Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP-0435 - Long Term Housing Affordability PolicyJ~OLICY FOR INSERTION INTO THE POLICY MANUAL :~ MEETING DATE: 04/04/2000 NUMBER: P: 0435 EFFECTIVE DATE: 04/04/2000 REVISIONS: POLICY: Long-Term Housing Affordability Policy Purpose: This policy establishes the acceptable strategies for ensuring long-term affordability in all affordable housing programs supported by County financial resources. Target Population: Homeownership programs are targeted to families with incomes at or below 80% of the HUD published area median income. Rental housing programs are targeted to families with incomes at or below 60% of the HUD published area median income. • Definitions Affordable Housing -is defined as (1)owner-occupied housing which can be purchased for no more than 2.5 times to 3.0 times the total annual family income, or (2) rental housing for which the occupant pays no more than 30% of gross income for all housing costs including utilities. First-time homebuyer/Qualified buyer -A first-time homebuyer for the purposes of this program is any low income household that has not owned a home within the past three (3) years including households living in manufactured housing not permanently affixed to a foundation, or owner-occupants of homes not feasible for renovation. I. Impact Fee Reimbursement Program (existing policy last revised March 4, 1998.) A. Owner-Occupied Housing Any organization requesting impact fee reimbursement must certify in writing, that, for owner occupied housing, it will remain affordable to the anticipated beneficiary or beneficiaries for a period of a minimum of twenty (20) years or longer depending upon the funding source. This requirement will be secured by a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. r~ • B. Rental Housing An organization requesting impact fee reimbursement for rental housing must certify that the property will remain affordable for ninety-nine (99) years. The rental housing certification must be secured by a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant requiring repayment to Orange County of the impact fee if the rental housing does not remain affordable during the period of affordability, which covenant will be further secured by a note and deed of trust. Evidence must be provided that agency and/or program Guidelines are in place to assure affordability compliance. II. Land Trust Model The Land Trust model utilizes anon-profit, community based organization known as a Community Land Trust (CLT) whose purpose is to acquire land and make it available to individual families and others, such as cooperatives, through along-term lease for a term up to 99 years. The leaseholders or homebuyers do not hold title to the land -the title is retained by the CLT -they own the improvements or housing units/structures on the land. The benefits of this model include the ability of the CL T and housing ownership and • protection of affordability for future residents in the sale of buildings and other improvements on the land. The land lease gives the CLT the first option to purchase the home, when and if it is sold, at an affordable price set by a resale formula. The resale formula gives homeowners a fair return for their investment, while keeping the price of the housing units/structures affordable for future residents. III. New and Existing First-Time Homebuyer Programs A. Right of First Refusal A right of first refusal or right to purchase is accomplished by means of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants on the property purchased by the first-time homebuyer. Any assignment, sale, transfer, conveyance, or other disposition of the Property or any part thereof whether voluntarily or involuntarily or by operation of law ("Transfer"') shall not be effective unless and until the below-described procedure is followed. If the original homebuyer or any subsequent qualified homebuyer ("Buyer") contemplates a Transfer to a non low-income household as defined herein, Buyer shall send to Orange County and/or the sponsoring non-profit organization, not less than 90 days prior to the contemplated closing date of the Transfer, a "Notice of Intent to Sell." This Notice of 2 ~J Intent to Sell shall be accompanied by a copy of a completed, fully executed bona fide offer to purchase the Property on the then current North Carolina Bar Association "Offer to Purchase and Contract" form. If Orange County and/or the sponsoring non-profit organizations elects to exercise its said right of refusal, it shall notify the Buyer of its election to purchase within 30 days of its receipt of the Notice and shall purchase the Property or portion thereof within 90 days of the receipt of the "Notice of Intent to Sell." As between the County and the sponsoring non-profit organization, if both wish to and have the means to exercise the right of first refusal, the sponsoring non-profit organization shall have priority. If neither Orange County nor the sponsoring non-profit organization advise the Buyer in a timely fashion of an intent to purchase the Property, then the Buyer shall be free to Transfer the property in accordance with this Section. B. Equity Sharing All financial contributions provided by the County will be provided as a deferred second loan secured by a forty (40) year Deed of Trust and Promissory Note, forgivable at the end of 40 years. This Deed of Trust and Promissory Note shall constitute a lien on the Property; subordinate