HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda 01-16-24; 6-a - Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) Funding Recommendations for FY 2023-24 Affordable Housing Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Funds and Remaining 2016 Bond Funds 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: January 16, 2024
Action Agenda
Item No. 6-a
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) Funding Recommendations for FY
2023-24 Affordable Housing Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Funds and
Remaining 2016 Bond Funds
DEPARTMENT: Housing
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Attachment 1: FY 2023-24 Orange Erica Cormack, Community Development
County Affordable Housing Program Manager, (919) 884-9213
Proposal Scoring Matrix Bonnie Hammersley, County Manager,
Attachment 2: Summary of Applications (919) 245-2300
Attachment 3: AHAB Applications Scores
Attachment 4: Resolution
Attachment 5: December 19, 2023
Orange County Affordable
Housing Advisory Board
(AHAB) Minutes
PURPOSE: To consider adoption of a resolution awarding funds for the FY 2023-24 Capital
Investment Plan (CIP) Affordable Housing request for proposals (RFP) process based on the
funding recommendations from the Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB).
BACKGROUND: The FY 2023-2033 Adopted Capital Investment Plan (CIP) includes $5 million
for Affordable Housing development in each of the fiscal years FY 2023-24, FY 2026-27 and FY
2029-30. A total of $15 million for affordable housing development will be allocated over the ten-
year plan. The FY 2023-24 Affordable Housing funds of$5 million includes an additional $700,000
of remaining bond funds from 2016.
Additionally, at its June 20, 2023 Business meeting, the BOCC declared eleven (11) parcels of
County-owned land as surplus for affordable housing. The County may:
o Sell the properties by negotiated sale to either a public or private entity for the purpose of
developing affordable housing for persons of low to moderate income (the property could
be offered for below market rates to serve as a subsidy for the affordable housing project).
o Lease the property to a public or private entity for the purpose of developing affordable
housing for persons of low to moderate income (the lease rate could also be negotiated
below market rate to serve as a subsidy for the affordable housing project); and
o If there are no developers interested in the above options, sell the property on the private
market with the proceeds of the sale dedicated to other affordable housing projects.
On July 26, 2023, a request for proposals (RFP) was released which included the eleven (11)
parcels of County-owned land. The eligible proposals are for new construction and/or
2
rehabilitation for homeownership and/or rental development affordable to low-income households.
The proposed projects may be mixed-use and/or mixed income. As outlined in the State of North
Carolina's Olmstead settlement agreement, no more than 20% of residential units may be set
aside for people with disabilities and land banking is not an eligible use of the funds.
The eligible applicants for funding are non-profit organizations involved in affordable housing and
community development (including faith-based organizations), for-profit developers, and joint
ventures between eligible non-profit and for-profit entities.
The proposal evaluation scoring matrix (see Attachment 1) considers the following factors for
each proposed project:
(1) income and vulnerable population targeting,
(2) targeting of households currently living and/or working in Orange County,
(3) leveraging of other funding sources,
(4) building and site design, including environmental sustainability and accessibility
features,
(5) community design, including neighborhood compatibility and location,
(6) community sponsorship, engagement, and support,
(7) project feasibility, and
(8) developer experience.
The application cycle opened on July 26, 2023, and closed on Sept 28, 2023. The County
received ten (10) proposals. The Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) reviewed the
applications for the 2023-24 CIP Affordable Housing Bond Program on November 14, 2023, and
December 19, 2023. Based on the scoring matrix and discussion of the projects, AHAB proposes
the following funding recommendations:
Funding AHAB Funding
Requested Score Recommendation
Cedar Village (CASA) $825,000.00 191.1 $825,000.00
Homestead Horizons $3,533,173.00 187.3 $733,500.00
CASA
Davie Circle $500,000.00 158.5 $500,000.00
EmPOWERMENT, Inc.
Wentworth Conveyance of 178.1 Conveyance of Land
EmPOWERMENT, Inc. Land
Homestead $1,000,000.00 150.5 $825,000.00
EmPOWERMENT, Inc.
East Village (Habitat) $3,700,000.00 189.7 $800,000.00
Hill Street (Pee Wee $166,500.00 178.4 $166,500.00
Homes)
Trinity Court (Community $950,000.00 191.3 $950,000.00
Housing Partners)
Homestead Gardens $900,000.00 176.0 $900,000.00
(Community Home Trust
Shady Acres $6,998,820.00 Incomplete $0
Total: $18,573,493.00 $5,700,000.00
3
The proposals are summarized below with AHAB's funding recommendations, and also
addressed in Attachment 2.
