Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 01-20-2000 - 9hORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: January 18, 2000 Action Agenda Item No. q- J.~ SUBJECT: Orange County Fair Housing Plan DEPARTMENT: Housing/Comm. Development PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No Human Rights and Relations ATTACHMENT(S): Fair Housing Plan INFORMATION CONTACT: Tara L. Fikes, ext 2490; Annette Moore, ext. 2250 TELEPHONE l Hillsborough Chapel Hill Durham • Mebane PURPOSE: To approve the Fair Housing Plan for Orange County. JUMBERS: 732-8181 968-4501 688-7331 336-227-2031 BACKGROUND: Provisions to affirmatively further fair housing are principal and long-standing components of housing and community development programs sponsored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Specifically, HUD is committed to eliminating racial and ethnic segregation and other discriminatory practices in housing. Further, Orange County, through its Civil Rights Ordinance, is also committed to the elimination of discriminatory practices in housing. All recipients of HUD funding are required to meet the following broad objectives: 1. Analyze and eliminate housing discrimination in the jurisdiction; 2. Promote fair housing choice; 3. Provide opportunities for racially and ethnically inclusive patterns of housing occupancy; 4. Promote housing that is physically accessible to, and usable by, all persons, particularly persons with disabilities; and 5. Foster compliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of the Fair Housing Act. This is accomplished by the development of a Fair Housing Plan which identifies impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction, and, outlines appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through the analysis. This Plan is required of all recipients of HUD funding under the Community Development Block Grant Program, the HOME Investment Partnership Program, the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program. Thus, the County, as a recipient of these funds, is required to have this document. In past years, we have written this plan at the staff level without soliciting BOCC approval. Recently, however, we have been advised by both State and Federal officials, that we should formally adopt the Fair Housing Plan. This is especially critical as we apply for new funding during the new budget year. Specifically, the State Division of Community Assistance is requiring that this plan be approved by the BOCC in order to be eligible for grant funding. The County has received numerous correspondences in recent months from this state agency regarding the need for submission of the Plan immediately. The plan was initially submitted to the BOCC on October 19th at which time a public comment period of October 20 -November 9, 1999 was established. The plan was made available at all public libraries and the local housing departments for the review of the general public. In addition, a newspaper announcement was published in the Chapel Hill Herald soliciting comments. No public comments were received. The Fair Housing Plan is a separate document from the Consolidated Plan for Housing and Community Development Programs in Orange County, NC. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends approval of the Fair Housing Plan for Orange County. i~ DRAFT FAIR HOUSING PLAN Analysis of Impediments Action Plan ORANGE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA (including the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough) Housing/Community Development Department 300 West Tryon Street Hillsborough, N.C. 27278 (919) 732-8181, Extension 2490 Human Rights and Relations Office N. Churton Street Hillsborough, N.G 27278 (919) 732-8181, Extension 2250 Revised 9/99 Introduction The Department of Housing and Urban Development is committed to eliminating racial and ethnic segregation and other discriminatory practices in housing and uses all of its programmatic tolls to achieve this goal. Therefore, the Department requires all HOME Participating Jurisdictions -The Orange County HOME Consortium, and all Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Entitlement Cities -The Town of Chapel Hill, to pursue efforts to affirmatively further fair housing with begins with Fair Housing Planning. The fundamental goal of fair housing planning is to make housing choice a reality. Additionally, the N.C. Department of Commerce -Division of Community Assistance requires all Small Cities CDBG Program recipients to affirmatively further fair housing through Fair Housing Planning. Fair Housing Planning involves three main steps: 1. Conducting an analysis to identify impediments to fair housing choice within the jurisdiction; 2. Taking appropriate actions to overcome the effects of any impediments identified through the analysis; 3. Maintaining records reflecting the analysis and actions taken. Analysis of Impediments The following Analysis of Impediments (AI) is a .review of impediments to fair housing choice in Orange County including the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough, and unincorporated Orange County. The AI includes: 1. An analysis of demographic data and a housing needs assessment; 2. A comprehensive review of the jurisdiction's laws, regulations, policies, procedures, and practices; and 3. An assessment of conditions, both public and private, affecting housing choice for members of the protected groups. 4. Assessment of Current Fair Housing Programs/Activities 5. Conclusions and Recommendations Specifically, the Impediments to fair housing choice are any actions, omissions, or decisions .taken because of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin which restrict housing choices or the availability of housing choices. It also includes policies, practices, or procedures that appear neutral on their face, but which operate to deny or adversely affect the provision of ~ citizens. This AI was developed by the Orange County Housing and Community Development Department and the County Human Rights and Relations Department with assistance and consultation with the Towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Hillsborough_ 2 COMMUNITY PROFILE Orange County, North Carolina includes the towns of Carrboro, Hillsborough, and Chapel Hill, the home of the largest campus of the State university system -the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The County is part of the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) which comprises six counties in the Research Triangle Area. with a population of approximately 1.1 million people. The region has been highly rated as a place to live and do business. Within Orange County, there are three towns, each with its own unique .features and character. Further, the presence of university students, .more affluent and transient than other county residents, has created an imbalance in terms of housing .and community development needs. Orange County must, therefore, concentrate its efforts on serving a strong urban community as well as the smaller towns and rural communities. A) Population The 1990 US Census listed Orange County's population as 93,851. This is an increase of 173%, from the 1950 population of 34,434 persons. Overall, 57.4% of County residents reside within the municipal limits of the County's four towns: Carrboro, Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and Mebane (Orange Co. portion only). Chapel Hill township contains the largest number of persons (61,973) while Little River has the fewest (2,183). Orange County Population :1950-1990 Township r 1990 1970 1950 Bingham 5,184 ~ 2,379 1,801 Cedar Grove 3,691 3,146 3,392 Chapel Hill ~ 61,973 _8,856 ~- 18,222 Cheeks 5,422 3,571 3,021 Eno 5,262 2,550 ~ 1,537 Hillsborough 10,136 5,855 ~-5,205 Little River 2,183 1,210 1,257 Municipalities r Carrboro 11,553 5,058 1,795 Chapel Hill 37,596 25,533 9,177 Hillsborough _ 4,263 1,444 ~- 1,329 Mebane ~ 485 186 ~ 139 ORANGE CO. 93,851 