only to private construction financing or • permanent first mortgage financing. The penod of affordability will be 99 years and each individual housing unit will be secured by a declaration of Restrictive Covenants that will incorporate a right of first refusal that maybe exercised by a sponsoring non-profit organization and/or Orange County. The non-profit organization and/or the County as applicable retains full responsibility of compliance with the affordability requirement for assisted units throughout the term of affordability, unless affordability restrictions are terminated due to the sale of the Property to anon-qualified buyer. If the buyer no longer uses the Property as a principal residence or is unable to continue ownership, then the buyer must sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of their interest in the Property only to a qualified homebuyer, i.e., aloes-income household, one whose combined income does not exceed 80% of the area median household income by family size, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development at the time of the transfer, to use as their principal residence. 3 • • However, if the property is sold during the term of affordability to anon-qualified homebuyer to be used as their principal residence, the net sales proceeds (sales price less selling costs and lst mortgage payoff) or "equity", after repayment, if required by the Note and Deed of Trust, of the initial County contribution, will be divided 50/50 by the seller of the Property and the County. If the initial County contribution does not have to be repaid because the sale occurs more than forty years after the County contribution is made, then the sell of the Property and the County will divide the entire equity realized from the sale. Effective Date: Apri13, 2000 • 4 • ~ % ~~ 1 APPROVED NOVEMBER 1.2000 2 MINUTES 3 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS 4 REGULAR MEETING 5 APRIL 4, 2000 8 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met in regular session on Tuesday, April 4, 2000 at 7:30 9 p.m. in the F. Gordon Battle Courtroom, Hillsborough, North Carolina. 10 11 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Moses Carey, Jr. and Commissioners Margaret W. 12 Brown, Alice M. Gordon (arrived at 7:42) and Barry Jacobs 13 COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABSENT: Stephen Halkiotis 14 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Geoffrey Gledhill 15 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager John M. link, Jr., Assistant County Manager Rod 16 Visser, and Clerk to the Board Beverly A. Blythe (all other staff members will be identified appropriately 17 below) NOTE: ALL DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IIV THESE MINUTES ARE IN THE PERMANENT AGENDA FILE IN THE CLERK'S OFFICE. ALL RECORDINGS OF THE MEETING WILL BE KEPT FOR 5 YEARS. 23 Chair Carey said that both Commissioner Halkiotis and Commissioner Gordon indicated that they 24 would be late to the meeting. 25 NOTE: Commissioner Halkiotis did not make it in time for the meeting. 26 27 1. ADDITIONS OR CHANGES TO THE AGENDA 28 The Board Comments were deferred until either Commissioner Gordon and/or Commissioner 29 Halkiotis arrived. 30 3 2. CITIZEN 8~ AUDIENCE COMMENTS a. Matters on the Printed Agenda (These matters were considered as the Board addressed the items on the agenda below.) 34 35 b. Matters not on the Printed Agenda 36 Rosetta Moore, co-chair of the Orange County Complete Count Committee, gave an update on 37 the initial response of the returns of the United States Census forms. Orange County's response rate at this 38 time is 53%, which is ninth in the state. The target initial response rate is 71% and it is not too late to send 39 in this census form. Rosetta Moore urged everyone that had not turned in their census form to do so by the 40 middle of April. She gave the number to call for those who did not receive a census form. 41 Commissioner Brown asked if there was any break out for the municipalities and the response 42 rates. Rosetta Moore deferred this question to Craig Benedict. 43 Planning Director Craig Benedict said that the majority of information is coming in from the 44 towns. He said that it was hard to get forms to people living in some of the new construction areas and out 45 to some of the rural areas. He said that enumerators would be making personal deliveries for the next two 46 months. 47 Commissioner Jacobs asked what happened to the other 29% if the goal is 71 %. 48 Craig Benedict said that the numbers are extrapolated from the sample that is received. He 49 said that the 66% that was received in the 1990 census was still very low. He said that for those people who 50 have received forms and are on the address list and have not turned in their forms, the enumerators would 51 contact them. 52 Commissioner Brown asked for Ms. Moore to explain to the public why it was so important to 53 respond to the census. 