Cedar Village (CASA): $825,000
Community Partners: DR Horton
The proposal requests funds for the construction of three (3), twenty-four (24) unit residential
buildings, and one community building that will serve households at or below 30% to 60% Area
Median Income (AMI). The project will also include eight units set aside for referrals from Veterans
Bridge Home to address a Town of Hillsborough request for housing to serve veterans with
disabilities. Cedar Village will be developed as a Low-Income Housing Tax Credit community to
finance the project, allowing CASA to leverage significant private capital and debt with a relatively
small funding commitment from local partners. The site is a part of Collins Ridge, a new market-
rate subdivision developed by DR Horton, which will comprise over nine hundred (900) total
single-family homes, townhomes, and apartments upon completion.
Homestead Horizons (CASA): $733,500
Community Partners: UNC, Town of Chapel Hill, Self-Help, Community Home Trust and Habitat
for Humanity
The proposal requests funds to develop a thirty-two (32) unit apartment building that will provide
affordable housing for households earning less than 30% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The
project will be funded with the purpose of assisting in the development of the apartment building,
which will be subject to affordability restrictions for at least ninety-nine (99) years. The building
will be managed by UNC Horizons and will be operated as supportive housing for low-income
families with children headed by women in recovery from substance abuse. Homestead Horizons
is part of a larger effort to address the affordable housing crisis in Chapel Hill and will provide
much-needed housing options for low-income families in the area.
Davie Circle (EMPOWERment, Inc.): $500,000
Community Partner(s): N/A
The proposal requests funds for the acquisition of an existing rental property, which consists of
eight (8) affordable housing units in Chapel Hill, NC. This project is for individuals earning between
30%-60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Specifically, the project aims to acquire eight rental
units in a centrally located complex, which offers proximity to the UNC Campus, UNC hospitals,
Franklin Street, and numerous other businesses. EMPOWERment aims to allow low-income
households to reside in Chapel Hill while ensuring long-term affordability. This property is
considered Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH) and is currently occupied by seven
(7) families in the targeted AMI range 30%-60%.
Wentworth (EMPOWERment, Inc.): Conveyance of Land for PEACH II
Community Partner(s): N/A
The conveyance of the parcel of land will be used to produce affordable housing in Chapel Hill
catering to populations earning below 60% AMI. This project will be called PEACH II and, similar
to the PEACH Apartments, it will have access to public transportation. The units will be centrally
located, within walking distance to the UNC campus, Hospital, Franklin Street, schools, shopping
and other businesses.
4
Homestead (EMPOWERment, Inc.): $825,000
Community Partner(s): N/A
The proposal requests funds for the acquisition of ten (10) single-family homes located off
Homestead Road in Chapel Hill. This project will target people who are earning below 80% AMI.
This is a Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing property (NOAH). All ten (10) households are
currently occupied and, if funded, the occupants will not be displaced. This project will ensure that
communities like this one will remain safe and affordable. In the future, homes that become
available will be occupied by individuals who earn between 30% to 60% of the area median
income (AMI). These homes will remain affordable. EMPOWERment will identify funds to make
needed rehab and repairs and ensure the quality, health, and safety of the homes over the
affordability period.
East Village (Habitat): $800,000
Community Partner(s): N/A
The proposal requests funds to develop site infrastructure in contribution to the delivery of
seventy-six (76) needed new units of housing in Orange County. Of these units, sixty-four (64)
will be affordable Habitat homes sold to first-time homebuyers earning between 30% and 80% of
AMI. The remaining twelve (12) units (15%) in East Village will be market-rate homes. The project
has a mixed-income design and inclusion of two-story duplexes prioritizes smart density and
meaningful community interaction to create social and economic benefits for East Village
residents and the broader community.
Hill Street (Pee Wee Homes): $166,500
Community Partner(s): N/A
The proposal requests funds for the development of three (3) residences targeting Orange County
community members who have experienced chronic homelessness or are currently homeless and
have incomes below 30% AMI. The land these homes will be built on is located within the
Northside neighborhood and is right across the street from Baldwin Park and two blocks from
downtown Carrboro. By building in this neighborhood, the project leverages an existing
community asset to allow for tenants to live independently within the context of community.
Trinity Court (Community Housing Partners): $950,000
Community Partner(s): Town of Chapel Hill
The proposal requests funds for the redevelopment of fifty-four(54) affordable rental units serving
households earning from below 30% up to 80% AMI. Trinity Court will be comprised of twenty (20)
two-bedroom, twenty (20)three-bedroom, and fourteen (14) one-bedroom units. The range of unit
sizes and types will provide opportunities to serve target populations, including individuals,
families with children, persons with disabilities, individuals or families transitioning out of
homelessness, holders of housing vouchers, and others. Trinity will be developed under the
Housing and Urban Development(HUD) Rental Assistance Demonstration Program (RAD), which
will provide the property with a forty (40) unit project based rental assistance contract allowing for
forty (40) of the fifty-four (54) households to pay no more than 30% of their income towards
housing costs. The remaining fourteen (14) units will be subject to Low-Income Housing Tax
Credit requirements and income and rent restrictions.
