streets in Ashland. In recent years, Ray Smith has expanded this work to include nearly all of our streets. He has developed a very extensive database and spends many hours a month keeping the data current. Traffic volumes are measured by ODOT certified pneumatic road tube counters. Our efforts surpass many of those put forth by our neighboring cities. We do not, however, currently have a methodology for determining the "safety" of a neighborhood. "Safety" is an ambiguous term and requires further definition. Before we can determine the safety of a neighborhood we must agree upon how to define it. Will safety be determined by the average speed of traffic through a neighborhood? Will it be determined by the 85th percentile speed of traffic? Will it be defined by the number of accidents or the number of citations or the number of complaints received? C:\WlNDOWS\TEMP\September 25 03.doc Page I of 5 PRIORITIZE SPECIFIC NEIGHBORHOODS & EVALUATE TRAFFIC VOLUMES & SAFETY As in the previous section this activity will require additional information and further discussion to implement. We will need to agree upon a method by which neighborhoods should be prioritized. Will they be prioritize according to data gathered under Section i or by neighborhood input, or by the staff's or commission's perception of the problem? One method of assessing the need might be to require that a petition signed by some number of residents be submitted thus triggering an engineering study. The City of Beaverton uses a ranking process that could work well for Ashland. GATHER INFORMATION ON SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS & IMPACTS This would most likely consist of staff and commission members availing themselves of current information on "traffic calming," innovations in transportation safety, and pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements. There are a number of texts, videos and programs available, many of which we have in our Engineering library. Following is a partial list of the publications we have on hand: a. "City Comforts - How to Build an Urban Village" by David Sucher, 176 pg. b. "Reclaiming Our Cities and Towns" by David Engwicht, 190 pgs. c. "Traffic Practices for Local Roads and Streets in Oregon" by Mojie Takallou, 393 pg. d. "A Guidebook for Residential Traffic Management" by WDOT, 87 pgs. e. "Guide to Traffic Engineering Practice - Part 6 - Roundabouts" at Austroads, 88 pg. f. "Modern Roundabouts" by ODOT, 116 pg. g. "Traffic Calming - An Engineering Approach from a European Perspective" seminar proceedings, 150 pg. h. "Livable Communities" by APWA, 20 pg. i. "Guidelines for the Design and Application of Speed Humps" by ITE traffic Engineering, 40 pg. "Neighborhood Traffic Control" by NCITE, 65 pg. k. "Main Street Handbook" by Metro, 36 pg. I. "Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan" by ODOT, 245 pg. m. "Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities" by TI-E, 120 pg. n. "A Guide to School Area Safety" by ACTS Oregon, 21 pg. o. "A Guide to Safety Features for Local Roads and Streets" by USDOT, 50 pg. p. "Smart Development" by ODOT, 60 pg. q. "Traffic Calming Primer" by Pat Noyes and Associates, 20 pg. r. "Improving Conditions for Bicycling and Walking" by FHA, 49 pg. s. "Main Street... When a Highway Runs Through It: A Handbook for Oregon Communities" by ODOT, 102 pg. t. "Pedestrian Facilities User Guide - Providing Safety and Mobility" The above publications and many more are available in the Engineering office and may be loaned out. The attached sheets list some additional publications available from ODOT, APWA and ITE that can be purchased with commission funds. It is important that we all keep as informed as possible on new concepts in transportation safety and traffic calming. Please let me know if specific publications should be acquired. 4. PREPARE AND DISTRIBUTE SAFETY INFORMATION This is one activity the commission has stressed very highly over the past several years. We have been instrumental in producing a variety of educational information including a video on bike and pedestrian safety, theater advertising, utility billing inserts and other media efforts. We cannot afford to lose our momentum in our efforts to educate the public. Every possible avenue should be C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\Septembe. r 25 03.doc Page 2 of 5 explored including more frequent use of the newspaper, distribution of safety brochures, possible paid advertising and other sources which could help spread our message of safety. DEVELOP A PLAN TO IMPLEMENT ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS This activity is perhaps the most difficult to meet as it requires the expenditure of funds which are closely budgeted and in short supply. The City does not currently have an official neighborhood traffic-calming program nor does it have the budget to support one. Some of the larger cities and counties in Oregon have adopted neighborhood traffic calming programs. Other City programs have operated very successfully for many years and rely heavily on citizen involvement including participation in the Neighborhood Speed Watch program. We may wish to review what other cities have done to see if a similar application might fit Ashland. Discussion: Olson asked the commission to help define "safety" in the neighborhood and come up with a way to help prioritize issues in a given area. Other examples of what other Cities have implemented are attached for review. Staff likes the use of the 85% of speed as a criteria and asked for the commission to consider other criteria. Agreed upon identifiers will make it easier to prioritize the neighborhoods and help explain to citizens about perception and factual information. Morrison commented that the council did not do the defining. They are leaving the definitions up to the commission. IVlorrison further suggested using some of the following as criteria: average speed in relation to the 85% percentile speeds, accident history, traffic volumes, neighborhood perceptions, number of complaints and vulnerability assessment (generators in the area that could add to the complexity, i.e. schools, hospitals, bikepaths). Using criteria a scoring system can be established to prioritize the situations. This helps people define their neighborhoods. Busse asked if this would benefit from a sub-committee, Morrison would prefer a sub-committee. Commission asked if accidents had been mapped within the City and asked about the validity of the traffic counts. Smith feels confident that his counts are reasonable. State mandates that traffic counters be calibrated and certified by ODOT yearly. Traffic counts on all streets are required once every three years. Smith works diligently to accomplish this schedule. The typical increase is about 1- 3% a year. If the increase is greater there will be a study to determine why. Morrison clarified that the Council hopes to have focus put on the residential neighborhoods as most of the larger streets and highways have been dealt with. Massie suggested borrowing some of the ideas from the Beaverton and Washington County brochures. They require neighborhood participation and promote traffic safety. Morrison proposed creating two separate sub-committees: 1) Define"Safety": David Chapman, Patty Busse, Terry Doyle 2) Brochure Creation: Keith Massie, Doris Mannion, John Morrison The Safety sub-committee will create a list that includes a way to define how safe a neighborhood is using some of criteria similar to Morrison's. This scoring will help prioritize the need of a particular neighborhood. The Brochure sub-committee will work on a brochure similar to the ones created by other cities that help residents to grade their concerns and gives ideas on how to help influence their neighborhood patterns. As for the "Develop a plan implement Engineering Solutions" this is a vague direction. Scope could be very wide. There is currently no budget for implementing the designs that are engineered. Commission could go to Council and ask for a dedicated budget for Traffic Calming. C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\September 25 03.doc Page 3 of 5 Doyle asked if the radar gun was ever lent to residents for speed checks. Without training the gun could be deceiving. Decision: Sub-committees will meet to and bring back information to the next meeting. 2. Selection of Sidewalk Construction for CDBG Funding Staff received notice that there are CDBG monies available for new sidewalk construction within lower income neighborhoods. The following stipulations are attached to the grant: 1. The construction must be new, not a repair of existing sidewalks. 2. The sidewalk must be on a public right of way. 3. The street must be a local or minor street. 4. The project must be within the areas shown on the list below. 5. The area must be within a residential neighborhood. There are several sites identified in Keith's sidewalk inventory that fall within this area. We will need to select several areas for submittal to the CDBG grant coordinator so that we can plan for construction this winter. Following are some suggestions: :~. Lincoln Street: ~[owa Street to East Main Street, east side - 900' 2. California Street: Iowa Street to Quincy Street, east side - 226' 3. Garfield Street: Iowa Street to Siskiyou Boulevard, west side - 471' 4. Wightman Street: Quincy Street to Iowa Street, west side - 300' Please feel free to suggest revisions to this list at our next meeting. Discussion: Commission liked the areas that Olson suggested. Olson said there was enough funding for two sections of sidewalks. Busse suggested doing Lincoln and Garfield and if money remaining was enough to finish up California Street. The funds may be cut back due to expenditures of existing projects. The City goal is still one mile a year of new sidewalk. 3. Granite Street Traffic Study Data collection on Granite Street was delayed until after the start of the school season so that accurate traffic volumes, turn movements and speeds could be acquired. With the closure of Briscoe School, new bus routes and traffic patterns will be developing and it is important that these be incorporated into the traffic mix. We should be able to complete our work for a presentation at the October 23rd meeting. Discussion: Smith had finished the first part of the study and sent it out via email. In a 48 hour period there were 1412 vehicles with an average speed of 24.5 MPH and the 85% was at 33.5 MPH. Only two vehicles in 1400 were going over 40 MPH, 232 were going over 30 rvlPH. The neighborhood will be invited to next month's meeting to go over the complete study. 4. Railroad Crossing Evaluation (Draft Report) In keeping with the stated Ashland City Council goals, we have commissioned HDR Engineering Inc. to provide a study of each of the nine at-grade railroad crossings. The draft report has been recently submitted for staff review. Time permitting I would like to briefly discuss this report in relationship to its impact to traffic safety. Discussion: C:\WlNDOWS\TEMP\September 25 03.do¢ Page 4 of 5 When the crossings are improved they will be replaced with concrete crossings. The rubber crossings have not held up as well as the railroad was hoping. The City pays for the cost of the materials and the construction, but the railroad actually does the construction. Construction cost at this point is estimated at $5,000 per linear foot. OODT has the goal to close crossings and will not help fund any new crossings, if we add a crossing at 4th and Normal Avenue, ODOT will not consider us form grant money. If we add and then close two others it may even out. They have not been studied for closure at this point all that was considered was the volumes of vehicles. This study is a long way from being finished. The next step will be to secure funding through grants and then the issue of closures will be brought to ODOT. Chapman asked if keeping them bike and ped accessible could be considered especially at the 4th and 7th Street crossings. Doyle thought considering closure was pretty extreme considering we only have two trains a day. This does not make sense. Massie concurred that if the City wanted to spend this kind of money he would rather see it go toward traffic calming implementation. Olson explained that the crossings are all deteriorated and that this was a council driven item. The engineer looked at the safety issues and points of conflicts. The money for the study is federally funded. Decision: Staff will keep commission informed on the study. 5. Briscoe School Speed Zone Signs This year marks the first year since 1949 that Briscoe School has not operated as a public school. The closure of Briscoe has required that the transportation route for students be revised. The revised bus route for the Briscoe area goes up Nutley Street to Scenic Drive then north along Scenic to Maple Street with several stops along the way. The bus enters North Main Street at the Maple Street signal. The crosswalk at North Main and Laurel Street is seldom used by students as the routes are located south and north of North Hain Street (on Scenic Drive and Van Ness) The 20-mph speed zones are still in place on North Main Street. While many will agree that the speed zone signs can be effective as a speed reduction tool, we should use them only for the purpose intended and at the proper location. Staff recommends that ODOT be requested to remove the 20-mph speed zone signs as quickly as possible. Discussion: The Commission discussed this situation cautiously. The precedent being set by having the signs remain could be a can of worms. We recently went through a very similar situation with Willow Winds School to have signs. The Oregon Childhood Development Coalition is hosting children from daycare age to grade school. There is a bus service to the school. The area is notorious for speeding and the sidewalks are adjacent to a highway. The speed there now is 30 IVlPH without a schooi district. If ODOT lowers the speed to 25 HPH it may be ok, but at 30 people will be going a little faster. Olson felt if this was a new application for signage he would have refused it but the signs are already present. Decision: Commission has asked staff to postpone removal of the signs pending further information. 6. Intersection Study at South Pioneer/Hargadine Street At the July 31st meeting a request was made to install stop signs at the intersection of Hargadine / South Pioneer and Fork Street. After several on-site visits two problematic traffic maneuvers were common. The first problem is caused by numerous U-turns. The second is a failure of southbound traffic to remain in the designated lane and turn radius when turning left onto Hargadine Street. C:\WlNDOWS\TEMP\September 25 03.doc Page 5 of 5 The commission wished to look further into the use of channelizing islands, bumpouts or other physical barriers to help channel the traffic into proper location, i't was also suggested that the islands might help shorten pedestrian crossings. This intersection is unique in that it joins several streets together at numerous odd angles with a complex combination of street grades. The observed pedestrian routes are random across the center. Few pedestrians use the more conventional routes from corner to corner. The unconventional pedestrian crossings are understandable given the angles and lack of sidewalk at the Fork / South Pioneer corner. The use of a traffic island may cause more safety problems than it solves due to the lack of visibility from two legs of the intersection, the steep grades and the acute angles. For instance, it would be difficult to make a right turn from Fork Street into Hargadine Street with a center diverter island. An island also adds additional potential conflict of vehicles traveling the wrong way around the island. Curb extensions or bumbouts located on Fork Street or the south side of Hargadine or South Pioneer Street would make turning movements more difficult. From staff's view the most likely improvement would be the construction of curb extensions on the north section of Pioneer Street. These would help to define the travel lanes, but may not prevent U-turns. Staff is reluctant to recommend the construction of curb extensions now for the following reasons: 1. These extensions would be costly. With landscaping, the cost may exceed $10,000. 2. The street surface has been replaced recently and the sidewalk on the east side is basically new. The construction would require cutting and patching these new surfaces. Staff recommends that the original recommendation of stop signs and stop bars be authorized at this intersection. It is felt that, while this may not be the ultimate solution, it is the best that can be done quickly to help relieve some problems in the intersection. Discussion: Staff reintroduced a plan for the intersection that had been postponed until after the construction of the New Theatre. To install any new curb, planter and redesign we need substantial funding. There is no guarantee that these additions would even work to stop the u-turns. The same amount of compliance could be achieved with painted stop lines, center lines and the addition of a stop sign. The painting and stop signs could be accomplished before winter, i'f the commission votes to approve the curb bump-outs and other curb treatments staff would need to find funding sources, engineer the additions and finally construction, this could take months. ~,lorrison suggested painting centerlines at the ends of Hargadine Fork Street and Pioneer Street to help channel traffic. Adding a stop bar at the Hargadine Fork Street crux and another at the Pioneer Fork Street crux. The stops will aid pedestrian crossing at the intersections although it appears that most pedestrians don't use any typical crossing patterns because of the layout of the intersection. Busse felt the u-turns were the real problem. It seems many of the u-turns spur from tourists looking for parking but then realize they have passed the theatre area and the road is leading them away from any familiar area. Doyle liked Smith's design for treating the intersection, iVlorrison felt that the painted markings would make the intersection seem smaller and may have psychological effect. Decision: Busse motioned to accept staff recommendations with Norrison's additions for stop bars and centerlines. Seconded by Snell passed unanimously. C. Follow-Up On Previous Actions: D. Traffic Safety Education 1. Making Work Zones Better, October 2-3, 2003 OSU 2. Transportation Safety Conference, October 15-17, Eugene C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\September 25 03.doc Page 6 of 5 IV. 3. Traffic Calming, "Click, Listen & Learn Program, October 16, APWA - Staff will set up viewing in the Council Chambers and notify TSC. Development Review 1. Bike & Ped Commission Report- 2. Planning Commission Agendas- 3. Hearings Board Agenda Capital Projects Update Other 1. Pedestrian Signs -Welcome Signs for Gateways - Olson reported that the signs are ready. Busse would like to do a public relations spiel on the signs being installed. Staff will contact Myles Murphy with the Tidings for press coverage. 2. Report on APD Pedestrian Safety Operation - Volunteers wanted to pass on a situation at the median island on Ashland Street just pass the intersection. When pedestrians are standing in the island where they are supposed to que to walk across they are hidden by the bushes that have been planted. Busse asked Officer Cook to veri~ when a car has to stop for a pedestrian. Does the person need to be stepping off the curb before the car has to stop. Officer Cook explained that the vehicle has to stop when the pedestrian is in the lane adjacent to the traveling vehicle. 3. 2003 ACTS Oregon Mini-Grant 4. Utility Billing Insert 5. Miscellaneous Communication 6. Additional Items Shakespeare Bus Idling - Have we been successful in resolving this issue. Staff has not had any complaints this year. Shakespeare has done a fine job at working with the bus drivers to make sure idling is controlled. Parking Garage is operating well. Morrison commented that it is making enough to cover the loan. Chapman commented that the Great Escapes Trolley is operating in the park with the speakers. Massie spoke with the Pedicab operator and they have ordered their pedicabs for next season. Staff is applying again for ODOT grant funds to realign Wimer and N. Main. Staff will keep commission informed. Adjourned 9:10 PM C:\WlNDOWS\TEMP\September 25 03.doc Page 7 of 5 ASHLAND AIRPORT COMMISSION September 2, 2003 MINUTES MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF: MEMBERS ABSENT: CHAIRMAN PAUL ROSTYKUS, BOB SKINNER, FBO, CLAUDIA STOCKWFLL, BRI'rI'ANY WISE, BRENT THOMPSON, ALAN DEBOER, RICHARD HENDRICKSON PAULA BROWN, DAWN LAMB SCOT DOUGLAS, ANN SKY, WILLIAM SKILLMAN, LINCOLN ZEVE CALL TO ORDER: 10:00 AM APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 5~h minutes were approved with changes. Public Forum: None OLD BUSINESS: A. 2003 Pavement Maintenance Program (PMP) Update Paving should begin the third week in September. Paint removal will happen the week prior. Olson and staff will work closely with Skinner Aviation to coordinate closures and NOTAMS. The paving is scheduled for the 15~h and 16th for crack sealing and paving on the 17th. These procedures are affected by weather and may be adjusted accordingly. Rostykus commented that some work needs to be done to mark the unpainted compass rose. Hendrickson will go out and mark the points. Hangar Spacing Staff is checking with the Fire and Building departments on codes for spacing behveen hangars. DeBoer measured the remaining area and presented two options; one option would be to have 65 foot wide hangars with ten feet in-between, and option hvo being three hangars at 65 feet with five feet between leaving enough room for the last hangar to be 80 feet wide. The distance from the last hangar to the centerline of the taxiway was measured to ensure the width to the centerline matches the distance established by the Sky Research Hangar. If Mafzger withdraws his proposal or revises his width it would be to the commission's interest to agree to a set size and spacing. Commission discussed the use of the space between the hangars. Vehicle parking could be one option if we did the width large enough. The width would need to be more than 10 feet apart for a car to fit and be able to open its doors. That compromises the widths of the hangars. The space should be large enough to allow access for hangar maintenance. If a ladder is used to reach the roof of the hangar, the space should allow a safe pitch of the ladder or allow a scissors type lift. Thompson felt the measurement should be maintained between five and ten feet. Rostykus reminded commission that spaces larger than five feet we lose the space for an 80 foot wide hangar at the end of the row. Adion: Hendrickson motioned to adopt an eight foot (8.0) spacing between the four large private hangar footprints. Seconded by Thompson and passed unanimously. C. FBO Access Road Construction City crews are currently working on building the access road. They should be done within the next week to ten days. This road will be used by employees and delivery companies who have been using the taxiway. This will stop conflicts between vehicles and planes on C:\WlNDOWS\TEMP\September 2 03doc the taxiway. Staff will gather final costs and through prior discussions with Sky at Sky Research an agreement was reached for Sky to pay either one half of the project cost or for the asphalt quantity supplied, whichever is greater. Commission asked if yellow centerlines could be painted down the length of the taxiways. Hendrickson feels at night this is a valuable tool for pilots taxing in. Wise remembered the corner of th~ taxiway at the Sky corner being striped but not the entire taxiway. Hangar Financing DeBoer measured the area for the new bank of t-hangars. His measurements show and area of 55 feet by 300 feet. With standard measurements from manufacturers there could be enough room for 13 to 14 hangars. Commission would like a door clearance of 41.6 feet, 12 foot high building. Brown will need to have specs and options to complete a Request for Proposal. Rostykus suggested a sub-commiffee meet to discuss different options for the hangar requirements. RFP should include construction, building erection, permitting, the asphalt approaches to the hangars, colors, door options, insulation and power. Water and sewer will not be supplied to the hangars. Funding has been researched by the Finance Department. Three bids were received from larger banks that offered a 7-8% interest. Lee Tuneberg, Finance Director, would like to solicit to more local banks. Local banks may be able to offer much better rates. After a funding source is decided on the City Council will have final approval. Commission had discussed looking into prepaid leases to reduce the amount that would need to be financed. During the discussion of hangar utilities it was mentioned that water could be supplied. Brown reminded the Commission that the airport is under very stringent water runoff permitting. The airport possesses a Non-Point Discharge Elimination Source permit through the Department of Environmental Quality which specifically limits the amount of storm water run-off contributed by the airport. It needs to be posted and reiterated to all airport users that washing of aircraft is strictly prohibited. Commission did feel strongly about offering water to the hangars. Action: Thompson motioned to have water available at both ends of the hangar building. Seconded by Hendrickson, vote stood at 2 in agreement, 2 against and one abstention. Vote dies. Water will be reconsidered at a later date. AlP Update The Airport Improvement Program funding is set. Ashland is scheduled to receive monies for medium intensity lighting for the runway. These lights are more then ready for replacement. The cost of the lights will consume about 3/4 of the total $3-400,000. Commission had also put in for funding for a tie-down extension and other items. Staff will bring in a summary of our AlP request for Commission review. The upcoming Master Plan will help identify and prioritize different items to be done at the airport. Commissioners should keep this in mind while we are reviewing the Master Plan Drafts. Much of the AlP money is based on items that are substantiated by the Master Plan. Fencing was a large concern and since 9/11 has become a more emphasized need. Skinner feels the fencing will be more useful for deterring deer and other animals then security issues. 4. NEW BUSINESS: A. Hangar Usage With the blatant misuse of hangars the Commission needs to consider more stringent C:\WlNDOWS\TEMP\September 2 03.doc ways to handle improper use of the hangars, i.e. camping in the hangar, storage of non- aviation related items instead of aircraft. Tara Labs has been in violation for about o year. Correspondence has been sent requesting compliance several times to no avail. This kind of abuse of the spirit of the airport is a lengthy time consuming ordeal. Commission would like to review the lease for language that can help to enforce usage. Brown suggested really looking at the lease for inconsistencies within the document. DeBoer suggested applying a fee to renters who are in violation of the six month grace period. Brown suggested that annual inspections be established in conjunction with the Fire Department. A commission member should go along as well as a staff member and Dale Peters, Facility Maintenance. Action: Rostykus will be in touch with Dave Hard to ask about an inspection date. Commissioners will be sent a copy of the Minimum Standards and the current lease to review the documents for hangar usage issues. Discussion next month on ideas for enforcement and control. Specialized Aviation Services Operator (SASO) The SASO requirements came under question regarding renting hangar space. The SASO requirements call for a fee, business license and insurance. The SASO fee formula was done for Sky research and may not be equitable for a smaller hangar renter. The profit for a small hangar owner who decides to rent to one other aircraft owner is minimal and to deduct the costs of a business license, extra insurance and SASO fees makes the effort worthless. Is this what we want to accomplish. This has been the ongoing discussion with Jim Matzger and his proposal to build a hangar. Thompson asked if Code Enforcement could be used to police the hangars and owners for compliance. Skinner and the FBO office have posted notices stating that the airport requires all Mobile Service Providers to register in the office, but the private hangars are more prone to observance of what is going on around the airport. Staff sent explanalions of what the Mobile Service Provider and the SASO provide and their requirements along with a copy of the Minimum Standards explaining the different categories. If the recipients were doing operations that qualified them as a SASO or MSP they were to contact staff or Skinner Aviation. Many did not respond. The only SASO we have enforced thus far is Sky Research and the SASO fees were decided at that time. If the commission would like to have sub-categories for different forms of SASOs and negotiate the fees accordingly there needs to be a review of the documents. The current SASO fee is calculated by the square footage of the hangar multiplied by the current hangar land lease rate ($.174) multiplied by 1.6. The 1.6 was a number calculated during the Sky Research lease negotiations. Thompson reminded the commission that the goal is to make the airport self-sufficient and the goal is to make people compliant. The airport's current regulations have been loosely enforced. To implement these requirements will take effort. The airport infrastructure needs to be supported and maintained. These fees will help these specific areas. Hendrickson pointed out the goal as being equity between renting and a full- blown business. If enforcement becomes needed staff will ask Adam Hanks, Code Enforcement Officer for assistance. The Fixed Base Operator should be the observant to the issues, but not the enforcer. If staff can clarify who is a SASO then leffers could be sent informing them of the fees. Then the FBO office can bill them accordingly. Action: Staff will send a copy of the SASO and MSP requirements to each of the commissioners before the next meeting for review. Commissioners will review the documents and the situations and come back with ideas for equity amongst different C:\WlNDOWS\TEMP\September 2 03.doc categories. 5. AIRPORT MANAGER REPORT/FBO REPORT/AIRPORT ASSOCIATION: A. Status of Airport, Financial Report, Review of Safety Reports Charter work is keeping busy. The fuel sales have reached a record high of 11,000 gallons. 6. NEXT MEETING DATE: OCTOBEP~ 7TM , 10:00 AM ADJOURN: Meeting adjourned at 11:25 AM C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\September 2 03.doc 4 CiTY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Synopsis: Termination of a Public Utility Easement Located in the Skycrest Hills Phase II Subdivision Public Works De ~artment November 2, 2~ Paula Brownfi Paul Nolte //~ Gino Grimaldi }3 205 Skycrest Drive, tax lot 391E8AB-210, is encumbered by three waterline easements which were recorded in 1890, 1912 and 1948. The waterlines which once occupied the easements have not been in use for 40 years and the owners have asked that the three easements be terminated. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion to sign the attached quitclaim deed terminating the City's interest in the waterline easements recorded as Volume 20 Page 397 (May 15, 1890); Volume 96 Page 23 (May 6, 1912); and Volume 305 Page 350 (April 6, 1948). Fiscal Impact: None. Background: The three referenced easements were created at a time when the Grandview / Skycrest area was active orchards. The waterlines within the easements supported the raising and processing of the pear crop in that area. The easements were described without specified locations and were shown as being within a larger parcel of land. The easements were referenced on the plat of the Skycrest Hill Subdivision, Phase II with no specific location given. Consequently, each lot within the southerly portion of the subdivision may show the same encumbrances. The easements are specifically listed for waterline purposes and could be used for no other purpose. The earliest easement was purchased for $1.00, the 1912 easement was purchased for $5.00, and the 1948 easement was created without cost to the City. Staff researched the use of the waterlines and ensures that they are no longer active. Attachments: Quitclaim deed for signature, maps, copies of the easements G:\pub-wrks~admin\PB Council\Street E~sement Terminations\CC Skycrest Hills Waterline Termination 11 2 03.doc Ill After [ecor(~ng return to: Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation 1555 E. McAndrews Road, Suite 100 Medford OR 97504 Until a change is requested, all tax statements shall be sent to Grantee at the following address: NO CHANGE STATUTORY QUITCLAIM DEED The City of Ashland, Oregon , Grantor, releases and quitclaims to Terry Clement and Deborah F. Adler-Clement, husband and wife , as tenants by the e~tirety · Grantee, the following described real property: This Deed is being recorded to terminate and el±minate $ inactive pipe line easements from the property described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto record as Volume 20 Page 397 recorded May 15, 1890, Volume 96 Page 23 recorded May 6, 1912 and Volume 305 Page 350 recorded April 6th 1948. The true consideration for this conveyance is $ 0.00. THIS INSTRUMENT WILL NOT ALLOW USE OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THIS INSTRUMENT IN VIOLATION OF APPLICABLE LAND USE LAWS AND REGULATIONS. BEFORE SIGNING OR ACCEPTING THIS INSTRUMENT, THIS INSTRUMENT, THE PERSON ACQUIRING FEE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY SHOULD CHECK WITH THE APPROPRIATE CITY O PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO VERIFY APPROVED USES AND TO DETERMINE ANY LIMITS ON LAWSUITS AGAINST FARMING OR FOREST PRACTICES AS DEFINED IN ORS 30.930. Dated this day of The City of Ashland, Oregon , 200_. Alan DeBoer, Mayor Barbara Christensen, Recorder STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF The foregoinginstrument was acknowledged before methis day of ALAN DEBOER AS MAYOR AND BARBARA CHRISTENSEN AS CITY RECORDER OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND, OREGON , by Notary Public for Oregon My commission expires .12396~ EXHIBIT A Lot Seventeen (17) of SKYCREST HILLS, PHASE 2, in the City of Ashland in Jackson County, Oregon, according to the Official Plat thereof, now of record. (Cods 5-01, Account #1-091743-8, Map #391E08AB, Tax Lot #210) Illlllllltll Vol ~05 Pag~ 350 WARRANTY DEED .............. .......................... (SE~.L) CITY OF ,-ASHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Public Hearing on the modification of the 1995, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003 Annual Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Action Plans for reallocation of unexpended CDBG funds. Community Development November 4, 2003 Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner '~' John McLaughlin, Director of Comm~j/t,~ Development Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator/~ Synopsis: in September, the City initiated the process of reallocating past CDBG awards that have gone unexpended. The reallocation of past awards requires modification of past years CDBG Action Plans through a public hearing process. There is concern that should the same delays in property acquisition persist in the coming years that have occurred in the past, the city will be subject to the Department of Housing and Urban Development's sanctions policy for exceeding the 1.5x cap on accumulated carryover. If no projects are completed prior to November 2004 the amount of potential reduction of future CDBG allocations will be approximately $465,000. Thus it is imperative that the City of Ashland find expeditious ways to expend the current carryover as well as future allocations. Reallocation of previously unexpended CDBG awards addresses this purpose. Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Modification of prior years CDBG Action Plans in accordance with Table 1 provided on page 3 of this communication. Fiscal Impact: No fiscal impact. Involves the reallocation of previously awarded CDBG funds. Background: The City Council reviewed the CDBG program and the issue of accumulated carry-over on September 3rd, 2003 at a study session. The Housing Commission held a special meeting on September 10th, 2003 to address the accumulated CDBG funds and to receive project updates from the subrecipients, the Ashland Community Land Trust and the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation. The Housing Commission recommended modifying the past CDBG Action Plans to provide the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation to combine the 2002 and 2003 CDBG awards to be applied to the purchase of the property located at 2001 Si skiyou Blvd for the construction of 8-11 affordable housing units. The Commission further recommended that RVCDC have until January 30th 2004 to expend the funds or they be recaptured and made available through a new request for proposals. The Housing Commission recommended that the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) retain their $120,000 given confidence that their project to develop 3 affordable housing units has made sufficient progress in recent months. Lastly the Commission recommended that all other carryover and unprogrammed funds should be reallocated through the 2004 Request for Proposals process. On September 16,2003 the City Council reviewed these recommendations and directed Staff to propose the modification of past Action Plans accordingly. RVCDC was awarded $21,000 toward pre-development expenses in 2002 related to the affordable housing project proposed at the Lower Pines site. Of this $21,000 RVCDC expended $7200 on the development of a Relocation Plan for the residents of the trailer park. Although this activity was not completed, the plan development was paid out of the CDBG program. RVCDC requested the remaining $13,800 be applied toward predevelopment expenses on the Siskiyou site. However as this project is no longer a tax-credit project, pre-development costs are no longer an eligible use of CDBG funds. Therefore Staff has proposed that these funds ($13,800) now be applied toward public facility improvements at the Siskiyou site, as this would be an eligible use of CDBG funds. The Public Works Department has begun soliciting bids for the accessibility improvements to the Pioneer Hall Restrooms originally identified in the 2002 and 2003 Action Plans. This work will be undertaken during this program year at a cost of approximately $15,000. A table is provided (next page) that quantifies the amount of unexpended funds from each Program Year and their proposed reallocation use. Note the use of those funds identified to contribute to the 2004 CDBG Award is to be determined by the City Council in review of proposals for use the 2004 CDBG Competitive Award. The selected use will be identified in the 2004 Annual Action Plan. 2 TABLE 1 Unexpended CDBG Funds to be reallocated Proposed use to be final at adoption of 2004 Action Plan 95-98 Unprogrammed $21,00C $21,000 2004 CDBG Award 99-00 Accessibility $4,041 i $4,041 2004 CDBG Award 2000-2001 Accessibility $11,050 $11,050 2004 CDBG Award 2001-2002 ACLT $120,000 0 ACLT Hersey Projec~ Accessibility $11,500 $11,050 2004 CDBG Award 2002-2003 RVCDC (Lower Pines) $168,750 $168,750 RVCDC (Siskiyou Prope~y Acquisition) Accessibility $11,250 $~ 1,250 Pioneer Hall Restrooms-ADA 2003 RVCDC (Siskiyou $193,000 0 RVCDC (Siskiyou Prope~y Prope~y) Acquisition) RVCDC (Predevelopment $13,800 13,800 RVCDC (Siskiyou Property costs) Public Facilities ) admin (6 mos overlap) $25,605 $25,~05 2004 CDBG Award accessibility $12,800 $3,750 Pioneer Hall Restrooms-ADA accessibility $9050 2004 CDBG Award CiTY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Public Hearing on Grant Award for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Affordable Housing Project Proposal for program 2004. Community Development November 4, 2003 Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner ~' John McLaughlin, Director of Comm~ily Development Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator '~/111 ~ Synopsis: The City Council is charged with selecting the award recipient for the 2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. A total of 75% o£Ashland's yearly allocation is available for the competitive award process to serve the highest priority need established in the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. Additionally the City Council reviewed the reallocation of past unexpended CDBG funds on September 16,2003, and directed Staff to combine those available funds with the 2004 allocation. HUD has not yet released the final amount available for distribution, but we anticipate an award equal to the 2003 allocation.. Thus the City will have approximately $285,000 available for the competitive award process available to the selected sub-recipient(s) for use in developing affordable housing. This is the eleventh year that the HUD has awarded CDBG funds to the City o£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. Given Ashland's ongoing issue with the timely expenditure of funds and the potential loss of future funding if projects are not completed expeditiously, consideration of the ability to proceed within the program year is also of importance when granting CDBG awards. Recommendation: The Ashland Housing Commission examined the allocation of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds at a public hearing on October 22, 2003. The Housing Commission recommends that the Ashland Community Land Trust receive the entire award allocation of $285,000 for the purchase of an existing duplex at 264 Grant Street. Minutes from the Housing Commission meeting are attached to this communication. Staff supports the recommendation of the Housing Commission based upon a determination that the proposed project is an eligible use of CDBG funds and will address the highest priority need identified in the Affordable Housing Action plan, the provision of affordable rental housing. Staffs full evaluation of the proposals received is included as Exhibit A (Staff Evaluation). Fiscal Impact: Award of this grant will result in the expenditure of $285,000 of CDBG funds. Background: The City received two proposals for use of the $285,000 cumulative 2004 CDBG award ($192,000) and reprogrammed funds from 1995, and the 1999-2003 program years ($93,000). A request for proposals was issued on September 24th, with a submittal deadline of October 17th. The City received one proposal from the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) and one from the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation. The ACLT proposal consists of purchasing an existing duplex at 264 Grant Street to enable ACLT to maintain the units as afibrdable. The merits of the project are outlined in ACLT's proposal, with an evaluation provided by Staff in the Staff Evaluation. The RVCDC proposal involves the acquisition of the rear of the property located at 631 Clay Street for the development of 16 townhouse units to be developed in conjunction with the USDA Self-Help Program. The merits of the project are outlined in RVCDC's proposal, with an evaluation provided by Staff in the Staff Evaluation. These proposals were evaluated by the Housing Commission at a public hearing during their regular meeting on October 22nd, 2003 in the Community Development and Engineering Services building at 51 Winbum Way. At this hearing the Commission deliberated on the merits and risks of each proposal and through a 3-2 vote recommended that the City Council provide the full award to the Ashland Community Land Trust. The Housing Commission had voiced a number of concerns about each project during the hearing, to which Staff has researched the issues to provide a response for Council's evaluation. ACLT The Housing Commission voiced concern over the intended use of the rental proceeds should ACLT be awarded the $285,000 for acquisition of the property. Staff has determined through consultation with our regional field office that HUD will not consider such income "Program Income" and the use of these proceeds would not be held to CDBG requirements. Additionally members of the Commission expressed concern whether the amount of subsidy into the ACLT project would be in violation of CDBG requirements. This concern was relayed to Ashland's HUD representative and it was determined that there is no per unit cap regarding CDBG contribution to a project, therefbre there is no regulatory issue with the potential award of $285,000 for a 2 unit acquisition. Staff further determined that to comply as an eligible use of CDBG funds, only one of the two units would be required to be aflbrdable to low- moderate income households. RVCDC The Housing Commission raised the issue as to whether Ashland qualified as a "Rural" community and could therefore qualify for the USDA Self-Help Program. In consulting with the regional representative of the USDA, staff found that the threshold for eligibility for rural assistance has changed from a population of 20,000 to 25,000. Therefore Ashland is considered a rural area and will continue to be considered rural by the USDA. The Commission also expressed significant concern over the valuation of the subject property identified in RVCDC's proposal. The proposal stated a land cost of $675,000 which was considered high by members of the Commission and Staff. It is Staffs understanding that RVCDC is endeavoring to provide a revised valuation by either having an appraisal conducted or by evaluating more accurate comparable land sales. It is important to note that the use of CDBG funds on the project would require that "fair market value" be offered for the property, and that the purchase not be in excess of this value as established by a certified appraisal. Lastly the Housing Commission, and Staff, have expressed concern over RVCDC's readiness to proceed. Of particular concern was that as the Siskiyou/Faith project has yet to begin, it was of concern that this second "phase" would not be undertaken during the upcoming program year. In consulting with USDA, should a Self-Help grant be provided to RVCDC it was expressed that a Self-Help project is typically conducted over a two year timeframe. With a first set of homes constructed in the first year, with a second set being undertaken in the following year. With this understanding Staff recommends that RVCDC apply for CDBG funds in 2005 to accommodate the second phase of the project. CiTY OF ASHLAND Staff Evaluation DATE: TO: FROM: RE: October 22, 2003 City Council and the Ashland Housing Commission Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) 2004 Funding Requests The City of Ashland has received two proposals for the allocation of approximately $285,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for Program Year 2004. Proposals requested were limited to affordable housing projects, the highest priority need identified in the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. The City received one proposal for land acquisition to construct affbrdable housing which benefit low and moderate-income people and one proposal to acquire an existing duplex to be used as affordable housing. The City of Ashland Housing Commission will review the grant requests on October 22, 2003and make a recommendation for grant awards to the City Council. Subsequently, the City Council will hold a public hearing (November 4, 20043) and make a final decision on the grant award(s). The City Council may choose to allocate all the resources available to one project, or a maximum of two projects per fiscal year. Proposals Received Two proposals totaling $570,000 were received and are listed below: Organization Proposed Project CDBG Funds Requested Ashland Community Land Acquisition of an existing $285,000 Trust (ACLT) Duplex Rogue Valley Community Acquisition of land for $285,000 Development Corporation affordable housing and I (RVCDC) commercial space Funding Requested/Available The City anticipates it will receive $256,000 in CDBG funds from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in 2004, Seventy-five percent of the yearly allocation, $192,000 is to be awarded to eligible projects in accordance with the City of Ashland 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. Additionally, approximately $93,000 in previously Department of Comraunl~/Development Tel: 541 488-5305 20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us CDBG RFP Staff assessment 2002-2003 unexpended CDBG funds is to be reallocated through this award for a cummulative award of approximately $285,000. The Consolidated Plan sets forth spending priorities in the following order of importance; housing, homelessness, poverty, other special needs, and community development. Assessment Staff has assessed if the proposals received meet the federal CDBG regulations, and if the proposals comply with the City of Ashland 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. Three areas are evaluated for each proposal regarding compliance with federal regulations. First the proposed projects must meet the national 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 must 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. Ashland Community Land Trust The Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) proposal is to use $285,000 in CDBG funds to assist in purchasing a property located at 264 Grant Street. The property is .22 acres in size and currently contains a single story structure containing two residential units approximatly 880sq.ft. each.. Acquisition of buildings and other real property improvements, including the land, is considered an eligible use of CDBG funds, provided the use complies with the eligibility requirements. The proposed housing units will meet the national objective of primarily benefiting low and moderate income households. The proposal states that the rental units proposed would provide rental oppommities to households with less than 80% of area median income. The property acquisition proposed is a relatively straightforward use of funds in terms of meeting the myriad of applicable federal regulations throughout the development of the project. The duplex was built in 1980 according to the applicant's submittal, thus lead based paint should not be present. Thus lead-based paint abatement would not be required in conjunction with the rehabilitation of these structures. Additionally as the application sites that these residential units are currently rentals, the proposal does address the potential or process for relocation as required by the federal Uniform Relocation Act (URA). The application identifies a very short term displacement (4 day) of each of the units to allow for minor rehabilitation and weatherization of the structure. Estimated costs associated with this temporary relocation is provided by ACLT as an attachment to their application. The Application indicates that both tenant households in the existing duplex qualify at less than 80% median income and ACLT has indicated that they have expressed interest in remaining in the dwellings. Both units would have to be occupied by households with less than 80% of Depar~ent of Communily Development Tel: 54~ 488-5306 20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, O~egoe 97520 TTy: 800-735-2900 www.ashland or.us F_vl CDBG RFP Staffassessment 2002-2003 area median income to be considered an eligible activity. If the current residents did not qualify to remain in the existing unit(s), with low-moderate income and are therefore displaced, they may be eligible for relocation benefits under the URA. Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) purchase of Existing Duplex. strengths weaknesses · Meets one of highest priorities in ,, Limited match provided. Our CDBG Consolidated Plan - provision of guidelines look for a 10% match, this is not affordable rental housing, provided in the proposal. Only 4.2% shown. · The target group for this 2 unit duplex · Limited number of affordable units (2) are households earning less than 80% relative to the amount of CDBG contribution of area median income. Retains requested ($285,000). existing housing for the current tenants. · Rental units (2) will remain affordable · The application states the high subsidy into perpetually through the Land Trust the project will allow ACLT to operate the model. However the ACLT Board and rentals substantially free of debt (response Membership has the authority to # 11). Staff then questions why the target liquidate assets, thus City Staff population could not be restricted to low or recommend a minimum duration of extremely low income households for one or affordability in the event CDBG funds both of the units. One of the two households are contributed to the project, currently occupying the dwelling qualifies as extremely low income (less than 50% area median). · No land use process to undertake, · One of the existing housholds is shown to existing approved 2-unit development have an annual income of $35,000, however on site. Readiness to proceed is high the maximum income for a family of 2 with some rehabilitation required, persons is $31,700 at 80% of median income. Income verification would be required to determine eligibility. · Administrative Capacity: Although · Relocation (temporary) and rehabilitation ACLT is a volunteer organization they also proposed for use of CDBG funds. Thus have had demonstrated successes three seperate (albeit related) activities within Ashland. Given the simplicity proposed. Staffwould recommend ACTL of the proposal staff has no concerns seek alternative funding sources for the regarding the organizational capacity. "renovation", "relocation assitance", and "contingency" to contribute approximately $29,700 toward the project to comply with the 10% match required. Depa~lment of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TrY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us CDBG RFP Staffasscssment 2002-2003 Rogue Valley CommuniW, Development Corporation The Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) proposal is to use $285,000 in CDBG funds to assist in purchasing a property (rear portion of 631 Clay Street) for the construction of 16 townhouse units the rear of the parcel. The parent property is 1.50 acres in size and currently contains The Clay Street Church of God on the front of the parcel, and a Temporary Use permit for a private school in thc rear of thc parcel. RVCDC proposes utilizing CDBG funds to purchase the rear portion of the property subsequent to a minor land partition and a zone change making the site suitable for a 16 unit development. It is important to note that the site previously was conditionally granted a zone change to allow for the development of a 24 unit senior affordable housing complex.. Thc present zoning of the property is R-l-5, and the applicant would be proposing a zone change to accommodate the density planned. The R-3 zone allows 20 units per acre, the rear portion of the lot being .75 acres would have a base density of 15 units, however a density bonus for aftbrdable housing could allow a 16 unit development upon approval of a zone change. Although the application states a potential rezone to R-2, it is evident that an R-3 zone would be required for the proposed density. The application for CDBG funds states that the proposal meets the national objectives. Staff concurs that thc proposed housing units will meet the national objective of primarily benefiting low- and moderate-income households. The proposal states that the ownership unit households would all qualify as meeting the 80% median income limit, with 5 units (40%) being directed to households earning less than 50% of the area median income.. The acquisition of land for affurdable housing is an eligible use of CDBG funds and is a relatively straightforward use of funds. Of concern on this site is the fact that the current zone will not allow the development as proposed. The applicant has met with the Ashland Planning Department to discuss the potential rezone in which this prior planning actions on this property were cited. However, although the recent Planning Commission decision on this site indicated a willingness to rezone this property for an affordable senior rental housing development, each proposal is evaluated through an independent application process. Any proposal differing from the 24 unit senior apartment complex originally proposed will again be subject to a Type II1 planning application for site review and a zone change. The application states that RVCDC has "optioned" the property currently owned by the Clay Street Church of God to demonstrate that the subject parcel is currently available for acquisition. A primary component of the RVCDC proposal is the use of the USDA Rural Development Mutual Self Help Housing Program (Self-Help). This program involves selecting qualifying households to construct the individual homes through a "sweat equity" approach. The program offers interest rates to the prospective homeowners as low as 1% their 502 Loan Department of Community D~velooment Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.us CDBG RFP Staffassessmen! 2002-2003 Program. It is staffs understanding that the individual families would apply for and receive loans from the 502 loan program to cover the construction costs. This Self-Help Program also awards technical assistance grants to help cover operating costs and technical assistance to the families participating in the program. RVCDC has indicated in their application that they will be seeking these additional grants to assist in the development. RVCDC - 631 Clay St. Property stren~lths weaknesses · Meets one of highest priorities in · $285,000 requested toward purchase price, Consolidated Plan provision of the remainder of purchase price of the land affordable housing. ($390,000) has not been secured/committed to Staffs knowledge. In general most of the required funding for the project has yet to be secured (approximately1.66 Million). · 16 Unit development would be an · Complex land-use process at local level to efficient use ora 0.75 acre property in allow for intended density; including zone close proximity (adjacent) to a City change, subdivision and site review. Park and within a short distance to public transportation (Ashland Street) · The target group for this 16 unit · Staff questions whether the "phasing" proposal is families making less than proposed implies that Phase I (Siskiyou 80% of median income. With site) is contingent upon a Phase 2 being part approximately 5 households earning of the total project. less than 50% median, · The application states a cap on housing · Application for USDA Self-Help program costs (typically mortgage, homeowner yet to be completed. fees, utilities 35% · Self-Help Program is a comprehensive · Limited duration of affordability. Units to approach to providing home ownership remain aftbrdable for a 20 year period, then opportunitues while building skills and the units could be sold at full market value. self sufficiency. USDA low interest However the application notes a recapture 502 loan (1%) to households to cover of $10,000 to the city at such time the unit construction costs is no longer affordable. · Significant leveraging of limited * Administrative capacity issues, the large CDBG contribution. The Proposal scale proposal is substantially larger than indicates a contribution of $52,000 any endeavor RVCDC ha~ completed to from RVCDC toward project, with a date. In Ashland, RVCDC is also to be loan from RCAC of $390,000, an engaged in a 8 unit "Self Help" $80,000 in SHOP funds with the development on Siskiyou and Faith during remainder being individual 502 loans to the coming year. RVCDC has not yet the selected households. Thus the initiated the Self-Help Program and CDBG contribution proposed would be therefore has no proven successes. 14.6% of the total project cost. · Staff has concern regarding the readiness to proceed given RVCDCs existing projects the construction phase of the proposed project could be delayed accordingly. (the anticipated construction start date/completion date was not provided in the application) Department of Comrnunlb/Development Tek 541 488-5305 20 E. Main St Fax: 541,552-2059 Ash[and, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.~shland.or, us CDBG RFP Staffassessm~nt 2002-2003 CDBG Proiect Proposal Rating Criteria The final step in the process of evaluating the proposal is for the Housing Commission to apply the following compliance criteria to determine which project(s) best meet the City's spending priorities. Each application is to be rated on a high-medium-low scale for each criterion. Staffhas provided like evaluations for the RVCDC and ACLT proposals. A. The Project provides benefit to a demographic group that has a need documented in the City of Ashland CDBG Consolidated Plan B. The project assists low and moderate-income households in substantially improving their living conditions. The proposed project must have or be part of a comprehensive approach that takes clients from the beginning to the end of the process that improves their living conditions. "Safety net" services, or services that meet basic needs shall only be funded if it can be demonstrated that clients receiving those benefits are part of a program that will eventually help them obtain self sufficiency. Exceptions to this requirement are projects targeted at helping people with special needs. C. The project is a proven effective strategy to improve conditions or solve an identified problem. D. If the project is related to affordable housing, the project retains the units as affordable. The longer the period of time the units remain affordable, the higher ranking the project shall be given E. If the project is related to economic development for jobs for low and moderate-income people, at least 51% of the jobs shall be held by low and moderate income people. The longer period of time the jobs are held by low and moderate-income persons, the higher the ranking the project shall be given. The larger percentage of jobs held by low and moderate-income persons the higher the ranking the project shall be given. F. The project maximizes partnerships in the community G. The project has at least 10% of the total project in matching funds. The larger the amount of matching funds the higher the ranking the project shall be given H. The project utilizes already existing resources in effective and innovative ways. The project shall not duplicate service provided by another organization I. The agency submitting the proposal has the capacity to carry out the project J. The budget and time line are well thought out and realistic K. The project is ready for implementation L. The proposal demonstrates CDBG funds are the most appropriate funding source for the project M. The project is ready for implementation within a year ofa CDBG award notification N. The organization proposing the project has the experience and capacity to undertake the proposed activity. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TrY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland or. us CDBG RFP Staffassessment 2002-2003 ACLT Project Rating Criteria Increasing the supply of rental housing units and opportunities for home ownership for low and moderate-income households are both ranked the highest priority in the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. A. The Project provides benefit to a demographic group that has a need documented in the City of Ashland CDBG Consolidated Plan. HIGH: The need for rental housing for low and moderate income households is clearly identified as needed in the Consolidated Plan. B. The project assists low and moderate-income households in substantially improving their living conditions. The proposed project must have or be part of a comprehensive approach that takes clients from the beginning to the end of the process that improves their living conditions. "Safety net" services, or services that meet basic needs shall only be funded if it can be demonstrated that clients receiving those benefits are part of a program that will eventually help them obtain self sufficiency. Exceptions to this requirement are projects targeted at helping people with special needs. HIGH: Stable rental housing costs are an essential element in improving living conditions, as is the weatherization proposed to improve the structures. The rental costs will be correlated to the individual household s qualifying incomes and ability to pay (ie rental costs equal to 30% monthly income). This will allow the households to retain their housing at an affordable rate, in light of increasing market rents, and therefore direct income currently applied toward market rents to other goods and services. C. The project is a proven effective strategy to improve conditions or solve an identified problem. HIGH: The formation of ACLT was based on existing land trust models throughout the country. This strategy has proven effective nationally as well as locally. D. If the project is related to affordable housing, the project retains the units as affordable. The longer the period of time the units remain affordable, the higher ranking the project shall be given HIGH: The Land Trust model ensures that the units will remain affordable in perpetuity. In this case two units currently occupied by low-moderate income households will be able to maintain residency in Ashland through the establishment of affordable rents. These units would remain affordable and contribute to Ashland's affordable housing stock perpetually through the Ashland Community Land Trust. E. If the project is related to economic development for jobs for low and moderate-income people, at least 51% of the jobs shall be held by low and moderate income people. ~lt~e longer period of time the jobs are held by low and moderate-income persons, the higher the ranking the project shall be given. The larger percentage of jobs held by low and moderate-income persons the higher the ranking the project shall be given. N/A Department of Cemmunlty Development Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2C59 Ashland, Orego~ 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us CDBG RFP Staffassessment 2002-2003 The project maximizes partnerships in the community HIGH: The application identifies that ACLT will work to refer tenants to various local organizations including Senior Services, Access, Community Works or other organizations that can assist the tenants toward self sufficiency and enhance their quality of life. G. The project has at least 10% of the total project in matching funds. The larger the amount of matching funds the higher the ranking the project shall be given LOW: The proposal only provides for a 4.2% match. H. The project utilizes already existing resources in effective and innovative ways. The project shall not duplicate service provided by another organization HIGH: The need for affordable housing is substantial, thus there is no "duplication in services" even when multiple agencies address the need. I. The agency submitting the proposal has the capacity to carry out the project HIGH: ACLT has demonstrated success in Ashland. The budget and time line are well thought out and realistic HIGH: The development of the project and associated costs, from acquisition through construction, have been described. K. The project is ready for implementation HIGH: The property is available for acquisition and appears to require only minor rehabilitation. L. The proposal demonstrates CDBG funds are the most appropriate funding source for the project HIGH: One of the goals of the CDBG program is to provide decent housing for low- and moderate-income families. This need is clearly identified in the Consolidated Plan M. The project is ready for implementation within a year ofa CDBG award notification. HIGH: the acquisition would be contingent upon Environmental Review Clearance and evidence of incomes verifying the qualification of the tenants. N. The organization proposing the project has the experience and capacity to undertake the proposed activity. HIGH: Given the straightforwardness of the project staff is confident that ACLT would successfully complete the acquisition and rehabilitation. Department of Community Development Tel: 541488-5305 20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or.u~s CDBG RFP Staffasse~sment 2002-2003 RVCDC Proiect Rating Criteria Increasing the supply of rental housing units and opportunities for home ownership for low and moderate-income households are both ranked the highest priority in the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. A. The Project provides benefit to a demographic group that has a need documented in the City of Ashland CDBG Consolidated Plan. HIGH: The need for low-and moderate-income ownership households is clearly identified as needed in the Consolidated Plan. B. The project assists low and moderate-income households in substantially improving their living conditions. The proposed project must have or be part of a comprehensive approach that takes clients from the beginning to the end of the process that improves their living conditions. "Safety net" services, or services that meet basic needs shall only be funded if it can be demonstrated that clients receiving those benefits are part ora program that will eventually help them obtain self sufficiency. Exceptions to this requirement are projects targeted at helping people with special needs. HIGH: Permanent housing is an essential element in improving living conditions, and is not considered a safety net service. C. The project is a proven effective strategy to improve conditions or solve an identified problem. HIGH: The formation of RVCDC began in 1990 to introduce a Community Development Corporation (CDC) to the Rogue Valley. CDCs are a proven means of addressing community needs, specifically the creation of affordable housing. The USDA Self-Help program is also a program that has demonstrated successes in providing aftbrdable housing. D. If the project is related to affordable housing, the project retains the units as affordable. The longer the period of time the units remain affordable, the higher ranking the project shall be given MEDIUM: The RVCDC proposal states that a deed restriction would be placed on the property requiting the proposed units remain affordable for 20 years. However, staff recognizes that any longer period of required affordability would reduce the incentive for households to participate in the Self-Help program. E. If the project is related to economic development for jobs for low and moderate-income people, at least 51% of the jobs shall be held by low and moderate income people. The longer period of time the jobs are held by low and moderate-income persons, the higher the ranking the project shall be given. The larger percentage of jobs held by low and moderate-income persons the higher the ranking the project shall be given. N/A F. The project maximizes partnerships in the community Department of Community Development Tel: 541~88-5305 20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, Orego~ 97520 TrY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland or,us CDBG RFP Staffassessmem 2002-2003 HIGH: The proposal involves local property owners (a local Faith Based Organization), and the USDA program. G. The project has at least 10% of the total project in matching funds. The larger the amount of matching funds the higher the ranking the project shall be given H1GH: The proposal identifies a project cost of $1.9 Million. The request is for $285,000 in CDBG funds for land acquisition. H. The project utilizes already existing resources in effective and innovative ways. The project shall not duplicate service provided by another organization HIGH: The need for affordable housing is substantial, thus there is no "duplication in services". The project utilizes CDBG for an eligible use and proposes an innovative approach to providing ownership opportunities while building skills and self sufficiency. The agency submitting the proposal has the capacity to carry out the project MEDIUM: RVCDC has demonstrated success in Ashland. However, staff has concern over the number of projects they will be undertaking in the program year based on past awards (Ashland 8 units, Medford 8 units). RVCDC was given awards from Ashland's CDBG program in 2002 and 2003, however have not yet completed the development of affordable housing with those prior awards. Given the recent lack of demonstrated successes staff has concerns over RVCDCs ability to take on yet another project. However, to address this concern RVCDC has indicated new staff positions (3) would be created to increase their capacity accordingly. The budget and time line are well thought out and realistic HIGH: The proposal does provide details regarding the estimated project costs as well as anticipated dates for development benchmarks. However no construction startJstop time was provided. K. The project is ready for implementation MEDIUM: Although land acquisition is an expedient process, the project must obtain local planning approvals including a Zone Change, a Minor Land partition, and Site Review approval for the residential development upon the subject property. Additionally given what is indicated as "Phase I" in the application (development of the Siskiyou Faith Site) has yet to be initiated, Staff has concerns over the readiness to proceed on "Phase II" (see M) L. The proposal demonstrates CDBG funds are the most appropriate funding source for the project HIGH: One of the goals of the CDBG program is to provide decent housing for low~ and moderate-income families. This need is clearly identified in the Consolidated Plan M. The project is ready for implementation within a year ofa CDBG award notification. Department of Community Development Tel: 541-488-5305 20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2900 www.ashland.or, us CDBG RFP Staffassessment 2002-2003 MEDIUM: the acquisition of land would be contingent upon Environmental Review Clearance, a zone change, a minor land partition, and subdivision and site review approval for the townhouse development. These land use requirements are of concern but could likely be completed in a timely manner with the submittal of a complete application. However staff has concern regarding the "phasing" of projects proposed by RVCDC in terms of how it will effect the ultimate build-out of the identified property. N. The organization proposing the project has the experience and capacity to undertake the proposed activity. MEDIUM: Staff believes that RVCDCs proposal to increase staffing to accommodate the proposed project is essential to creating the capacity to undertake an additional project within the program year (considering the 8 unit development in Ashland and an 8 unit development in Medford that would be concurrent to this proposal). Staff also has concern regarding RVCDC's lack of experience with the USDA Self-Help program although the organization does have experience and demonstrated successes with self sufficiency programs and working with unskilled construction workers (students). Department of Community Development Tel: 541 488-5305 20 E. Main St Fax: 541-552-2059 Ashland, Oregon 97520 TTY: 800-735-2<300 www.ashland.or, us CDBG RFP Staffassessment 2002-2003 CiTY OF ,AS H LAN D ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 22, 2003 CALL TO ORDER - Chair Andy Dungan called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Matt Small, Joan Legg, Chris Oswald, Kim Miller and Larry Medinger. Staff present were Gary Collord, Brandon Goldman and Derek Severson. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of the September 24, 2003 meeting were approved as presented. PUBLIC FORUM Jennifer Henderson of the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) reminded members of the land trust event taking place October 30th at the Mobius Gallery. She also discussed the recent article on the land trust. CDBG 2004 RFP EVALUATION Goldman noted that there were two proposals to be considered. He explained that there was a $93,000 reallocation of unexpended funds leading to the approximate $285,000 CDBG grant for 2004. He stated that the two proposals were from the ACLT for a duplex on Grant Street, and from the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) to purchase land for a 16-unit townhome development. Goldman explained that the ACLT proposal would be to serve those at 80% of median income while the RVCDC proposal was at 80% with 5 units at 50% or less under Housing and Urban Development (HUD) guidelines. Goldman clarified that the total presented was based on last year. He stated that the amount fluctuated from year to year and that the city would have exact numbers in January. Goldman stated that he would present staff's impressions of each application. Goldman discussed the ACLT proposal, noting that the site was less than ¼-acre with an existing duplex. He noted that there was some question of this project serving those at 80% of median income; he explained that while one tenant was clearly below 50% of median income, the other tenants were a retired couple earning $35,000 per year which exceeds the $31,700 guideline for a two-person household. Goldman questioned whether this would satisfy the HUD requirement that 51% of units be affordable. Goldman pointed out that this would be a voluntary, arms length transaction at fair market value, and tlmt the owner was willing to sell. He added that the staffreport includes the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal, and he stated that in this case the proposal meets the need for affordable housing and rental housing, and retains existing affordable housing for current residents. He noted that if the property were sold to other buyers, rents would be raised and the tenants displaced. He explained that if the ACLT purchased the property, the land would be affordable perpetually. He stated that staff would recommend a minimum required duration for affordability, and he added that staff did not feel this would present a problem given the background of ACLT. He noted that CDBG only recommends a five-year requirement for affordability. He reported that no land use action would be required for this proposal. Goldman reported that the weakness here was in the limited fund match by the ACLT. He explained that the ACLT was proposing a fund match that amounted to only 4.2%. He suggested that the needed to be increased through donations or other commitments, and he added that a 10% fund match as a requirement in the City's Consolidated Plan. ACLT's Jennifer Henderson confirmed that they could manage the 10% match. Goldman stated that this application also proposed a limited number of units, 2 versus the 16 proposed by RVCDC. He noted that the number of units was also small relative to the total project cost. He added that the applicant recognizes this in their application, and he pointed out that the project would be debt free. Goldman suggested that ACLT look at lowering the affordability tlureshold to 50% of median income from the 80% proposed. Goldman discussed the ACLT proposal to use CDBG funds for relocation costs and rehabilitation of the structure. He noted that these constitute separate CDBG actions that make the application more complex, and he pointed out that if these items were removed from the total cost, the applicant's match would approach the necessary 10%. Medinger questioned why the applicant was not using leverage, such as an equity loan to get more money for the ACLT. Goldman recognized that leveraging is seen as giving "more bang for the buck," but he stated that no other alternatives were proposed. Goldman noted that the commission could recommend funding one or both of these applications. He reiterated that the commission could recommend that the council split the award if it was believed that both applicants could complete their projects with less money. Medinger stated that the lack of paid staff has long been an issue for ACLT; he stated that one-time vesting in a project like this might bring enough income to hire staft2 Goldman agreed that the monthly rental income would go into ACLT coffers and as such must be considered by the commission. He emphasized that this would provide a perpetual benefit to ACLT. Goldman added that the staff recommendation to look at addressing tenants at 50% of median income would affect the rent and thus this benefit. Dungan questioned whether Medinger was in any way tied to either of the applications before the corrmaission tonight. Medinger confirmed that he was not involved in either and would not be in the future. Medinger and Legg stated that they were board members of the Creative alternatives Foundation, but both stated that they had no financial or personal interest regarding the RVCDC proposal. Each confirmed that they could evaluate the proposals without bias. Medinger noted that he had served on the Housing Council, and he stated that this made him question the appraisal of the property in RVCDC's proposal. Medinger stated that he had verified with the council that the project could not be done at the funding level proposed. Ite noted that just a few years ago, the appraisal on the site was $20,000 per unit. He explained that allowing for a 5% annual increase, a current appraisal would be approximately $22,500 per unit by his estimation, or $360,000 with 16 units. He suggested that this was an important missing piece in the RVCDC proposal, and he added that he felt it needed to be dealt with here or the proposal would ultimately be rejected. Miller noted that the relocation expenses listed by ACLT were specific and he questioned the rehabilitation costs. Henderson responded that these costs are not as clear as inspections have not been done. She stated that relocation might not be an issue. She added that it had been determined that the windows in the structure were double-pane. She emphasized that ACLT's goal in this proposal was to preserve existing affordable housing. She clarified that ACLT believed that both tenants qualified under affordable housing guidelines, and she added that when the existing tenants moved the rents would be lowered to address low or extremely low income tenants. She emphasized that if the existing tenants did not qualify relocation would be necessary, but she added that if the tenants' income were right on the margin ACLT might make an exception if this were allowed. Goldman pointed out that since the tenants were retired and on a fixed income, they might qualify as the median income levels were adjusted. Henderson reiterated that the opportunity here was to save existing affordable housing. She stated that given time, ACLT could come up with the required 10% fund match. She recognized the issue of providing two units versus sixteen. Dungan asked how much rental income would be involved here, how it would be spent, and how much financing could realistically be expected. Henderson reported that the ACLT's Garfield property carries a debt of $105,000 on a value of $800,000. She explained that they are not allowed to carry more given the maintenance costs and the low rents. Dungan suggested that 12-25% of the value could likely be carried in debt here, as well. It was noted that the rent here is currently $795 minus maintenance, taxes and insurance. There was discussion of whether ACLT is required to pay property taxes, with Henderson indicating that she believed ACLT still paid taxes on its other properties. Medinger suggested that he felt it likely that $50,000 could be financed on this property. Oswald questioned the timeframe involved with tonight's discussion. Goldman stated that the commission's recommendation would go to the city council on November 4th and a draft would be prepared by November 15th, leaving 45 days .until the end of the program year. He noted that a recommendation was needed tonight so that the council would have it for consideration in their decision on the 4th. Dungan/Legg m/s to direct staff that in the future, all CDBG proposals be presented at the commission's September meeting. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. Goldman pointed out that this year's September meeting had been to address modifications to the Action Plan. Miller asked and Henderson confirmed that the ACLT would be managing this property. Henderson noted that the appraisal was $270,600. She added that while they do not yet have a conunitted benefactor ACLT believes that this will happen. She clarified that the proposal involves two, 880 square foot, 2-bedroom, 2-bath units. Miller expressed his support but stated that he had concerns with the per-unit cost and the lack of leverage. Henderson responded that the three week turnaround given to prepare and submit the application process was an issue. Dungan urged staff to provide at least four weeks, and to pre-publish announcements to keep potential applicants aware that this would be occurring next September to allow them time to better plan and prepare. Goldman stated that this would be noted at the council discussion, and added that notice could be provided to all agencies. He suggested that staff would prefer ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 2 not to place a display ad, however, given the higb cost. Legg suggested that a planning calendar for the commission would be helpful. Dungan concurred. Henderson addressed the high per-unit cost issue by noting that ACLT could promise that their proposal could be coropleted in January with no loose ends. Dungan questioned whether any other funds were available elsewhere. Miller recognized that the appeal of this proposal was thc case of getting it on the ground and running quickly. Henderson pointed out that the potential relocation cost for the non-qualifying tenant was $11,000 over four years. She stated that while this was not in the budget, it might well be able to come out of the renovation budget. Duane Murray, vice president of RVCDC, and Andrea Miranda, staff person for RVCDC, introduced themselves. Goldman gave a brief summary of the RVCDC proposal. He noted that they propose to use $285,000 for land acquisition at 63l Clay Street. He explained that their proposal was for a 16-unit townhome development. Goldman reported that the application involved: partitioning the rear half of the property to separate it from the church; purchasing h of an acre of R- 1-5 land; and changing the zoning to R-3 to allow for the proposed 16-units. He stated that the applicant had met and discussed the proposal with staff, and he noted that there were no obvious issues. He added that the applicant had not made any formal submittal to the planning department at this point, and he pointed out that the proposal was beyond the density approved in the previous proposal for this site. He also noted that the previous zone change approval was project specific. Goldman stated that he felt that this proposal met all city and national objectives. He pointed out that the proposal for 5-units at 50% of median income was a clearly eligible use of CDBG funds. He noted that staff concerns were with the necessary planning hurdles and the other current projects being undertaken by RVCDC. He explained that this proposal involved mutual self help USDA 502 loans for the unit owners, and he clarified that the owners would take out the loan for construction with oversight by RVCDC. Goldman added that the owners would have sweat equity in providing 65% of the construction labor themselves. He stated that the owners needed to qualify for the project. He also noted that the project meets an urgent need, is an efficient use of land, and is near both a park and transit stops. He recognized that the proposed targets meet city requirements, and he added that there was a proposed cap at 35% of income for house payments. He stated that this was a comprehensive program that would give skills as well as housing and provide a true sense of ownership. Goldman noted that the project cost was $1.944 million, with CDBG funds accounting for only 14.6% of that total. He suggested that the weakness of the proposal was that there was still $1.66 million to be secured, and that only $52,000 would be coming from RVCDC. He noted that the balance was dependent on competitive awards by the USDA. He also expressed concerns with the zone change process and the project phasing. Goldman questioned if Phase 1 was tied to Phase 2; Murray responded that it was not. Goldman noted that there was a provision for 20-year affordability. He stated that this would enable owners to recapture their sweat equity after a 20-year commitment. He questioned the administrative capacity to oversee multiple projects given the eight units underway at Siskiyou and Faith, and he stated that if Phase 2 were delayed in may push the project out of the CDBG program year. He added that there is also another project underway in Medfurd, and suggested that the readiness to begin immediately was a concern. He concluded that the lack of date specificity in the proposal and the possibility for a delay concerned staff. Goldman clarified for Miller that the window for completing the project for HUD was within 12 months of the award. He emphasized that HUD would not favor a purchase followed by 12 months of inactivity. Goldman reiterated that an award contract would set benchmarks from the award all the way to the occupancy date, and would require constant evaluation throughout the project. He added that the proposal was for 8-units per year for two years, and stated that if there was one year with no activity HUD would look at recapturing funds. Goldman suggested that staff felt the zone change request would receive favorable response given the previous application for this site. He stated that he felt the applications to be comparable, but he added that it was difficult to say with any certainty how the planning commission would rule. Legg questioned item 10 in the proposal stating that 5 of the 16 units would be for very low income tenants, at or below 50% of median income. Goldman noted that item 2 suggested that 40% of the units would be at 50%. Murray clarified that the proposal was to acquire the land and build 8-units per year. He stated that the 40% was to apply to the total of 16 units. Miranda added that the goal would be for 6 of the 8 units built each year to be at or below 50%, with a total of 12-units at this level over the two years. She stated that in any case, a minimum of 7 units would be at 50% of median income or less. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 Legg inquired about thc proposed $10,000 per unit recapture to the city if units were sold. Murray and Miranda indicated that they were uncertain of the logistics, but hc stated that if a soft second mortgage were carried this would be possible if the property were sold to other than a qualified applicant. Murray stated that 20-years seemed a comfortable aflbrdability requirement although only 5-years was required. He stated this should preclude challenges while providing some incentive. He added that 25-years might be possible, but he felt that it got questionable at that stage. Murray noted that Self Help is encouraging to work with, and he stated that they would be hiring three new staffmembers. He pointed out that there had been fifty people interested in the program at three presentation locations in Talent, Medford and Ashland. He suggested that they are well-positioned and that the land acquisition will be the hardest part. lte added that Phase I is giving them valuable experience. Miranda added that Self Help has been in existence since 1971 and is well-guided. Murray stated that a typical timeline is 9- months per unit for construction. He noted that owners do not do electric, plumbing or mechanical work, but they each work 35-hours per week under the guidance of an experienced contractor. Legg asked whether the $360,000 federal grant discussed in the application was conditional. Miranda explained that lots of hand holding was necessary. She stated that they have prepared a pre-application, and it was conditional upon submittal of their pre-application in 1 ½ weeks. She added that this would provide 15% of the total to administer the program out of Rural Development funds. She noted that Self Help was a separate program. Goldman pointed out that staff would consider this award to be tentative, not conditional or secured. He noted that both Medford and Central Point no longer qualify as rural and are ineligible for Rural Development funds. There was discussion of whether Ashland's increasing population would exclude it from this program. Miller noted that he spent a week in New Orleans with Self Help looking at their program. He suggested that it was somewhat scary to consider that the project was dependent on 8 families who all must be eligible by both their income levels and their credit rating and that all must work at the same rate. He expressed concern with starting Phase 2 before Phase 1 was complete. Oswald questioned whether the 502 loans were competitively awarded. Miranda suggested that there was only one other program in Oregon. Miller added that he did not believe they would be very competitive, and he stated that the loans seemed to be less of an issue than finding eight willing, able and qualified owners. Murray explained that all owners work on all units and all wait to move in until the last unit is completed. Ite added that the process educates the owners about building and maintaining their homes and also builds a sense of conununity within the project. Murray also clarified that $1.1 million of the total project cost came from the 502 loans. Medinger noted that the purchase price in the proposal is given as $675,000 which equates to $41-$45,000 per unit by the raw land cost. He emphasized that this was well beyond any appraisal that would be made in Ashland. He suggested that this was a major issue as any money awarded would wind up coming back to the commission since federal monies cannot be spent on property in excess of the appraised value. He emphasized that the regulations are clear on this matter. He questioned how the applicants had arrived at the $675,000 figure. He reiterated that even if the 16-units were zoned R-2 and appraised at $22,500 per unit it would only merit a $360,000 raw land cost. He noted that the appraisal would be less for R-3 zoned land. He stated that $360,000 was absolutely the highest defensible price for this land. Medinger went on to state that if commissioners were good with the ACLT proposal's higher per-unit cost, he found it to be a more valid proposal. He noted that if RVCDC has $390,000 they could buy this property for $360,000 and get underway. He emphasized again that the $675,000 price used in the proposal relied on inappropriate numbers. Goldman clarified that the applicants would need to demonstrate that they were paying fair market value, and he agreed with Medinger that if the purchase price was over market value then CDBG funds could not be used. Medinger stated that this purchase price was simply not possible in this market. Murray responded that the $675,000 purchase price was arrived at working with a Medford realtor. Goldman noted that if there were no recommendation tonight, no action plan could be sent to IfUD. He added that the city has requested and received a grace period extension before. Dungan expressed his concern with the lack of time. He stated that he was frustrated by the energy here not being served by the process. He noted his interest in the RVCDC proposal, but he also recognized that he would like them to have the experience of completing Phase 1 first. Ite added that he wanted ACLT to be successful. He suggested that making a decision now at the eleventh hour would be wrong as it was being done because it had to. He added that at this point, he was leaning toward ACLT. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 Goldman noted that if RVCDC could renegotiate the land acquisition price back to market levels there would be no issue, and if they were unable the funds would ultimately come back. He suggested that commissioners base their decisions on the merits of each application and let the land price work itself out. He added that if RVCDC was unable to renegotiate, they might be able to give some indication of this at the November 4th council meeting. Miller stated that he would like a decision tonight as a good model of decision making. Goldman concurred and added that any delay would not be considered to demonstrate expeditiousness by HUD. Legg questioned previously-awarded CDBG funds. Goldman stated that staff has recommended that the remaining $13,800 originally awarded to RVCDC for pre-development costs on the Siskiyou site be retained by RVCDC. He added that since the planning/administration costs, representing 20% of the yearly award, have been reached these should be redirected to public facility improvements benefiting the Siskiyou site, such as curb, gutter and sidewalks. He noted the reallocation of funds from the Pines to Siskiyou, which resulted in a reduction of $161,000. He stated that what was left was next year's award and $120,000 on Hersey Street. He noted that there was a need to address the relocation issue with a tenant who moved in after the award and may require assistance for relocation. Additionally, Goldman mentioned that the Pioneer Hall bathioom remodel noted in prior action plans as an accessibility improvement is moving forward at a cost of approximately $15,000. CDBG funds were previously awarded to this use. Oswald stated that she could go either way; she suggested that she would like to take a creative risk and take a bigger bite. She recognized that the two ACLT units would have a definite and immediate human effect now. Medinger suggested that ACLT could seek a $50,000 loan, and the connnission could award $50,000 to RVCDC which they could use along with their $52,000 to leverage the purchase of Clay Street. Small concurred with Miller on the need to reach a decision tonight. He agreed that the land cost at Clay Street seemed too high. Murray indicated that he felt the seller was negotiable, but he added that he was not sure how much so. Legg questioned if Systems Development Charges (SDCs) would be an issue; Goldman responded that SDCs are forgiven on affordable housing projects. Dungan stated that he would like to find a way to do both projects. Small questioned whether other funds RVCDC was depending were CDBG-conditioned. Murray stated that he was not sure. Miller stated that he didn't feel it would be an issue with leveraging funds, and he noted that applicants are simply encouraged to seek funding from as many sources as possible. Goldman confirmed for Small that the conunission could recommend a split award to the council. He added tbat the council would verify that this would work for both applicants. He emphasized that things come back to the time crunch. He noted that the applicants might be able to revise their proposals for council prior to the November 4th meeting. Medinger questioned whether this commission could commit future funds. Goldman stated that the commission could recommend that the applicants reapply in a subsequent year. He added this might end the project, but it might not. Medinger stated his feeling that RVCDC did not need the $285,000. He questioned the application timeline. Miranda responded that they would submit their pre-application in I ½ weeks, and would have word on the full application by February. She went on to note that from there, they would hire staff and move ahead. Murray noted that they need to complete 8 more units as part of Phase 1. Medinger stated that he would like to help both projects, but he emphasized that he did not want to derail ACLT. He reiterated that he would like to help ACLT without abandoning RVCDC. Medinger suggested a secured option on a fair market deal, then trying to finalize the project with next year's award. Medinger added that he would say that the commission could be 99% positive next year, but he pointed out that the corrmaission could not commit fully given the potential for other applications and the question of fund availability. Legg stated that she did not feel that $675,000 was the actual value. She added that if the property could be acquired at market value she would recommend RVCDC for the award. She noted that otherwise, she would recommend that council consider the higher per unit cost of the ACLT proposal. Legg/Dungan m/s to extend the meeting past 6:00 p.m. Voice vote: All AYES. Motion passed. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MIN[JTES SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 5 Miller suggested that it was impossible to please everyonc, but it was very possible to cripple both proposals by trying to help both. Oswald noted that she would like to see a reconmmndation to encourage both tl~rough a financial award in some way. Oswald exited at 6:00 p.m. Goldman emphasized that pre-development costs had been found to be ineligible for CDBG funds. Miller stated that he would prefer to make the award to ACLT with some caveats. Murray stated that $50,000 might help keep the property available for another year, and he added that he could answer this for certain by the November 4th council meeting. He emphasized that in any case, RVCDC needed another 8 units. Medinger stated that what would really help would be a certified appraisal for $675,000. He stated that he was nervous about advanced funding. Goldman pointed out that if the city were found to be "untimely" in 10 days, all unexpended funds would be recaptured by HUD in 12 months, in November of 2004. He reiterated that all monies would be recaptured. Goldman also explained that a split award made the already complex project administration that much more difficult. He stated that staff time would be doubled, and he added that there was monitoring to be done, environmental reviews to be completed, and that a split award would tend to magnify any glitches experienced in the process. Goldman also pointed out that more CDBG money may be unavailable to RVCDC in the coming year if the property were already acquired. Legg questioned whether a split award would be adequate for both applicants. Henderson stated that she empathized with the commissioners for the difficulty of decision, and she expressed her support for RVCDC. She suggested that the ACLT could ask the property owner to contribute through financing, and she noted that they could also look to other funding sources to supplement a split award. She explained that they needed to get inspections before they could establish the true cost of the project, and she added that they do not have funds to pay tbr inspections at this point. She pointed out that if the property were not purchased, it would go on the market and the tenants would likely be displaced. Medinger noted that ACLT is an all volunteer group without a budget; he suggested that this award could be a step toward funding staff. He stated that tbis fact might well overcome the concerns with unit cost by having a stabilizing effect on the ACLT organization. Henderson recognized that the $6,000 rental income might be sufficient to hire an occasional grant writer, but she added that they would likely use the income to maintain the rental and to leverage funds to purchase another property. Dungan suggested giving RVCDC the funds to leverage their purchase, and the remainder to ACLT to do what they need to do. He added that the commission could stipulate in their reconunendation that if RVCDC could not use the funds to this end, the full award should go to ACLT. He expressed his regret at the idea of losing the opportunity presented by the Clay Street site. Goldman suggested that a $50,000 award to RVCDC was too high for an option; he stated that $2,000 had been an acceptable amount for an option on Faith and Siskiyou. He added that CDBG funds could not be used to acquire an option. Legg/Dungan m/s to recommend that CDBG funds be awarded to RVCDC for the Clay Street project if the property could be purchased at its appraised value, and if the property could not be purchased for this price, to recommend the full award to ACLT. Discussion: Legg noted that she was proposing the award go to the Clay Street purchase if it could be made within the appraised value and if not, the full award would go to ACLT. Dungan suggested that there could be a short time frame to get the funding back if the purchase fell through. Goldman stated that the motion could also stipulate an appraisal. Murray questioned whether it would need to be an MAI appraisal. Medinger stated that such an appraisal would cost roughly $2500, and he added that they would need to ask to have it rushed. Medinger indicated that he might be able to suggest an appraiser who could do this. There was discussion of the need for certified appraisers rather than realtors, and Medinger suggested that Evan Archerd might be someone to contact. He added that RVCDC might have a sense of how things were going to go by the November 4th council meeting. Goldman questioned whether a set timeframe for an appraisal would do anything to the availability of the property being sought by ACLT. Voice vote: Legg, Medinger, YES. Small, Dungan, and Miller, NO. Motion failed 2-3. Small questioned whether the RVCDC project could be postponed one year. Murray stated that it could not, and he added that he felt that the ACLT proposal was a fine idea that keeps two tenants in their homes right now. Small added that he could approve the ACLT proposal, and that he did not see a compromise happening although he sees the merit of the RVCDC proposal. He emphasized that awarding them $50,000 now would likely prevent further funding for later land acquisition. SmallfMedinger m/s to grant the full award tn the Ashland Community Land Trust. Discussion: Dungan recommended that ACLT look at options to leverage funds and bring funds back if possible. Goldman stated that ACLT could lessen their award voluntarily once true costs were determined. Dungan stated that the city could then ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINbTES SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 6 immediately issue an RFP for those funds again. Voice vote: Small, Miller, and Medinger, YES. Legg, Dungan, NO. Motion passed 3-2. Dungan suggested that this award could be amended to note that if the ACLT could leverage funds, the money come back and be redistributed through the RFP process. Collord questioned wimther an award to the ACLT would be creating any issues with HUD over the high per unit cost. Medinger exited at 6:35 p.m. Commissioners thanked Collord for his service and wished him well. Dungan noted that next month's regular meeting was the Wednesday before Thanksgiving Day; he requested that staff look at room availability and reschedule the meeting to one week earlier, on November 19th at 4:00 p.m. He asked that members be e- mailed to confirm this schedule change. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 6:37 p.m. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 ACLT Proposal CDBG 2004 5P.O. Box 3027, ~Ztshfandd O:R 97520 (541) 858-3313 z~shlandclt@hotmai£com Dear City of Ashland, Ilousing Commissioners and Council, Please find enclosed nine copies of our current proposal in response the Community Develop- ment Block Grant Request For Proposals that was released on September 26, 2003 and due by 3:00 p.m. October 17th. As we are an all volunteer group with no hired staffl am pleased to enclose a very viable proposal that not only is something that can happen, it is something that with your approval will happen. This project adds to the affordable housing that will be preserved in perpetuity in Ashland. In the past I know it has been a concern that the City of Ashland would rely on non-profits that could not perform in a timely fashion and there would be a potential to lose the CDBG allocation. This is not a concern here. We don't need to guess at the outcome, them will be no extraordinary delays. The housing, the property and the tenants are already in place. I hope you w'dl be as excited as we are to support this proposal. It's a triple win solution. The extremely low to moderately low-income tenants have their housing preserved which would otherwise be lost to the market forces. ACLT increases its number of perpetually af- fordable units by 22%. The City of Ashland walks on towards its goals ofafibrdable housing as set forth in the Action Plan and the Housing Needs Analysis. lfyou have any questions you may contact me directly at 840-2971. We look forward to your positive response to our proposal. Sincerely President ACLT City of Ashland CDBG Grant Application ACLT/HTLL HOUSE TRUST 1) COMPLETE APPLICATION FORM (See Attached) 2) A PRO3ECT SUMMARY INCLUDZNG A BRIEF DESCRTPT~ON~ PRO3ECT BACKGROUND AND A LIST OF PRO3ECT OB3ECT~VES. The Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT), a not-for-profit 501 (c) 3 organization dedicated to the provision of affordable housing and community building activities, was formed in 1999 to help address Ashland's lack of affordable housing. ACLT owns the land beneath three single family homes, and is currently building a six unit rental apartment complex and is working with Rogue Valley Development Corporation in the sale of 3 more single family homes that will remain affordable for generations to come. With the ever increasing land values, and the shrinking availability of buildable land, acquisition of land has become a difficulty. Acquisition of 264 Grant Street will immediately provide two more units of perpetually affordable housing in Ashland, Oregon. It was called to our attention that Madeline Hill will be selling her duplex at 264 Grant Street and that her current renters would most likely not be allowed by the new purchaser to remain. The property has been appraised at $270,600 and if a market investor were to purchase it at this price, there would be no feasible way to keep the rents at their current level, or even to a level which would allow Iow income tenants to rent them. There are currently two households occupying the property. According to the tenants in one unit, they have lived at 264 Grant Street over twenty years and the man is a retired City of Ashland employee and both are over fifty~five years old. Their income qualifies them at below 80% of median income for a family of two. The tenant in the other unit, has lived at Grant Street since 1999, and she has health issues that limit her ability to produce income. Her income qualifies her at well below Ashiand's 80% median income. The tenants of both units have been noticed of our intent and have stated they wish to continue renting their units. They would welcome the ACLT as their future property manager/owner. (See notices attached) Consequently, ACLT saw this as an opportunity to 1) retain currently affordable housing in Ashland; 2) safeguard two households who would struggle to meet their shelter needs if the market forces were to bear down upon them; 3)increase the number of perpetually affordable units in Ashland; 4) help the City of Ashland accomplish its goals Page 1 of 10 CDBG 2004 ACLT/Hill House 10/17/2003 12:00 PM as set forth in the Action Plan and 5) we don't have to wait to see if it can happen. With your approval, this can happen now, immediately and without question. The duplex is there, the renters in place are qualified and the seller is willing and able to accommodate our timeframe. 3) PROPERTY AND PRO.1ECT I'NFORMATLON (Please see appraisal, maps and preliminary title report in attachment section.) The project consists of one single story building, built in 1980, situated on a level .22 acre lot, consisting of two residential units. Each unit consists of 5 rooms with 2 bedrooms and 1 bath in approximately 880 square feet. There is a total gross building area of 1760 feet, consisting of 10 rooms, 4 bedrooms and 2 baths. There is outside storage on the property and each unit has it's own yard. The property is located in the City Limits of Ashland, two blocks from the Hospital, walking distance to RVTD's bus line for easy access to shopping and services. It is approximately 1/2 mile to Helman Elementary School, I mile to downtown, 1.9 miles to Ashland High School and 2 miles to Southern Oregon University. Once we have formalized our funding sources, we will complete property inspections which will assess any possible inadequacies in the property. We are estimating the possible needs of the property to be weatherization, upgrade of windows, roof repair or replacement, gutters, siding repair, exterior paint. There may be other items that come to light in the report that we have not specifically named, therefore we have put in a contingency fund in order to cover these unforeseen costs. Our budget outlines $20,362 in potential repairs or upgrades to the property. Our organization's vision is to sustain perpetually affordable housing. In that light, our target populations are those residents that are at or below 80% median income. Both of the current tenants meet these guidelines therefore we will not be seeking new tenants, however, should either unit become vacant, we have standard tenant criteria that will be followed. The units are situated in an upper end neighborhood not typically available for Iow income residents, therefore adding to the diversity of our community. In regards to perpetuity and preservation of affordability, our bylaws state in Chapter V, Item 3, "The sale of land does not conform with the philosophy and purposes of the Corporation. Accordingly, land shall not be sold except in extraordinary circumstances when the sale is considered a necessary means of achieving the purposes of the Corporation. In such extraordinary circumstances, land may be sold only with: a) an affirmative vote by at least two thirds of the entire Board of Directors at a regular or special Board meeting, provided that written notice of such meeting has describe the proposed sale and the reason for proposal; Page 2 of l 0 CDBG 2004 ACLT/Hill Housel0/17/03 12:00 PM and b) the written consent of any persons to whom the land in questions is leased; and c) The approval of two thirds of the Regular Members present at a regular or special Membership Neeting, a quorum being assembled, provided that written notice of such meeting has described the proposed sale and the reasons for the proposal. 4) BRI'EFLY DESCRI'BE THE SERVI'CES TO BE PROVI'DED BY THE PRO3ECT. True to the vision of Ashland Community Land Trust, we will be providing safe, secure affordable housing, a hard to find commodity in Ashland, Oregon. Other services offered are specific to each ACLT family. Support to new tenants is provided through pre-rental activities such as education and counseling, which covers such topics as the housing decision, financing, credit, and mortgages, escrow and protecting your home and investment. Ongoing support is offered throughout the term of residency as needed to ensure that each participant is provided with back-up auxiliary services such as financial management, arbitration, resident training and in securing special arrangements when unexpected financial problems arise. The goal for ACLT is to provide access to services and programs that can help to stabilize residents who might otherwise be at risk of losing their housing. ACLT will establish a service delivery model that will provide access to resources and support that is responsive to both individual and family needs, while enabling residents the opportunity to participate in decision- making issues that affect the quality of their lives and the environment in which they live. These referral resources will include but are not limited to: Senior Services, Community Works, ACCESS, Ashland Community Food Bank, and TCCA. The expected outcome of the service delivery plan is to promote self-sufficiency, independent living, healthy and positive life choices and to enhance the overall quality of life for residents and their families. As the owner, ACLT sees the service delivery plan as an alternative to avoiding problem tenants, potential property damage and costly, time-consuming eviction procedures. Page 3 of 10 CDBG 2004 ACLT/Hill Housel0/17/03 12:00 PM 5) THE EST[MATED 'I'[MEL[NES ARE AS FOLLOWS; October 2003 November 2003 November 2003 November 2003 November 2003 November 2003 December 2003 December 2003 January 2004 January 2004 January 2004 January 2004 January 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 (These times are estimated and subject to change) Notice to Tenants of Proposed CDBG Grant CDBG award notice received ACLT Applicant Contribution confirmed Notice to Tenants of CDBG Award Inspection of Propert7 Ordered Inspection Report received and reviewed. ACCESS Weatherization Funds confirmed Benefactor Funds confirmed CDBG Funds available for release Close Escrow Bids for repairs requested. Begin work on outside of units. Issue Appropriate Notice to Tenants Renovation Begins Renovation complete. Final Disbursement of CDBG Money to ACLT Page 4 of 10 CDBG 2004 ACLT/Hill House ! 0/17/03 12:00 PM 6) Ft'NANCTAL ZNFORMA'rZON 1~NCOME Source of Fundinq Type Amount CDBG (current proposal) Grant $ 285,000 ACLT Applicant Cont.1,500 Benefactor Donation 8,812 ACCESS Weatherization Date Committed November, 2003 November, 2003 December, 2003 2,000November, 2003 TOTAL FUND SOURCES EXPENSES Acquisition Costs Cost Purchase Price Land & Improvements $ 270,600 Closing/Recording ~[,000 Inspections 800 Taxes 2,250 Insurance 800 Legal/Accounting 1,000 Property Manaqement Set Up 500 Total Acquisition: $ 276f950 Rehabilitation Costs Roof, Siding, Gutter. Exterior repair, Paint, Windows, and other repairs as needed and noted by inspections ......... ~t5,000 Weatherization (ACCESS) 2,000 Temporary Relocation - 4 Days 1,362 Contingency 2,000 Total Rehabilitation Costs $ 20,362 TOTAL PRO3ECTCOST Page 5 of 10 CDBG 2004 ACLT/Hill Housel0/17/03 12:00 PM 7) Eligibility for Federal Funding CDBG funds will be used for the site acquisition. There will be no new construction or removal of architectural barriers. Possible repairs are outlined above. There are no costs for development, client services, or specification preparation. The estimated cost of relocation is $1362 and may or may not be required depending on the inspection report once completed. If the inspections bear out that all the repairs are exterior, there will be no relocation needed. The appraisal was completed on June 7, 2003 at no cost to our project. a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) The project is within the City Limits. The tenant income level will be 80% of median income per household and below. The only legal commitment we have made is that we have entered into an agreement to purchase the property continqent upon the CDBG award. Existing affordable housing will be preserved. It is not located in a flood plane. From a cursory study, we do not expect to find any adverse environmental impact. See Environmental attached. The site is located approximately 1000 feet from the railroad tracks. This is not viewed as undesirable in Ashland as much of the town exists along the railroad and it has not impacted either livability or property values. The property is not located adjacent to an above ground flammable storage tank No historic features will be impacted. 8) BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE AGENCY'S MISSION AND SERVICE HISTORY. Ashland Community Land Trust is a private, non-profit, community-based organization formed to provide opportunities for Iow and moderate income people to secure housing that is decent and affordable and that is controlled by the voting members on a long- term basis; to preserve the quality and affordability of housing for future Iow and moderate income residents; to preserve the economic diversity of the community; to ensure every household has equal opportunities pursuant to federal, state and City of Ashland Fair Housing guidelines; to protect the environment and promote the ecologically sound use of land and natural resources. ACLT is born of a collaboration between the City of Ashland's Housing Commission and ACCESS, Inc. Housing Development Department in an effort to create sustained affordable housing. ACLT is a community organization with a membership of 76 and growing. Its board is made up of community members, prospective homeowners, and renters, area business persons and representatives from non-profit organizations. The organization enjoys participation of other organizations, such as USDA Rural Development, Washington Mutual, in the furtherance of its mission. ACLT is an affiliate of the Institute for Community Page 6 of 10 CDBG 2004 ACLT/Hill Housel0/17/03 12:00 PM Economics, the nation's leading provider of technical assistance for community land trusts, as well as the Northwest Coalition of Community Land Trusts. ACLT presently contracts with ACCESS, ];nc. for development and fiscal services. The most recent activities accomplished by the ACLT include the acquisition and new construction our Parkview Project which consists of six apartments on property situated at 41 Garfield Street. This is the first apartment building built in Ashland in at least 10 years. We are also working with Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) to purchase the land in Trust of three recently renovated homes donated by Southern Oregon University and renovated by RVCDC and sold to qualified moderate to Iow income buyers. Previously we completed three homes located in the Chautauqua Trace Subdivision. These homes were sold to qualified Iow-income buyers at 50% of the real market value. The goal of the ACLT is to make housing and land-use more affordable for people who cannot compete in the general market. The greatest contribution a land trust can make is the preservation of affordable housing for future generations. 9) W1'LL THE PRO3ECT PROMOTE SELF-SUFF1'CI'ENCY FOR EXTREMELY LOW-f LOW- AND/OR MODERATE-TNCOME FAMt'LI'ES? Self-sufficiency speaks to both the financial and emotional well being of families in our community. To this extent, safe and affordable housing creates stability for Iow-income families living and working in Ashland and offers long-term financial security by enabling families who cannot afford to rent or purchase in Ashland the comfort and stability of secured housing. As outlined in item 4, ACLT will provide referral support to our tenants to increasing develop self-sufficiency and dignity to our tenants of extremely Iow to moderately Iow income. 