54 Rosetta Moore said that it is possible for North Carolina to get another representative to the 55 United States House and also to receive more funds for education and other areas. She said that there are 56 plans to put up banners in each of the towns to urge citizens to return their forms. They will also give out T- 57 shirts in the schools in Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese. 5~ Commissioner Gordon arrived at this point of the agenda. • 8 1 Commissioner Jacobs questioned the nature of the stream buffer and how it connected to open 2 space and adjoining properties. He asked about one of the circles in the drawing and if it was a pond. He 3 also had some questions about having a pond on several properties and how it would be maintained. He 4 asked about the note indicating that dwellings are prohibited on a portion of lot #15. Planning Director Craig Benedict said that each subdivision plan that is submitted to the County is submitted both as a conventional plan (no open space requirement) and a flexible plan (at least 33% open space is required). In this case both a conventional plan and a flexible plan were submitted and the staff 8 and Planning Board approved both of the plans. The developer chose the conventional plan with no open 9 space. He said that any environmental areas, such as the stream buffer, could be incorporated in the lot. l0 He showed on a map the lots and said that the lot sizes were down to .9 acres. Since this project is 11 subdivided by a water quality critical area to the east, the only development that could occur is on the 12 western side of the line on lot 15. The developer has used the amount of density that could be created 13 within the critical area, so lot 15 lies within the protected watershed. He said that the pond would be filled in 14 and would not be part of this development plan. A future road will go through the pond area. In regards to 15 the stream branch, the staff still has the opportunity, as development continues deeper into the Upper Eno 16 critical area, to suggest open space planning for flexible development to preserve the stream buffer. Also, 17 incorporated in this conventional plan, there is a stub out of a public road to future undeveloped properties 18 to the south. 19 Chair Carey asked about the difference in the number of lots and Craig Benedict said that there 20 would be 15 lots in the flexible plan and 15 lots in the conventional plan. 21 Commissioner Brown made reference to the fiscal impact analysis and asked about the net loss 22 between expenditures for County public services and the revenues that would come from this subdivision. 23 Craig Benedict said that the fiscal impact analysis needed to be updated. It has not been 24 updated to include the current rates. 25 Commissioner Jacobs said that he has a problem with accepting the payment in lieu instead of 26 the stream buffer. 27 Craig Benedict said that at this location it did not seem that the staff was ready to suggest 28 dedication of one acre versus payment in lieu in this case. He said that the staff is continuing to look at the 29 best way to handle preservation of these areas. 30 Commissioner Gordon agrees with Commissioner Jacobs' concerns. 31 A motion was made by Chair Carey to approve a preliminary plan for the proposed Bricewood Acres subdivision, located on a 27.04-acre tract near the intersection of Governor Scott and Mill Creek roads in Cedar Grove Township. THE MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. 35 Commissioner Jacobs would like some more detailed information about how this fits in to 36 adjoining waterways and properties. He would like the staff to talk to Mr. Phelps and Mr. Yuhasz about 37 whether there might be another approach to protecting the stream buffer. 38 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Brown to send the 39 preliminary plan for Bricewood Acres back for additional information. 40 VOTE: AYES, 3; NO, 1 (Chair Carey) 41 42 f. RFP Award -Printing of the Chapel Hill/Orange County Visitors Guide 43 The Board considered awarding a bid to Hickory Printing of Raleigh in the amount of $28,386 44 for the printing of 40,000 Orange County visitor guides. 45 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the brochures went to the welcome centers on the interstates. 46 He suggested that these brochures go to the welcome centers outside of the County. 47 A copy of this brochure will be distributed to the members of the Board. 48 Commissioner Gordon clarified that the County pays for all of the expenses of the brochure. 49 A copy of this brochure will be brought back to the meeting on April 11tH 50 51 9. ITEMS FOR DECISION -REGULAR AGENDA 52 a. Long term Housing Affordability Policy 53 The Board considered approving along-term housing affordability policy. - 54 Housing and Community Development Director Tara Fikes said that this policy has been 55 developed to present to the Board strategies that would promote the Commissioners' interest in retaining 56 properties that have been assisted with public funds in the County's affordable housing inventory. She 57 started on page two with the impact fee reimbursement program. She gave examples of the strategies for ensuring long-term affordability, including the impact fee reimbursement program, the land trust model, and the new and existing first-time homebuyer program. She made reference to equity sharing and said that if 1 during the period of affordability a buyer chooses to sell their property, the County will ask them to sell the 2 property to another qualified homebuyer. If the seller chooses a qualified buyer, they are able to retain 3 100% of the equity of the sale. If the seller does not sell the property to a qualified buyer,, therefore losing 4 the property from the affordable housing inventory, the equity obtained from selling the property must be shared with the County 50-50. She made reference to a letter from EmPOWERment stating that the equity sharing should be based on a proportionate share model. On page eight, there is a comparison of doing 50- 7 50 equity sharing versus a proportionate share model. 