57,567. ~ 34,434 Source: US Census: 1950-1990 The population of Orange County is 109,288 according to the July 1998. population estimate. This represents a 16.4% .increase in population since the 1990 Census.. This growth rate is slightly higher than the state increase of approximately 12%. The demand for housing over the coming years will be fueled by the evolving age dynamics of the population base. 3 B) Employment The largest employer in Orange County is the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the UNC Hospitals, representing approximately 45% of all annual wages paid in the County. The service, retail, local government, finance/banking and other services categories round out the employment picture in Orange County. Since 1996, government, the service industry and retail have led employment growth. Total Annual Wages Paid In Orange County, 1996 All Oths~ 9X 'i Manufaet. OX Local Govt ax Fin/lr 8X Ratall 9X aomce: FmPloynKnt SeoOity Camtissioo of NC Employment By Sector, 1996 Showing Change, 1996 vs. 1990 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 ~P ~` o Q~ t4r 'fir ~`~' souccc Finploymad Seatsity Commission ofNC Government Employment it• Govt. 45X s 15X The categorization of workers of UNC-CH and UNC Hospitals as state .government agencies significantly impacts the distribution of .government workers in the County. Overall there are 23,013 government employees who work in the County. It is important to note that these workers do not necessarily live in the county. These 23,013 workers constitute 45% of the County's estimated working population. + 22 +23% +17"/0 +22% +43X +4g°~6 +7996 f % 4 Within government it is estimated that 78..5% of Orange County's total 23,013 government employees work for the state .government. Based on available numbers, a relative indication reveals that about 80% of Orange County's state employee population work for UNC or an UNC affiliated institution. Of the remaining 4,930 workers, 4,596 work for local governments and 334 work for the federal government. The percent distribution of the County's government workers is as follows: Government Employment by Sector, 1997 _ State Local Federal Workers 78.5% 20% 1.5% Source: NC Employment Securities Commission Private Sector Employment As of the third quarter of 1997, 29,585, or approximately 56% of persons working in the county were employed in the private sector. In general, a private sector .employee found themselves working in either retail trade or service. When combined, employment in these. sectors account for 65% of all private sector positions. Projected Private Sector Employment by Industry, Orange County 2020 Manufacturing glConst _ 896 796 . •: r. Servicies 3596 Wholesale,etc . 896 - - ---- ~'~; .;~ Retail ;. ::• Via FIRE ':'~"' ~ 2796 >~i i. .v. Y~' 1596. x:': ~szfi. fO::::':: ~~ ~ , vpe" i:::.$i= ~.. 5 Unemployment: Average Duration of Claims, 1997 Weeks NC: 2nd-lowest length of claims in the US. 20 14.6 16 9.75 12.4 12 8 4 0 m V m m ~ a o ~ 2 ~ ~ a N c c r ~ ~ ~ r ~ m E ~ ~ r m 0 p V Q source: Employment Security Commission of NC Unemployment Parelleling national and statewide trends, unemployment in the County is significantly lower. today that it was during any period since 1991. The most recent figures, from 1997, approximate the County's average unemployment rate to be 1.4%, a 0.6 point drop from the 1991 rate of 2.0%. This level of decline is lower than that experienced by the nation, state, region and selected Triangle communities. C.) Demographic Information Gender Nineteen seventy marked the last census year in which males constituted the majority of Orange County's population. In 1970 males accounted for 52% of the County's population, by 1980 that had .declined. to 48% and has remained so ever since. As of July 1997, female residents accounted for 52% of the County's population. The shift from majority male to majority female can be traced to the period between 1967 and 1977, when female student enrollment at LTNC-CH increased by approximately 119%. Since then the gender profile of the County has paralleled that of North Carolina and the Triangle J Region. Percent of Female Residents ,1970-1997 1970 1980 1990 1997 Oran e 48% 52% 53% 52% Trian le J 51% 52% 52% 52% NC 51% 51% 52% 52% Source: US Census ,Woods and Poole Economics Inc. and NC Office of State Planning 6 Race and Ethnicity White Americans comprise the largest segment of the County's population. In 1990, 4 out of every 5 persons in the county identified themselves as being white. This is a consistent with the 1970 and 1980 Census, but a departure from the 19.50 and 1960 Census when approximately 75%, or 3 out of 4 persons identified themselves as white. The largest minority group in Orange County are African or Black Americans. Comprising 16% of the County's total population and 83% of the non-white population, the number of African Americans in Orange has increased by 73% between 1950 and 1990, an average annual growth rate of 1.83% per year. Outside of African Americans, persons who identify themselves as Asian/Pacific Islander or Native American constitute the next largest portions of the County's minority population. In 1990, Latino/a persons comprised 1% of the total county population. It is critical to note that Persons of Spanish Origin is not a racial classification consequently persons that identify themselves as such can be of any race. Population By Race and Spanish Origin Orange County, 1990 White ~ B~la FK Native ~ scan ~ ther ~ Latino/a Org ORANGE 75,871 14,893 286 2,361 40 1,279 Bingham ,611 .523 15 19 16 64 Cedar Grove 2,384 1,263 ~f ' 37 76 hapel Hill 50,819 8,379 252 2 ,184 339 837 Cheeks ,110 1,255 14 1' - 34 61 Eno ,768 37 23 2 0 14 38 Hillsborough 7,233 2,807 27 4 r5- 24 96 Little River ! 1,924 . 240 10 ~ ~ 13 Chapel Hill 31,875 ,853 123 1,684 184 607 Carrboro 9,066 1,930 39 27 91 199 Hillsborough 2,557 1,663 13 23 ~ 24 Mebane 3,756 952 I ' 24 15 48 Source: 1990 US Census Since 1990, an estimated 4,991 or 26% of the County's new 19,030 residents have been non- white. The percentage of new County residents that are thought to be of Spanish Origin is 9.3%. Overall the number of Latino/a persons in Orange County has risen by 139% between 1990 and 1998. Poverty According to the 1990 Census approximately 13.9% of the County's 84,556 residents for whom poverty status was determined (i.e. populations excluding those living in institutions, college dormitories, military quarters and unrelated .individuals under. the age of 15), .are living in poverty. When compared to other Triangle communities the County ranks 4th out of the 6 counties that comprise the Planning J region in the percent of population that is below poverty. 7 Percent of Persons Living in Poverty, -1990 County % below poverty Persons for whom poverty status is determined Wake 8.4 % 408,178 Chatham _ 9.7% 38,307 Durham 11.9% 173,223 Orange .13.9% 84,556 Johnston 14.3% 80,180 Lee 14.7% 40,5.98 North Carolina 13% 6,397,185 Source: 1990 US Census To fully understand the issue of poverty it is valuable to examine poverty rates through the lens of race, family status, and spatial distribution. Race and Poverty Poverty by Race, 1990 Race Percent of Overall Population Percent of County's Poor Population _ White 81 % 70% Black 16% ~ 24.8% Native 0.3% 0.5% Asian/P 2.5% 4.1 Other .46% 0.5% Source: 1990 Census As seen in the prior table there are a greater percentage of non-whites that are in poverty than there are in the overall population. This is most acutely felt amongst the County's African American community, which accounts for 24.8% of the county's poor, despite the fact that it comprises only 16% of the county's overall population. Family Type and Poverty Traditional wisdom holds that married couple families without children are likely to live above the poverty line, in comparison to households who do not share such characteristics. This is certainly true in Orange County. According to the 1990 Census 3% of all married couple families without children lived below the poverty line, as compared to 10% of all single householders without children. 