10) PLEASE I'DENTZFY HOW YOUR PRO.1ECT BENEF1'TS EXTREMELY LOW AND MODERATE-I'NCOME 1'NDt'VI*DUALS. a) For proposed projects serving a Iow-income area provides the following data, including documentation of the sources of information for the following statistics: The area served is the City of Ashland in _lackson County, Oregon. The proposed site will have a total building square footage of 1760sq/ft. Of this, all will be utilized by Iow- income families earning at or below 80% of the area median income. 100% of the population served by the housing units will fall within the categories listed above. (ACLT program guidelines) Total number of individuals served in project area on an annual basis: 2-10 depending on tenancy. The current tenancy is a total of three. 100% of households in the housing units will be of Iow income. Page 7 of 10 CDBG 2004 ACLT/Hill Housel0/17/03 12:00 PM b) For proposed projects serving a target population (i.e. homeless families, disabled children, etc.) provide the following data, including document sources of information for statistics. The housing element of this development is targeted at those Ashland households at or below 80% of area median income for whom affordable housing is virtually impossible to acquire. Number of Iow and moderate-income individuals in target population to be served on an annual basis in currently three and could be as many as eight if both sides were housing an intact family with two children. In perpetuity, 100% of units will be income qualified at 80% of median or below. 11) BRIEFLY DESCRi'BE HOW YOUR PROPOSAL Wt'LL ENSURE THAT MODERATE-I'NCOME I'NDIVI'DUALS DO NOT BENEFTT TO THE EXCLUSt'ON OF LOW-iNCOME INDI'VIDUALS. Since we could own this property virtually free of debt, we will have the ability to rent to people of the lowest income levels. Maintaining the current tenants, we will be renting to one household of extremely Iow income and one of moderate income. This furthers the purpose of ACLT and this grant is to retain affordable housing for those who need it while maintaining a diverse and balanced community. Once these tenants vacate the units, we would continue to be able to rent to extremely Iow to moderately Iow income households. While the City of Ashland's Affordable Housing Program seeks to serve those between 80% and 130% of the area median, projects funded by federal dollars usually serve those at or below 80% of area median 12) INDICATE IF YOU EXPECT THE PRO3ECT TO CAUSE LOW AND MODERATE-iNCOME HOUSING TO BE DEMOLISHED OR CONVERTED TO ANOTHER USE. iF SOl EXPLAIN. No Iow and moderate income housing will be demolished and in fact, it will be preserved. 13) PRO3ECT FEASlrBILITY. a) ACLT in association with ACCESS, Inc. is ready and able to complete and manage the project as proposed. ACLT has contacted several service providers and they feel this project is a clear and easy choice to enhance affordability in Ashland. As we will be renting up the Parkview project in a similar time frame as this ACLT Hill House, if the Page 8 of 10 CDBG 2004 ACLT/Hill House 10/17/03 l 2:00 PM current tenants were to vacate we would be able to use the marketing plan in place for Parkview to fill the vacancies. b) Since we will have no debt, we will be able to maintain reasonable rents, pay the taxes, insurance and vacancy costs with the rents received and build up a cash reserve. c) We have entered into a purchase agreement pending the CDBG award with Madeline & Hunter Hill to purchase the property. See attached purchase agreement. d) See attached Temporary Tenant Relocation Cost Estimate Spreadsheet. e) As we see it now, the only time the tenants may be required to be relocated would be during the installation of new upgraded windows. The relocation would take no more than 4 days and we have accounted for this in our Budget. We plan to lodge them in a local motel and provide them a per diem food allowance of $36 dollars per day per person. f) N/A g) N/A h) The project consists of one single story building, built in 1980, situated on a level .22 acre lot, consisting of two residential units. Each unit consists of 5 rooms with 2 bedrooms and ! bath in approximately 880 square feet. There is a total gross building area of 1760 feet, consisting of 10 rooms, 4 bedrooms and 2 baths. There is outside storage on the property and each unit has it's own yardi) Per the appraisal done by Michael R. Wright, the effective age of the current building is l0 years, therefore with regular maintenance and upgrades we expect to be able to maintain the building for another 40 years. i) Both ACLT and Madeline & Hunter Hill have committed funds to this project. ACLT in the form of $1,500 cash and the Hills have indicated they are willing to carp/a small note if it allows this property to remain affordable in perpetuity. t4) [NDI'CATE WHETHER THE PRO.1ECT WZLL HAVE ANY NEGATZVE I'MPACTS ON HZSTORZC OR ARCHI'TECTURALLY SI'GNI'FICANT PROPERTI'ES ON THE ENVt'RONMENT. The City of Ashland has three National Register Districts - Skidmore Academy District, Siskiyou Hargadine District, Railroad District and Downtown District. The project is not located within any of the aforementioned districts. Consequently it appears this proposal will not have any negative impacts on historic or architecturally significant properties on the environment. Page 9 of 10 CDBG 2004 ACLT/Hill Housel0/17/03 12:00 PM 15) PLEASE Al-tACH ANY OTHER STAT1,STI'CAL DATA, LEI-rERS OF SUPPORT, APPLi'CABLE EXPER1~ENCE OF THE SPONSOR~ EVIDENCE OF FI'NANC1,AL SUPPORT FROM OTHER FUNDING SOURCES~ OR OTHER MATER1,AL YOU BELl,EVE WTLL ASS1,ST THE CITY 1,N 1,TS REV1'EW OF YOUR PROPOSAL. A'I-rACH M ENTS: · Cover Letter · Application Form · Application Check List · Form A · Form B · Form C · Form D · Arms Length Agreement · _JI ......... = ..... I ..... · Notice to Renters · Tenant Relocation Estimate · Existing Tenant Survey · Site Map and photos - See Appraisal & Prelim · Appraisal · Prelim · Tax Statement · Housing Operating Budget · Environmental · Letter of Support 16) CDBG APPLZCATTON CHECKLZST SEE A1TACHED Page 10 of 10 CDBG 2004 ACLT/Hill Housel0/17/03 12:00 PM 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 fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. A. Applicant's Background Yes No N/A 1. Is the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit of government? 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet HUD 4hcome Guid61ines (~de page 10 for guidelines)? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial commitment to a proposed project? v 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No N/A 1. Has a location for the project been selected? 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City limits? 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and land use laws? 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, partition, annexation or Conditional Use Permit required? 5. Have these approvals been obtained? 6. Does the project comply with current building code requirements? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility requirements? C. Environmental Issues Yes No N/A 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified on the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? 5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built 1978 or earlier? If year built is known, please specify. /q~gt9 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or near the railroad? CDBG RFP 2004 City of Ashland Page 22 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above ground flammable storage tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is 50 years or older? O. Labor Requirements Yes No NIA 1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in cost? 2. Does the project involve over $15,000 in City awarded grants or contracts? V E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No .~ N/A 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? F. Property Data Yes No N/A 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple title? 2. Are taxes on the property current? 3. Is insurance current? 4. What is the cun'ent debt against the property? 5. What is the current use of the property? ~e~d~t h~ 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? v If yes, what is the assessed value of the property.dgt ?~/ CDBG RFP 2004 City of Ashland Page 23 Form A Project Schedule tivity ~ Ac Sit Planni g & De pm e n velo _Option Site Acquisition Plan Development Pre-application Land Use Approval Construction Plans Final Bids Contractor Selection Building Permits Grant applications local state federal Non-government other Loan Applications Construction loan Pem~anent Construction Phase Construction Certificate of Occupancy Please provide your best (realistic) date estimates regarding the project schedule CDBG RFP 2004 City of Ashland Page 24 Form B Uses of Funding Cost CDBG Request Other Source Land Improvements I 2-0, ~ coo I Z O; (~. O© Liens and other Taxes ~ :~ '~ ~0 Closing costs Ofl~Site costs Other SUBTOTAL Development Cos~ ·: - Land Use Approvals Buildin~ Petits/fees System Development C~ar~cs (SDCs) Environmental Repoa / Lead Based Paint Clearance Soils Repo~ Su~ey Marketing Insurance Other ~i~o~ ~ I Fess ' ' Architectural/Engineering LegaFAccounting Appraisals Lender fees Cons~ction Loan Pe~anent Loan Tax Credit Fees Developer Fee Consul~nt Fee Other ~O~ CDBG RFP 2004 City of Ashland Page 25 SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). SOurces~ secured~ COnditional .~ Tentative .Commi~ent~i' Date Federal Grants State Grants Local Grants (}d) [~ G- ?. ~'~1 .' O00 Non Governmental Grants Donations/Gifts ~ ~ ~ / Applicant Contribution //~C~, / /./~ Program income Loans Other (specify) ?Ct~ ~6.'~ ~, ~ / ~ .gC~ / Other (specify) TOTAL ~ , ¢00~ Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project CDBG RFP 2004 City of Ashland Page 26 Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict of interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: /~'5i'~ IC0~Ct ' ' Organization is: 1. Corporation ( ) ~J 2. Non-Profit 501C3 (v)~ 3. Partnership ( ) 4. Sole Owner ( ) 5. Association ( ) 6. Other ( ) DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed. Name Job Title and City Department (if known) 2. State the name(s) of each elected or appointed "official" of the City of Ashland having a potential "financial interest" in the organization or project. Name/Title 3. State the names of each "board member" of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board, Commission, or Committee 6 ~'~ v~ 8 9 10 11 12 additional If the applicant has provided names in question I or 2, please provide details regarding any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative. CDBG RFP 2004 City of Ashland Page 27 10/13/2003 14 0§ FAX 5414884456 RE/MAX REALTY 8ROUP ~O02/u, This is to inform you that thc Ashland Community land Trust would like to purchase the property located at 264 Ca'ant Street ifa satisfactory agreement can be reached. We are prepared to pay $270,600.00 for clear title to the property under the conditions described in the attached proposed sales agreement. Because federal funds from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program may be used in the project, either for acquisition or rehabilitation, we are required to disclose to you the following information. 1. This agency does not have thc power of eminent domain. Your property will not bc acquired through condemnation. It'negntiations fail to result in an armeable purchase agreement, your property will not be acquired. 2. We are also required to inform you, in writing, of the fair market value of the ~operty. The estimated fair market value will be determined by a fee appraisal or other approved means. You will be informed of the fair market vah~e when it is established. At that tirae you may withdraw from the transaction. 3. The CDBG program requires that the purchase price be the lesser of: the fair market value or the agreed upon price in this sales agreement. 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 arm's length mmsaetion. If you are willing to sell the property based on the above diselosuxes, please sign this letter and return it to this agency within 10 days. It is also our understanding that tenants are occupying the property, If this is correct, please provide us with the names of the tenant-occupants of the property. If you have any questions, please contact Krista Berry or Jennifer Henderson at 482-8~87 or 770-2478. Sincerely, lenmfer Henderson, ACLT President October 12, 2003 Dear Cara Spruill : On October 17, 2003 the Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) will be submitting an application for federal Community Development Block Grant program funds to acquire and/or rehabilitate the property you occupy at 264 Grant Street #B. This notice is to inform you that, if the assistance is provided and the building is acquired and/or rehabilitated, you xvill not be displaced. Therefore, we urge you not to move anywhere at this time. (If you do elect to move for reasons of your choice, you will not be provided relocation assistance). If ACLT receives federal Community Development Block Grant funds to acquire and/or rehabilitate the property, you will be able to lease and occupy your present apartment (or another suitable, decant, safe and sanitary apartment in the same building) upon completion of the rehabilitation. Of course, you must comply with standard lease terms and conditions. After the rehabilitation, your initial rent, including the estimated average monthly utility costs, will not exceed the greater of (a) your current rent/average utility costs, or (b) 30 percent of your average monthly gross household income. If you must move temporarily so that the rehabilitation can be completed, suitable housing will be made available to you for the temporary period, and you will be reimbursed for all reasonable extra expenses, including all moving costs and any increase in housing costs. Again, we urge you not to move. If the project is approved, you can be sure that we will make every effort to accommodate your needs. Because federal assistance would be involved, you would be protected by the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Act of 1970, as amended. This letter is important and should be retained. You will be contacted soon. in the meantime, if you have any questions about our plans, please contact Merry Hart, ACLT Board member at 774- 4306, PO Box 4666, Medford, OR 97501. Sincerely, Jennifer Henderson, ACLTPresident I acknowledge receipt of and agree to the conditions of the above notice. Name (please print) and signature of tenant Date 28/2003 11 09 FAX 5414884456 RE/MAX REALTY 6ROUP 264 GRANT STREET PROPOSED PROJECT INCOME SCENARIO 002/002 PURCHASE PRICE $270,600 PROJECTED MONTHLY INC $795 ANNUAL GROSS INCOME $9,540 3% VACANCY FACTOR $286 ANNUAL EXPENSES $8,823 NET OPERATING INCOME ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE ANNUAL CASH FLOW $717 $o $717 92.48% 7.52% OWNERS STATEMENT OF ANNUAL EXPENSE BREAKDOWN M,~NAGEMENT INSURANCE ADVERTISING WATER RESERVES ELECTRICII¥ TRASH REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE TAXES (est) ACCOUNTING OFFICE/ADMINISTRATION OTHER - GARDENING ANNUALIZED EXPENSES % OF GROSS INCOM $840 8.81% $800 8.39% $50 0.52% $528 5.53% $850 8.91% $25 026% $330 3.46% $1 ,'150 12,05% $2,400 25.16% $500 5.24% $750 7.86% $600 6.29% 6.29% $B,~2~ 02.4~% UJ o00 0o0 o00 0 E ~ 0 o .~ ~ o 0 LandAmerica Lawyers Title 1400 Ashland Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 Tel: (541) 488-2240 Fax: 488-1786 Lawyers Title Insurance Corporation Attn: Patricia Gray 1400 Ashland Street Ashland OR 97520 Date prepared: 05/21./03 PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT FOR ISSUING TITLE INSURANCE Reference: Order No: 119263 Your Ref: Hill Property Address: 264 A & B Grant Street Ashland, Oregon 97520 LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION is prepared to issue title insurance, as of the effective date and in the form and amount shown on Schedule A, subject to the conditions, stipulations and exclusions from coverage appearing in the policy form and subject to the exceptions shown on Schedule B. This report is preliminary to the issuance of a policy of title insurance and shall become null and void unless a policy is issued and the full premium paid. This report is for the exclusive use of the persons to whom it is addressed. Title insurance is conditioned on recordation of satisfactory instruments that establish the interests of the parties to be insured; until such recordation, the Company may cancel, amend, or supplement this report for any reason. Thank you for placing the order with us. Any questions concerning the closing of this transaction should be directed to your escrow officer; questions regarding exceptions shown on this preliminary title report may be directed to your title officer. Escrow Officer: Patricia Gray, CSEO Title Officer: Robert A. Bennett Please call your title officer if you would like copies of any of the exceptions shown in this report. PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT DATED May 13, 2003 SCHEDULE A, Page No. I Order No. 119263 1. The effective date of this preliminary title report is 5:00 P.M. on May 13, 2003 2. The policies and endorsements to be issued and the related charges are: Policy/Endorsement Description Liability ALTA Short Form Residential Loan Policy Ext ALTA 9, 116, 8.1 Inspection Charge $ 130,350.00 $ Charge 566.88 75.00 50.00 3. Title to the land described herein is vested in: Madeline Hill and Hunter S. Hill, as tenants by the entirety Rate 4. The land referred to in this report is described as follows: As fully set forth on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT DATED May 13, 2003 Order No. 119263 SCHEDULE B, Page No. 1 Except for the items properly cleared through closing, the proposed policy or policies will not insure against loss or damage which may arise by reason of the following: STANDARD EXCEPTIONS: 1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public record; proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public record. 2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of said land or by making inquiry of persons in possession thereof. 3. Easements, or claims of easement, not shown by the public records; reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; water rights, claims or title to water. 4. Any lien, or right to a lien, for taxes, workman's compensation, services, labor, equipment rental or material heretofore or hereafter furnished, imposed by law and not shown by the public records. 5. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose. SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS: 6. 2001-02 real property taxes, due and payable. Balance Due: $2,695.17, through 6/15/03. 2002-03 real property taxes, due and payable. Total Tax: $2,240.45. Balance Due: $2,359.94, through 6/15/03. (Code 5-01, Account #1-064419-1, Map #391E05AC, Tax Lot #2101) 7. City Liens of the City of Ashland, Oregon, if any. 8. The effect of said property, or any part thereof, lying within the Talent Irrigation District, and subject to all water and irrigation rights, easements for ditches and canals, and all regulations of said District, including any and all assessments, liens and charges assessed, and to be assessed. 9. Covenants, conditions and restrictions, if any, appearing in the public records. 10. Any easements or servitudes appearing in the public records. 11. Any lease, grant, exception or reservation of minerals or mineral rights appearing in the public records. Continued Order No. 119263 Dated as of May 13, 2003 12. Trust Deed, executed by Madeline Hill and Hunter S. Hill, wife and husband, to Jackson County Title, Trustee, and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., solely as nominee for GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York, beneficiary, dated January 8, 2002 and recorded January 10, 2002 as No. 02-01621 of the Official Records of Jackson County, Oregon, to secure the payment of the sum of $125,050.00. END OF EXCEPTIONS NOTES: We have searched and find no federal or state liens or judgments of record in Jackson County, Oregon against names similar to the above named vestee(s), as of the date hereof. B: The policy premium amount has been reduced by application of a special re-issue credit of $105.00. JACKSON COUNTy RECORDING FEES A~AE AS FOLLOWS: 1. $ 5.00 per page, plus 2. $10.00 per document (Public Land Corner Preservation Fee) 3. $11.00 per document (Assessment and Taxation Fund) 4. $ 5.00 for each additional title in a document with multiple titles 5. $20.00 per each non-standard document which fails to meet the requirements established by ORS 205.232 & 205.234. LENDER NOTE: "LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE CORPORATION, A VIRGINIA CORPORATION" iS the correct name to use if you are going to use this company as the trustee for a trust deed used in this transaction. DAB:rk 119263 EXHIBIT A Commencing at a 5/8" iron pin situated at the southeast corner of Lot Twenty-two (22) of W.C. MEYERS ADDITION to the City of Ashland, Jackson County, Oregon, according to the official plat thereof, now of record; thence North 00a06'00" West (deed record North) 197.885 feet to a 5/8" iron pin witness corner; thence continuing North 00°06'00'' West 0.91 feet, more or less, to the southerly right of way of Grant Street, as said street is presently monumented by the City of Ashland; thence North 89°43'27'' West, along said right of way, 38.66 feet; thence, leaving said right of way, South 00°06'00" East .099 feet, more or less, to a 5/8" iron pin witness corner; thence continuing South 00°06'00'' East, and parallel to the east boundary line of Lot 22 of said W.C. MEYERS ADDITION, 33.00 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 89o50'43'' East 15.16 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 00°06'00" East, and parallel with said east boundary line of Lot 22, a distance of 78.00 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence North 89°50'43" West 75.16 feet to a 5/8" iron pin; thence South 00°06'00" East (deed record South), and parallel with the east boundary line of Lot 22 of said W.C. MEYERS ADDITION, 86.885 feet to a 5/8" iron pin situated in the southerly boundary of said W.C. MEYERS ADDITION; thence South 89°50'43" East (deed record South 89057, East 98.66 feet) 98.66 feet to the point of beginning. (Code 5-01, Account #1-064419~1, Map #391E05AC, Tax Lot #2101) 101 ~07 '2 ~8 , 4AP 2O0 400 SHERIDAN 700 701 ,00 AC, 42O4 GRANT 4600 2o 4401 O.l~ ~C. 4205 410,2 SEE MAP 39 IE 5AC SUPP. 1105 120~ 51 1600 Q.~I J 35O2 , 0.22g 35O 15.1 7/01/2001 TO 6/30/2002 REAL PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON ACCT# 1-06%419-1 PAYMENT QUESTIONS 5%1/774-65%1 . VALUE QUESTIONS 5%1/77%-6059 BITUS 264 RANT 81 CODE MAP 391EOSAC TAXLOT 2101 HILL MADELiNE HILL HUNTER E 66 SCENIC DR ASHLAND OH 97520 FAT CND 922420015361744 LAST YEAR'S TAX 21s ~. 13 See back fa explar~flon ~ taxes ma~ed with (*) ED SVC DIST 52.37 ROGUE COMM COLL 78.21 SD #S 618.27 EDUCATION TOTAL 7%6.85 MARKET VALUE (RMV) IS PROVIDED FOR YOUR INFORMATION ONLY YOUR TAXES ARE BASED ON ASSESSED VALUE (AV) VALUES: LAST YEAR THIS YEAR RMV LAMD 73%40 o51eo RMV BLD~S 18%120 12070o TOTAL R.V 177880 ~089~0 JACKSON COUNTY VECTOR CONTROL CTY UR SPEC LVY CITY ASHLAND RV TRANSP DIET 298.70 6.38 39.27 529.71 · 26.34 900.40 205.10 LOCAL OPTION LEVY TOTAL 205.10 ASSESSED 14%310 1%8620 NET TAXABLE: 1%%31o 1%862o 101 If a modgage company pays your taxes, ~ statement is fo~' your reoo~ds only. Full Paymenl with 2/3 Poyment with 3% Discount 2% Discount 2154.65 1451.2% A Tear Here 2001-2002 PROPERTY TAXES I/3 Pc~enf No Discount 740.43 SD #5 ~ONDE CITY ASH BONDS JACKSON CTY END EXCLUDED FROM LIMITATION TOTAL 2001-02 PROP. TAX TOTALS TOTAL TAX (After Discount) pLEASE REIURN mis PORZ1ON WITH YOUR PAYMENT JACKSON COUNT~ REAL Full Payment Enclosed ........................... Due: or 2/3 Payment Enclosed ................. Due: or 1/3 Payment Enclosed ................. Due: DISCOUNT IS LOST & INTEREST APPLIES AFTER DUE DATE HILL MADRLINR NILD HUNTER S 66 SCENIC DR ASHLAND OR 97520 2%7.63 6%.37 56.94 368.94 2221.29 ACCT# 1-064419-1 Enter Pczyment Amount DATE11/26/2001 RRCEIPT~ 5-34112 TAXES REMAINING z 2221.29 , , , ~ ~ l~ ~, ~,~ ,, ioli ~ ~ I l! ~I ~o !~1~1~ ~m~t ~m~ I-~/~1 , ]~ ~ i ~ ! I ~I I ', Ill i '~i~ ,/- Fall 2003 CFC Application 5 - 3 August 15, 2003 OHCS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST BASIC INFORMATION Sponsor: /~ C__d._~- Site Address: ~- ~ Project Name: Legal description (required): Township: ~ Range: I ~-- . Section: The spo~or must complete this environn~ntal review checklist in its entirety and provide to the Regional Advisor to the Director (PAD) prior to the 1LAD's site visit. The RAD will review the information during the performance of the site review. For HOME applicants, a Housing Development Representative will then complete the Environmental Review Record for the file. Certification: This checklist has been completed accurately to the best ~ our ~kl}6wl~d~ge, and the ~ has conducted an in-person site review. Aex_-I- ./o r 'iec ¢/o erso / \l/llax,,/ / //6,/03 Spousor Name Si~' y '~' Date PAD Name Signature Date Sponsor must provide a site/area map with scale included. On the map, indicate the following: (The site location must be visible on any copies sent). NOTE: Original colored maps copied in black and white can be difficult to read. · Location ofatrp°rt (if applicable) · Railroad (if applicable) · Nearest 4-lane highway or arterial · Social Service agencies · Hospital, police and fire depts · A photocopy of the most recent FEMA Flood Plain map including a copy of the Panel number and date with project site sketched in. · Recreational facilities (park, activity centers, etc.) · Commercial/retail facilities (grocery, dept stores, etc.) · Nearby industrial facilities · Location of schools · Rivers, streams, ponds, springs, wetlands SOURCE - Commercial Services Employment Centers TYPE DISTANCE FROM PROJECT COMMENTS Public Transportation Elementary Schools Middle/Jr. High High Parks and Recreation Social Services Police Station Emergency Sen'ices Fire Station Emergency Medical Hospital Fall 2003 CFC Application 5 - 4 August 15, 2003 I INFORMATION SOURCE CODING I The source of all information used must be identified. Record the source here and indicate the appropriate code in the space provided throughout the checklist. FO - Field Observation. (On-site observation or personal knowledge of the preparer) Preparer: Date of field observation: Address: Phone: PS - Project Sponsor. FL - Planning Department. (Information supplied by local planning department or local official previously listed) RI - Report. (Information fi-om consultant reports, databases, licenses, other authorities. Number such sources consecutively and list below) RI Tire of Report: Preparer: Date: R2 Title of Report: Preparer: Date: I EXISTING STRUCTURES ON SITE LAND DEVELOPMENT source FO Are there other stxuctures on the site that will not be included in the CFC-ftmded construction or rehabilitation? (yes/no) ~}0 If so, are there plans to demolish any or all of them? (Describe all existing sia'uctures whether commercial, residential, storage, etc. and any plans for them.) I SOIL SUITABILITY source PS, FO Is the site level or sloped? ]~'[5~gCjJ~.] If sloped, give the range of degrees of the slope. Axe there any signs ofuustable soils in the vicinity? (e.g. cracked foundations, sinkholes) Axe area soils highly erodible? Submit soil reports if available. Describe soil type and bearing. Get soils type from Natural Resource Conservation Service (local county jurisdiction). Fall 2003 CFC Application 5 - 5 August 15, 2003 HAZARDS source FO Are any natural hazards apparent? (dangerous trees, sinkholes, ravines, avalanche-prone slopes, etc.) /-/' Are any of the following present: overgrown adjacent property, abandoned adjacent buildings, unfenced commercial/hidustrial adjacent property, high pressure petroleum or natural gas pipelines, irrigation canals, drainage ditches, old wells, improperly screened street drains, deteriorated stxeets or sidewalks, adjacent power substations, high voltage power transmission lines through or adjacent, excessive vibration, odors, dust, field crops, livestock? Give details. X CONTAMINATION SCREENING source PS, FO, PL If this is a rehabilitation project or the demolition of an existing stmctare is contemplated, is there evidence of the presence of asbestos or lead based paint? (generally, lead based paint can be found in mst buildings constructed prior to 1978). Describe the inspections made to identify these two hazards and results of inspections. If no inspections have been made, are they planned? Has there be~n an "environmental due diligence" investigation of the site performed (TSQ, Phase I or II, site characterization, etc.)? /{.g~ __ Is it available? .~ If so, only the executive summary and any recommendations need be submitted. More information may be requested later ffneeded. If no 'environmental due diligence' investigation is available, answer the following questions: Is there evidence of contamination or potential contamination on immediately adjacent properties (landfills, chemical storage facilities, service stations, chemical processors, plating plants, dry cleaners, vehicle storage, wrecking or repair businesses, underground storage tanks, drums, distressed soil or vegetation, fill, contaunnated wells, transformers, major transmission line, adjacent substation)? Provide details. ls there evidence of contamination or potential contamination on site (drams, chemical containers, distressed soil or vegetation, odors, accumulation of trash or debris, contaminated wells, transformers, potential USTs [look for old foundations, slabs, pipes in the ground])? Provide details. 0 ls there evidence of fill on site? If there is, does documentation exist to demonstrate that the fill was engineered and is appropriate for the intended use? Submit evidence. Are all utilities presently at the site? (yes/no) / If no, what needs to be brought to the site? Fall 2003 CFC Application 5 - 6 August 15, 2003 SITE SAFETY source FO, PL List names, addresses and phone numbers of local officials and the date contacted regarding the following: Site Safety Name: '~/g14 0/.Jd~ $)/]~/t~ /ilo//1~'_ Date: /'D. /,~ ~ Phone: Runway Clear Zones are areas immediately beyond the end of runways at civil airports. NO SITE IN A RUNWAY CLEAR ZONE OR ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONE WILL BE APPROVED, Is the site located in a Runway Clear Zone? O,es/no) y~.~ Explosive and flammable hazards are above ground tanks that contain explosive or flammable materials. Common examples are: commemial propane tanks, fuel oil deports, gasoline storage, mdnstrial solvent storage, refineries. Residential fuel oil tanks of 100 gallons or less are excepted. Tanks that are currently ernpty but have not been decomrrassioned and can legally be refilled will be considered 'live.' Are there any explosive or flammable tanks within line of sight of any part of the proposed site? (aboveground) x X)a Axe there any explosive or flammable tanks wittfin 500 feet of any part of the proposed site shielded from line of sight by buildings but not topography (buildings may or nmy not be an effective barrier, topography is an effective barrier)? If so, describe. x projects near hazardous facilities. OHCS will contact apl, licants- later for the detailed inforJnation necessary to complete HUD'x site requirements for I NOISE I EFFECTS OF NOISE FO, PS, PL Is any part of the site within 5 miles of an airport with scheduled service (passenger, cargo or military)? ls any part of the site within 3,000 feet ofa mikoad? /to Is any part of the site within 1,000 feet of a highway of 4 or more lanes? V~ ~ ~ /L]~ Are any other noise generators located nearby (such as heavy industrial facilities, rail yards, shipyards, fire stations)? Identify them and give their distance from the site. Comment: Sites immediate(v adjacent tofi'eeways and heavily traveled rail lines may' not be acceptable. Most other sites will either be acceptable or acceptable with design mitigation to achieve the required interior standard x Fall 2003 CFC Application 5 - 7 August 15, 2003 I AIR QUALITY SCREENING AIR QUALITY source ~(--~ FO, PL Is the site subject to air quality impacts not generally shared with the entire community? (e.g., close proxim/ty to Freeway, grovel pit, pulp mill or other source generator or air pollution). If so, describe. x I HISTORIC AND PRESERVATION VALUES ~-~/ HISTORIC PRESERVATION SCREENING source PL, RI appropriate sources for first 4 questions. County assessor, current owner Every site, whether bare land or scheduled for rehabilitation and/or demolition of existing buildings, must address the questitus below. Identify the source of the information. Possible sources include SHPO, local historical societies, city and county planners. 1 ) Is any part of the site in an established or proposed historic or conservation district? (yes~no) 2) Is the site or any structure on the site listed in a local historic or cultural resources inventory or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)? If so, describe. 3) Are any immediately adjacent sites or structures listed ina local historic or cultural resource inventory or the NRHP? If so, describe. 4) Are there any known or suspected archaeological resources on the site, adjacent sites or in the vicinity? If so, describe. List the year(s) built of any structure(s) on the site: /~ ~ List name, address and phone number of persons or entities contacted for answers to above: Name/title: ~/~4-~/~L-/~..~O/,/ /4-5 -oatn _P z. e/bate: /C,~ Phone: ~-~U Address: ~/ /~'~ ~ (~ i Jqrfi /~0 ~. Note to all upplicant~ (regardless of funding requests): If any buitdmg is 50 or more ye~s old, include fie follo~ng ite~ ~ ~is application. Each ~divid~l building over 50 years of age requkes sub~ssion of ~esc ite~ separately: Fall 2003 CFC Application 5 - 8 August 15, 2003 · Photographs, laser-copy photos, or color-printed digital images (no photocopies, no Polaroids) of the targeted building(s) or of the proposed site, showing architectural context of the project. The photos must clearly show the entire building as well as the immediate surrounding area. · A physical description, including date of construction, of any building affected by the project completion. If alterations to the s~uctures have been made, they need to be dated also. Important note regarding HOME projects and SHPO: For projects APPLYING FOR HOME FUNDING FROM OHCS, the above historic and preservation answers and photos, as well as the description of the project, the ad&ess of the property and the site/locality maps included with the Environmental Checklist will be forwarded to the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) for approval on the project's behalf. Applicants should not forward these items to SHPO themselves. However, if application is being made FOR HOME FUNDS FROM A SOURCE OTHER THAN OHCS, applicants must work with that HOME source regarding who will contact SHPO. List name, ad&ess and phone number of persons or entities contacted re: buildings over 50 years of age: Name/Title: Date: Phone: Ad&ess: I NATURAL RESOURCES FLOOD PLAINS source I · Federally supported construction activities are prohibited within the 100-year floodplain as mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), except under limited circumstance& FEMA Map # ~l,/? t-RD ,C/t90/.-3tO / Effective date ~),eo~_ Is any part of the site located within the 100-year flood plain according to the FEMA map? Will any off-site couslruction occur within the 100-year flood plain? (yes/no) (yes/no) A copy of the applicable FEMA map panel must be submitted with the proposed site sketched in or identified. Please use dark ink. Colored ink or markers do not photocopy well. If the panel is not printed, the site is not in the flood plain. Local governments are required to have flood plain maps available. WETLANDS source ~ PL, FO HUD has defined wetlands as "...only those designated wetland areas identified or delineated on maps issued by the Fish and Wildlife Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior as areas that are inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do or would support, a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth or reproduction. ' The project site may also contain wetland designation areas from state, county or local entities. List names, addresses and phone numbers of local officials and the date contacted regarding wetlands: Name: ~/~/~ /~/t~Ol~/t ~.,v'~_Date: .,/~.g Phone: ~2 ~ / ~ - Fall 2003 CFC Application 5 - 9 Augusl 15, 2003 Has any part of the site (including off-site construction areas) been identified as potentially a jurisdictional wetland by one of the following sources? If iurisdictional wetlands are anywhere on the site or adiacent to the site, a site map showing an overlay of the wetland area and the planned building(s) must be submitted. Use dark ink. Colored ink or markers do not photocopy well. US Army Corp of Engineers Oregon Division of State Lands US Fish and Wildlife (Nail Wetlands Inventory Maps) Natural Resource Conservation Service (rural areas) Local planning Department (Goal 5 Inventories) Wetlands Delineation consultant Other (yes/no) Comment: The local planning department should be cognizant of any identifications made by the above authorities. Submit any documentation available concerning the wetland status of the site. If potential jurisdictional wetlands have not been identified, does the site exhibit any of the following characteristics? Characteristic (yes/no) Wetland vegetation (cattails, rushes, reeds, sedges, reed canary grass, creeping buttercup) Hyckic Soils (Soil Conservation Service Maps) Seasonally saturated conditions Water table within 18 inches of surface Wetland wildlife (ducks, salamanders, frogs, nutria, etc. Comment: For sites which possess no potential wetland characteristics (such as building lots in established urban neighborhoods that are "high and dry,' desert sites with no water resources in the vicinity, or sites with no water resources in the vicinity that are un-vegetated or artificially planted [irrigation is a water resource], the above investigation may be cursory (an inquiry with the planning department and field observation). If water resources are on site or adjacent, the planning department indicates potential for wetlands in the vicinity, any of the above characteristics are present or the public has raised wetlands as an issue, a more thorough examination is merited. The services of a qualified professional may be necessary. OHCS will not debate the delineation of any wetland (or the determination that no wetland is present) that has been documented as acceptable to the Oregon Division of State Lands. VEGETATION AND VfflI,DLIFE source p (-~ List names, addresses and phone numbers of local officials and the date contacted regarding vegetation and wildlife: Name: /&On/ Date: e/~///o/~,~Phone: ~.~--2-~-~'~(/' Have any endangered, threatened or candidate species been identified in the quarter section of land surrounding the site? If so, provide details. Use Nature Conservancy's Oregon Natural Heritage Program for communities with ident~ed STvecies within their UGBs. X Fall 2003 CFC Application 5 - 10 August 15, 2003 Have any rare plants or animals been identified on the site? If so, provide details. PL £~ appropriate source. Has the locality identified the site or vicinity as wildlife habitat as part of its Goal 5 Inventory process? If so, provide details, PL is appropriate source. x /Ggr Describe the predominate ground cover and any wildlife observed. FO is appropriate source. / HOME-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW QUESTIONS If the project includes OHCS HOME funds, tiffs section must be completed. If not, this section can be skipped. List names, addresses and phone numbers of local officials and the date contacted regarding the following: Public Water Name: Date: Phone: Address: Public Sewer Name: Date: Phone: Address: Storm Sewer Name: Date: Phone: Address: SOLID WASTE source ~t.._ FO, PS, PL Is garbage collection available? (yes/no) Is it by commercial service or local government? Will curbside residential recycling be available to the proposed project? Is construction waste recycling available m the community? WASTE WATER Is public sewer available at the site? (yes/no) If public sewer is not available, explain waste-water disposal arrangements. source ~Z:7/--- FO, PS, PL X STORM WATER Is public storm sewer available at the site? If so, is this a combined waste/storm sewer'? (yes/no) (yes/no) If public storm sewer is not available, how will storm water drainage be handled? X Note.