housing policy board eugene lane county hacsa

HOUSING POLICY BOARD Eugene Lane County HACSA

The mission of the Housing Policy Board is to increase the availability of decent, affordable housingfor low and very low income families and individuals in Lane County.

Monday, March 7, 2016 • 12:00 – 1:30Saul Room• Eugene Atrium Building• 99 West 10th Avenue

I. Introductions Information 2 minutes

II. Public Comments Information 5 minutes

III. Minutes Approval Action 3 minutes

IV. Items from HPB Members and Staff Information 10 minutes

V. Eugene Springfield HOME Allocation Information/Discussion 15 minutes

VI. Housing RFP Update Discussion 15 minutes

VII. Future of HPB Report Information/Discussion 40 minutes

Housing Policy Board MembersElected OfficialsCommissioner Sid Leiken Lane County • Councilor Chris Pryor – Eugene

At Large MembersNorton Cabell • Jenna Fribley • Morgan Taylor • John VanLandingham

Housing Policy Board StaffStephanie Jennings, City of Eugene • 541 682 5529 • [email protected]

This meeting is open to the public and wheel chair accessible. American Sign Language or Spanish interpretation can be provided with 48 hournotice prior to the meeting. For the hearing impaired, assistive listening devices are available with 48 hours prior notice. The agenda and allbackground materials can be provided in alternative formats or Spanish with 48 hour notice prior to the meeting. To arrange for any of theseservices please contact Jackie Dowell 541 682 5447.

El lugar de la reunión es accesible para personas con discapacidad. A las personas sordas o con dificultades auditivas les ofrecemos intépretes osistemas FM de asistencia auditiva con 48 horas de anticipación. También se ofrecen intérpretes de español con 48 horas de anticipación.Materiales en formatos alternativos están disponibles a solicitud. Para disponer de estos servicios o para mayor información, comuníquese con elpersonal de Jackie Dowell al 541 682 5447.

For information about minutes, agendas, or mailings please contact Stephanie Jennings at [email protected] or 541 682 5529.Mail inquiries can be directed to City of Eugene Planning and Development Department, 99 W. 10th, Eugene, OR 97401.

MINUTES—Housing Policy Board December 7, 2015 Page 1

M I N U T E S

Housing Policy Board

Saul Room, Atrium Building 99 West Tenth Avenue

December 7, 2015

12:00 p.m. PRESENT: Norton Cabell, Chair; Jenna Fribley, John VanLandingham, (entered at 12:07), Sid

Leiken (entered at 12:07), members; Stephanie Jennings, Ellen Meyi-Galloway, City of Eugene Staff; Erin Fifield, City of Springfield staff (entered at 12:07); and guests Pearl Wolfe (entered at 12:07) Lane County Human Services; Kristin Karle, St. Vincent de Paul; Steve Ochs, HACSA; Don Griffin, Springfield Eugene Habitat for Humanity; Kristi Ishmal, Cascade Housing; Spencer McCoy, HACSA; John Barofsky, City of Eugene Planning Commission; Steve Baker, City of Eugene Planning Commission; Daiva Trudeau, Cornerstone Community Housing; Lori Love, NEDCO; Emily Reiman, NEDCO; Emily Brown, University of Oregon Intern with City of Eugene

ABSENT: Morgan Taylor, Chris Pryor, Sheri Moore, members. Mr. Cabell convened the Housing Policy Board (HPB) at 12:00 p.m. I. INTRODUCTIONS Those present introduced themselves. II. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Ochs provided the Board with an update of the Oaks and 14th project and thanked the Citizens Advisory Committee for their assistance in moving the project forward. During the two meetings, the 10-12 attendees discussed the population that would be served at the facility and issues surrounding security, services, and access. He said that the project was scheduled to begin in April of 2016 and would take approximately one year to complete. Mr. Ochs noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee would host meetings during and post-construction for maximum outreach. Ms. Wolfe said that they were preparing for the annual “Point-in-Time” shelter count to take place on January 27th 2016 in the City of Eugene. She also discussed the possibility of utilizing alternative shelter methods for families as the hotel vouchers were depleted in November.

III. MINUTES APPROVAL—November 2, 2015 Corrections to both the October and November meeting minutes were requested and minutes were not approved. IV. ITEMS FROM HPB MEMBERS AND STAFF


Mr. VanLandingham mentioned that he recently attended a meeting held by the Eugene City Manager regarding a proposal put forth by the Eugene City Mission to use a portion of the Mission’s site for single room occupancy (SRO) adult housing. The meeting was attended by Jacob Fox, Clayton Walker, Rob Bennett, Dan Bryant, Susan Ban, and Jack Trip. Mr. VanLandingham considered the site under-utilized and said that the Mission was eager to use it for services. Mr. VanLandingham considered the proposal of 400 SRO units as unsuitable for the site and said that it could potentially support 50-100 SRO units. He said that Jacob Fox indicated that HACSA could commit project based section-8 vouchers which could help with funding. Mr. VanLandingham thought the project could serve as a model for other locations.

*** Legislative update from Mr. VanLandingham occurred here, not included in agenda, out-of-order, included under heading “V. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE” ***

Mr. Cabell said that the Rental Housing Code Committee vacancy needed to be filled by the HPB. He said that landlord representation was adequate but that Mr. VanLandingham was the only tenant advocate on the board. He said that Mr. VanLandingham recruited Chris Wig of the CRB to potentially sit on the board and requested that the HPB approve the nomination. Mr. VanLandingham mentioned that the committee would not last much longer, Mr. Cabell agreed. Mr. VanLandingham said that earlier committee tasks included monitoring of money and oversight to prevent landlord abuse. Norton asked the HPB to appoint Chris Wig, there was consensus among the HPB members present, Mr. Wig was appointed to the Rental Housing Code Committee. Ms. Jennings spoke about the convention of West Coast Mayors that was to take place on the following Thursday in Portland. Mayors from Seattle, Portland, Eugene, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, along with staff working on these issues, were invited to discuss climate change and homelessness issues. She said that Ethan Nelson would be attendance as well as Kitty Piercy, City of Eugene Mayor. Ms. Jennings said that the common issue facing all jurisdictions was the very low vacancy rates for low-income residents. She said that all of the jurisdictions have declared a crisis or emergency regarding homelessness. She concluded by saying that The Eugene City Council and the Human Rights Commission would be hosting a meeting on the upcoming Wednesday, she encouraged members to watch on the internet. Ms. Fifield discussed the letter regarding Springfield’s withdrawal from the HPB and said that a resolution would be passed at the next City Council meeting and that the Council would formally terminate the intergovernmental agreement with the HPB. She also said that the City Manager would provide 30 days notice. Ms. Fifield indicated that the City of Springfield didn’t know what the regional partnership would look like in the future. Ms. Jennings said that Emily Brown, the University of Oregon Intern, would generate a report to assist members determine the future of the HPB. Ms. Brown said that she had reviewed previous board meeting minutes to prepare the memo provided in the agenda. She indicated that she would like gather and compile staff perspectives by interviewing 13 people regarding their feelings on the future of the HPB; an interview sign-up sheet was circulated. Ms. Brown said that she would also look at other organizations and the roles they serve. The result would be a short report providing potential directions for the board. She said that she would update the board at the next meeting. Ms. Jennings told the board that they should


contact either Ms. Brown or herself if there was any additional information they would like to see included in the final report. Mr. VanLandingham responded that she should reach out to former HPB members, specifically Steve Manila. Mr. Cabell said that the Board should not make any decisions regarding the future of the HPB until they review the report generated by Ms. Brown. Lane County Commissioner Sid Leiken said that this was the first time he had heard that Springfield was no longer going to send someone to the HPB and that as a resident of Springfield he felt that the City sometimes governed as if it were an island. He said that they were stronger by working together and that, no matter how the HPB moved forward, he would like to see the Springfield/Eugene partnership continue. V. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

*** Occurred during staff and member updates, not on agenda*** Mr. VanLandingham said that there was a lot going on, much of which was being driven by the Portland housing crisis surrounding homelessness and building-wide no-cause evictions. He said that there would be legislative proposals for the 2016 short session to increase funding for the Emergency Housing Account (EHA) and State Homeless Assistance Program (SHAP) which provides assistance for homeless adults. He said that it wasn’t clear how much funding would be available. Mr. VanLandingham also mentioned the omnibus House Bill that the Speaker of the House and the Chair of the House Housing Committee presented at a recent meeting. The Bill would allow for eviction only after the first year of occupancy and would increase the notification period for rent increases from 30 to 90 days. He said that the City of Portland passed an ordinance increasing the notification period for rent increases and no-cause evictions to 90 days. If the Statewide Bill passes the lawsuit filed by landlords in the City of Portland would be moot. The omnibus House Bill would also include more money for EHA/SHAP. He reminded the committee that they had received only $40,000-60,000 although $100,000 had been requested. He said that funding would depend up what was available and other competing projects such as earthquake proofing the Capitol building. There would also be funding available for preservation and foreclosure mediation counseling. There were 2-3 items which he felt were unclear on the legislative agenda, two of which authorize local governments to waive codes and state building land use requirements or remove regulatory land use barriers. He also said that there were statutes which preempted inclusionary zoning and rent control. He said that there were two proposals to remove the preemption on inclusionary zoning, and Portland’s proposal which would allow a City to impose rent control prospectively. VI. HOME CONSORTIUM RFP UPDATE Ms Jennings said that she and Ms. Meyi-Galloway were nearly finished with the new Eugene/Springfield IGA, which had been signed by the City of Springfield but not be the City of Eugene. A draft RFP was released last week. Ms. Meyi-Galloway said that the RFP was soliciting proposals for acquisitions/rehab and new construction projects. She said that the RFP was released on December 2 and that proposals were due by February 5. She said that several housing providers have said that they would submit applications. She explained that staff would conduct a review of completeness and that all proposals would also be reviewed by the Evaluation Committee. The Evaluation Committee would include a City Councilor from each jurisdictions and others, including development experts and neighborhood representatives. The proposals would have to be approved by City Council in the jurisdiction of the project. A Governing