8 Amongst .single householders, females without children were slightly less likely to be poor than their male counterparts. The number of female householders without children in poverty was 10% compared to 11% for male householders without children. The existence of children has a significant impact upon the occurrence of poverty.' Overall, irrespective of family status (i.e. single. or married), a greater percentage of Orange County households with children (9%) were impoverished, than their counter- parts without children (4%). Among the different family types in the County poverty was most acutely felt by single women who had more than one child between the ages of 5- 17 and a child less than 5 years of age. Overa1150.9% of the 230 women in this category lived below poverty. Spatial Distribution of Poverty A larger percentage of persons residing in municipal portion of Orange County were living below the poverty line than in rural Orange County. According to the 1990 Census 19% of the county's municipal population (for whom poverty status is determined 45,077) is living below in poverty. Within rural portions of the County the number declines by half, 8% of rural Orange County residents (for whom poverty status is determined 39,479) live in poverty. Amongst municipalities the largest concentration of poverty is found in Carrboro, followed by Chapel Hill, Hillsborough and then Mebane. Within rural areas the highest incidence of poverty, for residents for -whom poverty status is determined, is found in rural portions of Cheeks township where 11% of residents are poor, Cedar Grove .follows closely at 10%, while rural portions of Hillsborough are at 9%. Household Income Household income refers to the annual income of a householder and all other persons, related or unrelated, 15 years of older that are living together. Because of the inclusion of one person households in this measure, household income is usually lower than family income. Median household income refers to the income value that 50% of all Orange County household are above and 50% are below. In 1989 the median income for an Orange County household was $29,968, when converted to 1997 dollars the value increases to $42, 685. Compared to counties in the Planning. J region and the state the median income for an Orange County household, in 1989, is lower than their counterparts in Wake and Durham and higher than that of the state. Median Household Income, Planning J Region County Orange 1989 dollars $29,968 1997 dollars $42,685 Chatham ~ $28,539 $36,940 Durham r $30,526 $39,511 Johnston $25,169 $32,578 Lee $26,419 $34,196 Wake $36,222 $46,884 North Carolina $26,647 $3=x,491 Source: 1940 US Census 9 Between 1950 and 1990 median household income in Orange County grew by an inflation adjusted rate of 76%. In comparison, between 1950 and 1990 median family income increased by an inflation adjusted value of 70%. Despite a 76% rate of growth, annual median income for an Orange County household has historically been lower than the annual median income for a county family. Within Orange County, median household income varies across both townships and municipalities. As seen in the table below households in Cheeks township had the lowest median income in 1989, of all Orange County townships, while households in Carrboro had the lowest median income for municipalities. . 1989 Household Income, by Township and Municipality Township Cheeks Hillsborough Chapel Hill Income $ 26,071 _ $ 27,404 $ 29,433 Municipality Carrboro Hillsborough Mebane Income $19,799 $22,074 $23,214 Cedar Grove $ 30,625 Chapel Hill $30,143 - Bingham $ 32,950 ~ - Eno Little River $ 34,456 $ 40,665 ~ ~- ource 1990 Census D. Market and Inventory Conditions Housing supply Analysis reveals that Orange County offers an array of housing choices. The diversity and balance of the county's housing supply is demonstrated best when compared to the State and other Triangle communities. Dwelling Type: Orange County, Triangle and North Carolina As of Year Single Family Multi- Family Mobile Homes .ORANGE COUNTY 1998 1990 55 % 54 % 30 % 33 % 14 13 Chatham 1990 68% 9% 23% Durham 1990 61 % 36% 3% Wake NC 1990 1990 62% 68% 30% 16% 8% 16% Source: Orange County t'~anning wept. t~ ~ yyu u~ census 10 This balance is primarily due to the significant portion ofnon-single family homes in the county. In contrast to the. State and the above Triangle communities. 20,243 of the County's estimated 46,322 dwelling units are either multi-family units or manufactured homes. This relative balance. between single-family dwellings, mobile homes and multi-family units, found on the county level changes as rural and municipal housing supply is examined independently. Nineteen-ninety census data reveals that multi-family housing is largely concentrated within municipal portions of the County. As of the 1990 Census, 96% of all multi-family housing was located in County municipalities. The overwhelming majority of this multi-family housing was located within the municipal limits of Chapel Hill and Carrboro. When aggregated. these two towns account for 96% of the 11,920 multi-family units found in the County's four municipal areas (Chapel Hill, Carrboro, Hillsborough and Mebane). In contrast the 1990 census reveals that manufactured housing, a.k.a. mobile homes, are concentrated in rural portions of the County. An estimated 72% of all manufactured housing as of March 1990, is located in rural Orange County. Within rural Orange Eno Township contains the largest number of manufactured homes (891), followed by the rural portion of Chapel Hill township (850), Bingham (780) and the Waal portion of Hillsborough (744) Township. The distribution of single family housing represents a significant departure from that of multi- family and mobile homes. Fifty-one percent of the of the County's 20,819. total single family units are located in rural areas. The numerical difference between the amount of single family dwellings located in municipalities and those in rural Orange is 491 dwelling units. Building activity since April 1990 reveals that within the last eight years the spatial distribution of multi-family and manufactured housing dwelling has changed little, if anything historic distinctions between rural Orange and municipalities have intensified. The following table outlines the spatial distribution of County dwellings built between April 1990. and March 1998. Spatial Distribution of Orange County Dwellings by Percent of Dwelling Units, March 1990-April 1998 Single Multi- Manufactured Family Family Housing MUNICIPAL** 58% 100% 1 RURAL 42% 0% 99% 100% 100% 100% Source: Orange County Planning Dept. * * Municipal refers to area for which a town has permitting authority. This differs from Census definitions which delineate municipalities based on their corporate limits In addition to the varying location of Orange County's housing supply analysis reveals that there is noticeable difference within Orange County's rental and owner occupied housing supply. Based on the 1990 Census the overwhelming majority (75%) of rental properties in Orange County contain a maximum of 2 bedrooms. This is in contrast to owner occupied dwellings in Orange County, of which 74% contain three or more bedrooms. Using census total for Chapel.. Hill Township as a measurement of the variability in bedroom size in the Towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, it appears that 84% of rental properties contain 2 bedrooms or less, while 61 % of owner occupied dwellings have more than 3 bedrooms. 11 With respect to age, the County's housing stock can be described as relatively young. Approximately 91% of the county's housing stock was built after W.W.II, a finding which holds true throughout the County's municipalities and rural townships and reflects marked population growth during the post-war era. Percent d Orange Counly Fbusing Bufh. by Year d Canstructlm D•1999 Source: Orange County Planning Department & 1990 US Census The 1990 Census reveals that 61%, of renters and owners are living in dwellings units that have been built since 1970. Housing Quality According to the Orange County Housing and Community Development Department,. 