- .4ttach Environmental ChecMist documents to the back qf'this Section. Fall 2003 CFC Application 5 - 11 August 15, 2003 TENANT RELOCATION Permanent tenant displacement or relocation due to Department funding is strongly discouraged. Even temporary displacement or relocation of persons, as a result of HOME assistance, will trigger federal Uniform Relocation Act requirements, and this may have a significant financial impact on the project. For more information, refer to "Relocation" in the HOME Program Section of this Application. If potential displacement or relocation will occur, describe how the following factors will be addressed: The type of displacement: (temporary or permanent) x The process that will be used to relocate residents: x The availability of comparable replacement units: x Funding soume to be used to accomplish the relocation: x Amount of funding set aside for relocation assistance: $ Guidelines used for calculating relocation assistance: X Describe the local jurisdiction's established displacementJrelocation policy (if applicable): X How can work be phased to avoid moving tenants? x How will displacement and specialized housing for tenants with disabilities will be addressed? x How will the newly rehabbed units be affordable to original and new tenants? X NOTE: For HOME projects invoh,ing relocation enclose copies of tenant-signed General Information ~otices at the back of the HOME Suppltmental Forms Section SOUTHERN OREGON UNIVERSITY October 16, 2003 Tammi Spencer Ashand Community Land Trust P.O. Box 3027 Ashland OR 97520 RE: ACLT/Hill Project Dear Ms. Spencer, I am writing this letter in support of the Ashland Community Land Trust's application for a Community Development Block Grant. Affordable housing is very scarce in Ashland and is a growing problem for our students, families and community. The lack of affordable housing is the root cause of many challenges that plague Ashland and promises to become even more problematic in the futura. As more workers are forced to live outside the city, issues related to traffic congestion, safety, parking, pollution, and mass transit increase. Ashland Community Land Trust has worked really hard to create and sustain affordable housing within the city of Ashland. Their goal of creating partnerships with local, regional, state and federal entities, to ensure that Ashland families with low and moderate income's aren't forced to move due to the cost of buildings and land in Ashland is admirable. These units, and those that ACLT has and will create, represent the building blocks of a larger movement toward the provision of perpetually affordable housing stock in Ashland. Housing costs in Ashland will continue to rise but these units will remain affordable. I hope Ashland Community Land Trust is successful in their application for a City Development Block Grant to assist in the preservation of some much needed affordable housing. si,n:c, erely, l J Director of Housing & Residential Life Southern Oregon University Housing Office Residential Life · Conferences 1250 Siskiyou Boulevard Ashland, Oregon 97520-5055 Housing 541-552-6371 Fax 541-552-6380 File No. ~73~3 Page #1 Prope~'y Addfass: Appraisal Prepared For:. Prepared ~ ~: Prepared By:. 328 $. C,,=,~,,~ Aveflue, ~ .Z04, t4ed~cI, OK 9750'1 SMALL RESIDENTIAL INCOME PROPERTYAPI~RAISAL REPORT F,, No. 5073-03 M~lme [~]Un~3ms. ~3~mos. E~0va-6mos. NeJgl~]~;~U~consldered ~A/~.~;tl~itv of Ashland, mlJY~tS b to ~lluate I~e Inventory currently ae Ihe market compellno with t~e subject prc~e~/in ~hs subl~ ~dmem price and marketing 26~ A/B Grant Street Scenk: Drive Sou~ Laurel Stz~et 1164 & 1166 Iowa S~et ~hl~M, OR L~hlan~, OR ]Ashmnd, OR ~*ss /~.h~nd, OR 9l~ZO . 1~7~ SMALL RESIDEN yeir ~llt ~O0 [IAL INCOME PROPERLY APF RAISAL REPORT FII ~ #.. 5073-03 [] Fk~ Adeq~,a~ Ave~aee ~ROSS BUILDING AREA IS DEFINED AS THE TOTAL FINISHED AREA (INCLUDING COMMON AREAS) OF THE Type EBB CaE~t./Avo. flails Drywall/Ava. vlc~ofly of Ih* subject propety: ~;[[ ADDENDUM~; Aq-rACH ED, VALUATION ANALYSIS SEE ATFACHED FLOOR PLAN FOR CALCULA'rZON. COST APPROACH NOT CONSIDERED A VIABLE METHOD OF ES'I'~MAT[NG VALUE ON HOME SIMII~ lO SUBJECT IN ~RMS OF AGE. REMODEl TNG OR REFURBISHING, 5073-03 SMALL RESIDENTIAL INCOME PROPERTY APPRAISAL REPORT FU..0. 5o73-o3 264 A/B Grant Sbt, et ~idmss Ashland. ~)R 97520 Sales prh~ $ N/A ]~ ~n~cx Xnspectl~ 2455 SL~dyou Blvd. Ashland. OR 7,5 MI ESE 470 Alllsa~ Sheet Ashland. OR 0.43 MI S ~UnL I~lFum. $ 284000 $ 171.50 $ Unknown q00 Ml~son Street ~hland. OR 0,39 MI S ~]Dnf. [~Fum.$ 259000 226.40 S Unl~wn S 124950 $ 129500 $ 1420~0 S 22718.18 32375,00 $ 31555.56 MLS/Covnty Records MLS/CounLy Records MLS/County Records Nor~ None 3000 A4Justed ~alfl price '~-: 3.68~b. ~;: ,5 .gl.q;: i~: IIIOl ~l-r.D VAUJE BY ~$ ¢OMP~IRIION/d~PIIOJJ~H .............................................................. $ 270000 8 DICATEII VAUJE IV I# DOME APPROADB ........................................................................ $ 270000 III DID&11~l yALUE IY D1~$1' ~PIWADII .......................................................................... $ 270600 Ni~e MIc~ael R.~Wr~aht ~ Pane Operating Income Statement OhO- t. Four-Family Investment Property and Two- to Four-Family Owom-Ooouplod Property th~ No. Property Address Street 264 A/8 Grant Sb'eet 6ity Ashlar~l ~t~ OR ~ig Cg{q 97520 5073-03 Unit No. 2 Yes X No __ ~]U3~__ $ ~ $ _ 600.00 Gas .............. [] [] Tiash Removal .......... [] [~ The a~plic~nt should complete ail et the income and expense pro actions and for existing properties provide aciual year-end operating statements tar the pest two yews for new properties the applicants pro acted income and expenses must be provided. This Operating Income Statement and any previous operating statements the xpplicant provides must then be sent to the appraiser for revieW, commenl and/or adjustments next ta the xpplicanrs ligures e.g., kpplicanvAppraser 288/300. Il the appraiser is re.ned to complete the lorm instead gl the applicant, the lender must provide to the ~ppraiser the aforementioned opmabng statements, mortgage insurance premium. ~OA dues, leasebotd payments, subordinate gnancthg, and/or any other relevant inthrmaban as to the income and expenses olthe subject properly recyN~d from the applicant to substantiate the projeetthns. The unden~Ti/er should cwefuR~ review the ap plicanrs/appra~ser's prolections and the appraisers commet~ts concerning those pmjeatlans, me under*Tiler should make any final adjustments that we neceseaty lo more accuratety reflect any raceme or expense i/ems that appear unreasonable for the market. Real estate taxes and insurance on these types gl properties are included in PITt and not calculated as an annual expense dem. Income shmJ d be based on current rents, but should not exceed market rents. When there are no current rents because the properly is proposed, new. or currently vacant, mocker rents should be used. Annual Inaome and F. xpenve Projection for Next 12 Months I~ome (Do not include income for ow~er-occuptad units) By ApldlOant/Appraiser Gross NInual Rental (tmm unit(s) to be rented) ............................... $ J.l,J~l O $ Other Income (taelude sources) ........... + + Tarot $11880 __ $ 0 Less Vacancy/Rent Loss .......................................... -238 ( ~ %) -0 Effective Gross Inoome ................................................. $116~2 $~_ Ex.nils (Do not include expenses for ovmer-occupied units) E~ectricgy. AdJudmente by Underwriter ( -- %) Fuel Oil Fuel .................................... ( Type - Water/Sewer Pest Control ......................................................... Other T~es or Licenses Interior Pain~ecorat tag General Re~r~nthn~ce ............ ~his inc)d~es t~e cos s of [ems [ke [gh ~ul~s, ~it~r~ ~ppJies,'e c. + ' ' To~l Replasement Red.as - See Scheduta on Pg 2 ........................... Z580 Total O~rotlng Ex, encee ............................................. $ 2811 Sg Replacement Reserve Schedule Equipment Stoves/Ranges ....... @ $ Refrigerators .......... @ $ Dishwashers .......... @ $ ~C Units ........... @ $ C. Washer/Dryers ........ @ $ HW Heaters ......... @ $ -- Fumace(s) ........ @ $_ (Other) ......... @ $ Replacement Remaining BI Applicant/ CoM Ufe Apmntser 500e~ + ~Yrs. X ZUnits-$ 50 S ea. + __Yrs. X Untts=$ __ $___ ea + --Yrs. X Units=$ __ $ __ ea + Yrs. X _Units=$ $ ea. + --Yrs. X Units;$ $_ 't00 ea. + ZC) Yrs. X _ Z Units-$ 'lQ $ 500 ea. + ~Yrs. X Z Units-$ __ 50 $ ea + __Yrs. X ___Units=$ $ Reel ........... @ $ 6000 ea + ~Yrs. X One Bldg.= $ _ 240 $_ Carpeting (Wall to Wall) Remaining Ufe (Units) '1OO Total Sq. Yds, @ $ 15.00 PerSq. Yd. + ~ Yrs. = $ 1200 $ (P, JblicAreas) TotalSq. Yds.@ $ PerSq. Yd, + __ Yrs. = $ $ Total Replacement Reserves. (Enter on Pg. 1) Operating Income Reconciliation $ 1580 $ $ 11642 - $ 2811 = $ ~l~l + 12 ,- $ 735.92 Effective Gross Income Total Operating 5~enses Operating income Monthly Operating Income $736 ---$ 1128 = $-392.00 Monthly Operating Income Monthly Housing Expense Net C~sh Flow Note: Monthly Housing Expense includes principal and interest on the rnoRgaga, ha~rd insurance premiums, reaJ estate taxes, modgage nsurance prem ums, HOA dues, leaseho d payments, and s~bord nate naJqC ng daymenLs.) UnderwTitars instructions for 2-4 Family O~er~ccupied Propedies · II Monthly Operating income is a positive number, enter as 'Net Rental income' in the 'Gross Monthly Income' section of Freddie Mac Form 65/Fannie Mae Form 1003. If Monthly Operating Income is a negative number, it rmJst be included as a liabi&ity for qualification purposes, · The borrowers rnonthty houstag expef~se-to-income ratio muat be cat culated by comgaring the total Monthly Housing E,xpense for the subject property to the borrowers s~ole monthly income. UnderwUtars instructions for 1 ~I Family Investment Properties · IfNetCashFIowisapositivenumber enteras'NetRentalthcorne'inthe'GrossMombiylncome'sectionofFreddieMac Form 65/l:annie Mae Form t 003. If Net Cash Flow is a negative number, It must be Incted~ as a liabigly for quat ificat on purposes · The borrowers monthly housif~g expense-to-incorne ratio must be cat culated by comparing the total mombly housing expense for the borrowers pfirna~ residence to the borrowers stable monthly income. Appraisers Comments {including sources fo,' data ~d rationale for the projections) Honthly housing expeflse Is based on a loan of $187,000. O0 ~- 30 years at 6% Interest. Hlchael K. Wright Appraiser Name UnderwTiter~ Comments ~nd Rationale for .A, diuetmento ~pra~ser Sq}~a~ure Date Unde~A'lter Name Unbenq~iter Signature Text A~enclum FUm #0. 5073-03 CJ~y ~nd County ~ . S~e ~ ZipCode ~7520 No adjustment for site size is considered necessary because differences in utility are minimal. Homesites in this area tend to sell on a *'per site" basis rather than a "per acre" basis. Adjustment for physical amenities of hnprovements are derived from the appraisers ~irst hand knowledge of the subject area, market extrapolation and cost factors from local builders. Age and condition adjustments. Age adjustments are a result of change m taste of buyers, such as mtarior decor and exterior design. Also included in age adjustment is incurable depreciation of the long life portion of the improvements. Condition adjustments reflect physical observable deterioration, such as worn carpets, paint, fixtures, etc. Market factors do not justify adjustment for bedroom count. Net adjustments do not exceed 15%, nor does any single adjustment exceed 10%. Gross adjustments are all under 25%. Sales dates are as of closing. No value was given for personal property. Although the distance to comparables exceed one mile, they are all located in similar competing areas and are within a ten minute drive to work and retail centers. Although comparables are of different design than subject, they are of similar quality and would compete for same buyers in an open market. Interest being appraised is "Fee Simple". Purpose of this report is to estimate market value to aid the chent in making financial decisions. Collection of data in this report was limited to a physical inspection of subject properly, search of the multiple listing service and county records for comparable sales. The present use of the subject property is considered to be its highest and best use. This report conforms to USPAP "COMPLETE APPRAISAL" AND "SUMMARY REPORT" requirements. 1F UNDERWRiTI~IG HAS QUESTIONS, PLEASE CONTACT APPP~AISER. BY CALLING (541) 857-0222 OR FAX (541) $57-0444. WE WILL RESPOND AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. File No, 5073~3 Pqe#9 SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM Zip Code: 97520 INTERIOR SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM Lende~Client In _be~'d~ I~me Loans Code: 97520 Di~ln9 Room / Unit A K)bct~ / Unit A Uvi~ R~xn /Unrc A INI~RIOR SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM L~der/Cli~t ~ Home Loans Dk~l~Eooln/~B I~t~c~e~ / Ll~it B LISTING COMPARABLE PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM HUI, Hun~r S./Nadelr~e City: ,~bland O0~nt~ Lenda/CIi~nl: ~n _l~gHty Hca. ne Loans S~e: OR Z~p Cede: 97520 F~ont Vlew R~ to ~b]e~ 0.81 Addres~ 103 Sout~ La~el Slzeet Proc to Subject: 0.49 MZ w List Price: $ 549000 Gro~ I~ng Area: 1882.00 I..~g ~le 3 Fn~t V;ew ~e:~ 1164 & 1166 ~owa Sheet Prmc to ~bject: 0.~ ~ SE ~ng~ 2~6.~ T~ ~ 12 T~ ~=; 6 T~ ~: 3.~ RENI'AL COMPARABLE PHOTOGRAPH ADDENDUM Rmtal Canparable 1 Frmlt View Rox. to Subject: 1 MI SE Mmlhly Rent: $ 1250.00 Gr~ !.J~flg Nea: 999.00 TO~1 R~ms: 9 Tol~ Bedrooms: 3 Remal O:~oarable 2 ~ex. to Subiect: 1 MI SSE Monthly Rail $ 1585.00 G~e~s LMng Ne.a: 999.00 TotaJ Roans: 11 Total Bedfeems: 5 Total ~foc~s: 3.00 Address: 431 Linty St:feet Prc~ to Sub~:l: 1 14~ SSE Meemly P, eflc $ .00 Gross L~ng Nea: 999.00 TotaJ Ro~ms: 0 T~J Bedroems: 0 Locate: SKETCH File No. 5073-03 Borrowe#Client HIll. Hunter S./HadelJne Address ~ A/B Grant Street __ __ City Ashla~ County Sta~e OR Z~p Code 97520 PLAT MAP Flta lie. 5073-0t Borrower/Client HIlL Hunter $./MadeJlne Address Z64 AiD Grant Street City Ashland Lender/Client ]ni:earltv Home Loarm State OR Zip Code 97520 LOCATION MAP Fl~ #o. 5073-03 Borrower/Client Hill. Hunte~ S./Madeline Address 26~ A/B Grant Street City Ashland Lender/Client Znteorlt~ Home Loans County Jackson__ State OR. ZipOode 97520 Legal OescripUo~ File #o. 5073-03 Address 264 A/B Grant Sb'eet City /~shlancl County Jackson Sta~e ~ ZipCode 97520 Lender/~lient Ifltegdtv Home Loans A tract orparcel of land .itueted in a portion ot Lot ~~ of the w.C. Mlq~RS ADDITION to Aabland, oregon, end situated in the Northwe. t Q~arter of Section 5, Town.hip 3' South, ~ang. i BaSt Of the Wills..tte Meridian in J&ck.on Count~, Ore;on, and being mot. fully de.cribed .8 follow8. Commencing at a 5/8" iron pin .ituat.d at the Southa&.t corner of LQt 22 of 8aid Myer8 Mdiciont thence North 89.50~ .3" West lde.d recQrd West, 98.66~eet} along the Southerly boundary line of .aid Myer. Add~tlon, 98.&6 feet to a iron pint thenceleaving .aid Southerly bound.ry line North 00.06'00" We.t (deed record >>orth) and parallel to the Ea.c.rly boundary line of .aid Lot 2~, a distance of 86.885 te.t to a 5/8" iron pin for the tru. point of beginning; thence contin\ling North 00.06'00" WeSt (deed record North) 111.00 feet to a 5/8" iron pin WitheS. Cornerl th.nce cont~nulng North 00.06 00 We.t, .12 teet, ~r. or le.., to the Southerly right ot W&y ot Grant Street, a..aid street i. presently monumented by the Cit~ ot A.hland; fence South .e9.43'~~7" ~.a.t (deed record Es.t) along .&Kd right of way, 60.00 teet; thence leavini .aid right of way, South 00.0"00" Es.t, 0.99 feet, More or le.., to a 5/8" iron pin Withe.. Corner; thence continuing South 00.0"00" BaSt end parallel to the Ba. t Boundary line of Lot 22,of ~sai,d, Myer8 Addi,tion, 33.00 file,t, .to a 5/8" iron pinl thence South .50 43 Be.t, 15.1 feet to A 5/8 ~ron p~nl thence South 00.06~00TM EaSt end parallel to .aid ~aSt boundary l~ne of Lot 22 a di.tance of 78.00 feet to a 5/8" iron pin1 thence l~orch 89.50' .3 We.t. 75.1 f.et to the point of beginning. MULTI-PURPOSE SUPPLEMENTAL ADDENDUM FOR FEDERALLY RELATED TRANSACllONS (FIRREA) F~, Ilo. 5073-03 The purpose of the appraisal is to estimate the market ~due el the sub eot property ~s defined herein. The funcdon of the apprat~ is to assist the [] The appraisal is based on the Informabon gathered by the appr~isur from public records, other identified s~urces, inspection of the subject property and neighborhood, and sthection of compa-able sales within the sabject market are~ The o~igthat source of the compaabies is SJlOW~ in the DaZe Source section of the market grid atong with the source of confirmab~n, if available. The o¢iginat source is presented first. The sources and data a~e considered rabapta. When conflicting inl~mation vr~ provided, the scarce deemed treat reliable has been used. Data believed to be unreliable was not included in the roped nor used as a basis for the value conclusion. [] The Keproducban Cost is based on MarshaJl supplemented by the appralse~ knowledge of the local rn,~th. [] Physical depreciation is based on the estimated effective age el the subject properly. Functional and/o~ external depreciation, if present, is specifically addressed in the appraisal report or other addenda. In estimabng the site value, the appraiser has relied the local rn~kth. This knowdedge is based on prior a~d/c~ current analysis of site sales and/cf apsb'action of s~te ~ues from sales of improved propedies. [] The subject properiy is totaled in ~ a'ea of primarily OValer-occupied sthgle family residences and the Income Approach is not considered to be meanlngfub For this reason, the Income Approach was not uSed. [] The Estirnthed Maker Rent and Gross Renl Multiplier utilized in the Income Approach we dasd on the ap~alsm~s knowledge of the subject market area The rental knowledge is based on prio~ and/or current rental rate su~eys of residential propmties. The Gross Rent Multiplier is based on prior and/or current analysis of prices and maket rates for residengai propedies. [] For income producing properhes, actual rents, vacancies and expenses have been reported and analyzed. They have been used th proi~ct future rents, vacancies and expenses. According ta 5ouUqern OreGon t4ulUDle LlstJno S~rvlce/Pubric P. eo~ [] I~oot blonoffsmd tor sale in the past 12 monthsor __ years. [] b currently offend lot sale rot $ the subject property: According to the subject property: yea's a/e listed below and reconciled to the appraised value, [] The subject property 18 not Iooatod in a FEMA Special Flood Hazaxd [] The s~bject properly I~ Iooatedin a FEMA Special Flood Hazard [] The c~mmunity does not I~utl~lpate In the National Flood Ingrate R~r~. J ~ ~e co~ni~ does ~bl~ba in ~e ~l~ Fth~ In~ce R~. lt is ~red by m m~ p~. H is c~ed by ~ e~r~ ~. F#e #o, 5073-03 [] Pe~senal property was not Inoluded in the fir~l value estimate. [] Personal property wac Inoluded in the final value estirrete. [] The contract indicated no flnanolng ooi~lsstans or other incentives, [] The contract indicated the following Concessions or incentives: Estimated contributory vAlue is $ applicable, so that the final value conclusion is in compliance with the Ma~t VAlue defined herein. 3to6 months is considered a masenable ma~keUng period to~ the subiect properly based on Public Record The ~prAiser certifies and agrees that: ThAir a~Aiyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, a~d this rapod w~s prepared, in conformi with the Uniform Standards of (1) professional ApprAisAl PTactice (.USPAp.), and in accordance with the regulstions developed by thet~nder,s FederAl Regulato~ A~ency as required by FIRREA, except that the Oepadure Provisions ot the USPAP do not apply. (2) Thei~c~mpensati~nisnotc~ntingentuponthemp~rting~fpredeterminedvAiue~rdirectioninvAiueU~fav~rsthecause~fthec~ient the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulatert result, or the occurrence gl a subsequent event. (3) This aiqxaJseJ aseignment was not baseG on a requested minimum valuation, a ,~Pecllic vAluation, m' the ~ovAi gl a ~oa~. The value estimated is based on the assumption that the property is not negatively affecLed by the edsteflce of haza'do~s set)Stwlces or detrime~tz, J environmental conditions unless othe~se stated in this r~rt. The appraser Is not al eq~ri in the tdefltirlc, zGofl of hazardous substances re' detrimental eflvironmentAi conditions, ha~?~ sThe rAiseds routine inspectio~ of and inquiries abmdt the sub'ect~lchPr)ropmtycdid not develop any Information tha~ indicated any appa'ent Aigniticant sabstances or deb-imental environmental conditions v~kl alfest the property neostbely unless otherwise stated in this report. It is possible U~t tests and thapections n~e by a qualifiert hazadous substance and envtronmen~ would reveal the existence of ha~,~dous substances or detrimental environmental conditions on or mound the prepeff/amt would negstively ~est its ~ue. [] The co-signing apprAiser Im~persenalliflnspeeted the subject property, beth inslde and out, md has made m e~efl~ inspection ol Ail comparable sates listed in the report, The report WaS prepaed by the appraiser under direct sepervisian of the co-signing apfxAiser, The co-Ai~ing appraiser accepts responAibility for the contents of the report insturting the value conclusions and the Ihniting conditions, and confirms that the certifications apply tully to the co-signing appraiser. /,,oprAisemStgnatu,'e [] Trainee [] P,e,tew [] Oma' .fl~-Aise~ Name (print) SS~ State __ [] LiCmlse [] Rseiden~ Cel'Uflcation [] CmtJfinaUon #, r File Uo. 5073-03 DEFINITION OF MARKET VALUE: The mosl pmhable pdce which a property should bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, the buyer and setter, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the pdce Is nut affected by undue stimulus. ImplJcil in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under cnadigons whamby: (1) buyer and seller are typically motivated; (2) both parries am well informed or well advised, and each acting in what he cousidere his own best interest; (3) a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market; (4) payment is made in terms of cash in U.S. dollam or in terms of financial anangements comparable thereto; and (5) the pdce represents the normal consideration for the properly cold unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions* granted by anyone associated with the sale, 'Adjustments to the compambles must be made for special or creative financing ur sales concessions. No adjustments am necessa~/for those costs which am normally paid by sellers as a result of tradition or law in a market area; these costs are readily identifiable since the seller pays these costs in virtually all sales traneactions. Special or creative financing adjustments san be made to the comparable property by comparisons to financing terms offered by a third pa~ Insbtutional Fender that is not already involved in the propa~ or transection, ,My adjustment shceJd nol be salculated on a machardcal dollar for dollar cost of the financing er concession, bul the dollar amourd of any adjustment should appmximala the market's reaction to the financing or concessions based on the appraisers judgment. STATEMENT OF UMITING CONDITIONS AND APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION CONTINGENT AND LIMITING CONDITIONS: The appraisst's certifisatina that appears in the appraisal roped is subject to the following conditions: 1. The appraissr will nat ha responaible for matters of a legal nature thst affect edher the properly haing appraised er the tiile Io it. The appraiser assumes that the title is good and roarkstabla and, therefore, wig net render any opinions about the title. The property is appraised on the basis of it being under responsible ewnerohig. 2. The appraiser has provided a sketch in the appraisal repeal to show approximate dimensions of the improvements and the sketch is included only to assist the reader of the report in visualizing the prope~ and understandiug the appraissfs determination of its size 3. The appraiser has examined the available flood maps that are provided by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (or other data sources) and hae noted in the appraise( report whether the subject site is located in an Identified Special Flood Hazard Area. Because the appraiser is flol a sumeyor, he or she makes no guarantees, express or implied, regarding this determination. 4. The appraiser will not give testimony or appear in court besauae he or she made an appraisal of the proparly in questina, unless specific arrangemerds Io do so have been made belorehand. 5. Tba aparaiser has natimsted the value of the land in tba cost approach at gs highest and bast use and the improvements at their corddbutmy value. These separate valuations of the land and improvements must not be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if they am so used. 6. The appraiser has noted in the appraisal roped any adverse conditions (such as, needed repairs, depmcialion, the presence of hazardous wastes, toxic substances, etc.) obea~,'ed dudng the inspection of the subject properly or that he or she baname aware of duhng the normal research involved in pedorming the appraisal. Unless otherwise slated in the appraisal roped, the appraiser has no knowledge of any hidden or unapparent conditions of the property or adverse environmental condilions (including the presence of hazardous wastes, to,dc substances, etc.) that would make the pmpedy rooro or less valuable, and has assumed that Ihera are no such conditions and makes no guarantees or wanrmties, express or implied, regarding the condition of the property. The appraiser will not be responsible for any such conditions that do exist or for any engineering or testing that might be required lo discover whether such conditions exist. Besause the appraiser is not an exped in the field of environmental hazards, the appraisal report must not be considered as an envlmnrnental assessment of the property. 7. The appraiser obtained the information, estiroatas, and opirdona that were expressed in the appraisal roped from eaumes lbat he or she considem to be reliable and believes them to be tree and correct. The appreiear does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of such items thai were fumishad by other parties. 8, The appraiser will not disclose the contents of the appraisal roped excepl as provided for in the Uniform Standards of Professional ,~praisal Practice. 9. The appraiser has based his or her appraisal repeal and valuation conclusion for an appraisal that is subject to satisfactory completion, repairs, or alterations on the assumption that completion of the improvements will be pedormed in a workmanlike manner. 10. The appraiser must provide his or her pdor wdtten consent before Ihe lender/client specified In the appraisal roped can distribute the appraisal report (including conclusions about the property value, the appraiseCs identity and professional designations, and tolerances to any professional appraisal organizaliona or the firm with which the appraiser is associated) to anyone other than the bermwec the modgagee or its successors and assigns; the mortgage iecorer, consultants; pmfessirmal appraisal organizations; any state or federally approved financial institution; or any department, ageecy, or Instromantality of the Uniled States or any state or the District of Columbia; except that the lender/client may disMhate the pmberty description section of the report only to data collection or reporting service(s) without having to obtain the appraisers pdor wdtten consent. The appmicot's writlee consent and approval raust also be obtained before the appraisal can be conveysd by anyone to the public through advertising, public relations, cows, sales, or other media, ~eadk M~ ,nNm 4~ (r~9~ I~o~) J~p ld2 se~dHa~ r~ ~QQ4B (~,%1) Fire no. 5073-03 APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: The Appraiser cedifies and agrees that: 1, I have msaarohed the subject market araa and have salected a minimum of throe recent sales of propedies most similar and proximate to Ihe subject property for consideration Iff the sales combadcon analysis and have made a dollar adjustment when appropdata to reflect the markel reaction to those items of significant vahadon, ff a significant Item in a comparable properly is superior tn. or mere favorable than. the subject propady, I have made a negative adjustment to reduce the adjusted sales price of the oombarable and. if a significant item In a comparable property is inferior to, or less favorable than Ihe subject pmparfy, I have made a positive adjustment to increase the adjusted sales price of the comparable. 2. I have taken into consideration the tactom that have an impact on valco iff my development of the estimale of market value in the appraisal report. I have not knowingly withheld any significant information from the appraisal report and I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that all statements and information in the appraisal report am tree and co.ecL 3. I stated, in Ihe appmlcal report, only my own personal unbiasad, and pmtaseional analysis, opinions, and conclusions, which are subject only to the contingent and limiting conditions specified in this form. personal interact or bias with respect to the participants in the Iransaction, I did not base, either partially or completaly, my analysis and/or the estimate of market value in the appraisal report on the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, or national origin of either the prospective owners or occupants of the subject properly or ct the pmsant owners or occupants st the pmperhes in the vicinity of the subject pmpe~y. 5. I have no present or contemplated lstum interest iu the subject pmperfy, and neilher my current or future employment nor my compensation for pedorming this appraisal is contingent on the appraised value el the pmpe~. 6. I was not required to report a predetermined value or direction in value that tavern the amuse of Ihe client or any related pady, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a specific result, or the ocourmflco of a subsequent event in order to mceiva my compensation and/or employment for performing the appraisal. I did not base the appraisal mpart on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation, or Iha need to approve a specific modgage loan. 7. I pertormed this appraisal in conformity with the Unilorm Standards of Pmfeseional Appraisal Practice lhat were adopted and promulgated by the Appi'aisal Standards Board of The Appraisal Foundation and that were in place as of the effective date of this appraisal, with the exception gl the depadum provision of those Standards, which does not apply. I acknowledge that an estimate of a reasonable time for exposure in the open market is a condition in the definition of market value and the estimate I developed is consistent with the marketing time holed in Ihe neighborhood secbon of this roped, un]ese I have otherwise stated in the reconciliation section. 8. I have pemonagy inspected the irdedor and extedor areas gl the subject property arLd the e;dedor ct all properties listed as comparables in the appraisal report. I further codify that I have noted any apparent or known adverse conditions in the subject [mprovaments, on the subject site, or on any site within the immediate vicinity of the subject pmpe~ of which I am aware and have made adjustments for these adverse conditions in my analysis of the pmperfy value to the extent that I had markel evidence to supped them. I have also commented about the effect of the adverse conditions on the marketabi[ity of the subject properly. 9. I pemooally pmparad all conclusiose and opinions abord the mai estata that were set forth In the appraisal report. If I relied on significant professional aseistance from any individual or individuals in the padormance of the appraisal or the pmpamttafl of the appraisal report. I have named such individual(s) and disclosed the specific tasks performed by them in the mconctltation section of this appraisal report, I certify that any individual so named is qualified to perform the tasks. I have not authorized anyone lo make a change to any item in the report; therefore, if an unauthorized change is made to the appraisal report, I will tall no msponsibigty for il. SUPERVISORY APPRAISER'S CERTIFICATION: If a supawiso~ appraicor signed tha appraisal report, he or she certifies and agrees that: I directly supervise the appraisar who prepared the appraisal roped, have reviewed the appraisal report, agree with the stalements and concioaions of the appraiser, agree ta be bound by the apgraisei"s certifications numbered 4 through ? above, and am taking full responsibility for tha appraisal and the appraisal mpmt. ADDRESS OF PROPER~ APPRAISED: 264 A/B Grant Sffeet. Ashland. OR. 97520 APPRAISER: Name: lqichael R. Wright Dale Signed: 06-07-03 or State Uconse #: State: OR Expiration Date of Cedifisetion or Uconse: 03.31.04 __ SUPERVISORY APPRAISER (only ff required): Signatum: Name: Date Signed: State Certgisation #; or State License #: Slate:  imtion Date of Cmflflcatlon or Uconse: Did []Did Not inapad Properly APPRAISER CERTIFICATION Borrower/Cliem Hill, Hunt er j~[~l~[o~ Address Z~/B Grant Sb'eet City Ashland Lender/Client Inteodtv H~e Loans C0un~y ~ckson __ State OR Zip Code MICHAEL R. WRIGHT iLICENSES State Certified Residential Appraiser #CR00141 PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION Applied Residential Appraisal - 8/1998 Income Properties Appraisal Methodology - 8/1998 Basic Appraisal Principals and Practices - 7/1998 Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice - 5/1998 Real Estate Appraisal Report Writing -- 9/1999 Real Estate Fraud and The Appraiser's Role -- 7/2001 The Appraiser as Expert Witness -- 7/2001 Information Technology & The Appraiser-Virtual Classroom - 2/2002 Factory-Built Housing-Virtual Classroom - 2/2002 Appraisal Institute Residential Case Studies - 10/93 Course R1 G1 - Foundations of Real Estate Appraisal UniversityofOregon - 7/92 Uniform Standards of Professional Practice, Part A University of Oregon - 9/92 Course R2G2 - Appraising the Single Family Residence University of Oregon ~ 7/92 Course 1Al - Real Estate Appraisal Principles Portland State University - 9/91 Southern Oregon State College Economics Supply and Demand 9/92 - 3/93 EMPLOYMENT HISTORY Michael Wright Appraisal Service September 1998 - Present Position: Real Estate Appraiser Roy Wright Appraisal Service, Inc. August 1991 - May 2000 Position: Real Estate Appraiser RVCDC Proposal CDBG 2004 RVCDC Rogue Valley (ommunit~ I)cveh)pment Corporation IX-()IFI('[// Application Summary Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation proposes to use CDBG funding of $285,000 to acquire property currently owned by the Clay Street Church. The use of the site would be to provide 16 townhouse pad lots for low income families to assist in building SelfHelp townhouses. Development and construction costs are funded by Rural Development SelfHelp Housing of the Department of Agriculture to low income families, working in conjunction with RVCDC staff in this partnership, c4~ Full project cost is estimated to be~flt~illion dollars. No other local subsidy would be rbquifed. Ownership would be held by RVCDC until each qualifying household takes ownership upon eligibility and loan approval from Rural Development. RVCDC contact; Ron Demele, Executive Director 328 So. Central, Suite 203, Medford, Or. 97501 541-734-2355 tel ... website address; rvcdc.com RVCDC is both a nonprofit and a certified CHDO. CITY OF ASHLAND 2004 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Request for Proposal Application Form Project Name Project Location Project Description CDBG funds Requested Applicant (Organization- Government Agency Name): Address: City, State & Zip: Contact Person: Phone Number: Fax Number: Email Address: C!=_y Street -PVC_nC Clay Rtreaf Ch~srch . RR1 C:la.v Rtreet, ARhland Acauisition of oroperty to construct 16 units of Self HelD Housing for sale to very Iow income buyers $285,000 Rogue Valley Community Development Corp RVCDC A.~hland: (~r_ 97~20 Ron Demele ED 734-2355 245-6966 RVCDCi~grrtech.com CDBG RFP 2004 City of Ashland Page 15 Project Summary #2.Currently in Ashland, low- income wage earners do not have an opportunity to purchase homes in Ashland based upon the ratio of their income to the cost of homes. Ashland average home sale price is recently detemfined to be at $366,000.Homes in the $115,000 range simply do not exist for sale in the aflbrdability range for low income familes. Many families have chosen to move from the community. This trend is evident in the current closing of the Briscoe School and reevaluation of school campus needs. This proposal supports new opportunities for home buying for families making less than 80% AMI. It can help local school populations to stabilize, and decrease commuting into Ashland and thus will lessen local traffic congestion. Currently a family earning <80% AMI can not afford a mortgage of even the lowest price home on the Ashland market. RVCDC has over 10 years experience in creating aflbrdable housing opportunities for low income households. RVCDC is partnering with USDA Rural Housing to provide SelfHelp housing in Ashland. The target population is households making <50% AMI for 40% of the units, and a combination of 40% and up to 80% households for the remaining homes. Households makings 20,000-25,000 could only aflbrd homes in Ashland with this special program.. RVCDC will be funded directly by Rural Development to do the administrative and coordinating, and building. RVCDC will hire throe new staff in January to recruit and qualify families, run the work site development crew, and assist in carpentry/building skill development. Eight families will work with professionals to assist in building these homes. The sweat equity of these owner builders will reduce the costs of their homes. The homes will be put in a sustainable affordability program. 3.) Phase One of SelfHelp housing is beginning on the "Edwards Property" in Ashland on the comer of Faith and Siskiyou in early 2004 (map attached). This newly proposed application by RVCDC for acquisition will continue Phase Two construction slated for Dec. of 2004. Upon site review, planning and acquisition in early 2004, families will be selected in Spring and Summer for this next phase. The site RVCDC has selected for acquisition is currently owned by Clay Street Church and has been Optioned by RVCDC to purchase upon satisfied contingencies. The address is 631 Clay street. Our proposal is to seek funds to purchase .75 acres of bare land and request City rezoning of R-2 plus density bonus to create 16 new townhouses on site. The site is located near the Ashland Blvd. and close to commercial shopping and services and jobs. Free bus service is nearby on the Blvd. and Bellview School is in the vacinity. These homes are anticipated to be 1000 to 1300 sq. fl. and depending on the family size of participants probably 2-3 bedroom townhouses. The site will be built in two construction phases of eight homes at a time working with the families. All units will be 100% available only to households making <80% AMI. If any qualified disabled households participate, those homes would meet required standards. Early design suggests the ability to create private pad lot units with porches, backyards, storage and common space with homebuyer input. There will be no commercial space and no existing current housing on site. There are no relocation requirements on the site. Owner occupied units only in this project. Upon completion ol'construction of all units, households will have 20 year deed restrictions in place, requiring resale to other Iow income households. At the end of 20 years, only at a resale of the homes, participants must first return $10,000 recapture to the City for new affordable housing projects. Home prices are anticipated to be approx. $90,000-120,000. 4) Project services. No services will be paid for by the use of CDBG. However, RVCDC plans to assist families from start to finish. All promotional materials will be in Spanish and English to encourage a wide range of participating families. School flyers will be a recruiting tool to help find eligible families. Our Family Coordinator will help arrange transportation, childcare, loan procurement or other assistance while families are participating. We will help with tool procurement and skill building in carpentry. RVCDC will arrange community volunteers to help in construction. RVCDC will arrange all professional services to project. 5) Form A attached 6) Financial Information. Form B and Form C attached RVCDC is working with Bruce Newman of Rural Community Assistance Corporation. He works with all Oregon SelfHelp programs in the state and has helped us determine costs. RVCDC is currently in the process of building 8 townhouse units in Medford that will be very similar in design and costs. Acquisition costs have been negotiated with Pastor Ray Omdorffand are based upon comparable sales in Ashland. Sam Fung CCIM, has helped RVCDC negotiate Option and price. Participating households will continue to work together after the home building by sharing a homeowners agreement which will cover maintenance and site issues. Homeowners will be tax payers. 