Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 09-09-2002 - 1 i ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT Meeting Date: September 9, 2002 Action Agenda Item No. 1 SUBJECT: Housing Bond Policy Revision DEPARTMENT: Housing/Community Dev. PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT: Revised Housing Bond Policy Tara L. Fikes, ext 2490 Written Public Comments— Compiled TELEPHONE NUMBERS: Hillsborough 732-8181 Chapel Hill 968-4501 Durham 688-7331 Mebane 336-227-2031 PURPOSE: To review the proposed Housing Bond Policy revisions and offer comment and direction to the Affordable Housing Advisory Board and County staff. BACKGROUND: In November 1997, Orange County voters approved the first Affordable Housing Bond issue in the amount of$1.8 million dollars. In the spring of 1998, a Housing Bond Policy Task Force was formed to develop a Housing Bond Policy that was approved in December 1998. In December 1999, the BOCC approved three bond projects committing a total of$690,000 according to the approved policy. Later in 2000, as a part of its work, the Commissioners Affordable Housing Task Force reviewed the Housing Bond Policy, recommended modifications to the Policy, and the revised Policy was approved by the BOCC in April 2001. In June 2001, the BOCC awarded the remaining $1,110,000 in bond funds in accordance with the revised policy. Orange County voters approved a second bond issue in November 2001 for affordable housing in the amount of$4 million dollars. Subsequently, the Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) began review of the existing bond policy in preparation of identifying projects to be financed from the 2001 bonds. This review has yielded further recommendations for modifications as detailed in the attached copy of the Housing Bond Policy. Allan Rosen, Vice- Chair of AHAB and Chair of the Board's Housing Bond Policy Ad Hoc Committee, will present, these proposed changes to the Board. The proposed Bond Policy was distributed to local non-profit organizations and posted on the County's website in order to receive public feedback regarding the proposed policy. An official comment period from August 19 — 30, 2002 was advertised and respondents were asked to submit their comments in writing by the close of business on Friday, August 30, 2002. A copy of the written comments is attached as additional information. a 2 During policy discussions, interest was expressed in land banking as an eligible activity in the County's Housing Bond Program. Land banking involves the acquisition of vacant parcels of land for future development although the actual proposed development or project is not known at the time of acquisition. The Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB) is not prepared at present to recommend evaluation criteria for this activity. The Bond Policy Ad Hoc Committee of AHAB anticipates their work can be completed in the next 60-90 days, including an opportunity for public comment. This timeline should provide an opportunity for the.BOCC to review and approve evaluation criteria for land banking and authorize a Land Banking RFP before the end of 2002. In the interim, AHAB is recommending that 20% for the first phase of the initial $1.3 million in affordable housing bond dollars be reserved for land banking. Further, County support staff has suggested that the policy include a procedure for reallocation of bond funds should funds allocated be returned or unused. The Ad Hoc Committee will explore this issue in the next 60-90 days and make a recommendation at the same time the Land Banking Program is presented. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The approved Housing Bond Policy will govern the expenditure of$4 million dollars in Affordable Housing.Bond funds. The Affordable Housing Bond sale strategy includes the sale of approximately $1.3 million dollars each year for the next three years beginning in 2003. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends that the Board receive and discuss the proposed policy revisions and offer comment and direction to the Affordable Housing Advisory Board and County staff. - 3 Original Language Changed Language New Language Revised Language Orange County Housing Bond Policy Established-September 1998 Approved:December 15, 1998 Amended:April 2001 Proposed Revision: August 2002 This document outlines the policies governing the expenditure of 2001 Affordable Housing Bond funds and future bond programs. 1, INTRODUCTION Separate Funding Pools Strategy: Separate Request for Proposals(RFPs)will be issued simultaneously for three types of projects: 1)homeownership,2) special needs, whether ownership or rental,and 3)non-special needs rental. Within each category,no distinction should be made between new construction and rehabilitation. The RFP closing dates and award dates will also be the same. 201/9 of the expected$1.3 million that will be made available in the first round of 2001 bond funding will be designated for the homeownership pool,201/o will be designated for the special needs pool, and 40%will be designated for the non-special needs rental housing pool. (The final 201/6 will be reserved for the land banking RFP process.) If funds for any pool are not fully allocated in the initial round, an extension period of 60 days will be granted for the submission of additional RFPs for that specific project type. This extension period will begin the day following the BOCC's vote on awarding bond funds. During this extension period new applications will be received; in addition, applicants who did not score the required 60 points may revise their applications and reapply during the extension period. If, after this extension period and corresponding funding decisions,there are still funds remaining in either the Home Ownership,Rental, and/or Special Needs pool(s),the Project Review and Selection(PRS) Committee will make a recommendation to the County Manager for the disposition of remaining funds. Eligible Applicants: Only non-profit entities will be eligible to apply for funding under the County's bond program. Non-profits may partner with for-profit entities to develop projects, however,in those cases; the non-profit must have the controlling majority in the project (more than 50%interest). Request