[ Council Communication ] [ Memo ]  [ Staff Report ] [ Commission Minutes ]

Council Communication

Title:	Public Hearing on Grant Award for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Affordable Housing Project Proposal
Dept:	Community Development - Planning Division
Date:	May 7, 2002
Submitted By:	John McLaughlin, Director of Community Development Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner
Reviewed By:	Greg Scoles, City Administrator

Synopsis:	The City Council is charged with awarding Ashland's Community Development Block Grant funds for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. A total of 75% of our yearly allocation is available for the competitive award process to serve the highest priority need established in the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. This amounts to $168,750 available to the selected sub-recipient(s) for use in developing affordable housing. Through evaluating the proposals received the City Council shall 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.
Recommendation:	The Housing Commission reviewed the applications and heard presentations regarding the proposals at their meeting on April 24, 2002. The Commission unanimously recommended the application submitted by the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation. Staff has recommended, both to the Housing Commission and to the City Council, that the proposal by the Ashland Community Land Trust receive the award.
Background:	Requests for Proposals were available to the public on March 10, 2002 and stipulated that proposals were to be limited to affordable housing projects, the highest priority need identified in the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. The City received two such proposals. A proposal to purchase property for the construction of 15 affordable residential rental units and a 10,000 sq.ft. commercial building was submitted by Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC). Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) also submitted a proposal to acquire property for the development of 6-10 affordable residential units. Both proposals clearly address the highest priority need identified in Ashland's Consolidated Plan, the creation of affordable housing. The Housing Commission held a public hearing on April 24, 2002 to review each application, receive public input, and formulate a recommendation to forward to the City Council. The Housing Commission has forwarded a unanimous recommendation (5-0, 2 absent) in support of the Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) proposal. The recommendation was to award $168,750 to RVCDC for the development of 15 residential units on the Ashland Street site, or an alternative site, for the purpose of providing rental units for residents with incomes of 60% or less of median income. In examining the two proposals the Housing Commission favored the RVCDC application in that it provided needed rental housing in close proximity to shopping, schools, and public transportation. Additionally the RVCDC proposal would utilize the relatively small grant amount to leverage additional grants and loans to complete the 5 million-dollar project proposed. The recommendation by the Housing Commission was counter to that of Staff. Although Staff also recognizes that RVCDC's proposal has great merit, and upon completion would be of significant benefit to the community, Staff had recommended ACLT's proposal. Staffs' recommendation for ACLT primarily related to their readiness to proceed with a relatively straightforward project, and that completion of the project would not be contingent upon receiving additional funding from grants or yet to be identified sources Staff and the Housing Commission both have appreciation for each proposed project. Each proposal, upon successful completion, would provide significant benefits to low and moderate income residents of Ashland. The distinction between the recommendation of the Housing Commission, and that of Staff, is likely the difference between vision and implementation. Proposals: To assist in the City Council's evaluation of the proposals an overview of each proposal is provided below. Included is a listing of issues that have been identified through the public process to date: Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation Proposal The Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) proposal is to use $168,750 in CDBG funds to assist in purchasing a property (Lower Pines Trailer Park, 391E10DB tax lot 8700) for the construction of 15 rental units and a 10,000sq.ft. commercial space on the parcel. The property is .58 acres in size and currently contains eight occupied trailers. The proposal also states that it is RVCDC's intention to seek additional CDBG funding in Fiscal Year 2003-2004 to develop an additional 17 rental units for a total of 32 affordable housing units to individuals and families with incomes equal to or less than 60% of area median income. RVCDC Issues Site Availability RVCDC has not submitted any written verification that the subject site is available for sale. Relocation Of concern on the identified site property (Lower Pines Trailer Park) is the displacement and relocation of the existing residents as required by the federal Uniform Relocation Act (URA). As the redevelopment of the site will necessitate the removal of the existing trailers, all residents would be eligible for relocation benefits under the URA. To this end the RVCDC includes a relocation budget of $40,000 in CDBG funds to cover these relocation costs. The remaining $128,750 requested is to be used toward the land acquisition cost. In Staff's opinion, the relocation costs will be $80,000 to $120,000, not including the expense of a relocation specialists. The applicant has proposed to utilize the services of a consultant specializing in relocation to assist in this aspect of the proposal, however to date no relocation plan has been submitted for review. Although this proposal is beneficial in that the relocation benefits provided to the displaced residents will provide them with needed funds, Staff feels that the $5000 per residential unit identified is inadequate given the cost of comparable rentals. The relocation standards require that displaced residents be eligible for relocation benefits including but not limited to moving costs and replacement housing assistance. The replacement housing is to be "comparable" and the difference in rent and utilities is to be provided for 42-60 months. To provide an example: If a resident occupying an existing 2-bedroom unit (trailer) is paying $300 per month for rent + utilities, and if a comparable two-bedroom rental unit in Ashland rents for $600 per month + $50 in utilities, the difference of $350 (the difference between the existing base rent [$300] and the actual rent of the replacement home [$650]) is multiplied by 42 months for a rental assistance benefit of approximately $14,700 per displaced household. The above example is intended to illustrate how relocation rental assistance under URA is calculated. The example also serves to demonstrate that the $5000 per unit identified in RVCDC's proposal will most likely be inadequate to meet the provisions of the Uniform Relocation Act as the cost of comparable housing within Ashland is considerably higher than the existing housing costs of the occupants of the Lower Pines Trailer Park. RVDCD has not submitted a relocation plan for review and therefore staff has concern that the complexities of this aspect of their project have not been adequately explored by the applicant to date. Staff has been concerned throughout the RFP process that proper notification has not been provided to the existing residents of the site informing them that they could be eligible for relocation assistance. Through numerous discussions and email correspondence with RVCDC, HUD and the Oregon Housing and Community Services Department (OHCSD), Staff has determined that relocation notification is required upon initiating a request for federal funding (submission of the RFP). After the expenditure of Staff time to research the issue, RVCDC is now aware of this requirement and have indicated the notification is forthcoming. Until notification is served, there exists the potential that if existing tenants are not notified, and they move before notification is issued, both they and the subsequent tenant would be eligible for full relocation benefits, effectively doubling the cost. Thus staff reiterates that it is imperative that any applicant facing relocation issues obtain a relocation specialist very early in the process. Funding The Rogue Valley CDC has proposed a project that will require a total of nearly $5 million in funding. Their funding strategy can be viewed as both a strength and a weakness of their proposal. The strength lies in the potential to leverage the small CDBG award into a substantial amount of additional funding. The applicant intends to apply for Oregon Housing and Community Services Department (OHCSD) grants (HOME, LIFTC Equity, tax credits) in the August funding cycle of this year. In Staff's opinion, the weakness of the strategy in relation to the CDBG component is if the subsequent grant requests are not awarded to the RVCDC. As this fiscal years CDBG component of their project accounts for only 3% of the project costs, the remaining funds yet to be secured or identified (approximately $4.7million) are essential to success of the project. As with CDBG, the HOME funds and Tax Credits award process is extremely competitive, and according to the administer of these grants (Debbie Price of OHCSD) approximately 1 in 6 applicants receives a grant award. Commercial Component The City Land Use Ordinance encourages mixed use developments within commercial zones, however the use of CDBG funds on a project will require uses on the site (acquired with CDBG funds) also meet the national objectives. The commercial component could be deemed "eligible" for use of CDBG funds if it provides "job creation" opportunities for low-moderate income individuals. Although the RVCDC proposal does not indicate at this time that this is proposed, it could provide one viable solution to meet the complex federal requirements for use of CDBG funds. Additionally it may be possible to fill the 10,000 sq.ft. commercial space with non-profits that provide direct services to qualifying individuals with low-moderate income. The RVCDC application does not identify how the commercial component will meet, or be exempt, from the federal requirements. Thus Staff has significant concerns about how the tenants of the commercial space will be selected initially and over time, and how they will be monitored for compliance with the CDBG requirements. RVCDC has indicated that the commercial component is not critical to the funding of the project and as such would proceed with the development of 15 rental units provided they can acquire a site, or obtain a rezone of the proposed site, to allow residential without