7) Eligibility- Property Acquisition This property is located within the Ashland City limits. All participants will be household incomes of less than 80% AMI. 40% of participants will have income levels of<50% AMI. The property owners have in place with RVCDC an existing Option to be exercised upon contingencies required by HUD removed. No existing housing units are affected by this proposal nor or any historic features. Property not in 100 year flood plain. Environmental assessment has not done yet. Not located near railroad or road or storage tank. No impact to any historic feature. 8) RVCDC's mission is to improve the quality of life for low to moderate income population in Jackson County through community development activities. RVCDC has created 23 affordable homes in Ashland/Medford and sold them to households earning less than 80% AMI. See Chart attached. Also see Financial Review attached. 9) This program is called SelfHelp housing. It is dedicated to building not only homes but self sufficient fhmilies. Learning homebuilding skills will allow household workers to learn new skills, possibly to enter construction work field if desired. Participants learn planning, financial, teamwork, tool use, and design. All are useful skills for self sufficiency and possible .job skills. 10) This project helps that targeted population by creating housing that meets the federal housing cost ratios. No one will be paying over 35% of their income for housing. In Ashland currently, over 45% of renters are paying over that guideline and are at risk of increased family financial and personal strcss trying to meet high monthly rents while saving for education, health needs and other responsibilities. a) We will serve 8 family households in year one and 8 family households in year two. Those will be approximately 64 individuals depending on household size. The breakdown of that group is estimated as fbllows...year one; five households serving 31-50% AMI or 20 individuals, one household at less than 30% or 4 individuals, and two households serving 51-80% households or 8 individuals. This will be similar tbr year two target. Total number served increases dramaticly if we include contractors and subcontractors involved in the project. Volunteer workers and church congregation is served by this project meeting their church service goals. b) total Ashland individuals who are in the target group is at least 23% according to 2000 C}tAS data. ! 1) We are required by the federal SelfHelp program to serve the population as outlined in the program. That service group is; 40% served must be less than 50% of AMI .Rural Development certifies all participants. 12) no relocation is required of this site since it does not involve existing permanent housing or any existing permanent buildings. 13) Project Feasibility- a) RVCDC has since 1990 been active in providing community leadership in innovative housing solutions. RVCDC continues to work with private developers and contractors where appropriate in home construction projects. RVCDC has also worked successfully with Oregon Housing, Rural Collaborative, Rural Development, Medford CDBG and Ashland CDBG in utilizing resources to complete successful projects involving home ownership.5 Local Foundations and 7 regional Banks have supported our efforts by direct support. RVCDC currently partners with Habitat for Humanity, and the Ashland Land Trust on two affordable housing projects. Since Summer of 2003, RVCDC has started this new SelfHelp partnership to deliver ongoing homeownership opportunities for low income families. Our staffing is increasing from 3 to 7 to help us accomplish this Ashland project. Our diverse 15 person Board has three Ashland members and is b) committed to this program. SelfHelp has provided us with a consultant who handles our contract with Rural Development to do the work and provides training. Staff will participant in SelfHelftraining in November. This project is to acquire land for home building. Families will be in ownership after qualifying, then an Association will be created for ongoing maintenance of common space. c) d) The Clay street church gave us a letter of intent to sell in September and a signed Option agreement was recently negotiated. No relocation required, e) none.., based upon our consultants at Right of Way Associates. fi) Yes. Project site will require a rezone to R-2 to allow increased density. A previous project that did not move forward allowed 20 units on the same site. We will create a pad lot subdivision, and request a density bonus. g) no pre-application has been submitted yet. A meeting with Senior Planner indicated high probability of meeting City planning issues. h)Currently nothing is on the property, possible temporary modular will be on site. i)Funding from Rural Development to implement this program is not competitive but conditional. We must show feasibility of interest. We have satisfied that by holding 3 community meeting in September to gage interest. 30 people attended and indicated interest in this program, which is satisfactory. We must also show site availability. This has been satisfied by our Option agreement with the Clay Street Church. 14) no negative impacts. 15.) attached checklist 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 ~vide array of different kinds of proposals. Therefore, not every item will be applicable to every project. Please fill it out entirely indicating all items which are not applicable and include it as part of your proposal application. A. Applicant's Background Yes No N/A 1. ls the applicant a legal non-profit organization or unit of x government? 2. Do the proposed clients or users of the project meet HUD x Income Guidelines (see page 10 for guidelines)? 3. Does applicant have the capability to maintain written x income documentation? 4. Has the applicant made a legal or financial commitment to x a proposed project? 5. Is the applicant primarily a religious organization? x B. Project Location and Land Use Issues Yes No NIA 1. Has a location for the project been selected? x 2. Is the proposed project within the Ashland City limits? x 3. Does the proposed project meet local zoning and land use rezone laws? needed 4. Are any land use permits such as a Site Review, partition, x pad annexation or Conditional Use Permit required? lots 5. Have these approvals been obtained? x 6. Does the project comply with current building code x requirements'? 7. Does the project meet handicapped accessibility x requirements? C. Environmental Issues Yes No N/A 1. Is the project located in the 100-year floodplain? x 2. Is a wetland located on the project site? x 3. Has any environmental contamination been identified on x the project site? 4. Has asbestos been identified on the project site? x 5. If project involves an exiting structure, was it built 1978 or x earlier? If year built is known, please specify. 6. Is the proposed project located on a major arterial or near x the railroad? CDBG RFP 2004 City of Ashland Page 22 7. Is the proposed project located adjacent to an above ground x flammable storage tank? 8. Does the proposed project involve a structure that is 50 x years or older? O. Labor Requirements Yes No N/A 1. Does the project involve construction over $2,000 in cost? x 2. Does the project involve over $15,000 in City awarded x grants or contracts? E. Displacement and Relocation Yes No N/A 1. Will tenants be displaced by the project? x 2. Will a business be displaced by the project? x 3. Will housing units be demolished or converted? x F. Property Data Yes No NIA 1. Does the applicant own the property by fee simple title'? x 2. Are taxes on the properly current? ? 3. Is insurance current? ? 4. What is the current debt against the properly?_ ? 5. What is the current use of the properly? vacant w/possible modular temp. use 6. Has an appraisal on the property been conducted? comps. ~675K after If yes, what is the assessed value of the properly? _ rezone CDBG RFP 2004 City of Ashland Page 23 Form A Project Schedule Activity Start Date Completion Date Site Planning & Development Option Oct. 16 Nov. 2, 2003 Site Acquisition exercise Option Feb. 29 purchase Feb. 30,04 Plan Development Pre-application Nov. 15 Dec. 15 Land Use Approval Nov. 15 Feb. 1 Construction Plans Mar. 15 May 15 Final Bids Apr. Apr. family Selection Apr. June Building Permits Aug. Aug. Grant applications local state t~deral -' Rural Dev. Jun 03 Adm. Jan. 04 Adm. Non-government other Loan Applications Construction loan s to families Apr. 04 May 04 Permanent RCAC to RVCDC Nov. Feb. 04 Construction Phase mortgage to families Nov. 04 Dec. 04 Certificate of OccupancyDec. Please provide your best (realistic) date estimates regarding the project schedule CDBG RFP 2004 City of Ashland Page 24 Form B Uses of Funding Cost CDBG Request Other Source ~cquisition Costs Land 675,000 285,000 RGAC loan !mprovements ~ Liens and other 'Faxes Closing costs 7,000 -I RVCDC Off-Site costs Other SUBTOTAL ~evelopment Costs Land Use Approvals $,000 RVCDC Building Permits/fees 30,0_00 502 loans System Development 0 _Charges (SDCs) Relocation Costs 0 Environmental Report / 2,000 RVCDC Lead Based Paint Clearance --Soils Report 3,000 RVCDC Survey Marketing Insurance -Other infastr. 80,000 SHOP Funds Fees Architectural/Engineering 40,000 RVCDC Legal/Accounting 2,000 RVCDC Appraisals 0 Lender fees 0 Construction Loans 1.1 M. RD 502 loans Permanent Loan 0 Tax Credit Fees 0 Developer Fee 0 Consultant Fee 0 Other / TOTAL 1.944 285,000 CDBG RFP 2004 City of Ashland Page 25 Form C SOURCE(S) OF FUNDS FOR OPERATING EXPENSES WORKSHEET Completeness of this worksheet establishes the capacity of the organization to sustain the operations of the program(s). Sources Secured Conditional Tentative Commitment Date Federal Grants 360,000 Jan '1 2004 State Grants Local Grants Non Governmental 12,000 28,000 Feb. 1 2004 Grants Found./Banks Donations/Gifts Applicant Contribution Earned Income 48,000 Loans Other (specify) Other (specify) TOTAL 60,000 1 360,000 28,000 Please provide a description the timeline of loan and grant application dates as related to the proposed project Rural Dev. approval of release of funds 1/1/04 Banks appr. of support apps.2/1/04 other funds secured CDBG RFP 2004 City of Ashland Page 26 Form D DISCLOSURE OF INTERESTS To assist the City of Ashland in determining whether there may be a potential conflict oF interest related to the expenditure of Community Development Block Grant funds we request the following information be provided by applicants: ORGANIZATION NAME: RVCDC Organization is: 1. Corporation ( ) 2. Non-Profit 501C3 (x) 3. Partnership ( ) 4. Sole Owner ( ) 5. Association ( ) 6. Other DISCLOSURE QUESTIONS If additional space is necessary, please attach a separate sheet. 1. State the names of each "employee" of the City of Ashland having a financial or personal interest in the above mentioned "organization" or project proposed. Name Job Title and City Department (if known) none. 2. State the name(s) of each elected or appointed "official" of the City of Ashland having a potential "financial interest" in the organization or project. Name/Title none. 3. State the names of each "board member" of the Organization seeking CDBG funding Name Board, Commission, or Committee none. If the applicant has provided names in question I or 2, please provide details regarding any known potential conflicts of interest in an attached narrative. CDBG RFP 2004 City of Ashland Page 27 Rural Community Assistance Corporation October 16, 2003 Ron Demele Rogue Valley CDC 328 S. Central Ave., Suite 203 Medford, OR 97501 Re: RVCDC application to the USDA RD Mutual Self-Help ltousing Program Dear Rom This letter is to confirm that Rural Community Assistance Corp. (RCAC) is working with Rogue Valley CDC to prepare an application to the USDA Rural Development Mutual Self- Help Housing Program (Self-Help). The Self-Help program provides very affordable home ownership to families below 80% AMI (40% of the families served must be below 50% AMI). This is accomplished mainly in two ways: 1) the participating families must contribute 65% of the labor required to build the homes thus reducing the amount of the mortgage loan and increasing equity, 2) Rural Development provides subsidized mortgage loans through their 502 loan program with interest rates as Iow as 1% and fully amortized terms up to 38 years. Through the Self-Help program, two-year technical assistance grants are available to help cover the operating costs of the grantee as it provides technical assistance to the families who are participating in the group and building their homes. RCAC and Rural Development staffhave met with RVCDC and reviewed their proposed project and feel that RVCDC is a good candidate for funding through the Self-Help program. Sincerely, Bruce A. Newman RCAC Regional Manager - Housing (AK, WA, OR, ID) RVCDC Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation PO Box 1733 * Medford OR 97501 · (5411 734-2355 ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CORPORATE RESOLUTION IN THE MATTER OF AUTHORIZiNG RVCDC TO REQUEST FUNDS UNDER THE CITY OF ASHLAND CDBG PROGRAM: BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation, an Oregon nonprofit corporation, authorizes its Executive Director to prepare, sign and submit a grant application to the City of Ashland in the amount of $285,000 for a CDBG 2004 Grant for Affordable Housing. This Resolution was adopted at a duly called meeting of the Board of Directors held October 8, 2003. THE UNDERSIGNED certify that this Resolution was adopted by the Corporation in accordance with the law and its Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws, and that this Resolution is in force. DATED //~/$oan Midd~r~ori'~,~P~'esident / 0 ~"'~*'* ATTEST: Clara Rowe, Treasurer Ron Demele, Executive Director Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation 2003 2004 PO Box 1733 · 328 S Central STE 203 · Medford, OR 97501 · T 734-2355 F 245 6966 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Joan Middendorff- President 3030 Clearvlew Ave. Medford, OR 97501 REALTOR, Retired (H) 779-5699 (C) 890-7734 Harry B. Marshall Jr. 246 E 10th St. Medford, OR 97501 Broker/Owner, Marshall Real Estate (W) 773-7345 (H) 772-5103 (F1734-7582 Pgr 814-2179 Nov01 -Nov03 Dona Mitrany~ergeant o fArms 815 Freeman Rd Central Point, OR 97502 Rogue Federal Credit Union (W) 858-7401 (H) 664-6479 (F) 770-3714 dmitran¥(wroguel~u org NovO I -Nov03 Rev. 10-14-03 Ralph Monroe 3266 Sycamore Way Medford, OR 97504 Ralph Monroe Construct/on (H) 773-9957 (C) 890-1704 (F) 608-9190 (Pgr) 770-8962 nlm~ro~g~rtcch c~>m Nov01-Nov03 MarW Mosenthiem 1050 Spring St #23 Medford, OR 97504 Self Employed~House Painter (H) 770-8030 (C) 621-8452 EX-OFFICIO Mary Lee Christensen 333 Mt. View Estates, Sp. 153 Talent. OR 97540 (H) 535-7063 Bank of America, Retired Oct00-Life Fred Berger 307 Gangnes Talent, OR 97540 Veterans Administration (C) 261-6116 (W) 826-2111 x 3437 (H) 535-1773 (F) 830-7436 bllcd~ic~cha~ler, oet Nov02-Life STAFF Ron Demele - Executive Director 165 Crocker, Ashland, OR 97520 (C) 821-0975 (H) 488J,236 Andrea Miranda Office Manager 816 Dakota Ave. Medford, OR 97501 (H) 608-6717 Bill Brandsen - Site Supervisor 570 Faith Ave., Ashland, OR 97520 (C) 821-1149 (H) 488-3164 b brandse~botmail cam SEP-30-2005 14:24 AMERITITLE MEDFORD P. 0? TAKRI .MA 1000 0,50 AC, 406 ¢ 1100 0.68 Ac 1200 0,52 Ac 1209 1208 1,1( Ac 0.19 Ac 2900 0.23 AC, 2600 0.29 ~C. 1106 0,15 Ac ~ 1107 31 ~ 0,13 Ac $7 "'~ 1206"~-~ 3o ~ 0,11 AC 12 ~ ~ 1207 ~ 0.17 AC 1210 OAS Ac 1211 0.10 Ac 2701 2700 0.13 AC. ,58 CS 13566 CS 14632 C~ 15~11 CS 164~1 OPEN SPACE 0,11 Ac 122~ 0,12 A~ 2601 0.16 AC, P2 TAE'RT MAP 39 1E 14B TOTRL P. 8? INTERNAL REVENI/E SERVICE DISTRICT DIRECTOR 2 CUPANIA CIRCLE MONTEREY PARK, CA 91755-7406 ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPOR-~TION 33 N CENTRAL STE ~415 MEDFORD, OR 97501 DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Employer Identification Number: 93-1040461 Case Number: 956019046 Contact Person: TYRONE THOMAS Contact Telephone Number: (213) 894-2289 Our Letter Dated: June 03, 1991 Addendum Applies: No Dear Applicant: This modifies our letter of the above date in which we stated that you would be treated as an organization that is not a private foundation until the expiration of your advance ruling period. Your exempt status under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code as an organization described in section 501(c) (3) is still in effect. Based on the information you submitted, we have determined that you are not a private foundation within the meaning of section 509(a) of the Code because you are an organization of the type described in section 509(a) (1) and 170(b) (1) (A) (v) . Grantors and contributors may rely on this determination unless the Internal Revenue Service publishes notice to the contrary. However, if you lose your section 509(a) (1) status, a grantor or contributor may not rely on this determination if he or she was in part responsible for, or was aware of, the act or failure to act, or the substantial or material change on the part of the organization that resulted in your loss of such status, or if he or she acquired knowledge that the Internal Revenue Service had given notice that you would no longer be classified as a section 509(a) (1) organization. If we have indicated in the heading of this letter that an addendum applies, the addendum enclosed is an integral part of this letter. Because this letter could help resolve an~, questions about your private foundation status, please keep it in your permanent records. If you have any questions, please contact the person whose name and telephone number are shown above. Sincerely yours, Richard R. Orosco District Director Letter 1050 (DO/CG) ROGUE VAL?.mY COP~fJNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2003 WITH ACCOUNTANT' S REVIEW REPORT ~A~, L. PIELS 940 Town Centre Drive, Suite A Medforci. Oregon 97504-6100 [541) 779-8261 Fax (541) 779-424,5 ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. Year Ended June 30, 2003 CONTENTS Accountant's Report Financial statements: Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Assets - Modified Cash Basis Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Other Changes in Net Assets - Modified Cash Basis Statement of Functional Expenses - Modified Cash Basis Notes to Financial Statements Page 1 2 3 4 5-12 (541) 779-8261 FAX ($41J 779-4245 www.mJpcpa.corn Board of Directors Rogue Valley Community Development Corp. P.O. Box 1733 Medford, Oregon 97501 We have reviewed the accompanying statement of assets, liabilities, and net assets - modified cash basis of Rogue Valley Community Development Corp. (a nonprofit organization) as of June 30, 2003, and the related statements of revenues, expenses, and other changes in net assets - modified cash basis and functional expenses - modified cash basis for the year then ended, in accordance with Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the American Institute of CertifiedPublic Accountants. All information included in these financial statements is the representation of the management of Rogue Valley Community Development Corp. A review consists principally of inquiries of organization personnel and analytical procedures applied to financial data. It is substantially less in scope than an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanying financial statements in order for them to be in conformity with the modified cash basis of accounting, as described in note 1. Stewart C. Parmele CPA, Partner July 24, 2003 ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Assets Modified Cash Basis June 30, 2003 CURRENT ASSETS: Cash and cash equivalents Total Current Assets ASSETS 114,334 $ 114,334 PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT, net of accumulated depreciation of $16,055 OTHER ASSETS: Home development in progress 118,425 308,128 TOTAL ASSETS $ 540,887 LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS CURRENT LIABILITIES: Security deposit Payroll taxes payable Notes payable Current portion of long-term debt 50O 2,549 154,706 2,371 Total current liabilities LONG-TERM DEBT, net of current portion Total liabilities NET ASSETS: Unrestricted Temporarily restricted 199,541 117,145 Total Net Assets TOTAL LIABILITIES AND NET ASSETS $ 160,126 64,075 224,201 316,686 $ 540,887 See accompanying notes and accountant's report. 2 ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets - Modified Cash Basis Year Ended June 30, 2003 UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS Revenues: Donations Foundations and other grants In-kind donations Other income Rental income Interest Net assets released from restrictions $ 6,596 32,044 61,782 18,929 18,797 2 138,150 128,628 Total Revenue Expenses: Program services Project expenses Rental program Supporting services: Administrative Fund raising 168,842 20,162 42,476 6~124 Total program and supporting services 237,604 Loss on sale of property 90,271 Total expenses and losses INCREASE (DECREASE) IN UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS TEMPORARILY RESTRICTED NET ASSETS: Foundations grants Government contracts and grants Net assets released from restrictions: Restrictions satisfied by payments 5,000 93,483 (128,628) INCREASE (DECREASE) IN TEMPORARILY RESTRICTED NET ASSETS INCREASE IN NET ASSETS NET ASSETS AT BEGINNING OF YEAR NET ASSETS AT END OF YEAR See accompanying notes and accountant's report. $ 266,778 327,875 (61,097) (30,145) (91,242) 407,928 $ 316,686 3 ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. Statement of Functional Expenses - Modified Cash Basis Year Ended June 30, 2003 Program Rental admin Salaries $ 44,171 $ 2,324 $ 26,348 Payroll taxes & benefits 7,839 412 4,676 Professional services 2,786 - 1,637 Advertising 107 - Contract labor 338 - Subscriptions - - 447 Insurance 766 2,265 1,493 Licenses & fees 190 - 104 Board meetings - - 899 Miscellaneous 343 - Occupancy 2,878 3,546 1,717 Repair and maintenance - 2,400 86 Office supplies 1,085 57 647 Internet and telephone 2,440 96 1,086 Printing services 392 21 234 Tralning 960 - 800 Travel 2,593 - 366 Program supplies 183 - Pre-development 30,395 Interest expense 14,879 4,528 1,426 Property taxes 6,278 1,242 Shelter development 5,101 MCDBG program allocation 45,118 Depreciation TOTAL EXPENSES 3,271 510 ~ i~,842 $ 20,16~ $ 4.~,476 Fund Raising Total $ 4,650 $ 77,493 825 13,752 - 4,423 107 338 447 4,524 294 899 343 303 8,444 2,486 114 1,903 192 3,814 40 687 1,760 2,959 183 30,395 20,833 - 7,520 - 5,101 - 45,118 - 3,781 6,124 $ 237,607 See accompanying notes and accountants report. ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2003 Note 1 - Significant Accountinq Policies The s~mmary of significant accounting policies of Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) is presented to assist in understanding the Organizations financial statements. The financial statements and notes are representations of the Organizations management who are responsible for their integrity and objectivity. Orqanization Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation is a nonprofit community-based organization incorporated in the state of Oregon and located in Medford, Oregon. The mission of the RVCDC is to improve the quality of life for the low-income population of Jackson County through community development activities. Created in 1990, RVCDC's first projects were the creation of several affordable housing units in Ashland, Oregon. In 1995, RVCDC formed a partnership with South Medford High School's Foundation's program and the City of Medford to provide affordable housing and offer an alternative educational opportunity to keep high-school students in school. Students participating in this program have been identified by their high school counselors as being at risk of dropping out of school. The students earn class credits toward graduation and learn useful job and life skills by working under trained supervision to rehabilitate homes owned by RVCDC. During 2002 this program was discontinued and a similar program was initiated with Rogue Community College. Completed houses are sold to people with incomes 80% or less of the local median income. Basis of accountin~ The accompanying financial statements of RVCDC have been prepared on the modified cash basis of accounting, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than generally accepted accounting principles. Under this method, RVCDC recognizes revenues when collected, certain expenses when cash is disbursed, with some assets and liabilities having substantial support recognized. Basis of presentation Financial statement presentation follows the recommendation of the Financial Accounting Standards Board in its Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 117, "Financial Statements of Not-for- Profit Organizations". Under SFAS No. 117, the Organization is required to report infozmation regarding its financial position and activities according to three classes of net assets: unrestricted net assets, temporarily restricted net assets, and permanently restricted net assets. RVCDC does not currently have any permanently restricted net assets. 5 ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2003 Use of estimates Management uses estimates and assumptions in preparing its financial statements. Those estimates and assumptions affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and the reported revenue and expenses. Actual results could vary from the estimates that were used. Property and equipment Property and equipment are stated at cost or, if donated, at the fair market value at the date of the donation. Major expenditures and those which substantially increase useful lives are capitalized. Maintenance, repairs, and minor renewals are charged to expense when incurred. When property and equipment are sold or otherwise disposed of, the asset account and related accumulated depreciation account are relieved and any gain or loss is included in the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets - Modified Cash Basis. For financial reporting purposes the costs of property and equipment are depreciated over the estimated useful lives of the assets using the straight-line method. The useful lives of property and equipment for purposes of computing depreciation are between 5 to 7 years. Home development in progress Land is acquired and a home is rehabilitated and sold to a qualifying family. Structures requiring rehabilitation are recorded at cost or fair value if donated. Occasionally, donated structures are unusable and the property and is sold. During the year ended June 30, 2003, four homes were sold. Gains or losses are recorded in the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets - Modified Cash Basis. Donated materials and services Donated materials are recorded as support at their estimated fair market value at the date of the donation. Such donations are reported as unrestricted support unless the donor has restrioted the donated asset to a specific purpose. Amounts are reported in the financial statements for voluntary donations of services when those services create or enhance non-financial assets or require specialized skills provided by individuals possessing those skills and which would be typically purchased if not provided by donation. Revenue recoqnition The Organization follows SFAS No. 116 "Accounting for Contributions Received and Contributions Made." Contributions are recognized when received and are recorded as unrestricted, temporarily restricted, or permanently restricted support, depending on the existence and/or nature of donor restrictions. Revenue that is restricted by the donor is reported as an increase in unrestricted net assets if the restriction 6 ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2003 expires in the reporting period in which the support is recognized. All other donor-restricted contributions received are recorded as unrestricted, temporarily restricted, or permanently restricted support depending on the existence or nature of any donor restriction. Revenue is reported as an increase in temporarily or permanently restricted net assets, depending on the nature of the restriction. When a restriction expires (that is, when a stipulated time restriction ends or purpose restriction is accomplished), temporarily restricted net assets are reclassified to unrestricted net assets and reported in the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets - Modified Cash Basis, as net assets released from restrictions. Grants RVCDC receives grants from various sources to supplement its traditional funding sources. RVCDC recognizes the award as unrestricted revenue when received unless the award is for a specific purpose or future time period. When the conditions stipulated in the grant agreement have been substantially fulfilled, (that is, when a stipulated time restriction ends or purpose restriction is accomplished), temporarily restricted net assets are reclassified to unrestricted net assets and reported in the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets - Modified Cash Basis, as net assets released from restrictions. Income taxes RVCDCqualifies as a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and from the State of Oregon excise taxes. However, income from certain activities not directly related to RVCDC's tax-exempt purpose is subject to taxation as unrelated business income. No provision for federal or state taxes has been included in these financial statements. In addition, RVCDC qualifies for the charitable contribution deduction under Section 170(b) (1) (A) and has been classified as an organization other than a private foundation under Section 509 (a) (2) . Advertisinq The Organization expenses advertising costs as incurred. advertising expenses were $107 for the year ended June 30, 2003. Total Cash and cash equivalents The Organization considers all highly liquid short-term investments with an original maturity of three months or less to be cash equivalents. The carrying value of cash approximates fair value because of the short maturities of those financial instruments. 7 ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2003 Functional expenses The costs of providing various programs and other activities have been s,,mmarized on a functional basis in the Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Assets - Modified Cash Basis and in the Statement of Functional Expenses - Modified Cash Basis. Accordingly, certain costs have been allocated among the programs and supporting services benefitted. Note 2 - Equipment Changes in furniture and equipment for the year ended June 30, 2003 are as follows: Balance Balance June 30, June 30, 2002 Additions Deletions 2003 Office furniture and equipment Rental Property $ 9,939 $ - $ - $ 9,939 124,541 - - 124,541 $__134,480 $ - $ - 134,480 Less accumulated depreciation of ( 16,055) Net book value $ 118,425 Depreciation expense for the year ended June 30, 2003 was $3,781. Note 3 - Security Deposit RVCDC leases residential property to another Oregon non-profit corporation. The lease agreement is for one year through the 31"t day of August 2003. Basic monthly rent is $1,500. The lease carries a renewal option for one year at ~he rate of $1,500 per month. Under the terms of the lease the tenant is required to deposit funds with RVCDC upon the execution of the lease in the amount of $500 as a security deposit. ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2003 Note 4 - Notes Payable Current RVCDC is responsible for a Challenge Fund Agreement, dated January 16, 2002, with the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle for financing the Grape Street Village Project. Seattle Bank has agreed to advance up to $10,000, interest free, for pre-development expenses. These advances are to be repaid if RVCDC is able to secure construction financing or permanent financing for the project within two years of the date of the agreement. If at any time it is determined that the project is not feasible or the project ceases to make progress for more than six months the disbursed amount will be forgiven as a grant. As of June 30, 2003 the amount advanced is $5,541. RVCDC has a promissory note payable to Umpqua Bank in the amount of $31,700. The interest rate is variable at 1.00% over prime rate, resulting in a current rate of 5.00%. Payment on this loan is due in one payment of all outstanding principal plus all accrued interest on April 17, 2004. In addition, RVCDC is responsible for regular monthly payments of all accrued interest. This note is secured by the assets of RVCDC. RVCDC has a promissory note payable to Medinger Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $32,700. The interest rate is 5.75%. Payment on this loan was due in one payment of all outstanding principal plus all accrued interest on June 19, 2003. This note is secured by the assets of RVCDC, and was paid in full on July 10, 2003. See subsequent event at Note 10. RVCDC has a promissory note payable to Umpqua Bank in the amount of $60,000. The interest rate is 6.00%. Payment on this loan is due in one payment of all outstanding principal plus all accrued interest on February 5, 2004. In addition, RVCDC is responsible for regular monthly payments of all accrued interest. This note evidences a revolving line of credit and is secured by the assets of RVCDC. RVCDC has a promissory note payable to PremierWest Bank in the amount of $24,765. The interest rate is variable at 1.00% over prime rate, resulting in a current rate of 5.25%. Payment on this loan is due in one payment of all outstanding principal plus all accrued interest on November 20, 2003. In addition, RVCDC is responsible for regular monthly payments of all accrued interest. This note evidences a straight line of credit and is secured by the assets of RVCDC. 9 ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2003 Note 5 - Lon~-Term Debt RVCDC is responsible for a Challenge Fund Agreement, dated July 17, 2002, with the Federal Home Loan Bank of Seattle for financing the New Pines Village Project. Seattle Bank has agreed to advance up to $10,000, interest free, for pre-development expenses. These advances are to be repaid if RVCDC is able to secure construction financing or permanent financing for the project within two years of the date of the agreement. If at any time it is determined that the project is not feasible or the project ceases to make progress for more than six months the disbursed amount will be forgiven as a grant. As of June 30, 2003 the amount advanced is $10,000. RVCDC is responsible for a 7.25% Mortgage note payable to Pr~m~erWest Bank in monthly installments of $533, including interest, through NovemBer 2017. The mortgage note is secured by the assets of RVCDC. As of June 30, 2003, the balance of the mortgage note payable is $56,446. The future scheduled maturities of long-term debt are as follows: Years ending June 30: 2003 $ 2,371 2004 12,559 2005 2,750 2006 2,956 2007 3,178 Thereafter 42,632 $ 66,446 Note 6 - Net Assets Released from Restriction~ Net assets of $128,628 for the year ended June 30, 2003 were released from donor imposed restrictions by incurring expenses satisfying the restricted purposes or by occurrence of other events specified by the donors. 10 ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2003 Note 7 - Restriction on Net Assets Restricted fund balances are available for the following purposes or periods: For continuing project activities: Shelter Development CDBG Program - City of Medford $ 1,003 116,142 $ 117,145 Note 8 - Donated Materials and Services The value of donated materials and services included as donations received in the financial statements and the corresponding expenses for the year ended June 30, 2003, are as follows: Home Building Pro~ram Buildings Materials and services $ 60,000 1,782 Total $ 61r782 Under SFAS No. 116, contributed services must require specialized skills (ie., services provided by professionals such as attorneys, accountants, nurses, etc.) that RVCDC would otherwise need to purchase. Numerous volunteers have donated significant amounts of time to RVCDC's program and support services for home construction, fund-raising, and office support. No amounts have been reflected in the financial statements for those services as they did not meet the criteria for recognition under SFAS No. 116. 11 ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. Notes to Financial Statements June 30, 2003 Note 9 - Loss on Sale of Homes During the year ended June 30, 2003, four homes were sold qualifying families. The loss recognized by RVCDC is as follows: West Fourth St. property: Sales proceeds $ 95,000 Cost of sale 111,441 Loss on sale $(16,441) to Oakdale property: Sales proceeds Cost of sale Gain on sale $ 25,205 23,705 1,500 Napa St. property: Sales proceeds Cost of sale Loss on sale $ 103,000 161,080 (58,080) North Grape St. property: Sales proceeds Cost of sale Loss on sale $ 111,000 128,250 Total loss on sale Donated buildings, materials and services included in cost of sales Total cash gain on sales $ ( 17,250) (90,271) 99,001 8,730 Note 10 - Subsequent Event On July 10, 2003 RVCDC obtained a promissory note payable to Umpqua Bank in the amount of $485,000, maturing July 10, 2004. The interest rate is variable at 1.00% over prime rate, resulting in a current rate of 5.00%. Proceeds were used to purchase real property, perform renovation work for three rehabilitation projects and pay off the promissory note payable to Medinger Construction Co., Inc. 12 ROGUE VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORP. CDBG PROJECT PROPOSAL SUMMARY · REQUESTED AMOUNT; $ 285,000. NUMBER OF UNITS BUILT BY PROJECT: 16 TOWNHOUSES · AMOUNT OF MONEY LEVERAGED BY PROJECF: $1MILLION. TARGETED }tOUSE}qOLDS; 7 UNITS AT <50%AMI, 9 UNITS AT <80%AMI · UNIT SUBSIDY: $17,812 IF CDBG IS AWARDED · CITY PAYBACK: $I0,000 iF RESOLD AFTER 20 YEARS. · TIMELINE: 5/04 REZONE APPROVAL/REMOVAL OF CONTINGENCIES 9/04 FAMILY QUALIFYING COMPLETE, 11/04 FUNDING RELEASE CITY OF ,-ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Synopsis: Status Report on 2003-2004 Council Goals and Suggested Timeline and process for 2004-2005 Goal Setting Administration November 4, 2003 (Continued from ~u~cil Meeting of October 21, 2003) Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Goals for the year 2003-2004 were developed by the City Council during a workshop on February 8th, 2003, and subsequently adopted by the City Council on April 15 of this year. The status of these goals as of April 15, 2003 is marked in blue. Goals remaining unchanged are also marked in blue. Updates as of October 10 are marked in red. Recommendation: At the conclusion of last year's goal setting session, it was the consensus of the City Council that two days were needed to establish goals for the Upcoming year. It is requested council decide on dates for the upcoming two-day Goal Setting Workshop in January as follows: Friday/Saturday 9th and 10th; Friday/Saturday 16th and 17th; Friday/Saturday 23rd and 24th; Friday/Saturday 30 and 31st. Facilitator Sylvia Rose has indicated she is currently available for any of these two-day goal setting workshops in January. Fiscal Impact: Projects included in the 2003-2004 Council goals were incorporated into the approved 2003-2004 Budget document. Projects identified at the upcoming goal setting workshop in January will be incorporated into the 2004-2005 budget and will come before the Budget Committee for final approval and incorporation into the approved Budget document. Background: The Status Report on the 2003-2004 goals is provided to council as an informational item and offers the opportunity to review the current progress of council priorities and goals. The Mayor and City Council have also worked on a number of significant issues that are not part of the 2003-2004 goals. Those issues include the following: · Communications Services Subscription Agreement with City of Medford for 911 services. · Project Round Up Proposal. · Modification of Land Use Ordinance regarding theaters in the E-1 Zone. · 2003 Citizen Survey. · Civil Liberties Resolution/Patriot Act. · Recommended changes to Bylaws for RVMPO Boundary Expansion. · Open Space Dedication of Keener Property and subsequent sale of Keener property. · Youth Activities Levy. · Siskiyou Boulevard construction. · Change/discussions regarding the Transient Occupancy tax. · Regional Problem Solving (Now X 2). · Marketing Agreement with Bonneville Environmental Foundation. · LID for Tolman Creek Road. · Big Box Ordinance Changes. · Cable Franchise Renewal with Charter Communications. · Economic Development Action Plan. · Mount Ashland Draft Environmental Impact Statement. · Penny Drive/Palmer Road; Central Avenue; Helman Street improvements. · Water Revenue Bond Sale. · Maximum Houses Sizes in Historic Districts. · Police Chief Recruitment. A draft timeline and suggested planning process for this year's goal setting is included with this packet. Dates may change to some extent depending on the date of the workshop. Additional discussions regarding the purpose and format of the goal setting session will take place with the Mayor and City Council prior to the session. Attachments: · Summary of Council Goals for FY 2003-2004 with updates. · 2004-2005 Goal Setting Timeline. Summary of Council Goals For FY 2003-2004 And update of schedule as of October 10, 2003 The following goals were developed by the city council during a workshop held on February 8tht, 2003. The council identified a list of new goals that should be addressed during the next 18-24 months and a list of goals, which had been previously identified but were to be continued. Aisc, the council noted two other issues that were not listed as specific goals but rather as items they wanted addressed during the next 12 months. COMMUNITY VALUES STATEMENT The citizens of Ash/and value a City government that he/ps create an environment within which they are able to live happy and produc- tive lives. This includes a healthy and sustainable environment; an opportunity to acquire the basic necessities of life; a sound infra- structure that meets our common needs for transportation, energy, information and communications, health care, water and waste man- agement; and a variety of social, recreational, business and cultural opportunities. The citizens want their government to respect our diverse people, natural environment, and rich heritage and culture; and to promote citizen involvement, initiative, innovation and a strong sense of community. ELEMENTS AND GOALS 1. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND INVOLVEMENT The Cityrec~gnizestheva~ue~fcitizecinv~~vementandthewea~th~finf~rmati~nandres~urcesthatthecitizens~fAsh~andp~ssess~ The City is committed to a high level of communication with the public, 2003-2004 Goals Department Timeline Planned Activities a) Continue to help commissions and Administration/ Ongoing throughout City Recorder's Office will continue to provide committees become more effective throughCity Recorder fiscal year. member notebooks to each commis- resources and training opportunities, sion/committee member Complete by end of '03. City Recorder's office will work with Legal to develop an instructional session on protocol, government standards and practices and any legal instruction that pertains to each commis- sionzcommittee. Fall '03 and Spring '04 Schedule one or two training seminars open to all commission and committee members Topics mighl range from working as a group to building consensus to effectively soliciting public input. b) Adopt a process to meet LCDC Goal Corem Dev/Plan- Aug '03 D ........ .~ ..... ~..*,,~. ~.~ ..... .4~.~n, t Participation goal requirement, ning~,,~,w.,' Done Sept '03 m, ,,~,, q~,oo~ ......... *,~ .... r', vt' .... Done Oct ..... Nov 03 Ordinance Amendment Adoption Process. Jan '04 Jan '04 Feb 04 Final Adoption and Implementation - appoint new CPAC c) Evaluate appropriateness of ordi- Comm Oct '03 D ...... ~. ~...~ ............ , ......... ,~ nance for Hearing Officer to handle LandDev/Planning/Ciy .....~v,,~ ~,f ,u--'~--¢,~,,,,~ r~¢;,,,~,,,~,. Done Use Appeals. Attorney Nov '03 Joint Study Session Presentation on report. Nov-Dec '03 Direction from Council & Planning Commas- sion on next steps. d) Consider update of City Charter. Admin Feb '04 Evaluate the formation of a Charter Review Committee 2. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Ashland seeks to retain its natural beauty as it continues to grow and further develop. The City seeks to strike a balance between urbanization and the natural environment by providing protection for soil& small creeks and wetlands, urban forest, clean air and peace and quiet. 2003-2004 Goals Department Timeline Planned Activities a) Develop Riparian Ordinance. Comm Bev/Plan- .'""',,.,, ~ .... 03 May 03 Riparian and wetland inventory. ning Feb '04 ....... Mar '04 RFP for consultant. ~,,~ m.,-,,, ,r,.~ Apr '04 -Public InvolvementJOrdinance drafting. Jul '04 Oct '03 Fcb '04 Aug Ordinance Adoption/Public Hearings. '04 - Oct '04 b) Develop Urban Forestry Plan, Comm Bev/Plan- (Given the relatively recent eftort on the Tree Ordi- ning nance this item is scheduled lor late in the 2-year period. Further, staffing for this project will be diffi- cult without a consultant or urban forester Re- sources for this item have not been budgeted for 2003-2004) Nov-Dec '04 Joint Study Session and Discussion of projecl to determine priority for budgetin~. 3. HOUSING The City has a responsibility to ensure that proper amounts of land are set aside to accommodate the various housing needs in the City, and that its land development ordinances are broad enough to allow for variation in housing type, cost and density. Department Timeline Planned Activities Comm , .. ....... ~ vv Jun 03 ............. ~, ,~ ...... ~. ........ ............ ~ ............... ~ ..... Dooe Bev/Planning May '03 ......... Oct Dec Develop implementation Program for Housing '03 Action Plan. ~,,,,~ ,r,q h,,, ,~,~ On- On going efforts to implement Action PLan. going 4. ECONOMIC STRATEGY The City encourages a variety of economic activities in the City, while continuing to reaffirm the economic goals of Ashland citizens and existing businesses. Economic development in Ashland should serve the purpose of maintaining and improving the local quality of life. 2003-2004 Goals Department Timeline Planned Activities a) Continue update of economic de- Comm Bev/Planning Nov-Dec '03 Mayor appoints Ad Hoc Economic Committee. velopment Comprehensive Plan element. Jan-Feb '03 Committee Meeting/Project Understanding. Develop written outline of Eco- Mar-May '04 Element Update/Plan Preparation. nomic Development policies. June-July '04 Public Meetings/Plan Adoption. Review Economic Develop- Aug-Sept '04 Final adoption ol New Economic Element in ment strategies with the corn- Comp Plan. munity. · Focus on appropriateness of industrial development goals. b) Continue master planning of large Comm Bev/Planning Refer to c), below. Railroad and Croman Mill sites (refer to item undeveloped mixed-use properties, c). below). Tolman Creek Road Neighborhood (Access after (LID) street improvement project. c) Work on potential development of Railroad area and Old Croman Mill site (Master Planning; identify potential future public purposes such as: transit station, electrical substation, etc.) Corem Dev/Planning Dos Jan 'gA. Mar- Apr '04 ..... May '04 M, ar ,,r,, v. Jun - Jul '04 .... ; ~. Aug '04 ..... Sept Oct '04 Railroad Property: Staff Plan Preparation and Review. Railroad Property study session - review past planning efforts/plan. Additional public meetings. Final Plan Preparation Adoption of Railroad Property Plan. Croman Property: Coordinate with developer on planning efforts/ ensure compliance with community values Investigate possibility of TGM Quick Re- sponse funding to assist in planning effort. 5, PUBLIC SERVICES The City will provide a full range of public services that meet the needs of existing and future citizens. 2003-2004 Goals Department Timeline Planned Activities a) Update and improve Council Admin/Public Summer '03 Chambers in respect to seating, sound Works ........ and web access. (done) Summer '03 ........... r' ........ (done) Summer '03 ...... '~ ..... (done) Fall '03 Research costs for new design with improve- ments and construction costs. Meet with ~n~er- ested parties to discuss improvements. Spring '04 Request money in 04-05 budget for remodel Summer '04 BeDn remodel. b) Evaluate space needs (for Munici- Admin/Public To be completed in conjunction with evaluation of )al Court, Police, City Council, and oth- Works council chambers. ers at the Civic Center) in Civic Center. Summer Fali '03 Determine need for assistance lrom an archi- tect. c) Continue with efforts to improve the Electric July- Aug '03 Update the AFN Business Plan viability of AFN. Current - '03:04 H~.t. ......................... Evaluare te lephony service across AFN's infrastructure After Aug '03 Consider marketing AFN High Speed Bata products to companies located outside of the Rogue Valley. After Aug '03 Consider the completion of the final construc- tion of AFN. Ongoing Launch a comprehensive community-wide AFN marketing campaign directed to exceed- ~ng AFN's residential business plan targets. d) Complete pre-design for future Public Works .... , ~ October '03 · Develop RFP for Engineering Services and extension of TAP water line, including hire consultant priority for conservation ...... June 04 Complete pre-design and take to council for review/decisions. June '03 C,~ ................... ~ .................... ....... ~ ......... (done) ~une 'O~ July, August '04 Purchase or develop agreements for ROW Dec '04 Develop schedule and funding program lot final englneenng 6. TRANSPORTATION & TRANSIT To retain Ashland's small-town character while it grows, the City must proactively plan for a transportation system that is integrated into the commu- nity and enhances the livability, character and natural environment, 2003-2004 Goals Department Timeline Planned Activities a) Improve safety of existing at grade Public Works March - Sept '03 C~, ....... for E% ......... ~ Se ............ ~ RR crossings and develop a plan to tm- a~. ~ .... cros~r~gs. Done prove the Hersey Street~N. Laurel Street ~,~ ~v Sept 03 D ..... ....,,v,+t~ ....... ~ ,,,,~, ............. Done crossing. ~v~., ~v Oat 03 ..... ar, m,~,h .... comp!ore July/Aug '03 · Apply for pedestrian ,' bike crossings; E Main. Walker Feb '04 Improve Hersey and Laurel Street crossing. July '04 Consider lmpr(~,~ Glenn Street crossing. b) Improve pedestrian and traffic Public Works July '03 E ................................ , ..... ~ safety based on the 3-Es - Education, a~,d N. Mai~ Done Enforcement and Engineering at Wimer Sept '03 - D ..... ~. ~.,,v,,.~ ........ ~ ,,,,~. ............. Street and North Main. Done Nov '03 Evaluate funding mechanisms with OBOT Feb- July '04 Phase I ~mprovements for Wimer and N. Main July '04 Continue to evaluate long term ~mprovements. ,,~" process to monitor traffic vo!umoc c) Measurably improve traffic safety in Public Works/ July '03 De._,.~. ~ neighborhoods (Pedestrians, auto, bicy- Engineering/Traffic and safety in neighborhoods. Done cie, sidewalks, school zones, speed lira- Sat. Comm Sept '03 Jan '04 Prioritize specific neighborhoods and evaluate its, crosswalk safety), traffic volumes and safety. Dec '03 Gather information on safety improvements and impacts. Feb '04 Prepare and distribute safety information (education). June '04 Develop a plan to implement engineenn9 solutions. June '05 Measure results over 12-18 months. July '05 Continue to evaluate long-term improvements d) Continue and expand RVTD free Public Works/ June '03 Coordinate witk RVTD to e'.'alu~to curre~4ree busing program. Planning ~ ...... ~. ~,,~,am. Done Oct '03 Nov '03 Bevelop priority for continued service and funding mechanisms. Nov '03 Develop priority for expanded service area and funding mechanisms. Jan '04 Gain council approval and funding resources. June '04 Continue to evaluate long-term improvements. e) Evaluate TI-PC Plan and develop Comm, ,,.,,,"','*";~ ,r,,~v, Jun '04 Mayor reappoints Ad Hoc Transportation action plan for items adopted. Dev/Planning Committee. .... ., ...... Jul Sept 04 Committee Meeting/Project understandin9 Jul '04 Oct '04 Plan Update/Plan Preparation · ,~, ~,.,, 04 Nov '04 Public Meetings/Plan Adoption. ......... Dec 04 Final Adoption of New Economic Element in Comp Plan 7. ENERGY, AIR AND WATER RESOURCES Ashlandseekstobearegionalleaderintheareasofenergy, airandwaterconservation. TheCityseekstocontinuethisleadershipreleinfudher deve~~pment~fg~a~s~p~~iciesandpr~gramsthatenc~uragecitizenst~c~nservenalura~res~urces~ TheCityalsodesirestocontinuetoprevide electrical service to consumers as at Iow a cost as possible. 8. PARKS, OPEN SPACE AND AESTHETICS Ashland's character is intimately limited to its aesthetic resources, including its vistas, trees, parks, open space lands, and public art. The City seeks to develop programs that preserve important open space and parkland, while accommodating continuing urbanization. 2003-2004 Goals Department Timeline Planned Activities a) Improve public trail system by de- Comm Dev/Plan- May-SeC Dec '03 Coordinate with Parks on Dog Park - North veloping a comprehensive trails masterning with Parks Mountain Park Greenway extension. plan which addresses minimizing pub- Commission and Sept '03'~ ' ~''1 ~ ............ ~r ~'~*~ ~' ......... ...... ~ ~r~'' ............ [~ r~zc ~ Itc/private conflicts, Plan should include AWTA q .... ~'~ the Bear Creek Greenway (Bog Park to Oct '03-Feb '04 Identify properties for easements and/or ac- Mountain Ave. Park), (Plan should dis- quisition cuss range of tools to obtain access and March-July '04 Prepare strategy for acquisition of ease- ways to estimate construction costs and ments/land. costs to obtain easements) 9. URBANIZATION The City seeks to ensure an orderly transition of land from rural to urban uses. 2003-2004 Goals Department Timeline Planned Activities a) Continue to provide information to Admin/Com Dev (The Planning Division will continue to coordinate he community and foster discussion on with Admin/Ann Seltzer on providing information to ]rowth and planning issues, with an em- the public on planning issues. The Planning Corn- )basis on historic preservation, annexa- mission has appointed a sub-committee which ~s tion requirements, State land use law, working on providin9 addilional opportunities for infill policy and impacts related to density, information dislribution ) rate of growth, development standards, and processes. Spring '03 and ongo~n9 Develop malerials about issues for use as handouts in City racks in Council Chambers, City Hall and Community Dev. Lobby and post same information on Citys Web site. Spring '03 and ongang Solicit copy from Historic Comm on historic properties in Ashland and preservation. Ann Seltzer ~o meet with Historic Commission in October Ongoing include related copy in City Source. Spring '03 Work with Planning Comm on holding a com- munity forum to discuss, educate and solicit input on issues. 10. HISTORICAL SITES AND STRUCTURES Ashland seeks to preserve its rich history through the preservation of its historical buildings and places. 2003-2004 Goals Department Timeline Planned Activities a) Give attention to preserving historic On!y roma~ning ~,istoric ............ °~'~ ~'"' ' '"'~"v. r-;,~.,, .......... v....v. properties that were originally built to provide city service, purchas?ig ~,,,il,41 Owner of old tire stallon building at 264 Fourth Street Mr Wally Cannon. was contacted on Marcn 26 2003 and advised ot City ~nterest m acqulrllr his build~n9 at some time in the future for preserva- tion purposes 11. REGIONAL STRATEGIES Ashland seeks to develop unique partnerships with governments, non-profits and the private sector to ensure that regional issues of importance to the City and the region are addressed in a collaborative and effective way. 12. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT The City will be an accountable and effective steward of the public trust and public resources. The City will provide equitable and efficient services to the public through the efficient use of assets and resources. 2003-2004 Goals Department Timeline Planned Activities a) Develop performance measures Finance July-Sept '03 Irrventory existing and survey desired meas- program for all city departments, ures Oct -Deo '03 Evaluate and adopt desired measures that are "ready.' Jan-March '04 Develop reporting process (monthly, quarterly, annual) Apr-Jun '04 Establish process Ior desired measures "not ready,' July-Oct '04 Annual follow-up and changes. 13. SOCIAL & HUMAN SERVICES To ensure that all people in Ashland live in a safe, strong, and caring community, the City seeks to enhance the quality of life and promote self- reliance, growth and development of people. To these ends, the City will strive to provide resources and services to meet basic human needs. 2003-2004 Goals Department Timeline Planned Activities a) Review and consider strategies in Admin Fall '03 Create database of information on local serv- the health and human services plan. ~ce programs. Winter '04 Meel with local service organizations and discuss lundin9 challenges and opportunities. CiTY OF , SHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Synopsis: Ashland Housing Commission Request to allocate Strawberry Lane Property as an Asset of the Affordable Housing Trust Fund Planning Department jNo;~;~vlbc~ra4u~10i0n3, D ir ec t o r o f C o mm~'~y Development (~ Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator The City's adopted Affordable Housing Action Plan contains a strategy to create an affordable housing trust fund and identify and develop long-term and stable funding sources to support the City's efforts to develop affordable housing. While the Housing Commission is still investigating options for developing stable and continuous funding sources, interim bridge funding is needed to enable the City to leverage public funding sources currently available and facilitate the development of affordable housing in the near teru~. The Council has previously discussed the option of selling or trading some of its real property assets (particularly City-owned lots on Strawberry Street) to provide an interim source of revenue for the trust fund or for an alternate site that could suitably be marketed for affordable housing development. The Housing Commission voted unanimously on 9/24/03 to request that this action be accomplished as soon as possible. To facilitate this effort, the Commission requested that steps be taken to establish the affordable housing trust fund as a City special revenue fund and allocate or assign the real property assets on Strawberry Street to the trust fund. With these assets specifically reserved to the affordable housing trust fund, City staffwill be in a better position to potentially leverage other public funding sources and evaluate and develop plans for its most effective use. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council establish the Affordable Housing Trust Fund, and allocate the real property assets on Strawberry Lane to the trust fund. Fiscal Impact: The Strawberry Lane property encompasses approximately 2.5 acres of land, with the potential to be approximately four separate single family lots. Lots in the area have been listed in excess of $300,000. Background: Minutes of the 9/24/03 Housing Commission meeting and a map of the city's property are attached to this communication. CITY OF -ASI ILAND ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 CALL TO ORDER - Chair Andy Dungan called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. Other Commissioners present were Chris Oswald, Klm Blackwolf, Joan Legg, Jon Uto, Matt Small, Klm Miller and Cate Hartzelh Staff present were John McLaughlin, Gary Collord, and Sue Yates. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - The minutes of the September 10, 2003 special meeting were approved. PUBLIC FORUM PHILIP LANG, 758 B Street talked about ways that Ashland can have affordable housing and outlined them in his letter to the Commission. FRED CARUSO is concerned about the equality of affordable housing. Those with chemical sensitivities keep increasing. He suggested a competition among designers, builders, and architects to come up with "safe housing". STAFF ANNOUNCEMENT John McLaughlin announced that Gary Collord will be leaving November 3rd. We will still want to use him until that time. Staff is trying to determine the best way to refill the position. Dungan thought it would be beneficial to hear from Collord on what he sees as the problems of Ashland's affordable housing as well as the good tkings. Oswald said, "If you could be king of Ashland, what would you do?" SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Education and Outreach ~ Oswald showed everyone the drafi Q&A handout the subcommittee has been working on. It is targeted to realtors, developers, lenders, etc. Much of what is contained in the Q&A has been taken from the Action Plan. The subcommittee is hoping to have the brochure ready for Housing Commission approval in about two months. Oswald said Hartzell has been talking about doing a video of interviewing people's experiences with housing. Klm Miller arrived (4.'30 p.m.j Oswald asked for another volunteer for their committee since Andy stepped down from his position on the committee. Those currently on the Education and Outreach subconmaittee are Legg, Hartzell, Oswald, and Collord. Dungan handed out the September issue of Jefferson Monthly so Conunissioners could read the article by Eric Alan on affordable housing in Ashland. Land Use - Blackwolf said the subcommittee had not met since July 18th. They are, however, looking at three areas: 1) Lands where single family residential homes are built on multi-family residential lots, 2) Examining the affordable housing income guidelines to make sure they are in line with appropriate income levels, and 3) Ways to encourage the building of multi-family housing. Dungan felt that it is important to move these issues forward at the next meeting and would like to see these as discussion items. Kate Jackson noted that the items need to mesh with land use codes and renfinded the Commission to look in more detail to the Housing Action Plan/Needs Analysis. McLaughlin added that the recommendation for drafting ordinances would begin at the Housing Commission, then Staff will draft the ordinances, and there would be a joint study session(s) with the Planning Commission and a recommendation would be put forth to the Council. Small added that whatever comes out of the Housing Commission needs to be well thought out. The Commission should be unified with whatever goes to the Planning Commission if we want to be taken seriously. Hartzell arrived (4:45 p.m.) McLaughlin suggested the Commission take the priorities from the subconmfittee and identify those with the highest priority. Staff will draft an ordinance and move it forward. Finance - Small reported that the subcommittee members (Miller, Rohde, Small and Collord) met for the first time on Monday. Two committee goals: 1) Be ready in one to two months to present to the Commission recommendations on financing for the long-term and the short-term, and 2) Immediate Funding & Bridge Funding - City owned property might be available to sell with the proceeds going to the housing trust fund. Miller said he is interested in looking for immediate, interim and long-term financing. As an aside, Miller feels the Housing Commission should be adamant about retaining the Housing Specialist's position even after Collord leaves. Hartzell said she has notes about a funding stream that came out of a meeting with Lee Tuneberg several months ago. Hartzell reminded the Commissioners to let Staff know about upco~ning meetings so notice can be sent to the newspaper. Housincj Coalition - Rich Rohde said the Housing Coalition had a meeting with Janet Byrd who will be doing housing advocacy training. The training will be an effort to provide training and direction for a period of three yea[s to grass roots housing providers. SALE OF LAND McLaughlin said he is uncertain what the Council's commitment is on the funding side of affordable housing. The first step might be to look at some City owned property on Strawberry Lane. The Commission could ask the Council to direct us to divide and sell the property with the money from the sale going to housing. This process will take some time and in the meantime the subcommittees can continue working. The Commission can go to the Council and explain we have the resoumes in-hand, now let's commit to affordable housing now. Blackwolf asked how much land is involved. McLaughlin said 2.5 acres or three or possible four lots. The lots in that area are marketed for over $400,000. Legg suggested getting the housing trust fund set up immediately. Collord indicated he could do that. Hartzell said there is also the potential for trading the Strawberry land for other land in the City. She believes it would be worth hiring an outside appraiser to appraise any potential traded property. Blackwolf moved to partition the Strawberry Lane properly with the proceeds going to the housing trust fund (mentioned in the Action Plan) or trade for other land in the City to be used for affordable housing with an appraisal conducted by an outside appraiser for any traded property. Legg seconded the motion. Blackwolf amended the motion by asking the Council to make the land an asset of the housing trust fund. This would be the first part of the request. Legg seconded the amendment. The vote was unanimous. FUTURE DIRECTON AND STRATEGIES FOR COMMISSION Retreat - Small thought a retreat would be a good idea and to hold it before Collord leaves. Hartzell said she would hope to discuss the action plan that Collord will be generating. She would like to talk about being realistic about what we are doing for the next three to six months. Monday evening or Saturday morning late in October are the two possible times for everyone to meet. Collord or Yates will e- mail the Commissioners and work out a date, time and place to meet. BIO BOX McLaughlin said the Council directed the Housing Commission to work on incentives for affordable housing. He noted that a developer is looking at redevelopment of the Copeland property and will be using a charrette process for looking at development of the whole block. McLaughlin will be going to the Council with a memo to see if they want City participation in this process because it will involve the City's parking lot. Staff is recormnending participation. The pre-charrette meeting is scheduled for October 30th. The charrette is tentatively scheduled for the fncst week of December. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER 24, 2003 Jackson felt this could be an opportunity but also thought it was a bit awkward for the City to sponsor the charrettc. Will the developer want a favorable decision on their particular project'? McLaughlin said the City is not bound by anything. The idea is to come up with the best plan. It still puts the Council in the driver's seat. The risk is low; the benefits are high. Blackwolf believes this is a great opportunity with a lot of potential for that area of town. McLaughlin reported the charrette team is made up of Bill Lennertz of Lennertz and Coyle, GBD Architects in Portland, Jerome White, designer, George Kramer, historian, and John Galbraith. The principals are Evan Archerd, Hal Dresner, and Russ Dale. Hartzell has participated in about three charrettes and does not believe it is consensus based. The public is not very welcome. Access has been to the landowners. The role of the Housing Commission would be to stay focused on our mission and goals and what trade-offs are important. Perhaps there could be staggered Housing Commissioner involvement. McLaughlin said one part of the charrette is identifying all the interested parties. Hartzell said the charrette process, because it is so concentrated into a few days, presumes availability that most people don't have. Dungan thought that RVCDC and ACLT should be represented. McLaughlin said the charrette is an opportunity to see the inunediate impacts of the big box ordinance and to see what, if any, amendments are needed. Hartzell is concerned with the amount of staff time that could be devoted to a charrette. She doesn't want the trade-offs to be something that will come back and give housing a bad name. Dungan moved that the Housing Commission supports the concept of a charrette and requests the City be involved and advance the case of affordable housing as an owner and an advocate. Miller seconded the motion and it carded unanimously. ADJOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION MINUTES SEPTEMBER24,2003 150 0 150 Fecti 15(') 0 150 I:ccll WESTWOOD ST 0 CITY OF ,-ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Synopsis: Request from Allan Frank Sandier to Purchase Air Space above Hargadine Parking Structure for 20-Unit Affordable Housing Project Planning Department jNo~e~vlbc~ra4u~l~0n3, Director of Commpt)~ Development Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Allan Sandier has submitted a formal request to the City to enter into a process to develop approximately 20 affordabl6 housing units over the Hargadine Parking Structure. As stated in Mr. Sandler's letter, he is proposing to build long-term guaranteed affordable housing, apparently utilizing tax credits administered by the State of Oregon. Depending on the nature of the project, eligible renters would be at the 80% median income level or lower. Mr. Sandier is proposing that a deed restriction be placed on the property guaranteeing the units remain affordable for 60 years. Mr. Sandler's request involves actually purchasing the air space over the parking structure for this use. The City's Housing Action Plan identifies downtown parking lots as potential sites for affordable housing projects, utilizing the airspace over the lots. Initial conversations have been held between the City and Mr. Sandler regarding a potential affordable housing agreement for this site, and the form the agreement would take. The City Attorney has discussed the possible agreement with Mr. Sandler's attorney as well. Another issue to be addressed involves the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. The current lease between the City and the OSF includes a provision that OSF shall have the right to submit a proposal of equal or greater community benefit within six months of being informed of a potential development over the parking structure. The City shall give due and good faith consideration to such proposal. The City must also comply with ORS 221.725 regarding the disposal of property, which will require a public heating regarding the potential sale of the air space over the parking structure. Recommendation: The City is at a very early stage in this process. Mr. Sandier has provided some preliminary graphics as to how the project would appear, and the site plan. The Council has several options to consider: Direct staff to continue exclusive negotiations with Mr. Sandier, based upon further direction of the Council. Issues that could be considered are whether the air space should be sold, or rather utilize a long-term lease agreement. Direct staff to prepare a Request for Proposals (RFP) to be sent to other developers and non- profit housing providers for an affordable housing project on top of the parking structure. Again, the RFP could be based upon a purchase of the air space or development of a long-term lease. Refer the request of Mr. Sandier to the Housing Commission with specific direction from the Council. The Council could request that the Housing Commission provide a recommendation on Mr. Sandler's request, or perhaps recommendations on the potential RFP process. Evaluate housing opportunities over all city parking lots within the downtown area, and structure a process for considering housing opportunities at several locations, not just the Hargadine Parking Structure. Maintain the parking structure in its current state and not entertain any requests for further development at this location. Fiscal Impact: Dependent upon the Council's direction, sale or lease of the air space could result in revenue to the City. However, the value of the airspace has not been determined at this time. The City may be requested to provide the air space at a low cost, or no cost, to ensure the viability of an affordable housing project. Background: Mr. Sandler's background information is attached. MEMO To : Ashland City Council, meeting on Tuesday November 4, 2003 From Allan Frank Sandler Date October 28, 2003 Re Affordable housing in Ashland What I am about to say I realize is already known by our Mayor, City Council members and most of the citizens of the City of Ashland, but I think it is appropriate to go over again. It is imperative that our City of Ashland keep the diversity of the City that has made it so great. We have many cultures, religions and people of various backgrounds with an abundants of creative talent in many areas no less in the arts. We need to continue to appreciate this environment in Ashland in order to keep our very special mix of people in Ashland. We need to keep the younger citizens in Ashland to help balance the influx of older retired persons coming to Ashland whom we respect and appreciate and welcome. We are losing school children because the young families just getting started cannot afford to stay in this great City. We must change this trend. That is why I am here to help in one of the areas for which I am qualified, to bring real Affordable Housing for promising youth and adults, who given a chance, can become strong viable citizens to help continue to bring Ashland into the future in a very positive way. Now to the basics of getting this project started: 1.) I propose the City of Ashland continue the process with me, that can be used as a template for other projects in the City with myself and other developers who might want to jump onto the band wagon. The first project I have been talking to City staff about, is to build 20 affordable housing rental units over the air space of the City parking lot behind the Shakespeare New Theater. This space comes within the 15,000 sq. fi. available which will not infringe on the big box ordinance. I am working with Debra Price who represents the Oregon Housing and Community Services in Southern Oregon. In working with her, I find that I am comfortable with and can be in compliance with the regulations and roles governing affordable housing as administered by the State of Oregon and the State agency she represents. This relationship will be on-going throughout the entire project and on going for the life of the development. 3.) The property will be deed restricted so that it can not be changed for 60 years from affordable housing as it will be structured with the approval of this City Council and the Oregon Housing and Commtmity Services guidelines. 4.) After working with our City Administrator, City Attomey and Planning Department, it is now time to make this presentation to the City Council to ask for the following procedures to take place in order to get this development into the works. I am herewith submitting a protocol agreement and preliminary plans that will be the basis to start the agreements that will outline what will be done and how. This preliminary agreement was worked out with City staff as a starting point in what I realize will be a well thought out agreement when it comes to finality. The deal points are simple. 1.) I pumhase from the City the air space over the parking area based upon an appraised value for its intended use. 2.) The property is to be deed restricted for 60 years for the intended use agreed to in the sales agreement and recorded in the official records. 3.) The primary use and administration of the property will be governed by the roles as stipulated by State and Federal guidelines relating to affordable housing. As a note, they call for an accredited method of administration of the screening of persons seeking the rental units and a yearly re-accreditation of the tenants. I feel it is important to establish this because of some concerns of some City Council members about whether or not to trust the business sector to get involved in this type of development. Time is of the essence in getting this type of housing available for our citizens. I do not need to spend the time or money trying to find the financing to do this project, because private funding is already in place so I do not need to apply for grants or government money. If what I propose has some merit to you, I request that you turn his over to the Ashland Housing Commission and the City staff to continue to work with me. We will then come back to the City Council with input from all to finalize the agreement. Then we would start the process as would normally be done with the City Planning Department and City Planning Commission with all the City hearings as may be required as if this was just another building project. America was built on private enterprise, so let's let some of that know how work for the best interests of our community. Thank you for considering my proposal. 2 CITY OF : SHLAND Council Communication TITLE: DEPT: DATE: SUBMITTED BY: APPROVED BY: Synopsis: Adoption of an Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan Community Development November 4, 2003 Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner ~' John McLaughlin, Director of Comm/~i~y Development Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator ~/ ~) The City of Ashland is an entitlement recipient of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds each year. In order to address CDBG regulatory requirements the City must certify that the provisions of thc Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 relating to the replacement of affordable housing units demolished or converted with the assistance of federal funds are replaced within a short duration of their removal. Additionally the City is required to comply with the Uniform Relocation Act (URA) to assist low- moderate income households with relocation assistance when displaced by activities undertaken with CDBG assistance. The Draft Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan addresses these requirements and the steps the City will undertake to minimize the displacement of persons from their homes in conjunction with assisted activities. Adoption of an Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan is a requirement of the CDBG program. Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the draft Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance plan. Fiscal Impact: No fiscal impact. Background: Each year the City certifies to HUD that we will uphold the requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act and the Uniform Relocation Act in order to receive Community Development Block Grant Funds. HUD noted the lack of an Anti-Displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan upon monitoring the City's CDBG program in September of 2002. Although the City has addressed the provisions set forth in each Act noted above when past activities involved displacement, the adoption of the attached draft plan would satisfy the regulatory requirements for a plan outlining notification and relocation assistance provisions. DRAFT Residential Anti-displacement and Relocation Assistance Plan under Section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as Amended, and Section 105(b)(16) of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act The City of Ashland will replace all occupied and vacant occupiable low/moderate-income dwelling units demolished or converted to a use other than low/moderate-income housing in connection with an activity assisted with funds provided under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, as described in 24 CFR 570.606(c), Cranston-Gonzalez National Aflbrdable Housing Act as described in 24 CFR 92.353(e), and 24 CFR 42.375. All replacement housing will be provided within three years after the commencement of the demolition or conversion, or will be identified as having been created a maximum of 1 year prior to the demolition or conversion. Before entering into a contract committing the City of Ashland to provide funds, under the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, for an activity that will directly result in demolition or conversion of low/moderate income housing the City of Ashland will provide public notice within a newspaper of general circulation and post a notice on the property upon which the demolition or conversion is proposed. Additionally the City of Ashland will submit to HUD the following information in writing: 1. A description of the proposed activity; 2. The location on a map and number of dwelling units by size (number of bedrooms) that will be demolished or converted to a use other than as low/mode rate- income dwelling units as a direct result of the assisted activities; 3. A time schedule for the commencement and completion demolition or conversion; 4. The location on a map and the number of dwelling units by size (number of bedrooms) that will be provided as replacement dwelling units. If such data are not available at the time of the general submission, the City of Ashland will identify the general location on an area map and the approximate number of dwelling units by size, and provide information identifying the specific location and number of dwelling units by size as soon as it is available; 5. The source of funding and a time schedule for the provision of the replacement dwelling units. 