HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-10-17 Housing MIN
ASHLAND HOUSING COMMISSION
MINUTES
October 17, 2005
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Matt Small called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. at the Community Development and Engineering
Services Building located at 51 Winburn Way, Ashland, OR 97520.
Commissioners Present:
Matt Small, Chair
Alice Hardesty
Liz Peck
Bill Street
Carol Voisin
Jennifer Henderson
Don Mackin
Faye Weisler
Cate Hartzell
Goldman Goldman, Housing Specialist
Absent Members:
Council Liaison:
Staff Present:
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chair Matt Small asked if any changes to Minutes, none indicated. Voisin/Henderson mls to approve the
Minutes of the September 19, 2005 meeting. Voice Vote: All Ayes, Motion passed. The Minutes of September
19, 2005 were approved.
PUBLIC FORUM
Aaron Benjamin broached topic that if Council had more power could require School Board and Parks to make
more land available for affordable housing. Tax source is the same for City and School Board, but the problem
is that Council does not have legal power to override the decisions of the School Board. The Council probably
has legal power to override Park Commission, but does not have the political will to do so.
Hueles spoke about the Solar Learning Center, which is a zero net energy light industrial building with 50
boxes for low-income people for $100. He proposed to the Commission that they consider including in
Affordable Housing projects the zero net energy houses.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Hardesty reopened discussion of the previously approved Minutes, noting two required changes.. Page two,
paragraph five, under Community Development Department Staffing and beginning "Mackin had a question..."
discussion about the terms committee, commission, and sub-committee. Use of the terms was explained
satisfactorily. In addition, Melissa Mitchell name is misspelled in two places in the Minutes and should be
spelled Melissa Mitchell-Hooge. Voisin/Hardesty m/s to correct misspelled name in Minutes and Voice Vote: All
Ayes, Motion passed. The Minutes of September 19, 2005 were approved as corrected.
PROJECT UPDATES
Goldman stated that the Housing Alliance Strategic Session met on October 11, 2005 in Salem to discuss what
Legislative items they will be considering to put forth for the 2007 Legislative Session, one year and three
months early. Specifically they talked about implementing or requesting the Legislature to implement a
document stamp tax which is a fee on every document recorded with the funds generated to go to affordable
housing. The idea now is that there is a cap in the Oregon revised statutes that those fees cannot be more
than $11. The proposed idea of an increase to $15 will raise $10m in income, if increas1ed to $20 will generate
$25 million in income and exponentially up each year in perpetuity for the State. The State would then be in a
position to reallocate, likely to the Counties that generated those taxes. Legislatively it would be a hard fight in
that the Assessors in the Counties would see that the funds typically go to them and that any kind of a set aside
would be a dilution of that historical pattern. Additionally, one of the Lobbyists mentioned that in 1989 a deal
was struck that people would not go forward with the real estate transfer fee if a document stamp tax was
approved which it was.
The other item that they were looking at seriously was the real estate transfer fee. The Lobbyist felt that there
was probably room in terms of looking at the document stamp tax fee for some kind of an agreement that they
would not pursue the real estate transfer tax this year. Goldman raised objection to that in terms of not
wanting to eliminate that as a potential in any Legislative Session. This was a meeting to outline what items
they will be considering so there is an opportunity to voice input and Goldman will circulate to the Commission a
ranking of which items the Commission would like to see go forward. Peck raised a question about the
document stamp tax in some states being the same thing as a real estate transfer tax. The distinction between
Page 1 of 4
a document stamp tax and a real estate transfer fee under the context that they are discussing it is that the
document stamp tax is a set dollar number that does not go up as property values go up. The real estate
transfer tax is percentage-based tracks with the market. Peck asked where the $11 cun-ently goes and
Goldman replied that it goes to the Assessors, with $1 going to Geographic Information Systems. If tax is
raised to $15, they are asking that the $4 increase all go to affordable housing. Peck questioned the deal about
agreeing not to pursue the real estate transfer fee. Goldman replied that the Lobbyist mentioned the
opportunities for a trade-off, which prompted Goldman to question the Lobbyist about the kind of trade-off and
what assurance we would have about not being in a position to apply for it in a future year and not step on toes
with an agreement similar to 1989. Subsequent to the meeting, John Van Landekamp, a lawyer that is strongly
involved in affordable housing, suggested to Goldman that this was an area they needecl to come to agreement
on as a group, before going forward for precisely that reason. Saying we will not go for it this year is one thing,
but saying we will not go for it at all is what they said in 1989.