5
Homestead Gardens (Community Home Trust): $900,000
Community Partner(s): Self-Help, CASA, Habitat for Humanity of Orange County, and Town of
Chapel Hill
The proposal requests funds for the development of twenty-one (21) townhomes, earmarked for
individuals and families earning 65% to 80% AMI The target population for the project is families
and individuals whose income falls within 80% or below the Area Median Income (AMI) threshold
and who either reside in or are employed in Orange County. The Homestead Gardens initiative,
situated at 2200 Homestead Road in Chapel Hill, represents a pioneering strategy for advancing
affordable housing through a distinctive collaborative framework. Notably, among these units, up
to three (3) will feature an integrated Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), facilitating housing options
for those earning below 65% of AMI.
Shady Acres (Shady Acres, LLC): $0
Community Partner(s): NA
The proposal requests funds to develop forty-two (42) units. Of the forty-two (42) dwellings, six
(6) of the units would be reserved for 30% to 60% AMI, ten (10) of the units would be reserved for
60% to 80% AMI, and all units would serve a Special Needs Population of elderly residents over
sixty-two (62) years of age and / or Veterans with a priority on those with disabilities. Located on
Sawmill Road in Cedar Grove and within walking distance of Cedar Grove Community Center,
this subdivision would provide forty (40) dwellings, two (2) Community Gardens and a Community
Amphitheater with a Gathering Room attached.
AHAB's scoring of the applications using the evaluation scoring matrix approved by the Board of
Orange County Commissioners earlier this year is detailed in Attachment 3. The Affordable
Housing Advisory Board members made the decision to exclude the Shady Acres application
based on the application being incomplete.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The FY 2023-2033 Adopted Capital Investment Plan (CIP) includes $5
million in FY 2023-24 for the purpose of requesting for proposals (RFP) for Affordable Housing
development from nonprofit organizations involved in affordable housing and community
development (including faith-based organizations), for-profit developers, and joint ventures
between eligible non-profit and for-profit entities. Additionally, $700,000 in remaining funds are
included from the November 2016 bond referendum.
SOCIAL JUSTICE IMPACT: The following Orange County Social Justice Goals are applicable to
this item:
• GOAL: FOSTER A COMMUNITY CULTURE THAT REJECTS OPPRESSION AND
INEQUITY
The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race or color;
religious or philosophical beliefs; sex, gender or sexual orientation; national origin or ethnic
background; age; military service; disability; and familial, residential or economic status.
• GOAL: ENSURE ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY
The creation and preservation of infrastructure, policies, programs and funding necessary
for residents to provide shelter, food, clothing and medical care for themselves and their
dependents.
6
• GOAL: CREATE A SAFE COMMUNITY
The reduction of risks from vehicle/traffic accidents, childhood and senior injuries, gang
activity, substance abuse and domestic violence.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: There are no Orange County Environmental Responsibility Goal
impacts applicable to this item. Before implementation, all proposed projects will undergo review
according to applicable planning, zoning, and environmental health authorities.
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board adopt and authorize the
Chair to sign the attached Resolution awarding funds for the FY 2023-24 CIP Affordable Housing
RFP process based on the funding recommendations from the Affordable Housing Advisory Board
(AHAB).
7
Orange County Affordable Housing Bond Program Application
Scoring Form
FY 2023-24 Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Funding Cycle
Scorecard Instructions
Move through each tab of this scorecard and follow the directions at the top of each tab. Throughout the scorecard,
only enter information in green boxes;orange boxes will auto fill.Summary information will appear in the Scorecard
Summary section below.
Fill in the applicant name and your name below.
Applicant Name:
Scorer Name:
Scorecard Summary
Category Points Total points possible
1. Income Targeting and Special Needs 45
2. Local Residency 0 0
3. Leveraging 52
4. Building and Site Design 20
5. Community Design 20
6. Community Sponsorship/Support 20
7. Project Feasibility 30
8. Developer Experience 42
Total points ® 234
8
0.Threshold requirements
Place an "X"in the green box by each threshold requirement that has been met.
=The application is complete with all required attachments and was submitted by the established deadline
=The project aligns with local affordable housing goals,strategies,and/or adopted policies
Funding is for an eligible activity
9
1.Income Targeting and Special Needs(45 Points)
What income range(s)and population(s)will the proposed project serve?
Indicate the number of units serving each income range in the green boxes under"Income Targeting." Place an X in one green box under"Special Needs."Orange boxes will auto-fill.
Income Targeting Special Needs'
Number of units Prorated points Does the project serve people with special housing needs?