Board consisting of the two City Mayors and two appointed City Councilors from the Evaluation Committee would make the final determination regarding funding. She said that there was almost $1.8 available in Home Funds for Eugene and Springfield. Eugene would be allocated over $1 million and $700,000 would be allocated to Springfield. Ms. Jennings explained that Eugene formed the HOME Consortium in 1992 because Springfield was too small to receive direct allocation. There was a 76%/24% split between Eugene/Springfield and that entitlement allocation was updated based upon changes in demographics. The RFP includes any available past program funding as well as these HOME funds allocated by demographic makeup. Mr. Cabell asked for clarification regarding the breakdown of funds being averaged over five years. Ms. Jennings said that the idea Mr. Cabell referenced had been considered but that it was determined to be ideal only if funding was predictable, and HOME funding is not predictable. She said that money available didn’t have to be allocated annually. Ms. Meyi-Galloway said that some of this confusion would be addressed in the new IGA. VII. HOUSING PRESERVATION WORKSHOP DEBRIEF Ms. Jennings said that the City of Eugene was working with Margaret Salazar, the HUD Field Office Director working on affordable housing preservation. There were many affordable housing providers that participated in the workshop. She thought the meeting was useful and said that Rob Prasch and Patrick Shea discussed the affordable housing preservation projects in Portland. One project that has been discussed for preservation is the senior development Ya Po Ah Terrace at the foot of Skinner Butte. She said that the amount of money the community received in the form of HUD housing subsidies was in the millions of dollars and that this funding, once lost, could not be reallocated to other projects. She discussed the work to preserve Olive Plaza which provided 150 units of affordable housing. She said that the City of Eugene and HUD were working on refinancing and comprehensive rehabilitation to preserve the project for the next 40 years. She said that there were many projects in a similar situation and that the challenge lay in the diminished CDGB funds and increased need. Mr. VanLandingham inquired about the preservation of mobile home parks to which Ms. Jennings replied that the preservation of mobile home parks was not discussed. Ms. Jennings concluded by asking members to keep preservation in mind when speaking with Ms. Brown regarding the future of the HPB. VIII. HOUSING COST CONTAINMENT WORKSHOP DEBRIEF Ms. Jennings said that Michael Parkhurst of Meyer Memorial Trust presented the findings of an affordable housing study at a meeting sponsored by NEDCO and held at Sprout recently. Ms. Jennings said that she would incorporate the recommendations from the report and requested that providers inform her of any recommendations they would also like included specifically relating to City policies. Mr. VanLandingham said that he wanted to evaluate what City codes were irrelevant and acting as cost-barriers to affordable housing. Ms. Jennings said that there were strategies recommended in the report that the City was already implementing such as acquisition of market rate units. She said that the report was lacking the HUD requirements and that the changes in the HUD Home Program were challenging. IX. NEXT HPB MEETING


It was decided to skip the January meeting to allow time for Ms. Brown to generate the report regarding the future of the HPB. Mr. Cabell adjourned the meeting at 1:12 p.m. (Recorded by Cara Mico)

of 5

Date: March 7, 2016 To: Housing Policy Board From: Planning and Development Department Subject: HOME Investment Partnership Program ‐ FY17 Allocation of Funds Background Each year, the Eugene‐Springfield HOME Consortium must submit its proposal for funding allocation through the One Year Action Plan. The HOME Intergovernmental Agreement between Eugene and Springfield (IGA) specifies new entitlement funds shall be divided among three uses: HOME projects (85 percent), HOME Administration (10 percent), and Operating Support for Community Housing Development Organizations (5 percent). The IGA also provided specific direction for the use of program income received from previously funding HOME activities. Each year, staff develops the proposed allocation in accordance with the HOME IGA. The specific dollar amounts must be approved as a draft recommendation. Following this approval, there will be a 30‐day written comment period and public hearing, followed by final approval of the HOME allocation by the Governing Board. The final decision must be made after the public comment period and a public hearing by the Governing Board. Attachment A shows the Timeline for the FY17 HOME Allocation Process. Allocation of new HOME Entitlement Funds The Eugene‐Springfield HOME Consortium will receive an entitlement allocation of $966,009 for the FY17 Fiscal Year. Last year, the HOME Consortium received $954,406 in entitlement funds. In accordance with the HOME IGA, the proposed allocation of new funds is divided among three areas: 1) HOME Projects; 2) CHDO Operating Support; and 3) HOME Administration. Attachment B shows the allocation of funds among the program areas. The HOME Consortium will receive and estimated $1,047,142 in program income in FY16. This includes repayment of a $750,000 one year interim loan for Bascom Village. All program income from the Bascom Village interim loan is proposed to be allocated to HOME Projects. The remaining amount of program income, $297,142 is proposed to be allocated 90 percent for HOME Projects and 10 percent for HOME Administration. Through a review of program income received in past years, staff identified $90,526 in additional program income that has not been allocated to any use. Staff propose to allocate 90 percent for HOME projects and 10 percent for HOME Administration in accordance with the HOME

MEMORANDUM

of 5

IGA. These resources will be directed for use in the jurisdictions were the program income was received. HOME Projects – Housing Development includes funding for acquisitions, new development

construction and soft costs, and project delivery and soft costs incurred by the jurisdictions. Funds can be used for rental developments. Springfield and Eugene will award funds through a joint RFP process.

Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) Operating Support Funds – The Consortium

may award up to 5% of new HOME funds for CHDO operating support grants. The total budgeted amount for this item is $48,300. Consortium CHDO operating support funds will be split equally among active CHDOs. All CHDOs must be certified or recertified each year in order to receive CHDO Operating Support Funds.

HOME Administration ‐ The Federal grant management system automatically budgets 10% of new HOME funds for administration. The total budgeted amount of administration costs is $96,600. The Consortium may also use up to 10% of any HOME Program Income received during the year for administration. Program Income is estimated yearly and up to 10% may be used for administration costs. Program Income less costs drawn down for administration are carried forward for allocation in the next fiscal year.

Substantial Amendments The Consortium has gathered together amounts left over from projects in previous fiscal years including FY10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. Those funds, totaling $1,003,565, are proposed to be re‐allocated to HOME projects through Substantial Amendments to past One Year Action Plans. Substantial Amendments are required when funds would no longer be used for the same activity or project for which it was originally allocated. The re‐allocated funds will be made available to Eugene and Springfield according to where the projects originated. More details are provided in Attachment C. Timeline for Approval March 1, 2016, the HOME Consortium Governing Board votes on a draft recommendation for use of HOME funds. A 30‐day written comment period on the proposed allocation of HOME funds will open on March 13th and will close on April 12, 2016. The Governing Board will hold a public hearing and make a final decision on the HOME allocation April 15, 2016. The allocation of HOME Program funds and a recommendation for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds will be presented to the Eugene City Council on April 25, 2016. The combined Eugene‐Springfield One‐Year Action Plan will be submitted to HUD by May 15, 2016. Attachments

A. Timeline for FY17 HOME Allocation Process B. Draft allocation for new entitlement HOME funds and program income for FY17 C. Draft Re‐allocation of HOME funds through Substantial Amendments, FY10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and

15

of 5

Attachment A. Timeline for FY 2016‐2017 HOME Allocation Process

Dates Agenda Items January Prepare HOME Consortium funding allocation schedule

Confirm dates with HOME Consortium Governing Board Identify estimated sources and uses including any reprogrammed

funds Review direction for annual allocations in the HOME Consortium

Intergovernmental Agreement (HOME IGA)

February 1 HOME Allocation discussed at Housing Policy Board meeting

February 25 Agenda Materials sent for Governing Board Meeting #1

March 1

HOME Consortium Governing Board Meeting #1 Information/Discussion of FY 17 Allocation Process Glenwood/Meyer Substantial Amendment – FY 2012‐13, 2013‐14, 2014‐15 Consolidated Plan review and discussion Discuss Draft Allocation

March 13 –April 12 30 day public comment period – HOME Allocation and Substantial Amendment Legal ad must be sent to R‐G by noon Wed, March 9 to run Sunday March 13. Place copy of draft allocation and narrative at City offices for public review.

April 5 Agenda Materials sent for Governing Board Meeting #2

April 15

HOME Consortium Governing Board Meeting #2 and Public Hearing Hold public hearing and make final decision for HOME allocation

Week of April 18 Communication Action Memo to Springfield City Council communicating HOME allocation

April 18

Agenda Item Summary for Action Plan due – as lead entity Eugene will inform City Council of the HOME Allocation

April 25

Eugene City Council Action to adopt One Year Action Plan

of 5

Attachment B. Draft HOME Allocation for Fiscal Year 2017

Sources

New HOME Funds $966,009

Program Income from Previous Years $90,526

Program Income Received in FY16 (Estimated) $1,047,142

Program Income Expected in FY17 (Estimated) $250,000

GRAND TOTAL $2,353,677

Uses

Housing Development $1,920,009

CHDO Operating Support $48,300

Administration (10% New HOME funds + 10% Program Income from Previous Years + 10% Estimated Program Income Received in FY16 except for Bascom Village I Interim Loan)

$135,368

Carry Forward to FY18 (Estimated Program Income Expected in FY17)

$250,000

TOTAL $2,353,677

of 5

Attachment C. Draft Re‐Allocation of HOME funds for HOME Consortium Substantial Amendments to FY10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. The City of Eugene had previously allocated HOME funds to the Housing Assistance Program (HAP) which was a down‐payment assistance program for homebuyers. The City of Springfield allocated funds to HACSA’s Glenwood Place development in FY13, FY14 and FY15. The project has experienced multiple delays and these funds must be re‐allocated to help meet HOME commitment deadlines. The City of Springfield allocated funds to Habitat for Humanity’s Meyer Estates Subdivision in FY 11 and 12. As a result of HUD direction, these funds may not but used for this project but may be reallocated to the HOME project pool. Additional projects that were named in past One Year Action Plans for Springfield will also need to be re‐allocated. Please see the table below for the proposed draft re‐allocation of HOME funds.