8 -Chair Carey clarified that the only real distinction between EmPOWERment's proposal and the 9 County's proposal is in who purchases the property. In EmPOWERment's proposal, it does not make a 10 difference who purchases the property, the equity will be proportionate based on the relative contributions of 11 the owner and the County. 12 Commissioner Gordon said that the County would get no interest money for the $30,000 13 contributed to the loan. She said that $30,000 was a lot of money to not have any interest money. Also, 14 she said that it was very likely that if a home was sold to anon-qualified buyer, the price would be higher 15 which would make the equity higher. She has a problem with letting a home go non-affordable and sharing 16 the equity proportionately. She said that this was a tremendous taxpayer investment. 17 Myles Presler from EmPOWERment said that he supports Chair Carey's proposal. He said that 18 EmPOWERment's concern about the recommendation was based on the understanding that if the home 19 was sold at all, that 50% of the appreciation had to be split with the County. He said that EmPOWERment 20 would encourage the County to modify the proposal such that regardless of whether the home is sold to an 21 income-eligible family, that each family has to repay the public investment plus a proportionate share of the 22 appreciation that is built on the property during the tenure of ownership. He apologized for the statement 23 because it was based on a misunderstanding. 24 Commissioner Brown made reference to the Land Trust model and asked what would happen if 25 the land trust went out of business or no longer functioned. 26 County Attorney Geoffrey Gledhill said that when the community land trust that exists now was 27 created, the articles of incorporation called for the property in the event of dissolution of the corporation to 28 go to another non-profit corporation. He has reviewed the documentation and recommended that the 29 articles of incorporation be amended to provide that, upon dissolution, all of the assets would go to a similar 30 purpose non-profit corporation. 31 Commissioner Brown would like to talk about the land trust soon. John Link said that the staff still strongly recommends their proposal on equity sharing because the main intent is to keep the unit affordable. 34 A motion was made by Commissioner Brown, seconded by Commissioner Jacobs to approve 35 the Long Term Housing Affordability Policy. 36 Commissioner Jacobs asked if Mr. Dowling, from the Orange Community Housing Corporation, 37 had anything to add to this discussion. 38 Mr. Dowling said that he feels that the County's proposal is fair. He said that the proposal would 39 entice the seller to sell the unit to an income-qualified buyer. 40 Commissioner Jacobs asked if there was any mechanism for helping someone who is selling 41 the property to identify a buyer who is qualified. 42 Tara Fikes said that through the right of first refusal, that would give the information that the 43 property is available for the market and anon-profit or the County could purchase it. She said that most of 44 the non-profit organizations that are involved in first-time homeownership programs have a list of 45 ,organizations that are involved in affordable housing. 46 Commissioner Gordon clarified that the period of affordability was 99 years for the land trust 47 model and for the new and existing first-time homebuyer programs. She thinks the Board should revisit the 48 impact fee reimbursement issue because in the owner-occupied housing, it is only affordable for 20 years. 49 Tara Fikes said that the section on impact fee reimbursement could be amended to say that the 50 period of affordability would be 99 years. 51 Commissioner Gordon asked about the return on investment when the property changed hands 52 if the equity was unusually high. 53 John- Link said that if the property is sold to a qualified buyer then the unit is retained as 54 affordable and the equity is still going to be fairly low. 55 Geoff Gledhill said that the objective was to keep the housing affordable, and if the marketplace 56 will do it, then the County does not have to. 57 Commissioner Brown would like to include in the motion that the 20-year period of affordability in the impact fee reimbursement would be changed to 99 years. She feels that the County should come up with a revolving fund to go along with this program. She would like the staff to come back with recommendations for a revolving fund at the housing work session. ' 10 1 Commissioner Gordon suggested including in the motion that this program would be evaluated 2 within two years with a report of all of the transactions that take place. 3 The motion is to approve the Long Term Housing Affordability Policy, to adopt the 99-year 4 policy for the impact fee reimbursement, and include an evaluation of the program by the end of two years. VOTE: UNANIMOUS 8 John Link explained the sequence of issues regarding affordable housing that the Board would 9 be discussing in the coming month. 10 Commissioner Brown mentioned that she needed to meet with Commissioner Jacobs to discuss 11 the results of the housing summit and try to come up with an organization of the comments that were made. 12 13 b. Community Revitalization Program 14 The Board considered approving revised operational guidelines for the community revitalization 15 loan program. 