6. The basis for concluding that each replacement dwelling unit will remain a Iow/moderate-income dwelling unit for at least 10 years from the date of initial occupancy; 7. Information demonstrating that any proposed replacement of dwelling units with smaller dwelling units (e.g., a 2-bedroom unit with two 1-bedroom units) is consistent with the housing needs of lower-income households in the jurisdiction. The City of Ashland, Department of Community Development is responsible for tracking the replacement of housing and ensuring that it is provided within the required period. The City of Ashland, Department of Community Development is responsible for ensuring requirements are met for notification and provision of relocation assistance, as described in {}42.350, to any lower-income person displaced by the demolition of any dwelling unit or the conversion of a low/moderate-income dwelling unit to another use in connection with an assisted activity. Consistent with the goals and objectives of activities assisted under the under the Housing and Community Development Act, the City of Ashland will take the following steps to minimize the displacement of persons from their homes in conjunction with assisted activities: Provide advisory services, including referrals to non-profit service providers, to any lower-income person displaced by the demolition of any dwelling unit or the conversion of a low/moderate-income dwelling unit. Evaluate housing codes and rehabilitation standards in reinvestment areas to prevent their placing undue financial burden on long-established owners or tenants of multi- family buildings. Require applicants for Community Development Block Grants involving relocation to submit a Tenant Relocation Plan, to include: i. A tenant survey ii. Relocation assistance costs and funding sources iii. Identification of facilities to house persons who must be relocated permanently or temporarily during rehabilitation. Provide reasonable protections for tenants faced with conversion to a condominium or cooperative by requiring: i. That current residents of rental units proposed for conversion to condominiums shall have first right of refusal to purchase the unit. (city or^shland Ord 2624 S2, 1991) ii. That condominium conversion of existing rental units demonstrate that at least 25% of the residential units are affordable for moderate income persons (City of Ashland Land Use Ordinance 18.24.030 (J)) When feasible, stage rehabilitation of apartment units to allow tenants to remain in the building/complex during and after rehabilitation by working with empty units or buildings first. CiTY OF : SHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Synopsis: Economic Development Strategy and Reallocation of Transient Occupancy Tax Planning Department November 4, 2003 John McLaughlin, Director of Comn~ity Development~) Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator Il/t/ On July 16, 2003, the City Council held a Study Session to discuss this topic. The previous memo presented to the Council, as well as the minutes of that meeting are attached. The study session was attended by the Mayor and council members Laws, Hartzell and Jackson. The Council has indicated a desire to modify the allocation of the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). Initially, it was suggested by staff that this modification be done in conjunction with the preparation of an Economic Development Strategy. However, after discussion at the study session, it appeared that a better option may be to separate the topics, and address the Transient Occupancy Tax and the update of the Economic Element as separate items. Given the upcoming budget season, and the need for all parties to be able to anticipate any changes in the allocation of the TOT, staff believes that it is necessary for the Council to address this item soon. Further, recent changes in statutes at the state level may impact the City's options regarding changes to the TOT. Staff believes that a subcommittee of the Council would be the best means to address any changes deemed necessary in the allocation of the TOT. The update of the Economic Element is scheduled for November, 2003 through September, 2004. Initial efforts are beginning regarding this update, and the formation of an ad hoc committee is scheduled before the end of the year. Staff recommends that we continue to follow this timeline and not prepare a separate economic strategy, but rather continue with the update of the Economic Element as outlined in the Council goals. Recommendation: Staff recommends that a subcommittee of the Council be formed to discuss and recommend options regarding the allocation of the Transient Occupancy Tax, and present final recommendations to the full City Council for consideration and adoption. Such modifications to the TOT, if adopted, would then be implemented as part of the 2004-2005 budget. Fiscal Impact: The fiscal impact is dependent upon the ultimate City Council recommendation. Background: The memo presented at the July 16, 2003 council study scssion~ minutes of that meeting, and an emaii from Councilor Jackson to the other members o£the council, arc attached. ASHLAND CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Wednesday, July 16, 2003 at 12:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 1175 East Main $1xeet .CALL TO ORDER Mayor DeBoer called the meeting to order at 12:07 p.m. ATTENDANCE City Council: Laws, Haazell and Jackson were present; Amarotico, Morrison and Hearn wgre absent. Staff: John McLaughlin, Community Development Director and Ann Seltzer, Communication Manager. I, Economic Development Aetiun Plan Community Development Director John McLanghlm briefly explained that the information provided will assist the council in the development of a process for the creation of the Action Plan. McLaughlin presented to the Council a plan reflecting how to proceed with the Economic Development element. lie suggested: 1) contract a consulting firm to update socioeconomic data necessary for decision-making, 2) appoint a broad-based commtttoe to review data and mformafion, 3) utilize the comrmttee to develop an action plan for addressing strategies, includntg the allocation of the Transient Occupancy Tax revenues, 4) Appoint Transient Occupancy Tax Committee to review current allocation and recommend modifications as part of the 2004-05 Budget Process, and 5) Update the Economic Element oftbe Comprehensive Plan. McLaughlin mentioned that there use to be an Economic Commission that was active in the mid-80s, bringing businesses to town. But due to political changes, the commission was disbanded. 'Die funds were primarily appropriated to the Chamber of Commerce and it has been that way ever since. McLaughlin also relayed that Ashland has developed a reputation for not being open to business. He mentioned Ashland's high standards, and said it was a difficult process with no incentives. He did however say that despite our reputation, Ashland has a healthy economic base. McLanghlin explained that ECONNorthwest would be made aware of our needs when responding to a Request for Proposal (RFP) in order to meet the analysis requirement, tie stated that tbfis firm has worked on other projects in the community and would be familiar with our economy. Jackson stated that she would like to see work on implementation policies and that she liked the shorter schedule. She questioned whether there should be more of a marketing element. She also said that she did not want to impose on the Planning Dept, but was hoping the Council would take the lead, and focus on supporting our local economy. McLaughlin clarified that there is no set timeline, and there is no pressure from the state to complele the statistical update. Updating the background data would only be for the CounciLs' benefit. Hartzell said she would be satisfied with updating and bringing the updated information to the element. She stated that the goal should be to revise the element, and questioned how successful we've been with the element so far. McLanghlin commented that he felt that the element has been successful thus far, and the City is growing in a way that brings more people to the valley. He did question whether we have produced the fight mix of jobs, stating that the majority was created in the service industry. Hartzell commented that #5 ~tbe recommendation of the committee would go tg~,~nttl',~ ftrst~ to be modified. Laws commented that he was anxious to see the updated data, and to see if any new trends have developed. He said he was completely opposed to any aggressive marketing with the exception of AFN. He doesn't feel that this is what Ashland needs or wants, as jobs are being created without aggressive marketing. He said the efforts to market have usually not been successful. Stating that the only successful incidents have been because they were able to offer subsidies, which in the long run did not pay off. Laws said he would like to continue to help businesses already established in town to be successful. He noted that part of the concern to update the element came out of the Transient Occupancy Tax allocation. He stated that the Chamber is doing something now, but we don't know what exactly they are doing, or if it is successful. He would like to see something measurable on whal the Chamber is doing and how it is being perceived. Jackson expressed a need for someone to assist new businesses through the process and that we should not discriminate against non-locals who wanted to start a business here in Ashland. She sees this timeline as being workable, and notes the need to have the updated data before the TOT is discussed. Ashland City Council Sludy Session Suly 16, 2003 Pagel of 2 It was noted that thc cost for the study would be approximately $10~000-$15,000. Mayor DeBoer noted that thc new Housing Coordinator could be belpfifl in gathering certain information when working on file update to the Comprehensive Plan. As council liaison to the Chamber, he would try to bring more information forward to the Council. He explained bow he would prefer putting this project off for two years, noting several large projects including Affordable Housing and the Charter Review. He feels that there are things that the City can do now that would not require additional expenses and excessive time. He expressed the need to utilize our current staff to assist in answering questions and portraying the right image to potential businesses. He supported the TOT proposal presented by Cotmcilor~ Laws and Hartzell, and reinforced that Council is taking on too n~a.ny new things without first completing some of the other projects. Jackson requested that more specifics be provided before putting tl~s o~ She expressed the need to have a balance between jobs and housing in Ashland. She does not support the idea of utilizing the Housing Coordinator to head up the investigation to gather economic data. Jackson would like to have a specific inaplementation plan, and stated she would still like to know more specifics about what the Chamber is doing on this issue. She expressed the need to see the dollars from the TOT spent on something besides tourism and for a certain amount of information gathered before the TOT allocation can be updated. ltartzell acknowledged the need to be aware of staff workload, but feels the Council could move forward with issue without putting a huge strain on the Planning ComnUssiun. She noted what she feels is a strong relationship between the Affordable Housing Project and the Economic Development Plan. She also expressed the need to develop target goals with the Chamber of Commerce relating to how their TOT dollars should be spent. Hartzelt would fee] much more comfortable having an expertise group or ad-hoc committee formed instead of passing it on to everyone else. She feels that we can accomplish this goal without spending a huge amount of money, and feels that some of tho money flora the TOT could be used to fund this proposed coWamttee. Mayor DeBoer acknowledged Harlzell's comments, but posed the question "after the final report has been produced, are we willing to provide funding to assist businesses coming to town?" lie expressed the need for a warm, productive envisomnent that will accept new businesses, but he does not think the taxpayers want the Council to give new businesses a tax break. DeBoer mentioned the only thing that he would change is having a team of individuals, or someone on staff that will help carry prospective businesses thiough the process, and wants to see a different attitude from the planning Department. Jackson expressed that Ashland does not have the room or the deske for big businesses that would be seeking tax breaks. She would like to grow small businesses in our conammity, and feels the study is necessary to identify what some of these businesses are. Laws stated that he is not worried about SOREDI, as they are already working oo bringing in new businesses. He supports waiting for one year and leaving the TOT as is. He suggesls that a sit down be scheduled with OSF, Chamber, and SOREDI to reach a consensus on which direction to head. lie agree~ that thc element needs to be redone first before developing a strategy and TOT, but feels that the Council may be rushing things. Jacl~on suppolta using a broad based committee to develop ideas, and would like the updated information to be used for implementation strategies. Hartzell stated that the Council would need to review the existing plan, obtain new information, am:l update their understandings. She supported the assembly of a diverse Ad Hoc Committee. Hartzell offered to head up developing a proposed makeup for a comrmttee and present it to the Council. Mayor stated he had no problem developing a committee for the TOT tax, but that the Economic Development Plan should be a separate issue. Mayor expressed that looking at the Charter Review is a more important issue than the Economic Development Plan. Laws commented that if the Council withholds funds from OSF and the Chamber, theh' relationship with these primary organizations could be damaged. Council agreed that this is a discussion that needs to be revisited when the entire Council can attend. Meeting was adjourned at 1:50 p.m~ Respectfully submitted, Barbara Christeusen, City Recorder Ashland City Council Study Session Page 2 of 2 July 16, 2003 Joh'-i mclaughl!n - economic development . Page I From: To: Date: Subject: Kate Jackson <KateJackson@opendoor.com> Council <council@ashland.or.us> 8/8/03 3:07PM economic development Fellow councilors and Mayor DeBoer, I had hoped to talk with people in person on this subject, but I am leaving town until August 18 and wanted to give you something to think about. At the July 16 study session, Don, Cate, Alan and 1 discussed a schedule proposed by Gino based on the ideas put forth in Cate Hartzell and Don Laws memo of July 9. We were unable to decide how to proceed. We were also missing one-half of the councilors! I have met with Cate, Alan and Gino, separately in this case, and come to the conclusion that we are biting off too much work by thinking that an ad hoc committee can be established and produce results in less than three months. Yet I feel strongly that Council should discuss whether and how to change the criteria, documentation and distribution of 1/3 of the TOT funds before next budget discussions. I would like to suggest that each of you look at the recommendations on page 7 of the January 2000 Economic Development Strategy report. I would like staff to develop proposals for recommendations 3, 4, 5, and 8, as first steps towards a new Economic Development Strategy. As a council, we could discuss this idea and ask staff to proceed. The ad hoc committee for revision of the Economic Element would then proceed as scheduled beginning in the winter 2004. As far as revising the TOT allocation, I think the Council and Mayor are responsible for this decision. I am open to suggestions about input. I would like to have our discussion and make any changes by December, so that we clarify for our applicants the expectations for specific proposals and detailed budgets. I would ask staff to suggest when a discussion of how to proceed can be placed on our meeting agenda. The Look-Ahead is not booked out much into September, yet we know we have two land use ordinances to consider for passage in the next 6 weeks. Sincerely, Kate Kate Jackson Ashland City Councilor 20 East Main Street Ashland OR 97520 541-482-2612 katejackson@opendoor.com CITY OF -ASI ILAND Memo DATE: TO: FROM: RE: July 16, 2003 Honorable Mayor and City Council John McLanghlin, Director of Community Development City Council Study Session Economic Development Action Plan The City Council has begun discussion on the development of an Economic Development Action Plan as a pre-cursor to the full update of the Economic Element of the Comprehensive Plan, and as a tool to assist with possible revisions as to how revenues from the Transient Occupancy Tax are allocated. This information is provided to the Council to assist in the development of a process for the creation of the Action Plan, and to provide background as to past actions by the City regarding this issue. Current Economic Element - Update Socioeconomic Data The current Economic Element fi:om the Comprehensive Plan is attached. While the information may be somewhat dated, the general policies still provide appropriate guidance for the community. Updating the socioeconomic data would be a first step, and one that would be beneficial in the development of an action plan. It is recommended that a firm, such as ECONorthwest, be utilized to update the information. ECONorthwest was previously hired to conduct the Housing Needs Assessment. Included in this packet is Appendix A of that report, Socioeconomic Data, utilized in the Housing Action Plan. Funding for this contract (and other efforts in this project) could come for the Transient Occupancy Tax revenues returned to the City by the Chamber of Commeree and OSF. Appointment of Economic Development Review Committee It is recommended that the Mayor and Council appoint an ad hoc Economic Development Review Committee to review the updated economic data, relate the data to current economic trends in the community, and determine an action plan to address economic development issues. The committee should be broad based, including members fi:om the previous committee from 2000, as well as other community interests. The committee should represent the values of the community regarding economic development. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEHT I~annlng Dtv~lon TeL 541488-5305 Appointment of Transient Occupancy Tax Committee Near the end of the development of the Action Plan, the Mayor and Council should appoint a specific committee to review the allocation of the revenues received through the Transient Occupancy Tax. The main charge would be to determine how changes could be made to the current allocations that would assist in the implementation of the Economic Development Action Plan. Development of Assumptions The Council may wish to consider establishing certain project parameters to guide the committee. In the past, these have included the following: · It is the responsibility of companies desiring to locate in Ashland to procure funding for their financial considerations from sources outside of the City govemment; · The City shall maintain high quality standards for development in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code and Oregon Revised Statutes; · Planning and Building procedures apply to development in the City and shall be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, Municipal Code, and Oregon Revised Statutes; · System Development Charges (SDC's), fees, permit costs, etc.., for developments shall apply to all development in the City; and · The City Council, the final decision making body, shall hear, consider, and as appropriate, implement the recommendations of the committee. Determination of Community Values The ad hoc committee should establish the broad values of the community regarding economic development. In the past, these values included the following: Small Town Environment · Age and income diversity is important - need all age groups and incomes to be a great community to live in. · Smaller population is valued. · People can live and work in Ashland. · Interdependency in the local economy between SOU, ACH, OSF, business, education and govemment. · Quality of development is high (both residential and commercial). Ouality of Life · Natural environment - air, water, trees, views, etc. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Pl~tnlng Dlvtsion Tel: 541-4~-530~ 20 East Main S~et F~ 541488~1t Aslfa~, Omg~ 9752O I'IY: ~0-7~2ffi0 · Safe Community · Walkable and accessible community · Cultural amenities are strong: theater, music, art, dining, literature, etc... · Friendly community, open and people have positive attitudes · Laid back community · Accessible health care in town · Live where you work · Proximity to metro-area types of services in the region · Residents can make a difference living here - can engage and be part of the solution · High level of accountability · Access to higher education Next Steps: 1. Council discussion of project, timelines, and expectations. (Study Session - July 16, 2003) Cona'act with a consulting finn to update socioeconomic data necessary for the decision-making with the Action Plan, and also necessary for the update of the Economic Element of the Comprehensive Plan. 01FQ - August, 2003. Contract - September, 2003) Appoint a broad-based committee to review existing data and information, including adopted economic goals and policies of the community. Establisb project parameters and community values. (September, 2003) Through a public process, utilize the committee to develop an action plan for addressing immediate economic development strategies, including allocation of Transient Occupancy Tax revenues. (October - November, 2003) Appoint Transient Occupancy Tax Committee to review current allocation and recommend modifications as part of the 2004-2005 Budget Process. (Appoint - December, 2003. Recommendations to Budget Committee - Febru,,ry, 2004) Update of the Economic Element of the ComPrehensive Plan. (November, 2003 - September, 2004) DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNIIY DEVELOPMENT Planning D~ion Tel: 54148~ 20 E;~'t IValn 8~eet Fax: $41-4~1-.5311 Ashlar, Omgm 97520 13Y: 800-735-2~00 HB2267 Hotel-Motel Tax HB 2267 was passed by the 72nd Legislative Assembly (2003 Regular Legislative Session). The bill enacts a new state-wide one percent tax on transient lodging, and places some restrictions on local lodging taxes. In summary, the local provisions of HB 2267 are as follows: New or Increased local lodging tax As of July 2, 2003 70 percent of the proceeds from any new or increased local lodging tax must be used for tourism promotion or tourism related facilities. The definitions are important. A "tourism related facility" is defined specifically as a conference or convention center meeting certain specified statutory standards, or a facility that is owned or partially owned by a local government and "that has the substantial purpose of supporting tourists or tourism related activity." The tourism related facility must have the substantial purpose (emphasis added) of supporting tourism and tourists - the actual use of the facility may vary, having fewer tourists than may have originally been envisioned. A tourist is defined as someone who, for business or pleasure, stays overnight or comes from mom than 50 miles away for cultural, recreational, or business travel. 30 percent of the proceeds from any new or increase local lodging tax enacted after July 2, 2003 is unrestricted in its use. Existing local lodging lax Cities are required to maintain the percentage of existing lodging tax used for tourism promotion and tourism facilities, fi-om July 2, 2003 forward. The recipients of the tax may change, but the percentage used for tourism purposes cannot change from the split effective on July 2, 2003. Cities who agreed before July 2, 2003 to raise the local lodging tax for tourism promotion or tourism facilities must raise the tax "as agreed." New statewide 1% lodging tax The state-wide one percent lodging tax will be imposed beginning January 1, 2004 and will apply to any hotel, motel, inn, B&Bs, and RV units that are designed for temporary (presumably less than 30 days) overnight human occupancy. The Department of Revenue will develop roles specifying collection procedures. In preliminary discussions, they have expressed a desire to have the state-wide one percent tax remitted directly from the lodging provider to the Slate Department of Revenue (not passed through local governments) via a quarterly coupon payment system for tracking purposes. Fifteen percent of the proceeds of the state-wide lax are to be returned to the region from which the tax was collected for regional tourism marketing programs to be determhed by the Tourism Commission. If you receive questions about the statewide lax from your local lodging properly owners, please infom~ them the statewide tax and the local tax must be paid separately and to different locations. They can direct questions about the collection of the statewide tax to either the Department of Revenue or the Oregon Lodging Association. CITY OF -ASHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Ashland Municipal Code Section 2.04.040 by Revising Rules of the City Council with respect to Public Heatings and First Reading of an Ordinance Pertaining to the Public Hearing Administration November 4, 2003 (Continued from ~fpouncil Meeting of October 21, 2003) Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator [ ~/ 'gr'~ul Nolte, City Attorney )/x~xT' Synopsis: The proposed ordinance would amend Ashland Municipal Code Section 2.04.040 revising rules of the City Council to allow a change in the order of business for Council Agendas. It is proposed that first readings of ordinances which pertain to Public Hearings take place at the conclusion of the public hearing. The change is proposed to provide for members of the public who have come to speak at the public hearing, and the opportunity to immediately observe the City Council's action regarding the ordinance. Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of first reading o£ the attached ordinance. Fiscal Impact: None. Background: The council agenda and order of business is determined in Section 2.04.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code. Changes to the order of business must be approved by the city council. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ASHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 2,04.040 BY REVISING RULES OF THE CITY COUNCIL WITH RESPECT TO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND FIRST READING OF AN ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE PUBLIC HEARING THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ASHLAND DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Annotated to show deletions and additions to the code sections being modified. Deletions are tic~6qhceugh and additions are underlined. SECTION 1. Subsection A.5 of Section 2.04.040 of the Ashland Municipal Code shall be amended by adding the following sentence thereto: A. Except as provided in subsection B hereof, the order of business of the Council shall be: 5. Public hearings, subject to the limitations of Subsection D; and first readinqs of ordinances that pertain to the public hearinq. The foregoing ordinance was first READ on the __ day of 2003, and duly PASSED and ADOPTED this __ day of ,2003. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this day of ., 2003. R.~wed as ~.form: Paul Nolte, City Attorney Alan W. DeBoer Mayor Frart/resos and ords/ord re amendment to 2.04.040 order of business CiTY OF 4kSHLAND Council Communication Title: Dept: Date: Submitted By: Approved By: Approved By: Synopsis: Amendment to Resolutions 2002-22 and 2003-24 amending the pay schedule for Elected Officials. Administration November 4, 2003 (Continued from Council Meeting of October 21, 2003) Tina Gray, Administrative Services/H)~anager ff~ Paul Nolte, City Attorney ~ itl ,/,,I Gino Grimaldi, City Administrator ~ An error was discovered in the calculation of the Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) for Elected Officials effective on July 1, 2002, which subsequently resulted in an error in the calculation for the COLA on July 1, 2003. Upon investigation and recalculation, adjustments are necessary to the salaries of the City Recorder and Municipal Judge to accurately conform to the City Charter. During the September 2, 2003 City Council Meeting, Councilor Laws inquired why applicable management salaries in the Parks & Recreation Department were not factored into the calculation of the adjustments for the City Recorder and Municipal Judge. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the amended Resolutions authorizing staff to make the appropriate adjustments to the salary for the City Recorder and Municipal Judge in accordance with the provisions set forth in the City Charter. Paul Nolte, City Attorney and Barbara Christensen, City Recorder were unable to find any legislative history that would define "department heads" in the charter section regarding salaries for the municipal judge and the city recorder (Article III, § 3). In the most recent 30 years, the salary adjustments for the municipal judge and city recorder have never taken into consideration the Parks Department Director's and supervisory employees' salaries. Under the charter, the mayor, with confirmation by the council, has the power to appoint "officers" deemed necessary by the council (Article XIII, § 1). This section has been used as the basis for the mayor to make appointments of department heads. The Mayor has not in recent history appointed the Parks Director as a Department Head. The council has acted to establish the various administrative and operating departments for the city in chapter 2.28 of the code. The Parks Department has not been established as a city department in this chapter or any other chapter. To maintain consistency with established practice, staff recommends that the adjustments be made to correct the discrepancy in pay for Elected Officials as described above not inclusive of the salary adjustments for Parks Department Management. Fiscal Impact: Retroactive pay will be necessary to "catch-up" the Elected Officials. From July 1,2002 through July 1, 2003, the City Recorder and Municipal Judge should receive an additional .63%. From July 1, 2003 through present an additional .22%. Background: Article III, Section 3., of the Ashland City Charter calls for the salary of Elected Officials to be adjusted upward "in the same percentage as the average salary adjustments of the other supervisory employees and department heads of the city of Ashland.' On July 1, 2002, the average salary adjustment was miscalculated, and retroactive pay is necessary to eliminate the cumulative impact of the error. Attachments: A revised salary schedule is attached reflecting the new salary range for Elected Officials after catch-up. MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Next 12 Monts Step E - Thereafter Step A- First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A- First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter HOURLY I MONTHLY $47.0517 $8,156 $49.4005 $8,562 $51.3796 $8,906 $53.4347 $9,262 $55.5660 $9,631 $39.4399 $6,836 $41.0058 $7,108 $42.6586 $7,394 $44.3658 $7,690 $36.4822 $6,324 $37.9284 $6,574 $39.4399 $6,836 $41.0058 $7,108 $36.4822 $6,324 $37.9284 $6,574 $39.4399 $6,836 $41.0058 $7,108 $36.4822 $6,324 $37.9284 $6,574 $39.4399 $6,836 $41.0058 $7,108 $36.4822 $6,324 $37.9284 $6,574 $39.4399 $6,836 $41.0058 $7,108 $36.4822 $6,324 $37.9284 $6,574 $39.4399 $6,836 $41.0058 $7,108 $36.4822 $6,324 $37.9284 $6,574 $39.4399 $6,836 $41.0058 $7,108 $50.3885 $8,734 $52.4071 $9,084 $54.5034 $9,447 $56.6773 $9,824 $40.2287 $6,973 $41.8259 $7,250 $43.5118 $7,542 $45.2531 $7,844 $37.2119 $6,450 $38.6870 $6,706 $40.2287 $6,973 $41.8259 $7,250 $37.2t19 $6,450 $38.6870 $6,706 $40.2287 $6,973 $41.8259 $7,250 $37.2119 $6,458 $38.6870 $6,706 $40.2287 $6,973 $41.8259 $7,25C $37.2t19 $6,45C $38.6870 $6,706 $40.2287 $6,973 $41.8259 $7,25C $37.2119 $6,45¢ $38.6870 $6,706 $40.2287 $6,973 $41.8259 $7,250 $37.21t8 $6,450 $38.6870 $6,706 $40.2287 $6,973 $41.8259 $7,250 FOR 2003-04 Comments: Title change 5/29/01 squh/alent to off,er Dept. Head classifications 3/1/03 REVISED 8127J03 Includes recalculation/revision to Elected Official Salary. ~st ~cmaso MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - Fimt 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Next 12 Months Step E - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter HOURLY MONTHL~ .... $32.2162 $5,584 $33.4900 $5,805 $34.8296 $6,037 $36.2241 $6,279 $31.4586 $5,453 $32.7104 $5,670 $34.0170 $5,896 $35.3786 $6,132 $30.0861 $5,215 $31.2829 $5,422 $32.5237 $5,637 $33.8194 $5,862 $29.0759 $5,040 $30.2947 $5,251 $31.5574 $5,470 $32.8751 $5,698 $26.8359 $4,652 $28.2524 $4,897 $29.7347 $5,154 $31.3049 $5,426 $30.0861 $5,215 $31.2830 $5,422 $32.5237 $5,637 $33.8193 $5,862 $29.0759 $5,040 $30.2947 $5,251 $31.5574 $5,470 $32.8751 $5,698 $26.5394 $4,600 $27.5935 $4,783 $28.6806 $4,971 $29.8225 $5,16~ $31.0155 $5,376 $26.5394 $4,60£ $27.5935 $4,78~ $28.6806 $4,971 $29.8225 $5,16S $32.8606 $5,696 $34.1598 $5,921 $36.5262 $6,158 $36.9485 $6,404 $32.0878 $5,562 $33.3646 $5,783 $34.6974 $6.014 $36.0861 $6,255 $30.6878 $5,319 $31.9086 $5,531 $33.1742 $5,750 $34.4958 $5,979 $29.6574 $5,141 $30.9006 $5,356 $32.1886 $5,579 $33.5326 $5,812 $27.3726 $4,745 S28.a174 $4,995i $30.3294 $5,257 $31.9310 $5,535 $30.6878 $5,319 $31.9086 $5,531 $33.1742 $5,750 $34.4957 $5,979 $29.6574 $5,141 $30.9006 $5,356 $32.1886 $5,579 $33.5326 $5,812 $27.0702 $4,692 $28.1454 $4,879 $29.2542 $5,071 $30.4190 $5,273 $31.6358 $5,484 $27.0702 $4,692 $28.1454 $4,879 $29.2542 $5,071 $30.4190 $5,273 FOR 2003-O4 Added Step E 12/01 REVISED 8/22/03 Includes recalculation/revision to Elected Official Salary. Lest iflcmase ApCied: MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Ne~ 12 Months Step C - Ne~ 12 Months Step D - Thereafter HOURLY I MONTHLY $25.1010 $4,351 $26.1002 $4,52`4 $27.1324 $4,703 $28.2084 $4,889 $25.0241 $4,338 $26.0343 $4,513 $27.0665 $4,692 $28.1316 $4,876 $21.697t $3,76t $22.5536 $3,909 $28.4{540 $4,087 $24.3~83 $4,22~ FOR 2003-04 HOURLY I MONTHLY $25.6030 $4,438 $26.6222 $4,61 ... $27.6750 $4,797 $28.7726 $4,987 $25.5246 $4,42,4 $26.5550 $4,603 $27.6078 $4,785 $28.6942 $4,974 $23.0046 $3,987I $23.9342 $4,149I $24.8862 $4,314] · · '/Training M . '.'' ServicesM REVISED 8/22/03 Includes recalculation/revision to Elected Official Salary. Last MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A -First 6 Months Step B - Next12Months Step C - Next12Months Step D- Thereafter LMalntenance.Safety Supervtsor& ~Te~l~,m U n!ca~o n. sI.Com pute~ Te c h Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter HOURLY MONTHLY $24.1885 $4,193 $25.t455 $4,359 $26.1485 $4,532 $27.t862 $4,712 $24.1885 $4,193 $25.1455 $4,359 $26.t485 $4,532 $27.1862 $4,712 $23.4635 $4,067 $24.3981 $4,229 $25.6212 $4,441 $26.9020 $4.663 $23.0367 $3,993 $23,9481 $4,151 $24.9033 $4,317 $25.8916 $4,488 $21.6971 $3,761 $22.5536 $3,909 $23.4649 $4,067 $24.3983 $4,229 $21.6971 $3,761 $22.5536 $3,909 $23.4649 $4,067 $24.3983 $4,229 $21.6971 $3,761 $22.5536 $3,909 $23.4649 $4,067 $24.3983 $4,229 $21.6971 $3,761 $22.5536 $3,90§ $23.4649 $4,067 $24.3983 $4,229 $24.6723 $4,277 $25.6484 $4,446 $26.6715 $4,623 $27.7299 $4,807 $24.6723 $4,277 $25.6484 $4,446 $26.6715 $4,623 $27.7299 $4,807 $23.9328 $4,148 $24.8861 $4,314 $26.1336 $4,530 $27.4400 $4,756 $23.4974 $4,073 $24.4271 $4,234 $25.4014 $4,403 $26.4095 $4,578 $22.1310 $3,836 $23.0046 $3,987 $23.9342 $4,149 $24.8862 $4,314 $22.1310 $3,836 $23.0046 $3,987 $23.9342 $4,149 $24.8862 $4,314 $22.1310 $3,836: $23.0046 $3,987 $23.9342 $4,149 $24.8862 $4,314 $22.1310 $3,836 $23.0046 $3,987 $23.9342 $4,149 $24.8862 $4,314 FOR 2003-04 New position ~dded 4/17/00 REVISED 6122/03 Includes recalculation/revision to Elected Official Salary. {.a~t Increps~.~Dl~d: MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Nest 12 Months Step E - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Next 12 Months Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter $21.3289 $3,697 $22.2174 $3,851 $23.1058 $4,005 $24.0289 $4,165 $21.1920 $3,673 $22.0265 $3,818 $22.9159 $3,972 $23.8273 $4,130 $20.0446 $3,474 $21.0362 $3,646 $22.1024 $3,831 $23.2113 $4,023 $24.3628 $4,223 $18.3402 $3,179 $19.0721 $3,306 $19.8347 $3,438 $20.6281 $3,576 $16.9865 $2,944 $17.6673 $3,062 $18.3701 $3,184 $19.0948 $3,310 $21.7554 $3,771 $22.6617 $3,928 $23.5679 $4,085 $24.5094 $4,248 $21.6158 $3,747 $22.4670 $3,894 $23.3742 $4,052 $24.3038 $4,213 $20.4455 $3,54~ $21.4569 $3,71~ $22.5444 $3,908 $23.6755 $4,104 $24.8501 $4,307 $18.7070 $3,243 $19.4535 $3,372 $20.2314 $3,507 $21.0407 $3,647 $17.3263 $3,003 $18.0207 $3,124 $18.7375 $3,248 $19.4767 $3,376 FOR 2003-04 ' New position added 8/t/03 New Position Added 05/16/2003 ' Legal Assistant/Claims Management Reclassified REVISED 8127J03 Includes recalculation/revision to Elected Official Salary. Last ~ease ~led: MANAGEMENT/CONFIDENTIAL Salary Schedule Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Next 12 Months Step E - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Next 12 Months Step E - Thereafter Step A - First 6 Months Step B - Next 12 Months Step C - Next 12 Months Step D - Next 12 Months Step E - Thereafter $16.5719 $2,872 $17.2361 $2,988 $17.9216 $3,106 $18.6287 $3,229 $13.4272 $2,327 $14.1028 $2,444 $14.8062 $2,566 $15.5320 $2,692 $16.3025 $2,826 $12.4964 $2,166 $13.1150 $2,273 $13,7561 $2,384 $14.4423 $2,503 $15.1621 $2,628 $10.8204 $1,876 $11.3491 $1,967 $11.9227 $2,067 $12.5076 $2,168 $13.tl 50 $2,273 $16.9033 $2,93{~ $17.5808 $3,047 $18.2801 $3,169 $19.0012 $3,294 $13.6958 $2,374 $14.3848 $2,493 $15.1023 $2,618 $15.8427 $2,746 $16.6285 $2,882 $12.7463 $2,209 $13.3773 $2,319 $14.0313 $2,432 $14.7311 $2,553 $15.4654 $2,681 $11.0369 $1,913 $11.5761 $2,007 $12.1612 $2,108 $12.7578 $2,211 $13.3773 $2,319 FOR 2OO3-O4 Po$0ion Reclassifed; 'ange decreased 10/01/01 Legal Secretary Added 12/05/2002 City Recorder Municipal Judge $29.2146 $5,064 $19.8553 $3,442 * includes a revised 346% COLA calculated for Elected Officials per City Charter PLEASE NOTE: Hoedy rates are accurate to 4 decimal places. A monthly wage is provided as an approximate salary, but actual monthly earnings may differ from tbose quoted above. * Includes a revised 242% COLA calculated for Elected Officials per City Chader REVISED 8/22/03 Includes recalculatlonlrevislon to Elected Official Salary. Last Increase Applied: RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2003-24 ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PAY SCHEDULE FOR MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004" BY AMENDING THE PAY SCHEDULE FOR THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE AND CITY RECORDER Recitals: A. On June 17, 2003 the council adopted Resolution No. 2003-24 which provided for a pay scale for management employees including the municipal judge and city recorder. B. The scale for the Municipal Judge and the City Recorder was inaccurately set forth and needs to be corrected in order to conform to the city charter. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 2. of Resolution 2003-24 is amended in the following manner: SECTION 2. The salary of the Municipal Judge and the City Recorder shall be adjusted by 2.2 2.42 percent, which is the weighted average of the adjustments made for Department Heads and Supervisors. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor and the pay schedule changes are retroactive to July 1, 2003. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code §2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this __ day of ., 2003. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this __ day of ,2003. Paul Nolte, City Attorney Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor 1- G:~city-admin~personnel~SALARY~2.003 SALARY SCHEDULES~amendment to resolution 2003.doc RESOLUTION NO. 2003- A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2002-22 ENTITLED "A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE PAY SCHEDULE FOR MANAGEMENT AND CONFIDENTIAL EMPLOYEES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003" BY AMENDING THE PAY SCHEDULE FOR THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE AND CITY RECORDER Recitals: A. On July 16, 2002 the council adopted Resolution No. 2002-22 which provided for a pay scale for management employees including the municipal judge and city recorder. B. The scale for the Municipal Judge and the City Recorder was inaccurately set forth and needs to be corrected in order to conform to the city charter. THE CITY OF ASHLAND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 2. of Resolution 2002-22 is amended in the following manner: SECTION 2. The salary of the Municipal Judge and the City Recorder shall be adjusted by 2.8 3.46 percent, which is the weighted average of the adjustments made for Department Heads and Supervisors. SECTION 2. This resolution takes effect upon signing by the Mayor and the pay schedule changes are retroactive for the period of to July 1, 2002 through July 1, 2003. This resolution was read by title only in accordance with Ashland Municipal Code {}2.04.090 duly PASSED and ADOPTED this __ day of ., 2003. Barbara Christensen, City Recorder SIGNED and APPROVED this __ day of ,2003. Alan W. DeBoer, Mayor P~I Nolte, City Attorney 1- G:~city-admin~ersonnel\SALARY~2002 SALARY SCHEDULES~amendment to resolution 2002.doc