FY Sources Amount

10 Eugene Unused HAP allocations 60,900

10 Springfield Meyer Estate Balance 24,906



12 Springfield Meyer Estate Balance 45,000

12 Springfield Security Deposit 10,000

13 Springfield Glenwood ‐ Predevelopment 96,500

13 Springfield SHOPS 23,859

14 Springfield Glenwood ‐ Acquisition & Development 210,170

14 Springfield SHOPS 8,501

14 Springfield R Street 30,250

14 Eugene Re‐allocated Program Income 27,523

15 Springfield Glenwood Place Mixed Use Development 186,306

15 Springfield Project Delivery 59,016

15 Springfield City housing program 100,000

GRAND TOTAL $1,003,565

Uses

HOME Projects $1,003,565

TOTAL $1,003,565

of 5

Date: March 7, 2016 To: Housing Policy Board From: HOME Consortium Staff Subject: 2016 Affordable Housing Request for Proposals Background In accordance with the Eugene‐Springfield HOME Intergovernmental Agreement (HOME IGA), HOME project funds are made available through Housing Request for Proposals (RFP) at least annually. Eugene staff shall lead the development of the RFP with guidance from Springfield staff and the Governing Board. Proposals received through the RFP will be reviewed by an Evaluation Committee appointed annually by the Governing Board. As specified in the IGA, the Evaluation Committee will be composed of one Councilor from each jurisdiction, at least one community member from each jurisdiction, and other representatives that bring technical expertise or reside in the area where the project is proposed. The Evaluation Committee will review, prioritize and make a recommendation to the two jurisdictions and Governing Board. The recommendation will be presented to the respective Cities for approval. The Governing Board will make final funding decision and establish project priority in accordance with HOME requirements and commitment deadlines. The following is a summary of the process for selection of HOME projects. Eugene and Springfield staff draft the Housing RFP and share with the Governing Board for comment. The Housing RFP is released to the public. Proposals are submitted by prospective developers. The Governing Board approves Evaluation Committee membership based on the recommendation of staff. Staff from Eugene and Springfield and Evaluation Committee members review the proposals for

completeness, then score and rank the proposals. The Evaluation Committee meets to discuss scores and makes a recommendation on which proposals to

fund. This meeting will include a public hearing. The proposals are taken to the City Councils in the jurisdiction where they are located. The City Councils

may award local resources and/or recommend the proposals for funding. The Governing Board makes the final decision on HOME funding. 2016 RFP Overview, Timeline and Evaluation Process This is the first year that Eugene and Springfield are following a new evaluation process set out in the HOME IGA. The Housing RFP selection timeline is provided in Attachment A.

MEMORANDUM

of 5

The Housing RFP was released to the public on December 2, 2015. The RFP allowed acquisition‐rehab and new construction proposals in Springfield or Eugene. Proposals were due to the City of Eugene February 5, 2016. Four proposals were received: two acquisition‐rehabilitation proposals in Eugene, one new construction proposal in Eugene, and one new construction proposal in Springfield. A summary of the proposals is in Attachment B. Proposals are evaluated in six categories, using a five‐point scoring system. Both staff and committee members review the proposals and submit questions they may have for developers. Staff provides the committee with a technical analysis of the proposals to evaluate compliance with federal regulations. Developers have an opportunity to address questions in writing. Committee members may review the responses, and will have an opportunity to ask developers questions directly at the Evaluation Committee meeting. The Evaluation Committee will review Cornerstone’s Delta Court Phase II proposal and Liberty Housing Group’s the Monroe proposal at the March 9, 2016 meeting. The committee will review St. Vincent de Paul’s Main on Main proposal and NEDCO’s River Road Apartments proposal at the March 15, 2016 meeting. There will be an advertised public hearing at the March 15th meeting. The committee will develop recommendations to the applicable City Councils and the Governing Board. The recommendations from the Evaluation Committee would be presented to the appropriate City Councils in April. The Governing Board would make its final project selections at the May 2, 2016 Governing Board meeting. All the Evaluation Committee meetings, the City Council meetings and Governing Board meetings will be open for public comment. A 30‐day written comment period is advertised for February 27 – March 28. Evaluation Committee Membership There are four proposed Evaluation Committee members who will review all the proposals: City of Eugene Councilor Chris Pryor; City of Springfield Councilor Sean VanGordon; Michael Heckard, who is a citizen of Springfield and representative of the Springfield Community Development Advisory Committee; and Leah Callahan, a real estate analyst at Duncan and Brown. In addition, for Eugene proposals, a neighborhood representative will evaluate the proposal in his or her neighborhood. Eugene Housing staff attended the River Road Community Organization meeting February 8th and the Whiteaker Community Council meeting February 10th to inform the neighborhood about the proposed project and talk about the process of reviewing and scoring the proposal. Staff was not able to attend the Santa Clara Community Organization meeting February 4th but sent information to be shared at the meeting. Kate Perle will represent the Santa Clara Community Organization, the neighborhood in which the Delta Court Phase II proposal is located. Cathy Cookie Kapelka will represent the Whitaker Community Council, where the Monroe proposal is located. Pat Reilly will represent the River Road Community Organization, where the River Road Apartments proposal is located. Attachments

A. Timeline for FY 2016‐2017 HOME Allocation Process B. Summary of HOME Project proposals

of 5

Attachment A Timeline for the 2016 Housing Request for Proposals Process

Dates Agenda Items

November 2015 Determined the amount of HOME funds available for Eugene and Springfield

Prepared 2015 HOME Consortium Request for Proposals (RFP) Emailed to HOME Consortium Governing Board and affordable housing

developers for review and comment

December 2, 2015 Housing RFP released to the public by email to interested parties list, on Eugene website, published in the Register Guard

January 2016 Schedule HOME Governing Board and Evaluation Committee meetings Review the process for evaluating and selecting projects in the HOME

Consortium Intergovernmental Agreement (HOME IGA) February 5 Proposals due

February 2016 Staff delivers copies of proposals to potential Evaluation Committee members

Contact neighborhood associations to finalize relevant Evaluation Committee members

Eugene and Springfield staff, and Evaluation Committee review proposals, score individually

Staff gives Evaluation Committee members summarized review for each proposal

Evaluation Committee members submit questions to ask developers about their proposals

February 23 Agenda Materials sent for Governing Board Meeting #1

March 1

HOME Consortium Governing Board Meeting #1 Approve Evaluation Committee members Information/Discussion of proposals received Discussion of RFP evaluation process: Evaluation Committee, City Council, Governing Board roles

March 9 & March 15

Evaluation Committee Meeting and Public Hearing Depending on the number of proposals, it may require two meetings Hold public hearing Discuss individual scores of project proposals Ask developers final questions Make recommendation for funding in each jurisdiction

April 4 Springfield City Council Action on Recommended project proposal(s)

April 11 Eugene City Council Action on Recommended project proposal(s)

May 2

HOME Consortium Governing Board Meeting #2 Make final decision for funding project proposals

of 5

Attachment B Summary of Proposals Received St. Vincent de Paul’s Main on Main‐ St. Vincent de Paul (SVDP) and Mainstream Housing propose to build 35 one‐bedroom units of new affordable housing at 1062 and 1072 Main Street in Springfield, including seven units set aside for people with a developmental disability. Eleven of the units would be HOME‐designated units and all units except the unrestricted on‐site manager unit would be affordable to households earning less than 50% of area median income (AMI). The project requests $600,000 in HOME funds to allow the rents to be set at an affordable level. Four units would be fully accessible to persons with disabilities and all of the units would be adaptable to be fully accessible. HOME funds would be used for the construction. The purchase price, subject to an appraisal, is $232,500. SVDP plans to apply for 9% Low‐Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through Oregon Housing and Community Services. The HOME funds would account for approximately 8% of total project cost. There is no property tax exemption in Springfield for affordable housing developments. In addition to acquisition and construction, other project costs include relocation, demolition, and development expenses. There is currently an 9‐unit apartment complex run by ShelterCare and two commercial tenants on the property to be redeveloped. These two buildings would be demolished to build the new apartment building. The Uniform Relocation Act (URA) requires the tenants to be provided with moving expenses, relocation counseling and placement services, and a monthly payment of the difference in rent (if the rent at the new location is more than the current rent) for up to 60 months when housing is to be demolished. SVDP proposes to secure rental vouchers for some qualifying tenants. The City would inspect displaced tenants’ new rental housing to ensure it meets property standards. Recently a retroactive environmental review was performed on the Afiya Apartments property, adjacent to the Main on Main proposed site. The only environmental issue to be mitigated was a slightly higher than acceptable noise level on the Main Street side. In addition SVDP is updating the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Reviews for the property because there may be a previously undetected underground heating oil tank that may have to be removed. Cornerstone Community Housing’s Delta Court Phase II Development ‐ Cornerstone Community Housing proposes to build 28 new affordable housing units at 850 & 870 Hunsaker Lane in Eugene, including 8 units for homeless veterans through the HUD VASH program. The apartments will be a mix of studio, one‐bedroom and two‐bedroom units. Five of the 28 units will be HOME designated units, affordable to households earning less than 50% of area median income. The other 22 units will be for households earning less than 60% of AMI, and one apartment would be unrestricted for an on‐site manager. The project requests $608,135 to allow the rents to be set at an affordable level. Two units would be fully accessible to persons with physical disabilities, one unit would be accessible to households with sensory disabilities and all of the first floor units would be adaptable to be fully accessible units. The property was acquired with the assistance of HOME funds in December 2015. The eight existing units are currently being rehabilitated. Cornerstone plans to apply for 9% Low‐Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) through Oregon Housing and Community Services. The HOME funds would account for approximately 14% of total project cost. Cornerstone has a City of Eugene Low‐income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption, and has also requested approximately $130,000 in Systems Development Charge fee waivers. No relocation would be required under this proposal. A federal environmental review was performed and approved by HUD in December 2015 for this property. Because the number of units proposed has increased by 40%, the environmental review will have to be updated. The only issue identified was a noise level slightly