9.8% of the County's housing supply is considered to be substandard. Substandard housing is commonly characterized ~by excessive cost burden, overcrowding, .and structural problems such as inadequate heating, plumbing, etc. Of the estimated 3,610 substandard units in the county all but 2% are considered to be uninhabitable, the remainder offer rehabilitation possibilities. Housing Growth Between 1950 and March 1990, the number of housing units in Orange County increased from 8,422 to 38,683, an addition of 30,261 dwelling units. This increase was in response to County wide population growth experienced during the same time period. Between 1950 and March 1990 the .number of households in Orange County increased by 364%, an actual increase of 28,322. The majority of housing added in the County was concentrated in municipal portions of the County. For every one (1) rural dwelling constructed between 1950 and 1990, approximately two (2) were built in municipalities. 12 Period Added Housing Constructed Households Munici Rural Municipal Rural pal 1950-59 N/A N/A 1446 624 1960-69 4637 1144 5329 1179 1970-79 6405 4101 6351 5360 1980-89. 6031 3023 6811 ~ 3160 otal 17,073 8268 ~ 19,.934 10,323 Source: US Census: 1950-1990 Within municipalities residential development has .largely been focused"in Chapel Hill, which has accounted for 64% of all residences built in municipal portions of the county, between 1950 and 1990. The numbers for Carrboro, Hillsborough, and the Orange County portion of Mebane, have been 28%,7% and 0.69% respectively. Additionally, Chapel Hill has experienced the highest percent increase in the number of homes constructed per capita between 1950 and 1990. The number of residences, per capita, in Chapel Hill increased by 138% while the figure for Carrboro was 86% and Hillsborough was 43%. Residences per capita decreased by 33% for the Orange County portion of Mebane. Since April 1990, approximately 7619 units have been constructed throughout the County. Approximately 52% of the total number of units built in the County since April 1990 have been constructed in municipalities. During the last eight years, construction activity has been highest during the two year period between April 1994 and March 1996. Ntmnber of Dwelling lkuts Constructed in Orange County Apr81990 -March 1998 4~6-3KJ8 4/943196 4192-394 4r90-31'92 7 6 1,081 682 1,385 1,115 931 ~ ~~ Orange O Municipal 0 400 800 1200 1600 Source: Orange Courtly Planting Dept. Housing Affordability Beginning with the issuance of the 1987 "Orange County Low and. Moderate Income Housing Task Force Report", the last decade has seen a variety of public and non-profit agencies study the issue of affordable housing in Orange County. These studies have all come to the conclusion that there is not enough affordable housing in Orange County to meet the needs of low-income residents, and in particular low income families. 13 Homeownership It is generally accepted that the cost of owner occupied housing in the County precludes a significant portion of lower income families from residing in Orange. According to the Orange County EDC, the average sales price of a new single family home in Orange County was $265,000, as of 1998. To purchase such a home a low income family of four persons would have to spend approximately 7.8 times their annual wages. The sales cost for an existing single family home is noticeably lower at $186,000. To afford this home a low income household would have to pay 5.5 times their annual wages. In both of these instances the median low-income family would have to pay more for a house than accepted under HUD standards. US .HUD standards define affordable owner occupied housing as purchasable at 2.5 times total family annual income. Home Sales In Orange County By Price Range January -November 1~998ge Residential Closing Price $209,775 166 <:rf.fof ' "" 205 o... ufo.ooo fo% • sfo-s11Y.NY ux 1T5 164 ft00•f7.f Afi 1Z% fll0-itOY.YYY 17% fuaanf,rof 359 "" 151 Source: Triangle Multiple Listing Service - 1220 Home Sales Closed or Under Contract Housing Costs: . Average Home Sale Prices Orange County, Jan. Nov. 1998 5300,000 1250,000 5200,000 5150,000 sloo,ooo 550,000 So Existing Homes New Homes All Homes scare: Triangle Mulfiple Lisfing Service 14 Rental Housi~ The rental housing market, inflated by the ability of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill students able to pay market rents, is beyond the means of families with incomes below 50% of the area median.. According to the 1990 Census, rental units represent 42% of the county-wide housing market and approximately 57% of those rental households spent more than 35% of their income on rent with many spending more than 50% of their income for rental housing. Each year, HUD publishes existing housing Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for metropolitan areas and non-metropolitan counties in .the country. These FMRs are based on the fortieth. percentile of standard quality rental units occupied by recent movers. Public housing units, newly constructed units, .and substandard units are excluded from the calculations. FMRs are established by unit size (number of bedrooms) and include an allowance for utilities. Experience in Orange County has shown that local rents often run an average of 15 to 20 percent .higher than those HUD published rates, which explains why such a high percentage (35%) pay more than 50% of their income .for rental housing costs. For families earning 80% or more than the County median .monthly family income of $4,022 renting amulti-bedroom apartment is relatively. easy given that they are able to locate units with 3 or more. bedrooms. Larger apartments are in relative scarcity because the rental market is oriented toward providing student rental housing .The most recent County data estimates that 24% of the County's rental properties contain three or more bedrooms. For families earning 50% or less than the median monthly income the primary concern is not finding a rental unit but rather affording one. In 1997, the upper level income limit fora very low income family of four was $2,011. For these families renting a three bedroom dwelling unit in the County, required for them to spend at least 35% of their monthly income on rent. To afford at minimum a two bedroom apartment in Chapel Hill the same set of families would have to spend at least 37% of their .monthly .income. In both instances these families would have to spend more than 30% of their gross monthly income on rent. US HUD standards define. affordable as occurring when a renter spends no more than 30% of their gross monthly income on total housing cost (rent & utilities). Affordable Housing Supply As with other types of development, Orange County's supply of affordable housing is dictated by a variety of factors, the most significant being: project profitability, availability of land and infrastructure, and government regulation. Because of land use policies that discourage urban services (sewer and water) outside of municipal areas, and stringent municipal development regulations, traditional affordable housing (apartments, single family homes) is limited to areas within or adjacent to municipalities. Within rural Orange, manufactured homes, a.k.a. mobile, homes constitute the greatest source of affordable housing. Ranging from .single section trailers and double-wides to prefabricated homes, there were an estimated 3,502 manufactured homes in rural Orange County, as of March 1990. Manufactured homes in rural areas represent 11 % of the County's overall 1990 housing supply. Development activity during the last eight years shows that approximately 1,623 new 15 manufactured homes