F-161-80%AMI(10 points) =Yes(20 points)
=31-60%AMI(15 points) =No(0 points)
=30%AMI or below(25 points) =Subtotal
=Total units Subtotal
'Defined as people with disabilities,veterans,people experiencing homelessness,holders of Housing Choice or other vouchers,and survivors of domestic violence
-TOTAL POINTS
10
2. Local Residency (5 Points)
What percentage of the proposed project will provide housing for Orange County residents?
Place an 'Y'in one green box by the appropriate percent of targeted units. Orange boxes will auto fill.
Percent of current Orange County residents'at sale or lease-up
�0-50%(0 points)
�50-80%(2 points)
�80-100%(5 points)
®TOTAL POINTS
1 Defined as households currently residing or working in Orange County or having resided in Orange County
11
3. Leveraging (52 points)
To what degree does the proposed project include other sources of funds?
Use the space below to calculate leverage, then place an "X"in one green box by the appropriate leveraging ratio. Orange boxes will auto fill.
Percent Funded bV County Funding Other Criteria
=81-100% (0 points) =Project pays property taxes(2 points)'
=60-80%(3 points) These two are mutually exclusive=Project repays bond funds-principal only(3 points)'
=40-59%(6 points) These two are mutually exclusive=Project repays bond funds-P+1 (10 points)'
=20-39%(9 points) =Project is mixed-income(10 points)Z
=10-19%(15 points) =Project is mixed-use(10 points)3
=<10%(20 points) 1 These criteria do not apply to nonprofit sponsored projects Subtotal
=Subtotal z Meaning it serves more than one income range(including market rate)and minimizes geographic conentration
of affordable units
Caculate leverage
County funds (including Bond request) 'Meaning it includes non-residential uses that offer access to employment daily needs,and health and human
services
Other funds(non-County)
Percent County funding ®TOTAL POINTS
12
4. Building and Site Design (20 points)
Assign a number of points in the green boxes below according to your best judgment. You may provide a narrative explanation for each.
Narrative
Project incorporates sustainable design elements,
such as smaller building sizes, use of local/recycled
building materials, energy efficient features,'
LED lighting, water conservation fixtures, efficient
HVAC systems, etc. (up to 5 points)
Project provides handicap accessibilty and/or
incorporates Universal Design (up to 5 points)
Project incorporates sustainable community and
environmental design elements, such as flexible
lot design, low impact development, storm water
controls, reduced impervious surface areas,
natural or drought-resistant landscaping, or any
other additional element that would serve to
minimize negative environmental impacts, as
Orange County regulations allow(up to 5 points)
Project is connected to water and sewer service,
will connect to existing service, or will use a
community well and sewer system consistent
with water and sewer boundary agreements
and local standards (up to 5 points)
TOTAL POINTS
1 Project meets/excceds NCHFA energy criteria: https://www.nchfo.com/sites/default/files/pace attachments/QAP20FinalAppendixe.pdf
2See: https://www.wbda.ora/desian-obiectives/accessible/beyond-accessibility-universal-design
13
S. Community Design (20 points)
Assign a number of points in the green boxes below according to your best judgment. You may provide a narrative explanation for each.
Narrative
F_iProject contributes to a mix of housing within
existing neighborhood (up to 3 points)
=Bonus points for building appearance, quality of
construction, compatibility with surrounding
housing, ability to foster a sense of a secure
community, and contribution to neighborhood
revitalization and/or affordable housing
preservation (details must be provided by
applicant(up to 5 points)
=Project is accessible to services such as healthcare,
schools, groceries, etc.(up to 4 points)
=Public transportation,to include a bus route or
on-demand service (or equivalent), and related
facilities are available (e.g., bus shelters,
accessible stops, etc.) (up to 5 points)
=Project is located in an area of the county
traditionally underserved by housing development
(up to 3 points)
-TOTAL POINTS
14
6. Community Sponsorship/Support (20 points)
Assign a number of points in the green boxes below according to your best judgment. You may provide a narrative explanation for each.
Narrative
=Applicant can show evidence that they coordinated
with other organizations to complement/support
the proposed project(up to 6 points)
=Applicant can show evidence that they involved
the intended beneficiaries of the project in the
planning process and that the outreach and
marketing plan is inclusive (up to 6 points)
=Applicant can demonstrate it has been actively
involved, or describe the steps it will take to
become actively involved, in the County's
Consolidated Planning process to identify and
address a housing need related to the proposed
project(up to 4 points)
=Applicant has developed, or can demonstrate
plans to develop, links with other community
activities to provide holistic community services
(up to 4 points)
"TOTAL POINTS
15
7. Project Feasibility (30 points)
Assign a number of points in the green boxes below according to your best judgment.
=Applicant can demonstrate site control,zoning compliance, and timely and feasible construction schedule(up to 10 points)
Funding(other than County funding)is in place at time of application (up to 10 points)
=Applicant presents a proposed budget and financial model appropriate based on reasonable assumptions(up to 10 points)
®Total points
16
8. Developer Experience (40 points)
Assign a number of points in the green boxes below according to your best judgment.