of 5

above acceptable range for the proposed building on Hunsaker Lane, that could be mitigated through construction techniques. Liberty Housing Group The Monroe – Liberty Housing Group is a for‐profit entity that proposes to acquire and rehabilitate a 6‐unit apartment building at 480 Monroe Street in Eugene. The apartments are all two bedroom units. Five of the six units will be HOME designated units, affordable to households earning less than 50% of area median income. The remaining unit will be for households earning less than 80% of AMI. The apartments are currently occupied, but as tenants move out, the units would be targeted to veterans. The project requests $650,000 to allow the rents to be set at an affordable level. The project would include minor rehabilitation of the units, including making accessibility improvements to first floor apartments to the maximum extent feasible. The total acquisition cost is estimated to be $524,000. Liberty Housing Group plans to get a bank loan for $234,000. The HOME funds would account for approximately 74% of total project cost, which meets the minimum HOME match requirement. As a for‐profit entity acquiring an older property, Liberty Housing Group is not eligible for a City of Eugene Low‐income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption. Liberty Housing Group has not been able to determine how many current residents will be income eligible to stay in their units. For the purpose of a relocation estimate, it is assumed that all the residents are over‐income and would need to be relocated, although that is probably not the case. Over‐income tenant households would have to be provided relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act. As tenant households choose to leave on their own, units will be targeted to veterans. Noise is one environmental issue that may have to be explored. If noise levels are above the acceptable level for acquisition projects that include rehabilitation, noise mitigation should be incorporated into the construction as much as possible. NEDCO’s River Road Apartments ‐ NEDCO proposes to acquire and rehabilitate an existing 4‐plexlocated at 1689‐1695 River Road in Eugene. There are three 2‐bedroom apartments and one 1‐bedroom apartment that are currently occupied. Three of the four units will be HOME designated units, and all four units will be affordable to households earning less than 50% of area median income. As units are vacated, NEDCO will partner with HIV Alliance to target people living with HIV/AIDS. The project requests $426,391 to allow the rents to be set at an affordable level. Downstairs units are accessible to persons with disabilities. The total acquisition cost is estimated to be $366,785. NEDCO plans to get a bank loan for $104,988. The HOME funds would account for approximately 75% of total project cost, which meets the minimum HOME match requirement. NEDCO will also apply for a City of Eugene Low‐income Rental Housing Property Tax Exemption. An initial review shows that two of the existing tenant households will be income eligible to stay in their units although they would be temporarily relocated during rehabilitation. Two of the existing tenant households are over‐income for subsidized units. Over‐income tenant households would have to be provided relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Act. As tenant households choose to leave on their own, units will be targeted to people living with HIV/AIDS. No environmental issues have been identified.

ASTRATEGICREDIRECTIONFORTHELANECOUNTYHOUSINGPOLICYBOARD

FEBRUARY1,2016

EMILYBROWN,UNIVERSITYOFOREGON

1|P a g e

ExecutiveSummary

TheHousingPolicyBoard(HPB)hasreachedacriticalpoint.Recentchangestotheboardhaveindicatedtheneedtoreevaluatethegoals,roleandstructureoftheorganization.ThefutureofHPBhasbeenwidelydiscussedbytheboardatmeetingsoverthelastyear.TheHousingPolicyBoardStrategicDirectionprojectwasguidedbyStephanieJenningsoftheCityofEugeneandcompletedbyherintern,EmilyBrown.ThegoalofthisprojectwastoidentifyinwhatwaysHPBcanevolvetobestmeettheneedsoflocalserviceproviders,housingproviders,planningstaffandtheLaneCountycommunity.

TherecommendationsinthisreportrelyoninputfromHPBmembersandlocalserviceproviders.Thisinputwasgatheredthrough10interviewswithhousingproviders,currentHPBmembers,andplanningstafffromSpringfieldandEugene.TheseinterviewsmadeclearthatHPBplaysanimportantroleinLaneCounty,butthatmembersandotherstakeholdersarenotincompleteagreementastowhatthatroleis.Informationgatheredfrominterviewswassupplementedwithresearchoncomparableorganizationsacrossthecountry.Thisresearchofferedaglimpseofpotentialvariationsinthestructureandroleofahousingpolicyadvisoryboard.Thisreportoutlinesthefindingsofthepreviouslymentionedresearch.ThefirstsectiondiscussesfindingsrelatedtotherolethatHPBcouldplaywithinLaneCountyandthensuggestssomechangestothestructureandorganizationofHPB.Thesesuggestionsincludehowmeetingscouldberestructuredtomakemoreefficientuseoftimeandpromotecollaboration,andhowtheorganizationitselfcanbestructured.Thenextsectionsincludefindingsrelatedtofutureboardmembership,potentialpartnershipsthatHPBcouldpursue,andthenliststopicsrelatedtocountyhousingneedsthatintervieweesfoundtobemosturgent.ThenextsectionsproposethatHPBadoptaworkplan,andoffersuggestionsastohowHPBcanaddressthehousingneedsofruralLaneCounty.Finally,thereportexploressomepossibilitiesforchangingthenameofHPBinthefuturetobestmatchitsnewlyidentifiedroleandmission.Casestudyresearchandinterviewdetailsareincludedintheappendices.RecommendationsforredirectingHPBareincludedinthefinalsection,ConclusionsandNextSteps.Generally,thisreportrecommendsthatHPB:

Rewriteitsmissionbasedonthepreferredrolesthatstakeholdersidentified; Modifysomeaspectsofmeetingprotocoltomakemeetingsmoreefficientandinclusive; Varymeetingstructurebasedontopicsandmeetinggoals; Expandmembershiptohousingprovidersandotherpartners; Pursueacommittee‐basedstructuresomemberscanworkonissuesthattheyfindurgent; Implementafive‐yearworkplantocomplementtheEugene‐Springfieldconsolidatedplan; Incorporatevoicesfromruralcommunitiesintoboardmembership; Considerrenamingbasedonredefinedmissionandrole.

AfterpresentingthispreliminaryreporttoHPBandincorporatingfeedback,thefinalproductinthisprocesswillbeatwo‐pageproposalforhowHPBcanevolvetobestaddressthecounty’shousingproblems.

2|P a g e

Introduction

BackgroundandContext

TheLaneCountyHousingPolicyBoardwasformedin1990throughanintergovernmentalagreementbetweenLaneCounty,theHousingandCommunityServicesAgencyofLaneCounty(HACSA),andthecitiesofSpringfieldandEugene1.ThemissionofHPBis“toincreasetheavailabilityofdecent,affordablehousing,forlowandverylowincomefamiliesandindividualsinLaneCounty”2.HPBhascontinuedtomeetmonthlytodiscussissuesrelatedtoaffordablehousinginLaneCounty.Throughoutitshistory,HPBhasservedasaspacetoallowthepublictogiveinputonaffordablehousingissuesthroughoutthecommunity.Inadditiontoreviewinghousingissues,HPBhasmaderecommendationstothegovernmentsofEugene,SpringfieldandLaneCountyonpolicy,fundingandotherlocalaffordablehousingissues.Currently,HPBmembershipincludesonerepresentativefromtheLaneCountyBoardofCommissioners,onerepresentativefromtheEugeneCityCouncil,sixat‐largecitizenmembers(onepositionisreservedforalow‐incomerepresentative)andadditionalex‐officiomembersasappropriate3.MembersservefortwoyearsandcommittoamonthlyHPBmeeting,heldonthefirstMondayofthemonth.

Methodology

Thisstrategicdirectionprojectconsistedofcasestudies,anexaminationof2015meetingminutes,andstakeholderinterviews.ResearchintothreeorganizationssimilartoLaneCounty’sHousingPolicyBoardprovidedinsightsintohowcomparablegroupsoperate,whatrolestheyplayinthecommunity,andhowtheyvarytheirmembership.Thedetaileddescriptionsofthethreehousingadvisorycommittees(Asheville,FortMeyers,andAlexandria)areavailableinAppendixA.Theexaminationof2015HPBmeetingminutesprovidedanunderstandingofthevarietyofviewpointsexpressedregardingthefuturedirectionofboard.TheseminutesalsoinformedthedevelopmentofalistoftopicsthatHPBcouldaddress,rolesthattheboardcanplaywithinLaneCounty,andthewaysinwhichHPBcouldvaryitsstructureandmembershipinthefuture.Contentfrom2015HousingPolicyBoardmeetingminutesalsoinfluencedthedevelopmentofinterviewquestionsforthestakeholderinterviews.10peoplerepresentingmembersofHPBandlocalhousingandserviceproviderswereinterviewed.AlistofintervieweesandinterviewquestionsiscontainedinAppendixB.Allcombined,lessonslearnedfromthethreecasestudies,examinationofpastHPBmeetingminutesandtheinterviewshelpedformulatesuggestionsforhowHPBcanevolvetobestmeettheneedsoftheLaneCountycommunity.