have been built in Orange County, since April 1990. Approximately 99% of these have been built in rural portions of the County. Current sales values for new mobile home in Orange County are not available. In their place are 1997 statewide market prices for single and double-wide units. In 1997 the .average price of a single wide in North Carolina was $28,100, the average market rate for a double wide was $51,400. For mobile home residents who own their home and the land underneath it the-total cost of a manufactured home can be approximated to range from $35,700 for asingle -wide on a two acre lot to $59,000 for a double wide on the same size lot. This is based on a land acquisition cost of $3800 per acre. The cost for manufactured housing on larger lots would vary depending on the lot size purchased. Statistics detailing the monthly rental payment for a manufactured unit are not currently available. The most reasonable proxy is an anecdotal figure of $275, obtained from the article: °Manufacturing Housing Thrives in NC, but Mobility is Limited in Triangle", from the Raleigh News and Observer, dated April 26, 1995. The relative affordability of manufactured housing is countered by several factors. Mobile home units are located considerable distances from schools, services and jobs. Additionally, despite advances in the construction method, the quality of such housing remains a question. This is in part due to the fact that non-modular manufactured homes are subject only to federal standards rather than more stringent state standards. Lastly within Orange County, zoning and design restrictions have confined mobile homes to rural areas of the county. For persons seeking a more suburban location near Chapel Hill or Carrboro, the availability of existing manufactured. housing, or land upon which to place such housing is limited. Within municipal portions of the county, developers have chosen to serve the affluent Chapel Hill and Carrboro housing market by constructing higher-end apartments or homes. Actions such as these have created an affordable housing gap which has been occupied. by the public sector and not for profit developers. The ability of the private and non-profits to successfully. develop affordable housing has depended on the financial backing of the private and public sector. Of the $20,640,406 invested in the County for affordable housing programs between 1992-1997, approximately 56% has come from federal and state sources, 39% from private sources and the remaining 5% from local sources. As a result of this 20 million plus investment, 368 new housing units (285 rental, 83 owner occupied) were constructed in Orange County between 1992 and 1997, and 118 homes were rehabilitated. Additional affordable housing has been provided through the activities of the Orange County HOME Consortium, local county and municipal governments and non-profits to rehabilitate housing for Orange County's low income populations. Between 1994. and 1997, 104 housing units were renovated throughout Orange County. These projects were primarily funded through federal and state sources. Local funding when used, came from Chapel Hill's Neighborhood Revitalization Loan Fund or it's Comprehensive Grant Program. 16 Current Fair Housing rofile The Board of County Commissioners established the Orange County. Human Relations Commission in 1987. The Commission is composed of twenty-three members. The towns of Carrboro, Chapel Hill and Hillsborough are each allocated two seats, with the remaining seventeen positions considered at-large seats with representation sought from all townships. The mission of the Orange County Human Relations Commission is: - To promote the equal treatment of all individuals; to prohibit discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations; - To protect residents' lawful interest and their personal dignity and. to prevent .public and domestic. strife, crime, and unrest within Orange County; and - To carry out in Orange County the policies provided for in various federal rules, regulations, and laws prohibiting discrimination in, among other areas, housing, employment, and public accommodations. The Orange County Human Relations Commission in 1989 conducted a series of public hearings on discrimination in the areas of, among others, employment, housing and public accommodations; and found that discrimination exists in Orange county in the. areas. of, among others, employment, housing, and public accommodations. The Orange County Civil Rights Ordinance provides protection for citizens based on their race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, disability, familial status and veterans status in the area of housing, employment and public accommodations. Why a Local Ordinance? * Improved access for complainants and respondents; * Increased opportunities for mediation and conciliation; * Quicker, less expensive, and more effective resolution of complaints; * Educational workshops, seminars, and technical assistance to prevent discriminatory practices, and * Amore accessible, user-friendly way to address issues and answer questions.. During FFY 98, the .Department of Human Rights and Relations received and processed cases under the Civil Rights Ordinance: FFY 98 Current FFY 99 as of 9/2/99 Housin 10 0* Em to ment 41 41 Public Accommodation 2 3 *HUD starts counting cases for FFY 99 July 1, 1999. 17 fair Housing Activ-ities for 1998-99 1. On a monthly basis a fair housing workshop was presented to participants in the "First Time Home Buyers" program of the Orange County Housing Corporation. 2. At the annual NC-NAHRW conference in Asheville, North Carolina, the Orange County Commission was instrumental in efforts to collaborate with the state director of the NAACP in housing discrimination matters across the state. The state director of NAACP was the luncheon speaker and agreed to further develop a collaborative effort. 3. In September 1998, the Commission assisted in presenting three community dialogues on race, poverty and inequality. Fair Housing was one of the topics of discussion and both HUD's and the Commission's role in investigating fair housing complaints. Over 300 people attended the community dialogues. 4. In September 1998, the staff of the Department participated in a La Fiesta Del Pueblo, a Hispanic/Latino festival, .held in Orange County each year. Information on fair housing was provided to the more than 20,000 in attendance. 5. In October 1998, fair housing information was distributed to the more than 1.50 people in attendance at the Orange County Women's Agenda Assembly. 6. In October 1998, the Commission in conjunction with the Orange County Hispanic Task Force participated in a letter writing campaign to Orange County Banks about the lending needs of the growing Hispanic population in Orange County. This was an effort to assure that lending services are provided fairly to all Orange County citizens. 7. In October 1998, the Commission distributed fair housing and lending materials at the Tri-County Women Business Owner's Conference.: More than 100 people were in attendance. 8. The Orange County Board of Commissioners has set as two of their 1999-2000. Goals, Hispanic/Latino Relations and Affordable Housing. 9. The Human Relations Commission held. their annual Pauli Murray .Annual Human Relations Award Banquet. 10. The Human Relation Co-Sponsored a Regional Conference on Fair Housing for providers and consumers. 11. The Human Relations Commission found "reasonable cause" in two fair housing cases based upon discrimination in religion. 