16 Tara Fikes said that the guidelines for this program were brought to the Board in February, 17 suggesting some revisions to the Community Revitalization Loan Program. This program provides funding 18 for acquisition and rehabilitation of existing properties. This funding rolls over into a direct second mortgage 19 for the qualified homebuyers. This program has been funded in the past using HOME money. She said that 20 in February the Board asked for some additional information and she explained the four points that are in 21 the agenda abstract. She said that the County has spent approximately $240,000 to date on this program. 22 Commissioner Gordon asked about the affordability period. There were places on pages three, 23 four, and five that had the affordability period as 20 years and 40 years. 24 Tara Fikes said that the original affordability period was 20 years in the guidelines. She went 25 back into the document and changed it to 40 years and overlooked some corrections that needed to be 26 made. 27 Commissioner Gordon said that the period of affordability should be 99 years if it is consistent 28 with the policy that was just approved. 29 Tara Fikes verified that she would change the document to say that the period of affordability 30 would be 99 years with a 40-year deferred loan with a deed of trust and promissory note. 31 Commissioner Gordon made reference to page six under "Property Value" and read the • sentence, "The value of the identified property to be acquired by a homebuyer must have a value that does not exceed 95% of the area median purchase price for that type of housing." She said that this value could 34 be very expensive. 35 Tara Fikes. said that the rates were set by HUD. 36 Commissioner Brown said that she was interested in the environmental issues. Her concern is 37 that these issues will be ignored. 38 Commissioner Brown asked about the list of properties that were renovated. 39 Tara Fikes said that the level of rehabilitation varied with each property. 40 Commissioner Brown clarified that EmPOWERment and Orange Community Housing 41 Corporation were the only two organizations that applied for this program. 42 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to page six and suggested a sentence to add to the 43 deconstruction portion as follows: "In the case of rehabilitation projects, deconstruction methods will be 44 considered to capture the greatest possible amount of materials for reuse in that or other projects." 45 There was a consensus that the revisions will be incorporated and brought back to the County 46 Commissioners for further review as soon as possible. 47, Myles Presler thanked the County Commissioners for allowing EmPOWERment to use these 48 funds. He asked that the County Commissioners act quickly to approve this plan so that HOME funds could 49 be released. He encouraged the Commissioners to consider raising the income limit to 80% of median 50 income. 51 52 c. A Lands Legacy Program for Orange County 53 The Board considered adopting a policy to provide a program for natural and cultural resource 54 land acquisitions. 55 Environmental and Resource Conservation Director David Stancil gave an overview of the 56 Lands Legacy Program. He noted that this is a voluntary program where staff will be looking for willing 57 sellers. He explained why this program is important. The County has lost as much as 25% of prime forest • land since 1980. Farming land and natural areas have been lost in the County to development. He listed the larger landowners in Orange County including Duke University, OWASA, UNC, Eno River State Park, ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: April 4, 2000 Action Agenda Item No. q- q r~ • SUBJECT• Long-Term Housing Affordability Policy DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/1~ No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes, ext 2490 Long Term Housing Affordability Policy Letter from EmPOWEIZment, Inc. Comparison Statement TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To approve along-Term Housing Affordability Policy that will ensure long-term housing affordability with County affordable housing projects. BACKGROUND: On December 7, 1999, the County Attorney and the Housing/Community Development Director presented a report regarding long-term housing affordability that included several potential strategies that could be utilized with future County affordable housing projects. Since that time, the Board has indicated an interest in adopting specific strategies for ensuring long-term affordability for the County's programs. The attached Policy includes specific strategies that may be utilized for both rental and owner-occupied affordable housing projects that receive financial contributions from the County. .These strategies are designed to promote the Commissioners' interest in retaining these properties in the County's affordable housing inventory. After the Board's initial discussion, the local non-profit, EmPOWERrrient, Inc., expressed concerns regarding the equity sharing proposal included in the attached Policy. Their concerns are detailed in the attached February 7, 2000 letter. In an effort to illustrate the details of the equity sharing proposals, included with this abstract is a "Comparison Statement" comparing the County's current equity sharing proposal and the one proposed by EmPOWEltment. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION (S): The Manager recommends approval of the Long Term Housing Affordability Policy. 2 Long-Term Housing Affordability Policy I• This policy establishes the acceptable strategies for ensuring long-term affordability in all affordable housing programs supported by County financial resources. Target Po~ulation• Homeownership programs are targeted to families .with incomes at or below 80% of the HUD published area median income. Rental housing programs are targeted to families with incomes at or below 60% of the HUD published area median income. Affordable Housing - is defined as (1) owner-occupied housing which can be purchased for no more than 2.5 times to 3.0 times the total annual family income, or (2) rental housing for which the occupant pays no more than 30% of gross income for all housing costs including utilities. First-time homebuyer/Qualified buyer - A first-time homebuyer for the purposes of this • program is any low income household that has not owned a home within the past three (3) years including households living in manufactured housing not permanently affixed to a foundation, or owner-occupants of homes not feasible for renovation. I. Impact Fee R .imhnrep..,pnt Program (existing policy last revised March 4, 1998.) A. Owner-Occupied~in Q Any organization requesting impact fee reimbursement must certify in writing, that, for owner occupied housing, it will remain affordable to the anticipated beneficiary or beneficiaries for a period of a minimum of twenty (20) years or longer depending upon the funding source. This requirement will be secured by a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. B. Rental Housing An organization requesting impact fee reimbursement for rental housing must certify that the property will remain affordable for ninety-nine (99) years. The rental housing certification must be secured by a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant requiring repayment to .Orange County of the impact fee if the rental housing does not remain • affordable during the period of affordability, which covenant will be further secured by a note and deed of trust. Evidence must be provided that agency and/or program guidelines are in place to assure affordability compliance. II. Land Trust Model • The Land Trust model utilizes anon-profit, community based organization known as a Community Land Trust (CLT) whose purpose is to acquire land and make it available to individual families and others, such as cooperatives, through along-term lease for a term up to 99 years. The leaseholders or homebuyers do not hold title to the land -the title is retained by the CLT -they own the improvements or housing units/structures on the land. The benefits of this model include the ability of the CLT and housing ownership and protection of affordability for future residents in the sale of buildings and other improvements on the land. The land lease gives the CLT the first option to purchase the home, when and if it is sold, at an affordable price set by a resale formula. The resale formula gives homeowners a fair return for their investment, while keeping the price of the housing units/structures affordable for future residents. III. New and Existing First-Time Homeh~yer Programs A. Right of First Refusal A right of first refusal or right to purchase is accomplished by means of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants on the property purchased by the first-time homebuyer. Any assignment, sale, transfer, conveyance, or other disposition of the Property or any part thereof whether voluntarily or involuntarily or by operation of law ("Transfer") shall not • be effective unless and until the below-described procedure is followed. If the original homebuyer or any subsequent qualified homebuyer ("Buyer") contemplates a Transfer to a non low-income household as defined herein, Buyer shall send to Orange County and/or the sponsoring non-profit organization, not less than 90 days prior to the contemplated closing date of the Transfer, a "Notice of Intent to Sell." This Notice of Intent to Sell shall be accompanied by a copy of a completed, fully executed bona fide offer to purchase the Property on the then current North Carolina Bar Association "Offer to Purchase and Contract" form. If Orange County and/or the sponsoring non-profit organizations elects to exercise its said right of refusal, it shall notify the Buyer of its election to purchase within 30 days of its receipt of the Notice and shall purchase the Property or portion thereof within 90 days of the receipt of the "Notice of Intent to Sell." As between the County and the sponsoring non-profit organization, if both wish to and have the means to exercise the right of first refusal, the sponsoring non-profit organization shall have priority. If neither Orange County nor the sponsoring non-profit organization advise the Buyer in a timely fashion of an intent to purchase the Property, then the Buyer shall be free to Transfer the property in accordance with this Section. • B• Equity Sharing 4 All financial contributions provided by the County will be provided as a deferred second loan secured by a forty (40) year Deed of Trust and Promissory Note, forgivable at the end of 40 years. This Deed of Trust and Promissory Note shall constitute a lien on the Property; subordinate only to private constriction financing or permanent first mortgage financing. The period of affordability will be 99 years and each individual