The other items addressed included a formal working group for no-cause evictions whereas currently tenants
can be given a 30-day notice and evicted without cause. Establishing for-cause evictions only, would provide
more stability for tenants in a household. There was also discussion of inclusionary zoning as a funding
mechanism, which would generate affordable housing. There was a five-minute presentation on all of these
topics and then general discussion about each one for 10-15 minutes.
Another topic was lottery funds and using a portion of proceeds to fund affordable housing and asking the
Legislature to look at that possibility. Two additional sources of funding discussed were a General Obligation
Bond at the State level similar to California's recent passing of a $2.1 billion General Obligation Bond to support
affordable housing. There was discussion about something similar in Oregon, in smaller numbers, perhaps with
proceeds from the lottery as the guarantee against the General Obligation Bond. The reason the lottery was
brought up is that the projections of revenue produced in the budget cycle a consensus is that they are low.
Since then online gaming has been implemented with expectations of a 20% bump in revenue over and above
what was projected for lottery revenue last year.
The last funding source discussed was the Oregon Housing and Community Services, which has a reserve fund.
The reserve fund is utilized to improve their credit rating to obtain loans, and they maintain a $16 million
reserve fund. The Housing Alliance suggested that there might be an opportunity to have that accounted for
and to have those funds allocated, reserving money to cover their indebtedness, but that any surplus be used
for housing now. Agreed that there might be advantage in clarity of fund level and what they are used for and
having the Legislature require an audit of those funds.
Goldman stated that there were about 40 organizations present and that he would provide a membership list.
The City of Ashland, the City of Eugene, the City of Beaverton, and the City of Portland are members and were
present. Additionally, Multnomah County and Washington County are members as counties. Most of the others
are nonprofit organizations, the Neighborhood Partnership Fund, Lane County with John Van Landekamp from
Lane County, the Food Bank, NOAH the Affordable Housing Bank, and associations of th,e housing authorities
were present. Additional attendees were Affordable Housing providers, the Food Bank, and CAT the Citizens for
Advocacy of Tenants. Goldman explained that the Lobbyists fit in through the Housing Alliance collecting dues
from members, the City of Ashland pays dues into the organization (Oregon Action and Jackson County Housing
Coalition were there) and the dues are used to hire a Lobbyist and the Lobbyist firm conducts interviews with
Legislators. Our Lobbyist is Mike of PAC and Goldman will provide name for Commission members. Goldman
affirmed that is his impression the idea of real estate transfer tax has been shelved because the conference
synopsis did not include mention of the real estate transfer tax as an item of discussion. There is still reticence
on whether we can go forward on real estate transfer fee. Janet Bird strongly advocated real estate transfer
fees, as did Goldman, and Oregon Action. Janet Bird forwarded the General Obligation Fund and there was an
opportunity to block an item and an opportunity to voice extra support with stickers for the item. There were
four stickers in support of real estate transfer tax, which is strong support, one for inclusionary zoning, and
three blocking the Oregon Housing Community Services revenue and one in support of the Lottery. Many
organizations chose not to voice a strong recommendation or a block. Goldman indicated that while it was not
included in the synopsis, that he would ask the Housing Alliance why it was not included as a topic of discussion
in the synopsis. In terms of a trade-off for the document stamp tax it seemed like it would not drop off their
list until there was agreement for a revenue source to be supported. Hardesty voiced the opinion that a
document stamp tax is a poor trade-off for a real estate transfer tax. Even if it is $100 per transaction, it is a
retrogressive tax and a poor trade-off.