FindingsandImplications

Whileresearchingthreecomparableaffordablehousingadvisoryorganizationsacrossthecountry,itwasclearthateventhoughthecommunitycontextsoftheseorganizationsisdiverse,thereisgreatneedforaffordablehousingpolicyadvocacyatthelocallevel.WhiletheorganizationsfunctionedsimilarlytoHPBintermsofstructureandmembership(withsomeslightvariations),therewereseveraldifferences.TheAshevilleAffordableHousingAdvisoryCommittee,FortMyers

1Jenningset.al.,(2014).“LandAcquisitionProgramforAffordableHousing”Retrievedfrom:http://www2.nhc.org/Solutions%202014/Jennings‐Piercy‐Cronin.pdf2https://www.eugene‐or.gov/index.aspx?NID=8383http://www.lanecounty.org/departments/bcc/advisorycommittees/pages/housingpolicyboard.aspx

3|P a g e

LocalAffordableHousingAdvisoryCommittee,andAlexandria’sHousingAffordabilityAdvisoryCommitteegenerallyseemtoplayonerolewithintheircommunities:advisingthelocaljurisdictiononaffordablehousingpolicy.Additionally,whilethesethreecommitteeswerechargedsolelywithafocusonhousingaffordability,HPBextendsitsreachintootherareasofhousingopportunity.OneothersignificantdifferencebetweenthesethreeorganizationsandtheLaneCountyHousingPolicyBoardisthatwhilethesethreegroupsarespecifictoonejurisdiction,HPBhasbeenchargedwithservingseveraljurisdictions:LaneCounty,Eugene,andSpringfield.Thisnarrowedfocusmaygivestrongerdirectiontothethreeotheradvisorycommittees,butmayalsolimittheirreachandtheimpactoftheirwork.Duringthestakeholderinterviews,itwasclearthatindividualsinvolvedwiththeHPBhavedifferentideasandsomeuncertaintyaboutwhatroleHPBshouldplaywithinthecommunity.TherewasalsouncertaintyastohowmuchauthorityHPBhaswithinLaneCountyandtheimpactofSpringfield’sfutureabsence.Manyoftheseideasoverlappedandgeneralthemesemerged.OverallitwasclearthatmoststakeholdersfeltthatHPBshouldredefineitsmission,roleandgoals.Thefindingsfrominterviews,minutesexaminationandcasestudiesarecombinedandsynthesizedbelow,organizedintoseveraldifferentcategories.

RoleofHPB

BasedondiscussionsatHPBmeetingsthroughout2015,membersandotherpartnersfeelthatthereareanumberofrolesHPBcouldpotentiallyplaywithinLaneCounty.Theseincludeadvisory,advocacy,providingspacefordiscussion,providingspaceforinformationsharing,communityeducation,researchanddatagathering,andfacilitatingpartnerships.Itislikelythattheseroleswouldoverlapevenwithinthesameprojectsorefforts.Forexample,HPBcouldadvocateforlow‐incomeresidentswhileadvisingdecision‐makingbodiesonrelatedpolicyissues.ThepotentialrolesthatHPBcouldplayaredetailedinthefollowingsections.AdvisoryMostintervieweesfeltthatHPBshouldplayanadvisoryroleandshouldadvisetheCityofEugene,LaneCountyandotherelectedofficialsonpolicyissuesrelatedtoaffordablehousing.SeveralintervieweesfeltthatitwastheroleofHPBtosetregionalhousingprioritiesandtoensurethatcityandcountypoliciesarealignedwiththesepriorities.ItwasrecognizedthatHPBcouldalsoadvisegroupsliketheEugeneWaterandElectricBoard(EWEB)andLaneTransitDistrict(LTD)oncertainissues.Thisadvisingwouldbeparticularlybeneficialastheseagenciestakeonplanningprocessesandseekinsightonhowprojectsorpoliciesmightimpactlow‐incomeresidentsorhousing.AdvocacyMostpeopleinterviewedfeltitwasappropriateforHPBtoplayanadvocacyrolewithinLaneCounty,butopinionsweresplitwhenitcametostateadvocacy.Becauseofthissplitofopinion,thissectiondifferentiatesbetweenplayinganadvocacyrolewithinLaneCountyandadvocatingatthestatelevel.Withregardtoadvocatingwithinthecounty,thiswouldlikelyoccurduringanysortofadvising.GroupsonbehalfofwhichintervieweesfeltHPBshouldadvocateinclude:peopleexperiencinghomelessness,veterans,peoplewithdisabilities,ex‐offendersandpeopleneedingsupportivehousing.HPBcanworktoensurethattheneedsofthesegroupsareconsideredwhileadvisingthecityandcounty,andcouldalsoconsiderincludingrepresentativesoforadvocatesforthesegroupsinHPBmembership.Overall,manyintervieweesfeltthatHPBcouldserveasaunifiedvoiceforaffordablehousingadvocates.Asnotedabove,intervieweeswerelessinclinedtofeelthatHPBshouldplayastateadvocacyrole.SomefeltthatadvocatingatthestatelevelcouldoverextendHPBmembers,manyprioritizedlocal

4|P a g e

housingissues,andsomeindicatedfeelingthattheissuesaroundwhichtheycouldadvocatewerelimited.Therewassomeinterestinadvocatingatthestatelevelaroundthefollowingissues:

Policyissueslikepropertytaxexemptions,staterequirementsforlocalzoningthatimpactsaffordablehousingdevelopmentortinyhouseaccommodation,andforeclosureprevention;

Issuesoffundingsuchastheexpansionofemergencyhousingandsharedhousingassistancedollars,increasingfundingforaffordablehousingingeneral,coordinatingHOMEfundswithstatefunds,andreceivingmoresupporttoaddressthehomelessnesscrisis;and

Influencingwhatpopulationsaretargetedbyaffordablehousingdevelopment.

WhenaskedwhatpopulationstheythoughtcouldbebetterservedbytheworkofHPB,intervieweessuggestedthefollowing:

30‐80%AMIormiddleincomehouseholdsandindividuals Theelderly(i.e.aginginplace) Low‐incomehomeowners Peopleinneedofaccessibleunits,especiallypeoplewithseveredisabilities At‐riskyouthwhomaybetransitioningoutoffostercareorothernetworks Peopleexperiencinghomelessness Communitiesofcolorwhoareoftenthemostseverelyimpactedbyhousingissues HouseholdsintheruralareasofLaneCounty.

ToimproveHPB’sabilitytoservetheseunderservedpopulations,intervieweesproposednumerousoptions.Oneormorecommitteescouldbefocusedonhowtoservethesegroups.Additionally,aspecificcommitteecouldbeestablishedtofocusoneachofthesegroups.Finally,HPBcouldincluderepresentativesoradvocatesofseveralofthesegroupsatmeetingsorontheboardtoensurethatthesegroupsarerepresentedandcanmaketheirneedsclear.Inanefforttonotoverextendstaffandmembers,includingrepresentativesfromtheseunderrepresentedgroupseitheronHPBmembershiporatparticularmeetingscouldbestaddressthisissue.CommunityEducationandAwarenessBuildingWhilemostintervieweesfeltthatcommunityeducationandbuildingawarenessofaffordablehousingwereimportant,manyrecognizedthatthismaynotbetheroleofHPB.Foronething,theremaybegroupsalreadydoingthiswhomaybebetterequippedtodoso.Additionally,intervieweesrecognizedthatcommunityeducationmayholdmoreweightifnotcomingfromapublicentity.ResearchandDataGatheringForthemostpart,intervieweesagreedthatthiscouldbeaninterestingroleforHPBtotakeonandcouldbebeneficialtothecommunity.However,manyalsorecognizedthatthismightnotbethejobforHPBandthattheycouldpartnerwithothergroupsalreadydoingresearch,suchasUniversityofOregongroups.IfthereareHPBmemberwithastronginterestingatheringresearch,itisalsopossiblethatthesememberscouldformacommitteechargedwithconductingresearchandgatheringdataaboutthelocalhousingmarketorotherhousingissues.DiscussionsandInformationSharingManyintervieweeslikedtheideaofHPBprovidingspaceforpeopletodiscussissuesrelatedtoaffordablehousing.Mostnotedthatprobablynoteverymeetingshouldbeadiscussionforum,andthattheappropriatenessofthisroledependedonthetopicofdiscussion.FormoreonthepotentialofHPBtoactasadiscussionforum,seethesectionbelowonthestructureofHPBmeetings.Many

5|P a g e

intervieweesalsofeltthatHPBcouldservetoprovidespaceforinformationsharing.Thesemeetingscouldhostinformativepresentationsfromlocalgroupsonbestpractices.ManypeoplealsofeltthatHPBcouldactasaresourcetolocalhousingprovidersandshareinformationabouthowtoaccessresources,whatresourcesareavailable,andhowtoprovideparticulartypesofhousing.FacilitateCollaborationManyintervieweesfeltthatHPBshouldfacilitateandpromotecommunitycollaboration,particularlybetweenhousingdevelopersandcityandcountystaff.Thiswouldincludecoordinatinglong‐termstrategicplanningthroughouttheregion,aligningpriorities,andlookingforsolutionsbasedonsharedgoals.Improvingcoordinationbetweendevelopersandfunderscouldalsoallowformoreefficientuseoffunding.Overall,intervieweesfeltthatHPBcouldpromotecollaborationbyworkingwithotherentitiestodevelopasharedvisionofwhatchallengestoaddressthroughoutthecommunity.