housing unit will be secured by a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants that will incorporate a right of first refusal that may be exercised by a sponsoring non-profit organization and/or Orange County. The non-profit organization and/or the County as applicable retains full responsibility for compliance with the affordability requirement for assisted units throughout the term of affordability, unless affordability restrictions are terminated due to the sale of the Property to anon-qualified buyer. If the buyer no longer uses the Property as a principal residence or is unable to continue ownership, then the buyer must sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of their interest in the Property only to a qualified homebuyer, i.e., aloes-income household, one whose combined income does not exceed 80% of the area median household income by family size, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development at the time of the transfer, to use as their principal residence. • However, if the property is sold during the term of affordability to a non- ualified q homebuyer to be used as their principal residence, the net sales proceeds (sales price less selling costs and 1$` mortgage payoff) or "equity", after repayment, if required by the Note and Deed of Trust, of the initial County contribution, will be divided 50/50 by the seller of the Property and the County. If the initial County contribution does not have to be repaid because the sale occurs more than forty years after the County contribution is made, then the seller of the Property and the County will divide the entire equity realized from the sale. Effective Date: Apri13, 2000 • Erg ~ • ~ r~er~# • INC. Reclaiming the POWER of our Communities FebruAry 7, 2000 w,uec o~ oiRCCroRS Pnrua S Foushee, President + ~ Zppp ~~ ~ ~B 1 Ms. Tara Fdces ~ F Stepney Edwa~da, v><e Pasidmt Director of Housing and Community Development ~,•sbp Orange County lwahca Feasxington, seecetacy PO 8181 U~dsrraeN~6beb..d.4.t,adadr'ar borough, NC 27278 Jane Stem, Tsessum Cbmir, Caanavx Smar Foamdatro~t snM smoke Dear 1VIS. 1' ki es: R RA) "mg Barbara Bmsvn CarrCrrn Neigbbwoboaid.4.xwadatr'nor We appreciate your coxtittued support of our efforts to preserve local "~°'°" B"m`tte rrndsb..t neighborhoods and expand affordable housing for working families. In just two years we have helped 22 families to purchase their first homes, and we currently x~ x°bert ~b~ x,8.,,x~ax.~be.~,«. have nine properties under development. We have built a strong track record of ~~ ~.~ accountability, production and community control Sbsrt Ndgbbadaad Aisodatiae Rob;o ~„ I am writing on behalf of the. Board to express our complete dismay at the County's Na, ~~ unfair and disproportionate equity sharing proposals. As members of the Board and ~~ staff explained, EmPOWERment, Inc. works with low income, first-time buyers with incomes averaging about 50% of area median. For these Families My~, pn,~ homeownership is not just a safe place to live, but also a chance to begin bu>7ding ~*~' wealth through the equity in their homes. I.~e the rest of us, this equity is available M~:cine Mitchell for home repairs, college education or financial crises. III fact, studies have shown ~D""`~"'`s that over 70% of the assets held by people of color is in their homes. Severely Tea9 caper Curtail]ng the abut' y to bufid wealth on the single largest investment in a famaly's life P'°''d`'r is both unfair and counter-productive. If these requireme~s extend to the FIOME ~~~ Y• F program, the Commissioners w~l be moving toward the unfortunate goal of creating ~"'~ °~`~ two classes of homeowners in Orange County: those rich enough to buy in an J ~ °'' inflated market, and the rest of us who would have to sacrifice our fam~7ies' economic security for the right to live in the community we work in. , I trust this is ~~~ not the County's intention. •ros-A west Rosensay stet EmPOWERment, Inc. respects the County's commitment to protecting public casrbom, rrc rnio investment and maintaining long-term affordab~7ity, and we have already designed Ph~~ ~1~ ~~-srn~ Faz ~9im ~~-o~io our program to promote these goals. We require that fam~7ies grant us a right of °~°'°"~`°°°`~"'~"°s•`°m first refusal, and we secure any subsidy with a deed oftrust to ensure that these fiords ate returned if the family sells their home. AdditionaIly, we require that they • repay a percentage of the appreciation on their home based upon the amount of subsidy received to the total appraised value of the home. We believe that this 6 • solution fairly balances the goals of protecting public investment, promoting long-term affordability and helping working famdies Budd wealth and security. I am attaching a description of how our program works using the Fine Hill project as an example. We sincerely hope that the Commissioners wdl allow us to continue with a model that protects the interests of the County and our homebuyers. We look forwazd to meeting with you or the Commissioners to discuss our concerns. Sincerely, Vivian S. Foushee President • ~~ Total Development Cost $ 102,058 Appraised value/Sales Price (assumed) $ 115,000 plus closing costs $~ 2 Total cyst to Buyer $ 117,500 less buyer contribution $ 1,000 less Band 2nd mortgage (40 yr)* $ 22,500 less EI 3rd mortgage (40 yr)* $ 12,942 I~'irst mortgage (30 yr) S 81,058 ~ ~ 100 Pine Hill Drive Deed Restrictions * Total subsidy of $35,442 =30.8% appraised value of $115,000 If family sells home