Goldman will circulate to the Commission a survey document asking whether they think it is winnable, whether
they think it will have some financial return, whether it is something they would drive to Salem to support as an
indicator of how important it is. Goldman will circulate, collect results, and forward to the Housing Alliance.
Page 2 of 4
The Housing Alliance next meets December 14, 2005 at which point they will take those items and see if they
can come to some kind of agreement as to which ones they will move forward.
This is a brief update on the RVCDC and ACLT projects. RVCDC had their groundbreaking on September 27,
2005. Lease agreements are completed and ready to sign and USTA is looking at next Tuesday for completion
of their part of the loan package, which would put all of the construction dollars in place. They pulled the
building permit for nine units. ACLT closed on a property next to their six-unit development on Garfield Street,
across from Garfield Park. This will be turned into two units and they are currently working with Habitat for
Humanity as the potential builder of those units for two low-income ownership units.
On the Buildable Lands Inventory Goldman was told he would have an application completed and that all data
entry is completed, but the GIS mapping is not quite ready. Goldman suggested this as an item with a full
presentation for the next Housing Commission meeting to talk about the actual available acreage. The
Multifamily Housing Unit counts are in the same situation with all the data entry completed. The data have not
been aggregated into tables that can be distributed as understandable. Goldman then reaffirmed that the next
Housing Alliance Strategic meeting is tentatively scheduled for Wednesday, December 14, 2005. If anyone
would be interested in attending, please e-mail Goldman, with the understanding that the location will be in
Salem or Portland.
OTHER BUSINESS FROM HOUSING COMMISSION MEMBERS
Peck reported on two meetings with Kendrick, noting that representatives attended in place of Bob Kendrick.
David Schiever will be the Kendrick negotiator through the process and Evan Archerd was present on behalf of
ACLT. The first meeting was fact gathering. Peck proposed a lowering of the targeted percent of income below
the 80% range because this would be beyond workforce housing. The downtown area is more suited for
workforce housing and the project is small enough that it did not need to go from 30% to 80%, leaving out the
mid-range. Peck raised questions about the apartment size, noting that the size of HUD housing offers more
livable spaces. Open space issue was raised because it was not shown. There was a meeting where Kendrick
stated that if ACL T could not come up with funding for the affordable housing they would go to another source.
Since this is all about affordable housing, where would they go and what would happen to the project. The
issue was sent back to be clarified. Goldman reported on the discussion about the appraised value of the
commercial airspace in terms of determining a value of how much the Kendrick Enterprise proposal was
assisting the affordable housing component and then how much the commercial airspace was worth to
determine whether it was a lease or a fee simple transaction. They requested a fee simple transfer rather than
a lease for ease in their financing. The legal department raised the issue of the risk this would put the City in,
in terms of foreclosure.
The second session revisited the open space issue, and discussing with the project next door a compromise to
facilitate the open space plan on the side of the building. They would lose two affordable housing units and
three parking spaces to shift the line over four feet. There is a courtyard in the middle for use as public space
that the City had asked be included. The adjoining property meanders on the side creating a plaza on Will
Dodge Way, which the Planning Department advocated. However, the affordable housing is primary and
Goldman asked planning to reduce this area. Evan Archerd will absorb the cost of the architects meeting on the
issue of finding a remedy to create a better plaza and pedestrian pathway through the project. There will be a
revision of 80% and 30% to 60% and 50% income levels. While the overall square footage will be smaller, the
overall design will be modern and expansive in feel.
Goldman had asked for a more detailed project proforma with a line item of contributions to each courtyard
space. They showed us 50% attributable to commercial and 50% attributable to affordable housing in terms of
cost, but we are looking for more ways to absorb development cost from the commercial side reducing the cost
of affordable housing. They will discuss and come back to Commission with an answer.