=Applicant has experience carrying out comparable projects to that proposed and has met regulatory compliance for
previous projects(up to 10 points)
=Applicant has a proposed team with demonstrated development, managerial, and financial management capabilities in
prior projects(up to 10 points)
=Applicant and team members have a successful record of meeting proposed budgets and timelines(up to 10 points)
=Project sponsor is a nonprofit housing provider(up to 10 points)
-Total points
17
FY2023-24 CIP AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPLICATION
SUMMARY
CASA-Homestead EMPOWERment-Davie EMPOWERment-
CASA-Cedar Village Horizons Circle Wentworth
Funding Request $825,000 $3,533,173 $500,000 Requesting Land
Conveyance
Consists of three 24-unit Consists of a 32-unit Acquisition of a NOAH,
residential buildings and apartment building consisting of 8 apartments. Consists of 10 units,
Project Description one community building targeting households The target population targeting individuals who
targeting households at or earning earn less than 30% serves those below 80% earn below 80%AMI.
below 30 to 60%AMI AMI AMI
#of Affordable Units 72 32 8 10
Incomes
<30%AMI—28 Units <30%AMI—32 Units <30%AMI-4 Units <30%AMI—2 Units
31-60%AMI—44 Units 31-60%AMI -4 Units 31-60%AMI—8 Units
Project Location Located off S Churton St, Located off Homestead Rd, Located off Franklin Street. Located off Wentworth
Hillsborough, NC Chapel Hill, NC 40 Davie Circle Street, Chapel Hill, NC
% Funded by County 5% 43% 18% N/A
18
FY2023-24 CIP AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPLICATION
SUMMARY
EMPOWERment- Habitat for Humanity-East Community Housing Community Home Trust—
Homestead Village Pee Wee Homes-Hill Street Partners—Trinity Court Homestead Gardens
$1,000,000 $3,700,000 $166,500 $950,000 $900,000
Acquisition of a NOAH, Consists of 64 new Consists of 3 residences Consists of 54 affordable Consists of 21 townhomes,
consisting of 10 apartments. townhomes serving
The target population is residents and workers targeting community ° rental units serving earmarked for
those target
below 80% earning bet30%and members making below 30% households earning from individuals and families
AMI g etet AMI AMI below 30%up to 80%AMI earning 65 to 80%AMI
10 64 3 54 19
<30%AMI—14 Units
31-60%AMI—10 Units 31-60%AMI—52 Units <30%AMI—3 Units 31-60%AMI—31 Units 31-60%AMI—3 Units
61-80%AMI—12 Units >61-80%AMI—16 Units
>61-80%AMI—9 Units
Located off Homestead Located at 1317 US 70A, Located at 106 Hill Street, located at 751 Trinity Court, Located off Homestead Rd,
Road,Chapel Hill,NC Hillsborough, NC. Carrboro, NC Chapel Hill, NC Chapel Hill, NC
40% 18% 31% 5% 14%
19
Attachment 3
AHAB SCORES - FY2023-24 CIP APPLICATION
CASA- EMPOWER EMPOWERm EMPOWER Habitat for Pee Wee Community Community
CASA-Cedar Homestead ment-Davie ent- ment- Humanity Homes-Hill Housing Home Trust
Village Horizons Wentworth -East Street Partners- -Homestead
Circle Homestead
Village Trinity Court Gardens
$825,000 $3,533,173 Requesting
Bond Request $500,000 Land $1,000,000 $3,700,000 $166,500 $950,000 $900,000
Conveyance
#Units/Cost Per Unit 72/$11,458 32/$110,412 8/$62,500 N/A 10/$100,000 64/$57,813 3/$55,500 54/$17,593 21/$42,857
1)Incomes and Vulnerable 33.35 33.4 27.T 25.6
Populations
2)Local Residency 5.0 4.8 4.5 3.33 4.67 5.0 4.6 5.0 5.0
3)Leveraging 36.0 16.3 21.9 28.5 14.8 1F 25.8 9.3 32.4 24.8
4)Building and Site Design 17.7 17.3 2.0 12.0 6.4 20.0 19.0 18.7 18.4
5)Community Design 17.5 19.4 19.3 19.2 15.8 17.9 19.6 19.0 17.4
6)Community Sponsorship 16.17 19.0 17.4 18.6 18.2 18.2 19.0 17.4 17.7
7)Feasibility 25.3 29.5 27.5 24.3 23.8 27.8 30.0 28.2 27.7
8)Experience 40.0 40.0 39.3 38.8 39.0 39.2 39.5 39.3 39.3
Total Score 191.1 187.3 158.5 178.1 150.5 189.7 178.43 191.3 176.0
20
RES-2024-001 Attachment 4
ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION AWARDING FUNDS FOR THE
FY 2023-24 CAPITAL INVESTMENT PLAN
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Orange County Board of Commissioners, upon recommendation by
the Orange County Affordable Housing Advisory Board, to approve the following awards for the
FY 2023-24 Capital Investment Plan Affordable Housing Program:
CASA
Funds will be allocated to CASA as a grant for development of three (3) 24-unit residential
buildings and one community building in Hillsborough. Units will be used for households at or
below 30%-60%AMI (Requested amount: $825,000) $825,000
Funds will be allocated to CASA for the development of a thirty-two (32)unit apartment
building in Chapel Hill that will provide affordable housing for households earning less than
30% of the Area Median Income (AMI). (Requested amount: $3,533,173) $733,500
EMPOWERment, Inc.