StructureofHPBMeetingsandOrganization

ThereareanumberofstructuresthatHPBmeetingscouldfollowincludingadiscussionforum,formalmeetingswithupdates,informationalpresentations,andstrategicplanning.Someintervieweespreferredonestructurewhileotherspreferreddifferentstructures.Ingeneral,theperceptionwasthatthemeetingstructurecouldvarydependingonthetopic.Intervieweesalsosharedideasforhowthecurrentmeetingstructurecouldbevariedtoallowforbetteruseoftimeandincreasedcollaboration.TherewasaconsensusthatHPBshouldcontinuetomeetmonthly.Adiscussionforumstructuremightbemostappropriateifthegoalsofthemeetingaretodiscusslocalhousingchallenges,shareideasandbestpractices,andbrainstormsolutionstoproblems.Discussioncouldbepromotedthroughaworldcaféformat.HPBcouldalsohavesomemeetingsthatfeatureinformativepresentationswhereexpertsinparticularsubjectareascouldpresentoninterestingprojectsorsuccessestheyhavehad.AstrategicplanningformatcouldbeappropriateforoneortwomeetingswhereHPB’sworkplaniscreated,evaluatedandupdated(seethediscussionofpotentialforaworkplan,page8).UsingTimeEfficientlyTobestusethemeetingtimes,afewintervieweessuggestedthatsomeupdatescouldbeprovidedthroughemailpriortothemeetings,orthattheamountofmeetingtimededicatedtoupdatescouldbemorelimited.Avariationofthissuggestionwastohaveamonthlynewsletterfeaturingnewslikeupcomingevents,newprojects,andlocalhousing‐relatednews.Thismonthlynewslettercouldbeemailedoutwiththemeetingpacketpriortothemeeting.Someupdatesmightbelonganddetailedenough,suchasthelegislativeupdate,thattheymightbebetterinperson,butothersmightbeappropriateforthistypeofmedia.Intervieweesalsonotedthatsettingmeetingtopicsafewmonthsaheadoftimewouldallowpeopletobetterprepareformeetings.PromotingCollaborationDuringinterviews,manyintervieweesexpressedthatthesenseofcollaborationwithintheHousingPolicyBoardcouldbeincreased.Intervieweessuggestedthefollowingstructuralchangestopromotecollaborationandcooperation:

Nottakingminutesatmeetingsunlesssomethingisbeingvotedon.Thiscouldencouragemorehonestandcandidconversations.

Structuringboardmembershipsothathousingproviders,localgovernmentandotherstakeholdersareservingasequals.

6|P a g e

Rotatewheremeetingsareheld,includinginLaneCountyspaceorinaruralcommunity.Alsorotatethepersonororganizationchargedwithdevelopingtheagenda,conveningthemeeting,andplanninglogisticaldetails.Meetingscouldbeconvenedbydifferentmembersbasedonthevaryingmeetingstopics.Additionally,othermemberscouldcontributeitemsaheadoftimetotheagenda.

CommitteesOnemainfindingrelatingtothestructureofHPBwasthatmanyintervieweesseemedsupportiveofpursuingacommitteesystem.Intervieweeswereaskediftheywouldbewillingtoorinterestedinservingonacommittee,attendingamonthlycommitteemeetinginadditiontothemonthlyHPBmeeting,andpotentiallyleadingacommittee.Mostpeopleexpressedinterestinjoiningacommitteeonaparticulartopicandseveralpeoplesaidtheywouldbewillingtoleadacommittee.Mostintervieweesalsosaidthattheywouldpotentiallyattendamonthlycommitteemeetingifitwerenecessaryfortheprogressofcommitteework.Potentialcommitteetopicsthatintervieweesidentifiedincluded:

Homeownership Identifyingnewresourcesforaffordablehousing Youthhousingneeds Tinyhousesandothernon‐traditionalhousingoptions Ruralhousingneeds Reducingbarrierstoaffordablehousing Rentalhousingcode Eugene’shousingdispersalpolicy.

CommitteescouldreportbacktoHPB,possiblyeachmonthorquarter,andthisworkcouldbeincludedintheHPBworkplan(discussedinmoredetailonpage8).WithcurrentstaffingandmembershipcapacityitisunlikelythatHPBcouldsupporteightindependentcommittees,butseveralcommitteescouldlikelycoexist.Theissuesidentifiedaboveasappropriateforcommitteework(alongwithothers)couldbeprioritizedonanannualbasis(forexample,threetopicsperyear)andthencommitteescouldformaroundthoseissues.

BoardMembership

Basedonabriefstudyofcomparableorganizationsinothercitiesandinterviewswithcurrentmembersandstakeholders,therearesomepotentialvariationsonthecurrentstructureofHPB.Thefirst,andmostwidelysupportedvariation,istoexpandtheorganization’smembershipbase.Thethreecomparablehousingadvisorycommittees(seeAppendixA)reservemembershippositionsformanyofthesameindividualsthatLaneCounty’sHPBdoes.Otherpositionsarereservedforrepresentativesfrom:

Localbusinesscommunity(alargeemployerand/orsmallbusinessrepresentative) Youthand/orunder‐30community Anadvocatefororrepresentativeofpeoplewithdisabilitiesorneedingparticularservices Housingdevelopers(bothfor‐profitandnon‐profit) Serviceproviders Representativesfromlocalfinancialinstitutions Representativesofneighborhoodcoalitionsororganizations.

7|P a g e

InterviewswithcurrentHPBmembersandotherstakeholdersprovidedsomeconsensusabouthowHPBmembershipcouldorshouldbeexpanded.Severalpeoplealsonotedthatboardmembershipcouldbeexpandedtoincludeadvocatesforthepopulationsidentifiedasnotbeingservedadequately.Theseincludedyouth,peopleexperiencinghomelessness,peoplefromruralLaneCounty,andpeopleneedingservice‐orientedhousing.Mostpeoplealsofeltthathousingprovidersshouldberepresentedontheboard,withpositionsreservedforeitherparticularpeopleorrepresentativesfromhousingproviderorganizations.ThesecouldincludeSaintVincentdePaul,HACSA,Cornerstone,ShelterCare,Sponsors,HabitatforHumanity,SquareOneVillagesandNEDCO.ManyintervieweesthoughtthatHPBshouldreserveaspotforeithersomeonelivinginsubsidizedhousingoranadvocaterepresentingthisdemographic.Peoplehadmixedfeelingsabouthavingserviceproviders,astaterepresentative,orarepresentativefromtheUniversityofOregonontheboard.Onesuggestionwithregardtolocalserviceproviderswasthatrepresentativesfromorganizationswhopairserviceswithhousingcouldcometomonthlymeetingstobeconsultedonhowtocombineserviceswithhousingprovision.Othersuggestedchangestothemembershipstructureinclude:

Absenteepolicy:similarorganizationshaveanabsenteepolicy,whichcanencouragememberstoattend.Itcouldbeacceptableforrepresentativesfromthesameorganizationtosubstituteforeachother.

Advisorymembers:somememberscouldplayanadvisoryroleandnothavevotingpower.Althoughmanyintervieweesnotedthatthiswasnotnecessary,thiscouldbeanappropriatepositionforelectedofficialswhocannotcommittomakingallofthemeetings.Theseindividualscouldbeexemptedfromtheabsenteepolicy.

Partnerships

Asnotedabove,manyintervieweespreferredthatHPBexpandtheirmembershiptopromotemorecollaboration.SomegroupswithwhomHPBwishestocollaboratemaybeappropriatetohaverepresentedontheboard,suchashousingproviders,andothersmaybemoreappropriateforpartneringwithforvariousprojectsoronvariouscommittees.Basedonthehighprioritizationoftheintersectionofhousingwithotherissues,HPBcouldconsiderseekingorstrengtheningpartnershipswithlocaltransportation,education,healthandutilityentities.Additionally,duetotherecognitionthatpartofthehousingcrisiscouldbeexacerbatedbythedisparitybetweenthecostoflivingandlocalwages,HPBcouldpartnerwitheconomicandworkforcedevelopmentpartners.Specificsuggestionsfortheseandotherpartnershipsinclude:

Localschooldistrictsincludingthehomelessnessliaisonsorearlylearninghubs City,CountyorStateentitieslikethePlanningCommission,theHumanServices

Commission,theOfficeofSustainability,theOfficeofHumanRightsandInclusion,DHSandthePovertyandHomelessnessBoard

Trilliumandotherhealthcareproviders MentalhealthandotherserviceproviderslikeLookingGlass TheEugeneAreaChamberofCommerce,LaneWorkforcePartnershipandlocalbusiness

leaders EWEB,LTD,BPAC CommunitygroupslikeCentroLatinoandneighborhoodcoalitions

8|P a g e

TopicsofImportance

Whenintervieweeslistedthetoptwoorthreemostpressinghousingissuesintheregion,severalthemesemerged.Housingandshelterforpeopleexperiencinghomelessnesswasfrequentlymentionedaswasthelackofaffordablerentalandownershipunitsforlow‐,verylow‐andmoderate‐incomehouseholds.Alackofsupportforlow‐incomehomeownershipwasperceivedasanissue,andintervieweesalsomentionedtheconditionofexistingaffordablehousing.Otherregionalhousingissuesincludedtheprovisionofhousingfortransitioningyouth,aninabilitytomonitorthecounty’shousingmarket,theneedforstrongerconnectionsbetweenservicesandaffordablehousing,thegrowingcostoflivingcombinedwithlowwages,evictions,andthegrowingconflictbetweenpreservationandnewconstruction.Participantswerealsoaskedtorank11issuesusing“low”,“medium”,or“high”importancedependingonhowimportanttheythoughtitwouldbeforHPBtoaddresstheseissues.Inorderofrankingfromthehighestimportancetothelowestimportance,theseissueswere:

