The Sweet Home City Council agreed to pursue an infrastructure block grant for Linn County Affordable Housing’s Brookside Development.
LCAH asked the City Council on Feb. 13, during its regular meeting, to apply for some $225,000 in Community Development Block Grant funds from the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department. The funds originate with the U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department and are earmarked for off-site development for low- to moderate-income projects. LCAH also asked the city to waive $60,000 in systems development charges (SDCs) for the project as a match for the grant.
The City Council voted 4-2 to approve the grant application but agreed to waive only $30,000 in SDCs. Voting for the decision were Mayor Craig Fentiman and councilmen Jim Bean, Dick Hill and Tim McQueary. Bob McIntire and Robert G. Danielson voted against the motion.
The Council approved the project, with Danielson’s dissent, in December. Brookside Development includes 13 single-family units for sale and 10 duplex units for rent to low-income seniors and disabled persons. The development is proposed for the south end of Sunset Lane. One part of the project is now scheduled for arguments at the Land Use Board of Appeals. Two additional intents to appeal also were filed.
The first step in applying is a hearing before the City Council to select community projects for application. A second hearing will be held later to review the project and ensure that the project has met its requirements.
The City of Sweet Home has applied for a number of similar grants in the past, funding the construction of the Jim Riggs Community Center, the Fire Hall and a housing rehabilitation loan program.
This is the first time such funding has come available for affordable housing projects in a number of years, LCAH Director Dianna Cvitanovich said.
Most of the homes, 90 percent, must be affordable to low- to moderate-income families, Cvitanovich said. Two of the 13 units for sale may be sold at market price.
All of the money that goes into the project brings the cost of construction down and makes the homes more affordable, Cvitanovich said.
“This is not about Linn County Affordable Housing,” Cvitanovich said. “This is about Sweet Home” and filling a need in the Sweet Home community.
Councilman Danielson asked why the City of Sweet Home should commit to the $60,000 SDC waiver.
OEDD is putting up the resources, Cvitanovich said. That agency is simply asking the city to partner.
“Linn County Affordable Housing has no pot of money,” Cvitanovich said. LCAH must pursue funding through the state, federal government, foundations and private lenders “to bring resources together for these projects. We have no money for these projects.”
Whenever someone puts money toward such projects, such as the SDC waiver, it brings the cost to the program participants down, Cvitanovich said.
Danielson pointed out that the public funds are tax dollars.
“I believe that the tax argument is shallow in this sense,” Cvitanovich said. “This is the nature of living in a community.”
The grant application, like Brookside Development, drew criticism from the Neighbors for Sensible Development, a group of residents, primarily living near the project.
Neighbors for Sensible Development spokesman Doug Graham told the council that all through the land use process, the group kept hearing that buyers needed to be low income, and in this grant request, “it appears you don’t have to be low income at all to buy one of these houses.”
Graham and the Neighbors said that there is no need for this type of housing in Sweet Home, that there is already an ample supply of housing on the market. They cited a staff report to the Planning Commission that identified a need for 19 new single-family homes per year, and there are already 60 on the market.
LCAH will have a “huge cost advantage,” Graham said. “This is not fair to the private developer that is competing in this market. It is not fair to the 60 homeowners trying to sell their homes themselves who may be low income.
“The residents of this community, your neighbors, the people you go to church with, the people you sell insurance to have had to spend more than $15,000 of their hard-earned income to stop this wasteful, pork-barrel giveaway program that will benefit only the developers and a few higher-income people at our expense and the expense of the citizens of Sweet Home. They need to go back to the drawing board provide affordable housing for those that are truly in need and to bring people together instead of dividing them.”
Cvitanovich disagreed about the number of homes for sale, citing an online search that found only three homes for sale in Sweet Home for under $89,000.
When state and federal agencies put money into these projects, that is aimed at bringing rents down, Cvitanovich said. If LCAH had to compete with for-profit developers, it would be unable to achieve its requirement that each project provide affordable housing for at least 50 years.
Those with limited incomes have a difficult time buying quality homes, Cvitanovich said, “but quality housing stabilizes the community…. The only way you can service people at this income level is by more subsidy.”
Cvitanovich responded to another criticism about the grant application, that it would service 920 persons with its 23 units. She explained that the number counts all of the persons it would help over the course of the 50-year affordability requirement.
Mayor Fentiman agreed with LCAH that there was a need for this type of project in Sweet Home.
“I think it’s a good project for Sweet Home, always have,” Mayor Fentiman said. “I think it would be wise for Sweet Home to go forward with this project.”
Danielson said he knew the council would approve the grant application, but he wanted to reduce the “blood flow.”
He suggested that the city take administration costs directly from the grant and not give any waiver.
“If we can do that, why don’t you guys give me 10 grand, and I’ll fix my yard and paint the back of my home. It just boggles me that we can be so blasÈ about 60 grand.”
Danielson moved to approve the grant with his previously listed conditions. McQueary gave a second but opposed the motion.
“I don’t like spending my tax money to buy back my tax money that the government’s already gotten from me,” McQueary said. He suggested that the council only provide half of the match through waived SDCs, $30,000.
Danielson’s motion failed 4-2, with Danielson and McIntire voting in favor of the motion.