18 Identification of Barriers to Fair Housing Choice A. The Sale or Rental of Housing i. Assisted Housing There is a reluctance on the part of local landlords to rent to persons receiving government assistance. In the Chapel Hill-Carrboro area this problem is more acute since low income families are often forced to compete with students when .locating adequate, affordable rental housing. ii. Other Rental Housing Availability and affordability are the key barriers in securing rental housing in the County. In the northern parts of the County, the rental housing. stock is slim with only a handful of multifamily housing complexes. The rental market consists of single family homes and mobile homes which are often difficult to locate because of the rural nature of this area. In the southern parts of the County, particularly Chapel Hill and Carrboro, families are often forced to compete with students when locating adequate, affordable rental housing. iii. Provision of Brokerage Services No major impediments are identified. iv. Provision of Financial Assistance for Dwellings In Orange County, four of the ten leading lenders by market shares are either mortgage or finance companies. The high rate of denial of minority borrowers (4:1) is an impediment to equal housing choices in Orange County. The leading lender to Hispanics in Orange County is Oakwood Acceptance Corporation, a subprime lender. African-Americans received more than twice the number of loans from subprime lenders than prime lenders. Subprime lending or B&C Lending are loans made to borrowers with past credit problems at higher cost than conventional loans. The costs of subprime loans are higher than the costs of conventional loans. Statistics have shown that subprime loans are often made to persons who could or should have been given a prime. loan. This practice, along with some others, is termed predatory, and is unethical and makes it difficult for some borrowers to obtain mortgages. Further analysis shows that subprime lenders make proportionally more loans to minority borrowers in minority neighborhoods than they do White borrowers in .White neighborhoods at the same income level. The actual number of subprime lending could be much higher, in as much as, sixty-six percent of all mortgage and finance company loans were not reported under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act. Therefore, compliance with the spirit of the Community Reinvestment Act. has been slow in achieving major shifts in statistics for loans to minority County residents. 19 Therefore, compliance with. the Community Reinvestment Act has been slow in achieving major shifts in loans to minority and low-income County residents. It is important to note that conclusions. of discrimination cannot be based solely on HMDA data. The HMDA analysis is the first step in identifying and connecting patterns and practices of discrimination in mortgage lending. Commonly errors are found in HMDA data. Unintentional errors in HMDA reporting are subject to civil fines. Intentional misrepresentations are subject to criminal penalties. See HMDA Summary in the Appendix B. Public Policies Public policies and actions related to the approval of sites of publicly assisted housing has not been a major impediment in this community. However, the adoption of an Educational Impact Fee in Orange County in 1993 does pose an impediment to fair housing choice. The fee is collected for all new residential construction. The revenue generated by the fee is used to finance a portion of the cost of new public school space created by new residential growth. Presently, the fee is $3,000 in the Chapel Hill-Carrboro school district, and $750 in the Orange County School District. It should be noted that to_ address this barrier, the Orange County. Board of Commissioners adopted a Impact Fee Reimbursement Policy which provides funds to non-profit housing developers construction rental and owner-occupied housing to enable them to pay the fee without passing the cost to the prospective renter or homebuyer. However, individuals nor for-profit developers are eligible for reimbursement under the existing policy. C. Administrative Policies No major impediments are identified. D. Residential Segregation Residential settlement patterns indicate a high degree of spatial segregation between minority and non-minority neighborhoods.. Census tracts in the western portion of the County and a few around Chapel Hill are characterized by the most significant concentration of minority populations. This spatial segregation is not primarily a product of individual choice, but appears to be based on income and neighborhood history. In the 1993 report "Residential Segregation in North Carolina: A Barrier to African- American Opportunity", author Lance Freeman defines isolation and dissimilarity indices as measures of segregation within a community. Specifically, the dissimilarity index is an indicator of the even distribution of a particular group over geographic units. In this report, Orange County had an index of .61 which means that 61 % of the African-American population in the County would have to move to achieve complete integration. The isolation index is the probability of a minority individual sharing residential space only with. other minorities. In Orange County, 20 Freeman reports an index of .45 which means that 45% of African-Americans in the County live in areas of minority concentrations. Segregation indices between 0 and .3 are considered low, those between .3 and .6 moderate, and those above .6 are considered high (Kantrowitz, 1993). Orange County's indices are in .the moderate range at .61 and .45, thus Orange County can be considered moderately segregated. There have been no determinations of unlawful segregation or other housing discrimination by a court or a finding of noncompliance by HUD regarding assisted housing within this jurisdiction. E. Fair Housing Education The number of fair housing complaints processed since the enactment of the Orange County Civil Rights Ordinance has been negligible. This is can be attributed to the lack of awareness by Consumers and housing providers about federal and local fair housing laws. Consumers and industry personnel need continuous education regarding Fair Housing laws to combat housing discrimination. Generally, there is a lack of awareness about the Fair Housing Act and the Department of Human Rights and Relations enforcement of the Act under the Orange County Civil Rights Ordinance. Realtors, attorneys and lenders in Orange County have not .participated in activities or training held by the Department that would provide them with the technical .assistance, guidance and knowledge of their responsibilities under the Ordinance. Likewise, many rental housing providers are unaware of their .responsibilities under both the local and federal fair housing laws. There is also a lack of awareness on the part of consumers and other person who facilitate housing choices for consumers to understand what rights persons have under the federal and local fair housing laws and what action to take if a violation of the law is alleged. If persons are aware of their rights they are often unsure how to .proceed or who to contact.. Because of a fear of being harassed, evicted, or deported some consumers may fear either their housing. provider or governmental agencies. 21 Recommendations/Action Plan Based on the foregoing analysis of impediments affecting the furtherance of fair housing, appropriate strategies have been designed and implemented to eliminate or reduce the impact of said barriers. Additionally, the following recommendations are offered to promote fair housing within this jurisdiction: 1. Increase the educational opportunities relating to Fair Housing through workshops, forums, and presentations; 2. Target specific protected classes (i.e. handicapped persons) for fair housing information; 3. Continue to consult with local lending institutions regarding .their Community Reinvestment Act activities. Monitoring of compliance with the local and federal fair housing laws testing of local lending institution is necessary to ensure equal access to capital for all residents. Meetings should be held with local bank executives to formalize participation in public-private partnerships that further housing opportunities that provide for housing choices for all citizens. Further, public policy. should be created to link public deposits in financial institutions to a commitment by lenders to meet the community reinvestments needs of the County. 