commercial. Local Land Use RVCDC not yet initiated any land use process (pre-application) or site planning to determine whether the chosen site can be developed with their intended use. The present zoning of the specified property is C-1, which allows for up to 30 residential units per acre provided that a minimum of 65% of the ground floor is commercial. The proposal meets the base residential density and commercial use for the C-1 zone as proposed. The Ashland Land Use process can add considerable time to a project, particularly if the proposal involves mixed-use or a re-zone of the property. Administration RVCDC has contracted with a consultant to assist in the development of their project. This expertise, in conjunction with their full time personnel, will enable RVCDC to address many of the CDBG regulations that would be involved in their project. RVCDC has also indicated that they will contract with a relocation specialist to undertake the relocation component of their project. The use of outside consultants may be essential to the success of the project, from Staff's perspective, in that the magnitude of the project is greater than any project RVCDC has undertaken to date. Ashland Community Land Trust Proposal The Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) originally proposed to use $168,750 in CDBG funds to assist in purchasing a specific property (740 Tolman Creek Rd.) for the construction of 6-8 additional residential units on the parcel. However, between the time that the RFP was submitted and the first public hearing was held on April 24th, the subject property was sold to another buyer and is therefore no longer available for purchase. ACLT has therefore modified their proposal to acquire individual parcels within the "East Village Subdivision". East Village is a 43-unit new development, consisting of four pods of rowhouse-type construction. The project will consist of 2, 3, and 4-bedroom units. The project is to be developed on property within the urban growth boundaries of the City of Ashland, but outside the city limits. The developer, Russ Dale, is seeking city approval to annex the property into the city limits. Annexation of residential property requires that 25% of the units are "affordable" under Ashland's affordable Housing program. Thus 10 units will be required to meet this standard. Ashland Community Land Trust is requesting $168,750 in CDBG funds, in addition to the $120,000 awarded in FY2001-2002, to acquire ten of the parcels within the proposed subdivision to supply a total of 10 affordable housing units. In FY2001-2002 ACLT proposed the development of four residential units and they are still obligated to provide those units with the $120,000 awarded previously. Thus this modified proposal is for CDBG funds to acquire property for the development of 6 additional residential units. Pursuant to the land trust model, ACLT would purchase the land beneath the units with grants, and hold it in perpetual trust. The improvements built upon the land would be sold to qualified buyers who would lease the land beneath for a nominal fee (usually $35 a month), thereby removing the cost of the land from the transaction. ACLT Issues Site Availability ACLT has not submitted any written verification that the subject site is available for sale. Local Land Use The ACLT proposal to acquire ten units within the proposed East Village Subdivision will require that the parent parcel be annexed into the City Limits. This process is not complete, however the developer, Russ Dale, has completed multiple pre-applications and has submitted a formal application and Staff expects it to be reviewed by the Planning Commission in July or August of this year. Administration ACLT has proposed partnering with ACCESS Inc, a non-profit Community Development Corporation, to administer the project. ACLT and ACCESS Inc had completed three similar units, to those currently proposed, by utilizing CDBG funds in the Chautauqua Trace Subdivision. Thus Staff believes that given the proven track record of this partnership, the applicants will be able to complete the proposed project with their existing administrative capacity. While Staff clearly understands the recommendation of the Housing Commission to provide support to the RVCDC proposal, it must also be recognized that readiness to proceed is essential to ensuring that the award granted is expended in a timely manner. The potential problem with delays in the timelines in which projects are completed relates to Federal regulations that limit the maximum CDBG carryover to 1.5 the annual grant. As a result, the projects must be completed and the funds used in the twelve-month period. While using funds in a "timely" manner as defined by HUD is always a challenge, it becomes imperative with high cost projects. For this reason, it will be especially important for the grant recipients to demonstrate a well-planned project and to show that the project is ready to proceed. Staff recommends that RVCDC invest time to further plan the project so that they can demonstrate it is ready to proceed. Specifically, Staff suggests RVCDC use the time between this CDBG award period and the next to create a relocation plan, fully address the issues involved with the commercial component of their proposal, initiate the local planning approval process and secure written verification that the site is available for development. Therefore, Staff stands behind the original recommendation to award the funds to the Ashland Community Land Trust.