The City was prepared to look at the value of the property, determine a lease amount for that, and not look at
the profitability of the individual commercial space. There is an option to appraise the property based on
income generation potential, as opposed to looking at their monthly balance sheet, to determine a dollar value
at the front end to contribute to the construction of the affordable housing. Goldman stated that the issue is
still unresolved. One difficulty of a formal appraisal is that if we are planning to go back to Council in December
or January, so that ACLT can submit an application by February 23, 2006 deadline, an appraisal being eight
weeks out puts that in question. Goldman discussed issue with Gino and they decided that an appraisal was the
best way to get a clear determination of what its market value is, and then try to determine what the
encumbrances are in terms of publiC parking and affordable housing and how they detract from the market rate
if you were to sell the property. Kendrick is donating time, expertise, infrastructure, design, accounting, costs
typically born by affordable housing developer to build. There is no income stream from the commercial
element. Goldman stated that rents are the income stream from affordable housing component to offset debt.
Page 3 of 4
City Council determined that there should be a value assigned to the commercial airspace that the City Council
could charge for and the City Council would determine how to reallocate those funds. Goldman recalled
Kendrick stating that Kendrick could act as a developer to develop the property on behallf of the City and take a
developer's fee and the City would own the property, but this is not the public/private partnership being
discussed.
The next meeting is Friday, October 28, at noon with a list of items, no agenda, and roundtable discussion.
Street asked if the cost of maintenance of affordable housing units over time had been discussed and the
answer was no.
Hardesty proposed agenda items for next meeting: tax on non-owner occupied homes, rental property,
specifically vacation homes - Reeder is researching legality of tax. Recommend to exempt less than $800
rental for houses. Second item relates to land acquisition and the Land-use subcommittee; report will be
presented later in tonight's meeting. SOS Plumbing property has sold.
NEW BUSINESS
Since the Planning Commission does not look at problems related to affordable housing issues, should Housing
be involved at pre-application point with Planning. Planning Commission has two roles, quasi judicial of
evaluation of individual planning actions and whether they meet rigid criteria and to forward legislative changes
to City Council in terms of Land-use Ordinance. Discussed the Goldman memo, the 120-day rule, and when a
planning action item is complete and the 120-day clock starts.
The Housing Commission will have to self-educate regarding the parameters of the Planning Commission
projects, how Housing might contribute to the project, and educate community of Housing importance. Collect
ideas in pre-application meeting with small group and Goldman, then present to Housin~1 Commission. City
Council can then educate community on importance of Housing Commission involvement. Hardesty suggested
that Housing meet with developers and community at pre-app point. Street stated that we test pre-app. dialog
with all involved including media or applicant will not come back. Establish parameters to evaluate projects
that Housing wants to be involved with and which to exclude.
Street/Peck m/s to recommend resolution to Council that Housing Commission be included in planning action
review function. Voice Vote: all ayes; motion passed.
Goldman suggested formation of a review board convened when affordable housing pre..application is filed.
This should include participation by City Planner and developer to determine scope of project and how many
units and sale price. Housing Commission wants to hear Clay Street annexation.
Henderson recommended that discussion items be placed on Agenda in advance of meeting, not introduced at
meeting, or place a time limit on new business items of one minute, then place on next meeting Agenda.
Postponed Reports to the next Study Session.
Employer Assisted Housing met October 3 and again this week on Wednesday. Workshop is on December 2,
from 9-2 at Pioneer Hall. Workshop structure will consist of a panel, loan officer, tax person, and property
manager. Employers will do case studies: City, Sky Research (Geological mapping), Greenleaf, and looking for
two more because School District and Hospital backed out. Each case study will be a 10-15 minute
presentation and the panel will respond. Announce at beginning of meeting that only participants will speak,
but a future Public Forum will be scheduled for community input.
Agenda for Study Session items
1. Pre-application and a checklist
2. Develop a strategy with School District and Parks how City can obtain public land
3. Educate community about Ashland Affordable Housing program and what Land-Use items trigger this
4. Sub-Committee and Liaison reports
5. Priorities and report to Gino
6. Students to survey price and availability of rental inventory
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:31 p.m.
Page 4 of 4