4. Continue to provide one-on-one consultation to area landlords to encourage participation in the Section 8 Program. 5. Involve the local housing coalition, ABODE, in all fair housing awareness activities. 6. Provide training to housing providers and consumers about their obligations and rights under the act. Specifically, educate housing providers, consumers and private and public agencies that assist consumers about the Department of Human .Rights and Relations' responsibility for enforcement of the .Act. Provide technical assistance training to property managers, lenders attorneys; builders, etc., on their responsibilities under the law. Educate citizens about their rights under the law; and (4) Educate public and non- profit agencies on how to identify discriminatory practices. 7. Increase the educational opportunities relating to Fair Housing through .workshops, forums, and presentations. 8. Provide fair housing information to specific protected classes. 9. Collaborate with local housing coalitions, ABODE and others in fair housing awareness activities. 10. Conduct training for public and non-profit agencies in Orange County on the fair housing laws, and place fair housing advertisements in the local newspapers. 22 APPENDIX 1997 HMDA Study Summary 1997 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Orange County, North Carolina (Data provided by The Community Reinvestment Association of North Carolina) The top ten lending Institutes by market share in Orange County are: Institution Type Name Rank Rank Rank Rank Share of Orange Stets Share of Share of Loans to County loans to Loans to Low- African- Hispanics Income Americans Bank C®ntral Carolina Bank 1 4 1 4 1 Mort a e Norwest Mort a Inc. 2 3 4 2'' S Credit Union State Employees Credit 3 5 2 2* 2 Union Bank l3rar~h Banking and 4 ~ 1 7 ~i .Trust Co. Bank HilUaborough Savings 5 Nat 11 * 6 Bank Usted . Fnance Green Tree Fnandal 6 2 3 5* 3 Com Mortgage Na#ionsbanc Mortgage 7 8 9* 7 Co . Bank NationsBan NA 8 7 6 9* 10 Mort a Wachovia Mort a e Co. 9 S 17" 9' 12 Bank Centura Bank 10 13 1 ~ « 8 'Multiple Facts Of the 5 banks in the top ten market share in Orange County only two reported malting loans to Hispanic borrowers: CCB (8.3) and NationsBank (2.8) • Of the five banks in the top ten market share in Orange County only three banks reported making loans above two percent of their market share to African Americans: CCB (20.5). NationsBank, NA (3.6), B68~T (3.2) The lender reporting malting more loans in the Orange County Market Share to person in the bw income level was GCB: 14.7 The financial Institution n:porting the highest market Shan: of loans to Hispanics was Oakwood Acceptance Corp.: 19.4 • The African-American to White denial rate of loans from prime lenders is 4:1 . _.~~: • The African-AmQrican tc White denial rate of bans from subprime lenders is 3:1 • African-Americans received 796 of the total amount of loans made by prime lsnden; and 18% of the total number of loans made by subprime tenders County Orange C8t6~ Prime # Loms # Loms tool # ~ulc Wato Tool Bbik Imld W61d Tobi ledatl lender TTps Rlsdi; Whlb Loma Apps Apps Apps Rob Rmhl R>tb Rsh Credit Union 33 336 391 34 341 398 2.9% 0.3% 0.8% Finance Company 6 61 98 24 98 .191 62.5% 22.9°Yo 33.0% Mortgage 56 924 . 1131 93 1102 1447 --18.3% 6.1% 9.3% Savings and Loan 0 3 4 1 4 8 100.0% 25.0% 50.0% Bank 112 1059 1323 219 1290 1787 35.2% 9.1% 15.3% Total for Prime Sum 207 2383 2947 371 2833 3831 Avg 29.9X 7.4X 12.SX Percent of Total 7.02X 80.88X 9.68X 73.95X ~eb~ Subprime # Lams # Loma Tebl # Rledi; Wab Tehl Rledc Iml~ Illdb Tebl Rs~ Leedor TTpe Rledc Wdb Lams Albs . AID Apps Reb Isdel Reb Reb Finance Company 55 196. 309 323: 679 1352 63.8% 44.8% 49.2% Mortgage 18 41 82 47 109 233 40.4% 38.5% 33.5% Total for Subprtme Sum 71 237 391. 370 788 1585 Avg 60.8X 43.9X 46.9X Percent of Total 18.16% 60.81 % 43.34X 49.72X Total for: Orange Sum 278 2620 3338 741. 3621 5416 Avg 45.3X 15.3X 22.SX Percent of Total 8.33X 78.49X 13.88X 66.86X Wednesday, July 14, 1999 ~ Page 68 of 101 Ranlungs d Flnancrl Instituhons m Organga County, NC InsUluGons Soled Gy Type d Lender Paeed PaMab RsBo of Redo Loans Loaned la Loans maG Made h Parced Penom h Whke to Meome to Talsl Bhak To PoMoW Awgape - Bekw IKl% Mharty Low-Income Loar Peraem FUaek YNie Denhl lwwd to kKOme d N Awnpe Yedhn Carty Caaus Name T d kiMkdlon Made Ruck s Rank Ratlo Rack Blaab Rank Rsnk lwn Slm Rack krona Rgnk Tnds Rank Tnds Rank Total Sean Rank BANK OF AMEPoCA FSB Bank 26 19 18. 5 15 4 ~5.7 8 97.5 8 55.1 5 22.2 7 0.50 77 6 9 0.81 081 l0. 9 6.6 9 0 4 7 STANOARO FEDERAL BANK Bank 39 14 6.7 11 0.0 1 3.7 13 1237 12 61.5 6 15.2 11 0. . STATE EMPLOYEE5 CREdT UNION Cradt Unbn 347 3 8 3 8 0.0 1 5.1 9 115.8 10 73.8 9 16.7 9 0.98 12 1.55 15 11 91 5 9 8 Central Carding Bank Bank 414 1 16. 6 5.9 12 7. 5 95.9 7 75.9 10 13.3 14 0.91 11 0.92 . UNITED CAROLINA BANK Bank 22 21 4 l7 00 1 4.5 12 620 4 87.1 13 13.8 13 14 0.32 3 9.6 10 NATIONSBAN N A Bank 98 7 14.7 7 2.4 7 6.6 6 829 6 98.9 19 ]0. ]6 0,47 5 1.05 12 9.8 11 . HILLSBOROUGH SAVINGS BAN SSB Bank 137 5 44 5 36 8 1.8 ]8 1170 11 68.2 8 14.7 12 0 46 14 3 0.14 165 1 I7 10.9 118 13 14 CENTURA BANK Bank 71 9 7.4 9 1i.7 13 2. 17 124.6 13 92.4 14 19.3 B . Branch Banki and Trust Co Bank 238 4 7.1 10 13 9 14 l.5 19 1795 24 94.0 16 10.4 17 0.46 4 1.12 13 14.6 17 OHIO SAVINGS BAN F.S.B. Bank 31 l6 2. 21 00 1 1. 21 .1795 23 100.4 20 4. 22 0.29 1 360 23 16.5 21 VANDERBILT MORTGAGE M • 27 78 305 2 1.0 2 27. 1 31.4 1 29.3 1 75. 1 14 016 2 3.0 1 OANWOOD ACCEPTANCE CORK Finance Com 65 ]0 27.7 3 1.7 6 18. 3 34.0 2 33.4 2 67. 2 14 046 4 4.5 2 OREENTREEFINANCIAL FinanceCom n 122 6 224 4 1.5 3 11.1 4 45.4 3 35.3 3 54.7 3 14 0.53 5 4.9 3 UNITED COMPANIES LENDINGCORP FinanuCom n 22 21 39. 1 I5 5 23 2 801 5 41.8 4 47.4 4 14 25 7.5 5 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC. M 57 12 5.7 13 00 1 4. 11 114.2 9 67.3 7 23.7 5 1.13 13 072 6 8.1 6 NATIONSBANC MORTGAGE CORP M 98 7 5.2 14 00 1 5.1 10 ]51.9 17 93.8 l5 23.3 6 0.64 8 1.14 14 106 12 NORWEST MORTGAGE INC M 356 2 3.5 18 0.0 1 3.5 14 ]69.6 19 86.7 12 7.3 20 0.86 30 190 19 14.1 15 . CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGAGE CORP M 21 22 2.9 22 36 9 22 1290 14 234.3 23 10. 15 0.40 2 0.76 7 14.3 16 BARNETT MORTGAGE COMPANY M a 51 13 0 23 ]5 22- 144.0. 16 784 11 15. 10 14 0.78 8 14.9 18 FIRST UNION MORTGAGE CORP M o 59 11 5.7 12 5.8 11 12 20 168.0 18 411.0 24 9.5 19 0.58 7 1.71 18 161 19 WACHOVIA MORTGAGE COMPANY M BO 8 4.3 16 4.4 10 2.3 16 1712 20 94 3 17 10.3 18 14 238 20 16.4 20 GREENPdNTMORTCAOECORP. M 28 17 3. 20 15 5. 7 1330 15 25 14 2.54 21 167 22 PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES Mo 26 19 3.3 19 15 2.4 15 171.8 21 96.5 18 2.4 24 14 1.56 16 17.8 23 FLEET MORTGAGE CORPORATION M a 35 15 0. 23 15 22 173.7 22 101.3 21 2.4 23 14 3.35 22 20.3 24 Mariw Midland Mort Cor M 0 00 3 15 22 6.3 25 10.1 7 5. 14 7 4 0. 25 CM•NC RanWngs of Financial Institutions in Organge County, NC Alllnstitutionr Percent Portfdo Ratloof Ratlo low Locoed to Low made Made to K Total Peroent Parea/s b VAte to Nlronle to Name Low Parcrt tlhek !Rack To Ydie Oeiol Patfob Loaned to Avenge Income of M Avenya &bw Sll% Nedien MAY Cemut Low~kKOnn Gmua T o(fmGaalon VANDER8ILT MORTGAGE Mo Made Rank Rank Ratlo Rank Blacb Rank wds Rank loan SW .Rank Ilicome Rack Tow Rank Tnw Rank Total Scare Rank OANWOOD ACCEPTANCE CORP Financs Com 27 65 18 0 30.5 2 ] 0 2 27.3 1 31.4 1 29.3 1 75. 1 14 0.16 2 3.0 1 GREEN TREE FINANCIAL Finanp Com n 122 ] 6 277 224 3 1.7 6 18. 3 34.0 2 33.4 2 67. 2 14 0.46 4 4.5 2 BANK OF AMERI FSB Bank 26 4 1.5 3 I1.1 4 45.4 3 35.3 3 54.7 3 14. 0.53 5 4.9 3 UNITED COMPANIES LENOINO CORP Finance COm 22 19 18.6 5 1.5 ' 4 5.7 8 97.5 8 55.1 5 22.2 7 0.50 6 0.81 ]0 6.6 4 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC Mort 21 39 1 1.5 S 23.6 2 80.1 5 41.8 4 47.4 4 14 25 7 5 5 STANDARD F DERAL BANK Bank 57 ]2 5.7 13 0.0 i 4. 