1. Fundingandresourcesforaffordablehousing2. Local/countypolicy3. Preservationofaffordablerentalhousing4. Intersectionofhousingwithhealth,educationandtransportation5. Ruralhousingneeds6. Statepolicy7. Publiceducationandawareness8. FairHousing9. Qualityofhousingstock10. Manufacturedhomeparks11. Homeownershipopportunitiesandforeclosureprevention

RuralhousingneedswererankedofmoderatelyhighimportancebecausemanyparticipantsnotedthatHPBlacksanunderstandingofruralhousingneeds.Severalparticipantsnotedthatwhilethequalityoflocalhousingstockwasveryimportant,theyrankeditasbeinglessimportantthanotherissuesbecausetheCityofEugenehasastrictrentalhousingcode.SeveralintervieweesalsonotedthatthequalityofhousingstockcouldbeamoresignificantissueinLaneCounty’sruralareas.Manypeoplefeltthatpubliceducationandawarenessaboutaffordablehousingwasimportantoverallbutlessimportanttoaddressbecausethereareothergroupsthatalreadyfillthisrolelocally.Otherissuesthatintervieweeswantedtoaddressincludedservingpopulationswithspecialneeds,combiningserviceswithhousing,engagingthebusinesscommunity,thepotentialtousestudenthousingasaffordablehousing,thehousingdispersalpolicy,andthepotentialtousethe4%Low‐IncomeHousingTaxCredit.

AnnualWorkPlan

TheHousingPolicyBoardusedtohaveanannualworkplan.AlmostalloftheintervieweesagreedthatitwouldbenefitHPBtohavesomesortofworkplanagain.Forimprovedorganization,tomakebetteruseofmeetingtime,andtobemoreeffective,HPBcouldconsidercreatingaworkplanthatwouldoutlinegoals,projects,and/ormeetingtopicsfortheupcomingyears.Detailsfortheupcomingyearcouldbemorespecificwhiledetailsforthenexttwotofiveyearscouldbemoregeneral.ThisplanwouldhelpkeeptheworkofHPBontracktomeetpre‐identifiedoutcomes,and

9|P a g e

wouldacknowledgethatachievingsuccessesandsolvingproblemsisanongoingprocess.Establishingaworkplanwouldalsoimprovetheorganization’stransparency.OneoptionforestablishingaworkplanwouldbeforHPBtocreateafive‐yearworkplanthatwouldcomplementtheEugeneSpringfieldConsolidatedPlan.Makinguseoftheextensiveplanningandresearchalreadyconductedthroughthisprocess,HPBcouldusetheplantoprioritizeissuesandassistinidentifyingtheorganization’sroleinhelpingthecountymeetitshousinggoals.

AddressingRuralHousingNeeds

ThehousingneedsofruralLaneCountywasareoccurringthemeandintervieweesidentifiedruralhousingasatopicofmoderatelyhighimportance.Manyintervieweesacknowledgedthatitwashardtoknowhowmuchofanissueruralhousingactuallywasbecausegeneralknowledgeaboutruralhousingneedswasprettylow.Intervieweeshadsuggestionsabouthowtoaddressthisissue.Theseincluded:

Leavespaceonboardmembershipforhousingand/orserviceproviderswhoworkinruralLaneCountyandareawareofruralhousingneeds.

Reserveapositionontheboardforarepresentativefromthelocalgovernmentofaruralcommunity.

AppointsomeonefromLCOGorLaneCountyspecificallytorepresentruralLaneCounty.

SeekaresidentofruralLaneCountytoserveontheboard. Convenemeetingsinamannerthatallowsforgreaterparticipationfromrural

communities.Thiscouldincludeeitherallowingrepresentativestoparticipateinotherways(suchasskypeorGoogleHangout)orrotatingthemeetinglocationtoothercities.

Haveameetingorsessionthemedaroundruralhousingneeds.ThiscouldbelocatedinacityoutsideofEugene,andHPBcouldinviteplannersordevelopersrepresentingruralareastodiscusswhatissuestheyfaceandhowHPBcansupportthem.

Somespecificruralhousingissuesthatintervieweesidentifiedincludeidentifyingnewresourcestobuildhousinginruralcommunities,evaluatingthequalityofhousingstockinruralcommunities,andidentifyingtheextentofhousingneed.

Name

SeveralintervieweesthoughtthatgivinganewnametoHPBcouldsymbolizeafreshstartandallowHPBtoberedefinedtomeetthecurrenthousingneedsofthecommunity.Otherintervieweesmaintainedthatthenameshouldremainthesamebecauseofitslegacyandtheweightthatthenamecarriesinthecommunity.Mostpeopleaskeddidnotfeelstronglyeitherway.BecauseHPBiscurrentlyundergoingaredirectionprocesswheretheirgoalsandmissionmayberedefined,anewnamemightneedtoreflectchanges.Thetopicofchangingtheorganization’snamewilllikelybeupfordiscussionatfuturemeetingsaftertheredirectionprocess.

10|P a g e

ConclusionandNextSteps

Recommendations

AsHPBtakesonaredefiningprocess,thefollowingsuggestionsdrawnfrominterviewswithstakeholderandcasestudyresearchcanguidethisprocess.InputfromstakeholdersandboardmembersreflectedadesireforHPBtofunctionmorelikeacollaborativegroupratherthanaformalboardandtofocusongeneralhousingissuesratherthanpolicy‐specificissues.ThepreliminarysuggestionsinthisreportaretargetedathelpingHPBachievethisgoal.Asynthesisofthesesuggestionsarebelow:

1. Prepareandfollowaone‐tofive‐yearworkplanidentifyinggoals,projectsandHPB’srole.2. Expandmembershiptoincludeabroaderbaseofstakeholdersincludinghousingproviders

andrepresentativesfromgroupswhohavebeenunderrepresentedonHPBinthepast.3. Varythetopicsofmeetingsandmeetingstructuresasappropriate.Thesecouldinclude

discussionforum,informationalpresentationorformalmeeting.4. Establishcommitteestoworkonparticularissues.Committeescouldbeself‐guided,report

backtoHPBquarterly,andhavetheirworkintegratedintoHPB’sworkplan.5. Continuetomeetmonthlybutmakesomechangestomeetingprotocolwhichwouldallow

memberstofeeltheirtimeisusedwell.Theseincludeprovidingupdatespriortothemeetingandsettingmeetingstopicsaheadoftimesopeoplecanprepare.

6. Changemeetingprotocoltopromotecollaborationbynottakingminutes,allowingeveryonetocontributetotheagendaandrotatingmeetinglocation.

7. Addressruralhousingneedsbyhavingameetingorsessionthemedaroundruralhousingandincludingarepresentativeoforadvocateforruralcommunitiesasaboardmember.

TheHousingPolicyBoardplaysavitalroleinLaneCountyandsomeminorredirectingcouldallowtheworkoftheboardtomakeevenmoreofanimpactintermsofexpandinghousingopportunitiesforallresidentsofthecounty.

NextSteps

ThecontentsofthisreportwillbepresentedtotheHousingPolicyBoardattheFebruarymeeting.Atthistime,boardmembersandotherstakeholdersareencouragedtogivefeedbackandsuggestions.Theirinputwillbeincorporatedintoashortproposalthatsynthesizesthefindingsandrecommendationsofthisreport.TheproposalcanhelpguidethefutureredirectionofHPBwiththehopethatitcanbestmeetthehousingneedsofLaneCountyinthefuture.

11|P a g e

AppendixA:CaseStudies

Asheville,NC

Inacityofaround87,000,Ashville’sAffordableHousingAdvisoryCommittee(AHAC)workswithcityleadershipandstafftoimplementthecity’sAffordableHousingPlan.AHACadvisesthecitycouncilabouthousingpolicyissues,identifiesstepsrequiredtoimplementthecity’sAffordableHousingPlan,helpsupdatetheplan,andadvisescityleadershipandstaffaboutinvestingaffordablehousingfunds.AHAC’smainresponsibilityistohelpimplementtheAffordableHousingPlanbymakingrecommendationsandidentifyingpriorities.Thecommitteemeetsoncemonthlyandhasninemembersincludingachair(thispositionhasbeenheldsince2011byalocalactivistandorganizer)andastaffliaison(thecity’sAssistantDirectorofCommunityandEconomicDevelopment)4.Membershipincludesrealestatebrokers,apartmentmanagers,localhousingproviders,neighborhoodcoalitionrepresentatives,andanattorney.AsofNovember,2015,AHAChasfouropenspotsandisencouragingdevelopers,bankersandarchitectstojointhecommittee.Meetingsincludeanapprovalofminutesandtimeforpubliccomment,andalsogenerallyconsistofdiscussionsaroundwhatrecommendationstomaketothecouncil.IssuesthatAHACdiscussesandthenmakesrecommendationsregardinginclude:increasingdensity,waivingcertainfeesforaffordableunits,inclusionaryzoning,increasingdeveloperfeesandreducingthemforthosebuildingaffordablehousing,strategiesforaddressingunderutilizationoflotsincludingpromotingmixedusedevelopment,andfundingforlocalaffordablehousing5.AlthoughthecouncildoesnotalwaysactonrecommendationsfromAHAC,muchoftheirpolicyrecommendationsareoftenincludedinthecity’sconsolidatedplan.AHAChostsanannualHousingSummitwhichincludesbothapolicyevent(tohostadiscussiononpromotingpartnershipstoincreaseaffordablehousingproduction)andahousingfairconsumerevent(educationalandinformativeforpeopleseekingaffordablehousing)6.

