Many questions yet to answer for housing project

To The Eagle:

The creation of a self-help, low-income housing project on three acres of unimproved land adjacent to the existing Glengate development in Cathlamet sounds like a great idea! But are residents prepared to spend more than $58,000 in public funds per acre on a project whose details are nebulous? The project is to contain a mix of 16-20 units of new owner-occupied homes and apartment rentals.

According to Wahkiakum County Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Lower Columbia Community Action Program (CAP), the project

1. Allows current older residents and empty-nesters to move from too-large- and substandard- to appropriately-sized homes that accommodate their present and future physical needs.

2. Provides affordable homes to lower income-, elderly-, and disabled individuals, returning veterans, currently homeless county residents, and families ineligible for conventional mortgages.

3. Increases the number of students attending local schools.

Other cited advantages were safety of the location and easy access to town stores, medical-, dental-, and other services, Cathlamet Park, and public transportation.

According to local HHS representatives, eligibility for home ownership in the project requires that participants:

1. Contribute (alone or with a partner) a minimum of 30-40 hours per week in "sweat equity" by participating in the actual building of the homes. The estimated value of "sweat equity" ranged from $37,000 (CAP estimate) to $87,750 (HHS estimate).

2. Have a minimum income of $21,900 (one person, very low income), $35,000 (one person, low income) or $25,000 (two persons, very low income; $40,000 low income). The minimum required income is based on family size.

3. Pay approximately $400 for up-front expenses (credit reports and "course-of-construction" insurance).

4. Start making mortgage payments after moving in.

In my opinion, due diligence prior to the initial expenditure of $145,000 in public funds for the purchase of property to house the project requires answers to the following questions:

1. What is the condition of the adjacent Glengate development?

a. How many Glengate houses are owner-occupied/rented/on the market/empty/unfinished?

b. How many houses in the immediate area are currently on the market?

2. How long, at what price, and by what agency was the target property listed for sale?

3. If not officially on the market, who made the initial contact with the current owner?

4. As the acquisition price ($175,000) is 2.25 times higher than the assessed value ($77,500), who did the real estate comparables, how many comps were evaluated, where are they located, and what was the median price of the comps?

5. Who will contribute the difference between the purchase price ($175,000) and funds available ($145,000), i.e. $30,000 plus closing costs? If feasibility studies were done, who paid for them?

6. Was a survey of community residents performed to estimate the number of viable potential candidates for ownership in the project?

7. What plans exist to aid elderly and disabled participants to fulfill their "sweat equity" obligations?

8. What did feasibility/environmental impact studies show?

9. What are the estimated costs of development/abatement (infrastructure and street access)?

10. What agency has agreed to pay these costs and what funds are certain to be available now and in the future to support these expenditures?

11. What is the role of rental units in the project (are potential renters required to provide "sweat equity" and what is their stake in the project?).

12. What plans exist to make it possible for potential home owners with current jobs to contribute 30-40 hours a week of "sweat equity"?

13. How may potentially adverse weather conditions (wet/dark) affect the projected construction duration of one year?

I posed some of these questions at both meetings and submitted a written list to HHS on July 26. To date, I have received no concrete responses. The closing date for the purchase of the target property is August 6, 2013. I fully support the notion of giving people a helping hand and make home ownership a reality for low-income and elderly residents. However, these questions should have been addressed by the county commissioners before they approved spending $145,000 collected from local licensing fees on this project.

Ursula A. Petralia

Skamokawa