Funds will be allocated to EMPOWERment, Inc. for the acquisition of an existing rental
property, which consists of eight(8) affordable housing units in Chapel Hill,NC. This project is
for individuals earning between 30%-60% of the Area Median Income (AMI)
(Requested amount: $500,000) $500,000
The county will transfer parcels 9778941099, 9778941081, and 9778930971 to
EMPOWERment, Inc. (Request, Conveyance of Land)
Conveyance of Land
Funds will be allocated to EMPOWERment, Inc. for the acquisition of ten (10) single-family
homes located off Homestead Road community in Chapel Hill. This project will target people
who are earning below 80%AMI. (Requested amount: $1,000,000) $825,000
Habitat for Humanity of Orange County
Funds will be allocated to Habitat for Humanity of Orange County for the development of site
infrastructure in contribution to the delivery of seventy-six(76)needed new units of housing in
Orange County. Of these units, sixty-four(64)will be affordable Habitat homes sold to first-time
homebuyers earning from 30%-80% of AMI. (Requested amount: $3,700,000) $800,000
Pee Wee Homes
Funds will be allocated to Pee Wee Homes for the development of three (3)residences targeting
Orange County community members who have experienced chronic homelessness or are
currently homeless and have incomes below 30%AMI.
(Requested amount: $166,500) $166,500
21
Community Housing Partners
Funds will be allocated to Community Housing Partners for the redevelopment of fifty-four(54)
affordable rental units serving households earning from below 30%up to 80%AMI. Trinity
Court will be comprised of twenty (20) two-bedroom, twenty(20) three bedroom, and fourteen
(14) one-bedroom units in Chapel Hill
(Requested amount: $950,000) $950,000
Community Home Trust
Funds will be allocated to Community Home Trust for the development of twenty-one (2 1)
townhomes, earmarked for individuals and families earning 65%-80%AMI in Chapel Hill
(Requested amount: $900,000) $900,000
This is the 16th day of January, 2024.
Jamezetta Bedford, Chair
Orange County Board of Commissioners
SEAL
22
nORANGECOUNTY
HOUSING DEPARTMENT
Orange County Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) Minutes
Tuesday, December 19th, 2023 at 6:00 PM
Whiffed BOCC Meeting Room
Members Present: Kyle Myers,Andrew Robinson, Lynn Nilson, Dion Graham, Hasan Abdullah, Holly
Meschko, Mary T.
Staff Present: Bonnie Hammersley(Interim Director, Housing),Travis Myren (Interim County Manager),
Erica Cormack(Community Development Manager, Housing),Thomas McCallister(Community
Development Analyst, Housing)
I. Call to Order: 6:03
II. Approval of minutes(5 minutes)
Lynn moved to approve minutes, approved by holly and seconded by kyle
III. Updates(10 minutes)
a. Board Members
No member updates
b. Staff
Lynn: Lets approve the meeting minutes. Does anybody have any questions? Okay, any changes or
edits?Okay. Could I have a motion to approve the minutes?
Holly: I motion
Kyle: Second
Lynn:The November agenda is approved. Are there any member updates?
Erica: We do have staff updates. In our January meeting, we're gonna have to work on our annual
report and work plan instead of having outside agency presentations.Then for our March meeting,
we will do outside agency scoring and February meeting, we'll do outside agency presentations. Do
you have any other staff updates?
Bonnie: I'm Bonnie Hamersley, I'm the Orange County Manager. I've currently been acting as the
interim housing director for the last two months. I'm here tonight just to provide any clarification
you all might need. Also,Travis Mirren, my deputy manager is on the zoom, he will provide
clarification on the leveraging. We did change the process a little with the scoring sheet and we hope
going forward,that we will keep this format. We appreciate the important work you're doing.
23
Kyle: February outside agency presentations, and March outside agency scoring,that means that no
decisions will be made until that time?
Erica: Until the March meeting
Kyle: There are applicants who had some deadlines with the towns that expire before that so thats
something we probably need to communicate.