FortMyers,FL

Servingacityofaround50,000,theFortMyersLocalAffordableHousingAdvisoryCommittee(LAHAC)reviewslocalpolicies,procedures,ordinancesandthecomprehensiveplan,andsubmitsalocalhousingincentivestrategiesrecommendationtothecitycouncil.LAHACsubmitstheserecommendationstrienniallyduringwhichtimetheyalsoevaluatetheimplementationoflocalaffordablehousingincentives.ThelocalgovernmentisrequiredtoconsiderbutnotactontherecommendationsofLAHAC,andmustadoptanamendmenttothelocalhousingassistanceplanwhichincorporatestherecommendationsfromLAHACasappropriate.Theadvisorycommitteealsoperformsotherdutiesincluding:mentoringaffordablehousingpartnersinidentifyingavailabledevelopmentincentives,assistingwithfundingrequestapplications,facilitatingpartnershipsbetweeninterestedparties,andcreatingbestpracticesforaffordablehousingdevelopment.7LAHACprovidescommentsonthecity’sConsolidatedPlanandworkswiththecitytoidentifyincentivestoincreasethedevelopmentofaffordablehousing.8

4http://www.ashevillenc.gov/Departments/CityClerk/BoardsCommissions/AffordableHousingAdvisoryCommittee.aspx5http://www.ashevillenc.gov/Portals/0/city‐documents/communitydevelopment/AHAC%20minutes/AHAC%20Minutes%2010%201%2015.pdf6http://www.ashevillenc.gov/Portals/0/city‐documents/communitydevelopment/AHAC%20minutes/AHAC%20DRAFT%20minutes%208%206%2015.pdf7http://www.cityftmyers.com/248/Affordable‐Housing‐Advisory8CityofFortMyers2010‐2014FiveYearConsolidatedPlan

12|P a g e

TheFtMyersLAHACmetfourtimesin2014andfivetimesin2015.Meetingsarerecordedandavideoofthemispostedtothecity’swebsite9.Thecommitteeconsistsof11memberswhoserveforthreeyears,unlesstheymisstwoofthreeconsecutivemeetings,inwhichcasetheyareremovedfromtheboard.Membershipsslotsarespecificallyreservedforrepresentativesfromthefollowingareas:affordablehousingdevelopers,themortgagebankingindustry,residentialconstructioncompany,advocatesoflow‐incomeresidents,for‐profithousingproviders,non‐profithousingproviders,realestateprofessionals,thelocalplanningagency,serviceproviders,localemployersandacitizenfromthejurisdiction.Thiscollaborationwithrepresentativesfromothersectorsisintendedtoensureanintegratedapproachtothework,allowingtheinputfromvariouspartiestoinfluencepolicy.

Alexandria,VA

TheAlexandriaHousingAffordabilityAdvisoryCommittee(AHAAC)servesacityofaround150,000.AHAACischargedwithadvisingtheCityCouncilaboutthemaintenanceandpromotionofaffordablehousing,recommendingpoliciesregardingthecity’sHousingTrustFund,andadministeringtheTrustFund10.AHAACallocatesTrustFundresourcesprogramslikehomeownershipcounselingaswellastotheHousingOpportunitiesfundwhichprovidesloansforaffordablehousingdevelopmentprojects11.AHAACalsoreviewstheaffordablehousingplansofdevelopmentprojectstoofficiallyendorsesthem,andcollaborateswithotherintergovernmentalandnon‐governmentalagenciesalsodoinghousingwork.Thesegroupsincludethecity’sLandlord‐TenantRelationsBoard,theAlexandriaRedevelopmentandHousingAuthority(ARHA)andtheAlexandriaHousingDevelopmentCorporation(AHDC).AHAACmeetsmonthlyandasksformemberstocommitaroundfourhourspermonthtothecommittee.AHAAChas19memberswhoaredividedintovotingandnon‐votingmembers,eachofwhomservesathree‐yearterm.Spacesforvotingmembersonthecommitteearereservedfor:oneresidentialdeveloper,onerealestateprofessional,onelandlord,oneresidentialtenant,onehomeowner,onecommissionerfromARHA,onerepresentativefromthefaithcommunity,onerepresentativeofalocalcivicorganization,onerepresentativefromanorganizationthatmaintainsaffordablehousing,twofinancialprofessionalswhoworkinhousing,oneemployerwhoemploysatleast100employees,onelicensedandpracticingattorney,twosmallbusinessrepresentatives,onepersonrepresentinghousingconsumersundertheageof30,onepersondesignatedbytheCommissionofPersonswithDisabilities,oneemployeeofeitherthecityorAlexandriaCityPublicSchools.Non‐votingmembersincludeonerepresentativefromtheOfficeofHousing,onerepresentativefromtheDepartmentofPlanningandZoning,andonerepresentativefromtheDepartmentofHumanServices.12

9http://www.cityftmyers.com/AgendaCenter10http://alexandriava.gov/housing/info/default.aspx?id=74631#ahacmaterials11https://www.alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/housing/info/AHACJune2015Packetrevised.pdf12http://alexandriava.gov/boards/info/default.aspx?id=36398

13|P a g e

AppendixB:InterviewMethodology

Formalinterviewswereconductedwith:NortonCabellDonGriffinErinFifieldEllenMeyi‐GallowaySteveOchsSusanBanKristenKarleJohnVanLandinghamEmilyReimanJacobFoxStephanieJenningswasalsoconsultedthroughoutthisprocess.

InterviewQuestions:Issues/Topics

1) Whatdoyouthinkareourregion’stwoorthreemostpressinghousingissues?2) Inaddressingthesetwoorthreetopics,whatroledoyoufeelisreasonableforHPBtotake

on?3) Howwouldyouranktheimportanceofthefollowingtopics(high,medium,low):

a. Statepolicyb. Local/Countypolicyissuesc. Aligningresourcesforaffordablehousingdevelopmentd. Manufacturedhomeparkse. Preservationofaffordablerentalhousingf. Homeownershipopportunitiesandforeclosurepreventiong. Fairhousingh. Qualityofhousingstocki. Intersectionofhousingwithhealth,educationortransportationj. Publiceducationandawarenessofaffordablehousingk. Ruralhousingneedsl. Other?

4) WhatotheragenciesorintergovernmentalbodiesshouldHPBbepartneringwith?5) ArethereparticularpopulationsthatcouldbebetterservedbytheworkofHPB?

Roleofmembers/memberorganizations6) WhatrolewouldyourorganizationideallyplaywithintheHPB?7) WouldyourorganizationbeinterestedinbeingdirectlyrepresentedonHPB?8) Areyouwillingtocommittoamonthlymeeting?9) Areyouwillingtoparticipateonacommitteetoworkonaparticulartopic?

a. Ifso,wouldyoubewillingtohavecommitteemeetingsinadditiontomonthlyHPBmeeting?

14|P a g e

10) Areyouwillingtoleadacommitteeandtakeontheresponsibilityofsettingupmeetingsetc?

a. Ifso,onwhattopicswouldyoubewillingtocommittoleadingacommittee?StructureofHPB

1) HowshouldthemembershipcompositionoftheHPBchangeinthefuture?a. ShouldlocalserviceprovidersbeincludedinHPBmembership?b. Howcouldruralcommunitiesbebetterrepresentedontheboard?c. Shouldtherebearepresentativewholivesinaffordablehousing?d. ShouldtherebeaStaterepresentative?e. ShouldtherebearepresentativefromtheUniversitycommunity?

2) Shouldmembershipbelimitedtoagenciesthatarewillingtocommittodoingthings?3) ShouldHPBhaveexofficiomemberswhoplayonlyanadvisoryrole?4) ShouldHPBhaveanannualworkplan?5) ShouldHPBhaveadifferentname?

a. Anysuggestions?6) HowcouldHPBmeetingsbestructuredtoleadtobettercommunicationandmore

collaborationamongpartners?7) WhatstructureshouldHPBmeetingsfollow?

a. Discussionforum(y/n)b. Researchandinformativepresentations(y/n)c. Strategicplanning(y/n)d. Policybrainstorming(y/n)

IFfromSpringfield:HowshouldHPBrelatetotheCityofSpringfieldinthefuture(ifatall)?RoleofHPB

1) DoyouthinkHPBshouldplayanyofthefollowingroleswithinLaneCounty?a. Advisory(yes/no)

i. (ifyes)WhoshouldHPBbeadvising?b. StatePolicyadvocacy(yes/no)

i. (ifyes)whichcommunities?ii. (ifyes)onwhichissues?

c. Providespacefordiscussionforum(y/n)d. ProvidespaceforInformationsharing(y/n)e. Researchanddatagathering(y/n)f. Communityeducation/awarenessbuilding(y/n)

2) Areyouuncomfortablewithanyoftheseroles?a. Ifyes,whichones?

3) InwhatwaysdoyouthinktheHousingPolicyBoardhasbenefitedthecommunityoverthecourseofitsexistence?

housing policy board eugene lane county hacsa

Documents