End of Document - Back to Top

MEMO

DATE: April 15, 2002
TO: Ashland Housing Commission
FROM: Brandon Goldman, Assistant Planner
RE: Community Development Block Grants (CDBG)

Funding Requests

The City of Ashland has received two proposals for the allocation of approximately $168,750 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. Proposals requested were limited to affordable housing projects, the highest priority need identified in the 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. The City received two such proposals for land acquisition to construct affordable housing which benefit low and moderate-income people. This is an eligible use of CDBG funds.

The City of Ashland Housing Commission will review the grant requests and make a recommendation for grant awards to the City Council. Subsequently, the City Council will hold a public hearing (May 7, 2002) 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 $337,500 were received and are listed below:

Organization Proposed Project CDBG Funds Requested

Ashland Community Land Trust (ACLT) Acquisition of land for affordable housing $168,750

Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) Acquisition of land for affordable housing and commercial space $168,750

Funding Requested/Available

The City will receive $225,000 in CDBG funds from the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD, Seventy-five percent of the yearly allocation, $168,750, is to be awarded to eligible projects in accordance with the City of Ashland 2000-2004 Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan is an outline of how the City anticipates using the CDBG funds. This plan was adopted on May 2nd, 2000 by the Ashland City Council and was revised in March of this year (2002). The revisions included the elimination of the 10% "sidewalk" allocation, and a limitation to the number of projects to be funded in any given program year to one or two projects that address the highest priority needs, namely affordable housing. 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 $168,750 in CDBG funds to assist in purchasing a property (740 Tolman Creek Rd.) for the construction of 6-8 additional residential units on the parcel. The property is .70 acres in size and currently contains one single family home and a detached guest house. The proposal will yield a total of 8-10 affordable rental units upon build out. The present zoning of the property is R-1-5, which allows for single family homes on 5000 sq.ft. parcels.

The ACLT proposal outlines two distinct scenarios for development:

The first scenario anticipates the partitioning of the parent parcel into 4 independent lots to accommodate a two bedroom and one bedroom unit on each lot created for a total of 8 units. The rehabilitation of the existing residence, and guest-house, on parcel one would account for a two-bedroom and a one-bedroom unit in their current location. On each of the three remaining lots proposed a two-bedroom and one-bedroom residential unit would be built. In order to accomplish this density with the existing zoning the applicant would need to obtain a Conditional Use Permit for an Accessory Residential Unit on each of the 4 lots created. Conditional Use Permits of this nature are regularly approved within the City of Ashland and would likely be processed concurrent with the partition request.

The second scenario outlined in ACLT's proposal involves the rezone of the subject property from R-1-5 to R-2. The zoning R-2 is a low-density multifamily zone that allows for 13.5 units per acre. Additionally, this base density can be increased through a variety of means, one of which is the provision of affordable housing. A zone change would allow ACLT to provide a total of 10 units on site upon three lots. The proposal identifies that two units would be located on each lot with frontage on Tolman Creek Rd. with the rear parcel containing a 5-6 unit apartment complex. It is important to note that a zone change of this type requires approval by the Planning Commission as it is a minor amendment to the zoning map and comprehensive plan map. The ACLT proposal does reference the Tolman Creek Master Plan as support for the zone change scenario. The Tolman Creek Master Plan does identify the subject property as within an area to be rezoned for low-density multi-family housing (R-2 equivalent). However, this document has not been adopted by the City Council to date, therefore the rezone proposal would require planning action approval by the Planning Commission.

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 opportunities to households between 30% and 60% of area median income. Additionally the proposal states that 5% (1 unit) of the units proposed will be constructed to be accessible to those with disabilities.

Acquisition of land for affordable housing is an eligible use of CDBG funds and is a relatively straightforward use of funds in terms of meeting the myriad of applicable federal regulations throughout the development of the project. Of concern in either scenario is the rehabilitation of the existing home and guest-house, as both were built prior to 1978. Thus lead-based paint abatement shall 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 not address the potential or process for relocation as required by the federal Uniform Relocation Act (URA). Staff would request that the applicants address whether the existing resident(s) qualify as having an income between 30% and 60% and whether they will be remaining in the unit while, and after, it is rehabilitated. If the current residents do 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.

Lastly the CDBG Application Checklist submitted by the applicant lists under Property Data (page 9, F1) that the applicant owns the property by fee simple title. As the proposal is a request to acquire the property it can not be currently owned by the ACLT and qualify for the grant award. It is Staff's understanding that this property is currently on the market and not owned by ACLT at this time, however, the applicant will need to clarify the status of ownership.

Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation

The Rogue Valley Community Development Corporation (RVCDC) proposal is to use $168,750 in CDBG funds to assist in purchasing a property (Lower Pines Trailer Park, 391E10DB tax lot 8700) for the construction of 15 rental units and a 10,000sq.ft. commercial space on the parcel. The property is .58 acres in size and currently contains eight occupied trailers. The proposal also states that it is RVCDC's intention to seek additional CDBG funding in Fiscal Year 2003-2004 to develop an additional 15 rental units for a total of 30 affordable housing units to individuals and families with incomes equal to or less than 60% of area median income. The present zoning of the property is C-1, which allows for up to 30 residential units per acre provided that a minimum of 65% of the ground floor is commercial. The proposal meets the base residential density and commercial use for the C-1 zone as proposed.

The application for CDBG funds states that the proposal meets the national objectives. Specifically Staff concurs that the proposed housing units will meet the national objective of primarily benefiting low- and moderate-income households, however staff believes more information is required regarding the proposed commercial use to determine whether that component of the project meets the national objectives. The proposal states that the rental units proposed would provide rental opportunities to households at or below 60% of area median income. The application also states the proposal aids in the elimination of slums or blight. Although the proposed site may contain substandard housing currently, the area has not been formally identified as blighted, or as a slum, and therefore this national objective does not apply.