Bonnie:The outside agency presentations are for fiscal year 2024-25 funding. Outside agencies
applications are due January 15,the county reviews those and then we distribute them.Then in late
March, I meet with every outside agency after you all have listened to and ranked them.They do not
receive funding until July 1 of 2024 because I make a recommendation to the Board of Orange
County Commissioners as to what their funding should be.That shouldn't change anything for
outside agencies because they don't usually know what their funding is until May 2nd,when I
present the recommended budget to the board.
Kyle: Wasn't there some 2023 money also involved?
Bonnie:That's what we're talking about tonight.This is the RFP for affordable housing money. $5
million was for CIP and then there was$700,000 that was heldover from the bond.That's why we
have $5.7 million tonight.That is separate of the outside agencies. Our hope is that what we
complete tonight we will be able to take to the board on January 16 for approval.
Holly: I had a question. When I was doing the scoring, I saw in the column, a smaller number, and
when I did the scoring there was a higher number. I dont understand why that was.
Erica: Thomas went through and made sure that the scoring was consistent.
Holly: Okay, thanks.
IV. Score RFP Applications (75 minutes)
Erica: So what staff have done is we've gone through every application, and we're just showing the
average awards for each one.
Lynn: I had a question about how the local and residency was tabulated, because I weighted them.
Did everybody else do it that way?
Hasan: I had a similar question, if you're talking about the AMI categories, I struggled on how to
weight them based on the different AMI categories the application was requesting. In addition I
think that quantity matters and in the scoring I think that nuance was missed.
Lynn: So that we're consistent, how did everybody calculate that?
Erica: Also,Thomas updated some of the scores. Did you want to talk about that?
Thomas:There were some scores that did not reflect the scorecard accurately so scores that went
over the highest possible score on the scorecard, I just applied the highest possible score.That's
essentially all that I changed.
24
Bonnie: I made a mistake on the AMI portion when I drafted the form and someone caught that
correct?
Erica:Yes,Thomas and I caught and corrected that.
Lynn: Does anyone have more questions about allocating percentage of units?
Kyle: Clarifies his approach scoring AMI percentage.
Erica: The 45 should have also included the special needs population.
Andrew: Expresses concern with scoring and states that we need to fix scoring matrix moving
forward in order to avoid the problems.
Kyle: I thought it was very helpful the way that you guys broke up the three different empowerment
projects.
Bonnie:Travis do you want to provide some clarification on how we scored applicants that used
county land?
Travis: Applicants using a county parcel,that site control is pretty much guaranteed so they should
score perfectly on that metric.
a) Discussion on Final Scores
Mary: expresses her surprise with leveraging being 20 points below.
Kyle: I believe CHP should be the top of the list because it's shovel ready.They can start building it
immediately. So I agree that it should have scored the highest.
Andrew: States that he agrees, it makes sense for CHP to be at the top of the list because they are
shovel ready.
Hasan: I agree with Kyle, shovel ready is really important to me.
b) Discussion on Pee Wee Homes
Travis: Explained the role of leveraging in the scorecard and the importance of external funding.
Lynn: Noted that many Pee Wee Homes project elements in the leveraging section are not
applicable.
Holly: Voiced her support for Pee Wee Homes' high score.
Hasan: Raised concerns about the income targeting category possibly inflating Pee Wee Homes'
score.
25
Kyle: Pointed out the impact of larger projects over smaller ones when considering cost per unit. RFP
Creation and Review
Lynn: Suggested collaboration between the board and staff for the next RFP due to existing
confusion.
Bonnie: Agreed to have the board review the next RFP,which she has revised.
c) Discussion on Empowerment(Wentworth)
Kyle: Asks if this should be included since it was just for land conveyance.
Bonnie: Explains that this RFP includes land conveyance.
Lynn: Asks for clarification on Wentworth building plans.
Erica: Explains the Wentworth building plans.
Kyle: Explains that he did not give Wentworth high scores on the leveraging section because many of
the fields were not applicable, also explains special needs scoring confusion.
d) Discussion on CHT
Kyle: Expresses that he scored CHT higher than other members.
e) Discussion on CASA(Cedar Village)
Lynn: Praised the project's location and cost-to-unit ratio.
Holly: Noted changes in the project's scope over time.
f) Discussion on Habitat for Humanity
Kyle: Explained his higher scoring for Habitat, particularly in the leveraging section.
Lynn: Expressed a desire for more emphasis on environmental sustainability in project scoring.
g) Discussion on CASA(Homestead)
Kyle: Asks if the scoring for leveraging is low due to the amount of county funds being requested.
Lynn: Confirms this is why they scored low in the leveraging section, Explains this would be part of
the larger homestead project.
Kyle: Voices his concerns about the homestead project due to CASA's finances
h) Discussion on Empowerment(Davie Circle)
Erica: Highlighted that this is a NOAH project, seeking clarity on future scoring for such projects.