11 ]14.2 9 67.3 7 23.7 5 1.13 13 0.72 6 . 8.1 6 STATE EMPLOYEES' CREpT UNION Gedit Union 39 347 14 3 6.7 8 3 ]I 0.0 1 3.7 13 723.7 12 61.5 6 15.2 11 0.77 9 0.81 9 9.0 7 Central Carolina Bank Bank 414 . 8 0.0 1 5.1 9 115.8 10 73.8 9 16.7 9 0.98 12 1.55 15 9.1 8 UNITED CAROLINA BANK Bank 22 1 21 16. 6 5.9 12 7. 5 95.9 7 75.9 ~ 10 13.3 14 0.91 11 0.92 11. 9.5 9 NATIONSBAN N A Bank 98 7 4. 14 7 17 7 0.0 4 2 1 4.5 12 62.0 4 87.1 13 13.8 13 74 0.32 3 9.6 10 NATIONSBANC MORTGAGE CORP M 98 . 7 6. 6 82.9 6 98.9 19 10.8 16 0.47 5 105 12 9.8 11 HILLSBOROUGH SAVINGS BAN SSB Bank 137 7 5 5.2 4 4 14 5 0.0 1 5.1 10 151.9 17 93.8 15 23.3 6 0.64 8 1.14 14 106 12 CENTURA BANK Bank 71 9 . 7 ] 3.6 8 1.8 ]8 1170 11 68.2 8 14.7 12 14 0.14 1 10.9 13 NORWESTMORTGAGE INC Ma 356 2 4 35 9 117 13 2.3 17 1246 13 92.4 14 19.3 8 0.46 3 1.65 17 11.8 1a CHASE MANHATTAN MORTGA(IECORP M a 21 18 00 1 3.5 14 1696 19 86.7 12 7.3 ZO .0.88 10 1.90 19 14.1 15 BrancA Bankin and Trust Co. Bank 238 22 4 2. 7 22 3.6 9 22 129.0 14 234.3 23 10. l5 0.40 2 0.76 7 14.3 16 BARNETT MORTGAGE COMPANY M .1 10 13.9 14 1.5 19 179.5 24 90.0 16 10.4 17 0.46 4 1.12 13 14 6 17 FIRST UNION MORTGAGE CORP. M 51 59 13 11 0. 5 7 23 15 22 144.0 16 78.4 11 15. ]0 14 0.78 8 14.9 18 WACHOVIA MORTGAGE COMPANY M . 12 5.8 17 1.2 20 168.0 18 411.0 24 9.5. 19 0.58 7 1.71 18 16 1 19 OHIO SAVINGS BAN F.S.B. Bank 80 31 8 16 4.3 2 9 16 2 4.4 10 2.3 16 171.2 20 94.3 17 10.3 18 14 2.38 20 . 16.4 20 GREENPOINT MORTGAGE CORP. Mo 28 . 1 00 1 1. 21 179.5 23 100.4 20 4. 22 0.29 1 3.60 23 16 5 21 PHH MORTGAGE SERVICES 26 17 19 3. 3 3 20 15 5. 7 133.0 15 25 14 2.54 21 , 16.7 22 FLEET MORTGAGE CORPORATION M 35 IS . 19 ' 15 2.4 15 171.8 27 96.5 18 24 24 14 1.56 16 17.8 23 Marine MidWnd Mort Cor . Mo 3 0 0. 0 23 15 22 173.7 22 101.3 21 24 23 14 335 22 20.3 24 . 3 15 2 2 .3 0. 5. 4 7.27 24 0.8 25 CM•NC .MSA Summary Indicators of Performance in Serving Minority and Low-Income Households HMDA Mortgage Applications, Denials, and Amount Loaned by Race and Income in 1997 MSA Name: Raleigh-Durham, NC MSA MSA Number. 6640 Ratio of Total Amount Applied Denied Blade to Loaned Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent White (51000s) of Loans: Portfolio Below 80% Median: Black 7,968 9.6% 3,900 25.0% 1.92 $ 171,851 2780 7.5% White: 16,226 19.9% 4,651 16.0% $ 649,386 16226 16.6% Total: 29,644 0,744 $ 919,672 29644 28.4% 80 to 120% Median: Bieck 2,445 3.7% 700 21.2% 2.31. $ 117,126 1299 4.7% White: 0,959 16.8% 1,170 11.2% $ 879,262 8498 19.1% Total: 6,608 2,771 $ 1,116,187 11110 27.1 °k Above 120% Median: Black 1,302 2.3% 248 19.2% 2.76 $ 102,494 826 3.7% White: 13,727 21.8% 804 .10.6% $ 1,846,266 11702 34.2% Total: 18,015 1,660 $ 2,172,900 14126 42.5% Total: Black 11,996 16.6°k 4,882 22.0°k 3.09 $ 409,066- 5084 14.3% White: 42,019 61.7% 6,702 12.9% $ 3,475,458 30198 69.4% Total: 66,466 15,483 $ 4,376,558 40199 Market Share Ratio of Average Average Smallest Percentage by Race White to Income of -Loan Size Loan Made Loans That Aro (Number of Black Market Applicants (51000s) (51000s) FHAIVAIFMHA Black 0.6% $55 $85 $1 23.9% White: 0.6% 1.92 $66 $104. $1 13.9% Total: 0.6% $64 $99 $1 14.7% HMDA Indicators of Performance to Low-Income and Minority Census Tracts Market Share by Minority Ratfo of High-Minority to Population of Census Trail Low-Minority Census Trails Greater than 50% 0.6°~ 1.76 Less than 50% 0.6°k Market Share by In~me Ratio of High-Income to Level of Census Tred Low-Income Census Trails Below 100% Median: 0.6% 1.27 Above 100°~ Median: 0.6% 'Note: Percentages are the trnweighted ave-age scores for aq instituBons in the city. -..L1. Prepared by the Community Reinvestment Assocation of North Carolina Run Date: 7!16/99 County. Summary Indicators of Pertormance in Serving Minority and Low-Income Households HMDA Mortgage Applications, Denials, and Amount Loaned by Race and Income in 1997 County: Orange Applied Denied Ratio of Totai Amount Number Percent' • Number .Percent Black to White Loaned (51000s) Total Number of Loans: Percent Portfolio Beiow 80% Median: B{ack 257 5.4°~ 126 29.8°k 2.31 $ 3,996 97 3.1°~ White: 855 23.7°k 208 15.8% $ 33,366 855 15.0% Total: 1,202 353 $ 39,975 1202 18.8% 80 to 120°h Median: Black 71 1.9% 20 20.7°~ 2.24 $ 3,058 41 1.9°k White: 527 17.6% 47 9.9% $ 43,883. 428 15.9% Total: 673 79 $ 51,820 515 19.3% Above 120% Median: Black 41 1.0°~ 6 16.8% 5.62 $ 4,328 33 1.7°~ White: 1,039 38.7% 33 7.3°r6 $ 171,658 940 53.0% Total: 1,200 53 $ 191,785 1057 59.6°~ Total: .Black 370 8.4% 153 23.0% 3.38 $ 11,382 171 5.1% White: 2,456 81.4% 288 10.3°k $ 253,090 1922 85.2% Total: 3,154 489 $ 292,565 2298 Market Share Ratio. of Average Average Smallest Percentage by Race White to Income of Loan Size. Loan Made Loans That Are . (Number of Black Market Applk:ar-ts (51000s) (a1000s) FHAlVAlFMHA Black 3.6% $270. $79 $1 13.6°~ White: 4.3% 1.80 $92 $131 $2 4.0% Total: 4.1% $98 $129 $1 4.3% HMDA Indicators of Pertorrnance to Low-Income and Minority Census Tracts Market Share by Minority Ratio of High-Minority to Population of Census Trail Low-Minority Census Trails Greater than 50% 4.5% 0.69 Less than 50% 4.0% .: ,. Market Share by Income Ratio of High-Income to Lsve! of Census Tract Low-income Census Tract Below 100% Median: 3.9°!0 1.40 Above 100% Median: 4.2% *Note: Porrentages are the unwieighted average scores for all institutions In the county. Prepared by the Community Reinvestment Assocatlon of North Carolina Run Date; 7!16/99 FAIR HOUSING PLAN PAGE 14. Much of the report has housixig broken down by Urban and rural areas. Yet that is not done for tl~.e average sales li~ice of a zlew single family home. Ltuuping together all housing costs, matching Chapel Hill with Cedar Grove, yields a $265,000 average that is misleadingly high for non-metropolitan areas. 15. Rework sentence in fifth paragraph that begins "Fox these fa~nnilies" so it zeads: "Renting a three bedaoom dwelling unit in the County required these families to send at least 35 pexcent of their montlxly incorx~e on rent." Also, in the preceding sentence that begins "In 1997", should the sentence read. "In 1997, the upper level income limit for a very low izzcome family of four was $2,011 1?ER MONTH"? 19. Under "Provision of Bzokerage Services" I seriously question the statement that no major impediments are identified. I'd add here: "Anecdotal indications of prejudice against I-Iispanics have been idei~,tified." 20. Second paragraph under Public Policies,. last sentence should read, "However; neither individuals nor for-profit..." Under Residential Segregation, I propose that tlae end of the first paragraph read: "This spatial segregation is not primarily a product of individual choice, but appeazs to be based on i.ncor~ie, neighborhood history; and inadequate proscriptions axed incentives for developers to provide appropriate housing." 22. An observation -- Recommendations two and eigl~.t axe almost identical I would add five ix~ore reconunendations to this section, at least for discussion: 1. Btuld illcerltives aa~d proscriptions into Orange County regulations for plaxuied unit developz~~ents that promote provision of affordable, non-spatially segregated housing. 2. Study and promote other land-use strategies that encourage provision o£ affording lousing. 3. Develop reasonable evaluative cziteria aid produce azz annual reportt to the Board of County Commissioners on lending practices by fiz~aneial institutions operating within Orange County, If repeat bias is shown, the county should cease to do business with. iu~stitutions failing to employ inclusive lending practices, 4. Work with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill to promote provision of campus housing that would relieve pressure txxat drives up cost and 1zznits availability of local rental units. S. Work formally with HUD to address Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for Orange _ County. that lead to inadequate subsidy of rental housing costs for eligible families. Barry Jacobs 10-7-99 ~~6~ k~