within 40 years they must repay entire principal balance of subsidies ($35,442) as well as 30.8% of appreciation. J 8 I ~ COMPARISON SHEET -EQUITY SHARING PROPO AL Situation I The property is sold during the term of affordability by the original buyer to another qualified homebuyer, i.e., slow-income household, one whose combined income does not exceed 80% of the area median household income by family size, as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development at the time of the transfer, to use as their principal residence. County Proposal No equity sharing is required. The original dwelling unit remains in the affordable housing stock. EXAMPLE: This family purchased this home in 1995 for a purchase price of $120,000. The family financed this purchase in the following manner. Cash downpayment $ 1,000 First Mortgage $ 89,000 Deferred Loan/County $ 30,000 Total $120,000 In 2000, the family decides to sell the home at a price of $130,000. Property Sales Price: $130,000 First Mortgage Payoff $ (87,000) Deferred Loan to be assumed by the next buyer. $ (30.0001 Proceeds to the Seller $ 13,000 In this example, the seller must sell to a low income family, thus, the property sales price less the deferred loan must make the property affordable to the next buyer. Property Sales Price: $130,000 Deferred Loan to be assumed by the next buyer. X30,0001 $100,000 The property must be affordable at $100,000 or the sales price must be reduced to make it affordable for the next buyer. When the property is sold to a qualified buyer, the seller retains 100% of the appreciation (proceeds from the sale). The property remains in the affordable housing stock of the community. 9 i• EmPOWEltment Proposal Shared appreciation upon the sale of the home, based upon the proportion of the public subsidy to the total appraised value of the home. The original dwelling unit remains in the affordable housing stock. EXAMPLE: This family purchased this home in 1995 for a purchase price of $120,000. The family financed this purchase in the following manner. Cash downpayment $ 1,000 First Mortgage $ 89,000 Deferred Loan/County $ 3.000 Total $120,000 In 2000, the family decides to sell the home at a price of $130,000. Property Sales Price: $130,000 First Mortgage Payoff $ (87,000) Deferred Loan to be assumed by the next buyer. X30,0001 Net Proceeds $ 13,000 When the property is sold to a qualified buyer, the seller shares the proceeds of the sale (equity) in proportion to the total cost of home at the initial purchase. Continuing with this example, the original sales price was $120,000 and the $30,000 deferred loan represents 25% of the total appreciation. Applying the "proportionate share" formula, 25% of the proceeds or $3,250 would be repaid to the County and the remainder, $9,750 would be retained by the seller. • 10 i• Situation II The property is sold during the term of affordability to anon-qualified homebuyer to be used as their principal residence. County Proposal The equity, after repayment of the initial County contribution, will be divided 50/50 by the seller of the Property and the County. The original dwelling unit does not remain in the affordable housing stock. EXAMPLE: This family purchased this home five years ago for a purchase price of $120,000 five years ago. The family financed this purchase in the following manner. Cash downpayment $ 1,000 First Mortgage $ 89,000 Deferred Loan/County $ 30,OOQ Total $120,000 In 2000, the family decides to sell the home at the market value of $130,000. Property Sales Price: $130,000 First Mortgage Payoff $ (87,000) Deferred Loan Repayment $ X0.0001 Proceeds to the Seller $ 13,000 In this example, the seller does not sell to a low income family, the County recovers the initial $30,000 investment, and, the buyer and the County share the net proceeds of the sale 50/50. In this example, the County would receive the initial investment of $30,000 and $6,500 inequity payment. The seller would receive $6,500. 11 i• EmPOWERment Proposal Shared appreciation upon the sale of the home, based upon the proportion of the public subsidy to the total appraised value of the home. The property would not remain in the affordable housing inventory. EXAMPLE: This family purchased this home in 1995 for a purchase price of $120,000. The family financed this purchase in the following manner. Cash downpayment $ 1,000 First Mortgage $ 89,000 Deferred Loan/County ~, 30.000 Total $120,000 • In 2000, the family decides to sell the home at a price of $130,000. Property Sales Price: $130,000 First Mortgage Payoff $ (87,000) Deferred Loan Repayment X30.0001 Proceeds to the Seller $ 13,000 In this example, the seller does not sell to slow-income family. When the property is sold, the seller shares the proceeds of the sale (equity) in proportion to the total cost of home at the initial purchase. Continuing with this example, the original sales price was $120,000 and the $30,000 deferred loan represents 25% of the total appreciation. Thus, at the time of resale, the actual return to the buyer is as follows. Original Sales Price Deferred Loan $120,000 $30,000 or 25% of the price Current Property Sales Price First Mortgage Payoff Deferred Loan Repayment Net Proceeds $130,000 $ (87,000) X30 000 $ 13,000 Applying the "proportionate share" formula, 25% of the proceeds or $3,250 would be repaid to the County and the remainder, the seller would retain $9,750. The County would receive the initial investment of $30,000 plus $3,250.