Kyle: Agrees with Erica that it is important the board score NOAH's move favorably moving forward,
Commented on the low building design score due to the project's existing structure and lack of
renovation plans.
26
Lynn: Agrees the lack of renovation plans are the reasons for her low scores as well.
Lynn: How old is the property?
Erica: Explains it was built in the 1960's.
Lynn: Expresses her wish for the board to see the properties to see if it is a good use of county funds,
asks for clarification on what Empowerment is purchasing exactly.
Kyle: Explains that it is impossible to acquire and renovate existing affordable housing quickly
however this is a better option than building new affordable housing units.
Hasan: Asks for clarification concerning the application funding request.
Lynn: Clarifies that Empowerment are asking$500,000 for this project.
Hasan: Expresses his dismay at the projects score
Kyle: Explains this has been scored low because the scorecard does not necessarily reflect the
project correctly.
Hasan: Expresses his wish for the board to be more thoughtful when reviewing this project.
Lynn: suggests that this is something we take into account when fixing the scores in the future.
Kyle: Explains that he would have previously scored empowerment as a zero for many criteria
however his opinion has changed due to the context
i) Discussion on Empowerment(Homestead)
Kyle: Explains the situation regarding the empowerment project: "Once again, empowerment has
received a low score. This is due to the scoring sheet's incompatibility with the project's nature,
despite my personal support for the project."
Lynn: Expresses confusion about the funding amount requested by Empowerment.
Kyle: clarifies the request: "Empowerment is asking for$1,000,000 in CIP Funds for this project."
Lynn: I'm in favor of funding this project. However, I'm confused about the requested amount.
Empowerment included an agency budget, but there's no specific budget for the project itself.
Kyle: Agrees with Lynn's observation about the lack of clarity in the funding request.
j) Discussion on Final Funding Recommendations
Erica: Explains that the board has the option to fully, partially, or not fund projects.
Kyle: States that board members can recommend affordable housing projects to the BOCC regardless
of their scoring. Inquires about the next availability of funding.
Bonnie: Clarifies that CIP funding will next be available in 2025.
Hasan: Questions the progression of projects with only partial funding.
Lynn: Remarks that it's uncertain how projects would proceed with partial funding.
27
Dion and Hasan: Emphasize the need for the board to understand the impacts of partially funding
projects.
Bonnie:Asks if partial HOME funding aids projects.
Erica: Responds that HOME often provides partial funding without issues in past projects.
Kyle: Mentions examples of fully funded projects that still faced delays. Suggests prioritizing
applicants needing funds more. Seeks clarification on Trinity Place applicant.
Holly: Requests identification of the Trinity Place applicant.
Kyle: Identifies Trinity Place as CHP, noting his familiarity due to near involvement in its
development.
Andrew: Argues for funding allocation based on scoring, not deviating significantly from it.
Kyle and Andrew: Request a combined scoring and funding display on an Excel sheet.
Kyle: Proposes specific funding amounts for several projects and a land conveyance. Advocates for
the CASA project but recuses himself from scoring due to involvement.
Hasan: Questions Kyle's involvement in the CASA project.
Kyle: Elaborates on his role in the CASA project.
Erica: Urges further discussion on NOAH's project.
Lynn: Notes that CASA project will be partially funded by CIP funds.
Hasan: Suggests full funding for Cedar Village.
Holly and Andrew: Agree with full funding for Cedar Village, Andrew expresses funding concerns for
other projects.
Kyle: Discusses implications of fully funding Davie Circle on other projects.
Holly and Hasan:Advocate for prioritizing Davie Circle due to potential funding challenges.
Lynn: Expresses frustration over lack of information for decision-making.
Kyle and Lynn: Ask about the possibility of conditional funding.
Bonnie: Clarifies that final funding decisions rest with the BOCC.
Holly: Concerns about inadequate support for non-new construction projects impacting affordable
housing.
Lynn: Proposes funding for Empowerment projects,with remaining funds to CASA Homestead
Horizons.
Andrew: Suggests explaining any deviations from scoring in funding decisions.
Bonnie: Inquires about remaining funds.
28
Erica and Thomas: Address issues with the funding tab in the PowerPoint.
Hasan: Supports the board's decision but expresses personal reservations about fully funding
Empowerment Homestead due to low scoring.
Mary: Concurs with Hasan's concerns.
Board:Agrees to fund Habitat $733,500.
Kyle: Points out Habitat receiving more funding than higher-scoring projects.
Board: Revises Habitat funding to $800,000, adjusting other project funds accordingly.
Bonnie: Notes that funding request percentages will be shown in the board presentation.
Holly: Supports Empowerment.
Lynn: Motions to approve the allocation of funds.
Andrew and Holly: Support and second the motion, respectively.
Board: Unanimously votes to approve the funding suggestions.
V. Adjourn:7:52 PM