As stated previously the acquisition of land for affordable housing is an eligible use of CDBG funds and is a relatively straightforward use of funds in terms of meeting the myriad of applicable federal regulations throughout the development of the project.

Of concern on this site is the displacement and relocation of the existing residents as required by the federal Uniform Relocation Act (URA). As the redevelopment of the site will necessitate the removal of the existing trailers, all residents may be eligible for relocation benefits under the URA. To this end the RVCDC includes a relocation budget of $40,000 in CDBG funds to cover these relocation costs. The remaining $128,750 requested is to be used toward the land acquisition cost. The applicant has proposed to utilize the services of a consultant specializing in relocation to assist in this aspect of the proposal.

The subject site formally contained a gas station and as such the application stated that the underground gas tank was removed in the late 1980s, and received DEQ clearance. As part of an environmental review of the property, documentation conclusively demonstrating that no contamination from this previous use remains on-site. Another concern relating to the environmental review requirements involves the impact of Ashland Street on the proposed residential units. The applicant should be aware that noise attenuation measures (additional building requirements such as increased insulation, reduction of windows and doors on the south side of the building, etc) may be required because of the sites adjacency to this high volume four lane arterial street.

Of primary concern is the proposal to create a mixed-use development. The City Land Use Ordinance encourages mixed use developments within commercial zones, however the use of CDBG funds on a project will require uses on the site (acquired with CDBG funds) also meet the national objectives. The residential component and the commercial component would both have to benefit low- and moderate-income individuals or families. Thus any occupant business will have to demonstrate that at least 51% of their clientele served qualifies as low-moderate income. This approach can work, however it is imperative that an "eligible" use of the commercial facilities be identified to satisfy the federal regulations for use of CDBG funds. Given the 10,000sq.ft.commercial space proposed it is difficult for Staff to envision what qualifying use(s) would occupy the space, therefore the applicant will need to address how the commercial space will be leased and monitored for compliance in perpetuity.

Lastly, the applicant should be able to demonstrate that the subject parcel is currently available for acquisition. The proposal involves two phases of acquisition, the applicant should identify what alternative site(s) are proposed for the second phase to be acquired in Fiscal Year 2003-2004.

CDBG Project 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. Staff has 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

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: 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 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.

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

HIGH: The proposal involves local property owners, local developers, local architects, and local non-profit organizations

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

HIGH: The proposal identifies a project cost of $1,325,000. The request is for $168,750 in CDBG funds.

H. The project utilizes already existing resources in effective and innovative ways. The project shall not duplicate service provided by another organization

HIGH: The land trust model is an innovative approach and the only system currently in place within Ashland that retains the units as affordable in perpetuity.

I. The agency submitting the proposal has the capacity to carry out the project

HIGH: ACLT has demonstrated success in Ashland.

J. 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

MEDIUM: Although land acquisition is an expedient process, the project must obtain local planning approval for the proposed partition, conditional use permits, or zone change which could add delays to the project.

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

RVCDC 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: 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.

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 RVCDC proposal states that a deed restriction would be placed on the property requiring the proposed units remain affordable for a minimum of 60 years, and have indicated that the time period could be extended at the direction of the Housing Commission.

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

HIGH: The proposal involves local property owners, and local non-profit organizations.

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

HIGH: The proposal identifies a project cost of $4,983,777. The request is for $168,750 in CDBG funds for land acquisition and relocation benefits.

H. The project utilizes already existing resources in effective and innovative ways. The project shall not duplicate service provided by another organization

HIGH: The mixed-use proposal is an innovative approach to combine residential development and a commercial use to more effectively utilize the subject parcel in a way that provides housing in the immediate vicinity of employment opportunities.

I. The agency submitting the proposal has the capacity to carry out the project

HIGH: RVCDC has demonstrated success in Ashland.

J. The budget and time line are well thought out and realistic

HIGH: The development of the project and associated costs, from acquisition, relocation, and through construction have been described.

K. The project is ready for implementation

MEDIUM: Although land acquisition is an expedient process, the project must obtain environmental review clearance, local planning approval for Detailed Site Review for the commercial and residential development upon Ashland Street, and complete the relocation of the existing residents prior to any site preparation. Additionally the second phase of the project (15 addition units) has not yet had a site identified.

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

End of Document - Back to Top