After months of negotiating how much it owes the city of Roanoke, a nonprofit housing group is now raising the possibility that no money could be owed at all.

In a statement released Friday, Blue Ridge Housing Development Corp. said it is still trying to determine just how much in grant proceeds should be returned to the city after the completion of a housing project in Southeast Roanoke.

"Since there is no clear definition of 'costs' associated with the project, it has been difficult to agree upon what is actually owed to the city, if anything," said the statement signed by Cyndi Beach Stultz, chairwoman of Blue Ridge's board of directors.

The statement came following a closed meeting of the board to discuss the payment issue -- which has put both the nonprofit and the city in an awkward position because of the dual roles performed by Alvin Nash.

Nash, a member of the Roanoke City Council, served as president of Blue Ridge Housing Development Corp. at the time the projects in question were under way. He resigned from Blue Ridge in December to pursue other interests.

At a city council meeting last month, Nash made a pointed statement that took issue with the city's opinion that Blue Ridge might have violated federal guidelines by not paying the money back.

"I will not accept any attempts by the city of Roanoke ... to suggest or to imply that Blue Ridge Housing or I violated a city contract or a HUD rule," Nash said at the time.

Most of the discussions have involved about $261,000 associated with the Southeast by Design neighborhood revitalization project. But when other programs are taken into account, the city says, the amount Blue Ridge owes could be as high as $333,329.75.

The money at issue involves grants, funded by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, that have gone toward Blue Ridge's mission of providing homes for low- to moderate-income residents.

Because the grants are administered by the city, any surplus funds that remain when a project is completed are supposed to be returned to the city. The city maintains those funds in an account for future programs.

In a letter to Nash shortly before his resignation, a city official wrote that Blue Ridge kept the money "without the prior consent of the city, which is a violation of the contract and HUD rules."

No one has suggested that Blue Ridge did anything with the money other than turn it back into its operations.

In the statement released Friday, Stultz suggested that the $261,427 amount owed for the Southeast by Design project is far from a final figure.

"This figure was tentatively agreed upon based on BRHDC accepting the city's methodology of calculating their costs," she wrote.

Under a contract with the city, the amount Blue Ridge owes comes from the profit of a home sale -- assuming there is one -- after the nonprofit pays the creditor, collects a $5,000 developer's fee and takes its other costs into account, Stultz wrote.

Determining the latter has been especially tricky.

"The board has not been able to get a clear definition of what the definition of 'cost' is," Stultz said. "If we take our manpower plus costs of brick and mortar, it appears that we lost a substantial amount of money on this project and that we are actually paying the city to do these projects for them."

The board has directed Stultz to work with Blue Ridge's staff to review all costs associated with the Southeast by Design project, which consumed 70 percent of the small nonprofit's time.

Blue Ridge is also requesting a review by HUD to determine what costs can be deducted from the amount owed the city.

The issue of grant repayments comes at a perilous time for Blue Ridge, which has been struggling with a cash-flow problem brought on by the national housing slump. The nonprofit has been forced to cut its programs while relying on a skeleton staff that is working for no pay.

Frank Baratta, a budget team leader for the city who has been involved in discussions with Blue Ridge, said Friday that he thought a mutual understanding was in the works.

Blue Ridge's suggestion that no money might be owed "raises a question mark in my mind in terms of how they are interpreting things," Baratta said.