for Proposals: Prospective developers will be required to submit an application once the Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development announces a Request for Proposals. The applications will be scored according to the established evaluation criteria and targeting goals explained herein. e� Project Review and Selection: A County Committee will evaluate project proposals and make funding recommendations to the County Manager. The Project Review and Selection (PRS) Committee will be composed of up to three members of the Affordable Housing Advisory Board (AHAB), three Orange County employees (from among the Orange County Assistant County Manager for Human Services, Planning Director, Finance Director, and County Engineer) and one employee from each of the Chapel Hill, Carrboro, and Hillsborough planning departments. The Orange County Director of Housing and Community Development will also serve as a member of the PRS Committee. am G84-311-0-y AHAB appointments will be for the period of each phase of funding and appointees are not to have been affiliated with eligible applicants within the last 12 months. "Affiliation" includes involvement as a volunteer, member of the staff, board, or board committee, or of a funding agency. The Board of County Commissioners must approve all housing bond projects. Project proposals recommended for funding by the PRS committee,with the concurrence of the County Manager, will be placed on a regular Board of County Commissioners meeting agenda for their consideration. Eligible Projects: Both Existing Housing and New Construction projects are eligible activities for funding. Eligible projects are described in Attachment 1. If a prospective applicant is considering a project that is not included in the list of eligible projects, then the applicant should . request a pre-application conference with the Director of Housing and Community Development and the Chair of the PRS Committee to determine if the project can be evaluated by the current criteria. Minimum Score: All projects that score above 60 points under the Evaluation Criteria are eligible to receive funding. The PRS Committee will review and score the application.The score of 60 must be derived from points earned in each evaluation category. The Board of County Commissioners must approve all housing bond projects. Project proposals recommended for funding by the PRS Committee,with the concurrence of the County Manager,will be placed on a regular BOCC meeting agenda for their consideration. Project Completion: All Existing Housing Program activities should be completed within three years of funding award. All New Construction program activities should begin within three years of funding award. Any requests for time extensions will be granted at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners and must be submitted at least six months prior to the deadline date. Reporting Requirements: Bond fund recipients will be required to submit status reports to the County. (See Attachment 2). 2 s Leveraging Requirements: Projects that do not leverage other financial resources will not be funded. Examples of other available resources include: the Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Program, HOME Investment Partnerships Program,NC Housing Finance Agency Programs, as well as local general fund contributions,private bank financing, equity contributions from the end-user and/or the developer, and philanthropic funds. Long Term Affordability Requirements: All projects must meet the County's Long-Term Housing Affordability Policy. See Attachment 3. 3 II. EVALUATION CRITERIA A. Income Targeting (25 points) Household Income Range Points to be Awarded <30%of Area Median Income 25 <60%,but>=30%of Area Median Income 20 <80%, but>=60 %of Area Median Income 15 Note: For projects serving mixed-income ranges, a corresponding weighted average of points will be awarded. Replaces.... .�� :_... 4. ��a a.. rmaw 6 13— — Medium 4.2 6. 1ligh ;8 d.— al 24 Development Depaitnem; and thsreugMy reviewed whenever a new five (5) year heuskig plan is er-eated. 4 -1 B. Leveraging(20 points) The degree to which the proposed project includes finding from other sources and minimizes County bond funds required, given the income groups served. All outside funding sources must be committed within six(6) months of the date of the funding award. Percent Funded by Bonds Points to Be Awarded 60-80% 3 40-59% 6 20-39% 9 10- 19% 12 < 10% 15 Other Criteria Points to Be Awarded 1. The project pays property taxes 2 2a. The project repays the bond funds—principal only 2 2b. The project repays the bond funds — both principal and 3 interest 5 8 C. Design (15 points) The design of the site plan and housing units with respect to accessibility, maintenance, functionality and quality of appearance in terms of compatibility with that of neighboring housing. Building Design Maximum Points Scoring Criteria to be Awarded 1. The project exceeds the NC Housing Finance Agency Energy 3 Efficiency Criteria 2. The project is accessible to needed services for the target 2 population such as healthcare, schools or public transportation 3.The project provides complete handicap accessibility and/or 3 utilizes the principles of Universal Design 4. Additional points may be awarded for meeting aspects 2 associated with functionality and maintenance. (Details must be provided b licant. Community Design Maximum Points Scoring Criteria to be Awarded 5.The project contributes to a mix of housing within an existing 2 neighborhood 6. Additional points may be awarded for criteria associated with 3 building appearance, quality of construction,compatibility with surrounding housing,ability to foster a sense of a secure community, and contributes to neighborhood revitalization. (Details must be provided by applicant.) 6 CI D. Community Snonsorshfn / Suonort (10 points) This section evaluates the degree to which the sponsoring organization demonstrates plans for strong community participation throughout the development of a project Maximum Points Scoring Criteria to be Awarded 1. The applicant can submit evidence that they coordinated the 3 application with other organizations to complement and/or support the proposed project. (Please be explicit) 2. The applicant involved the intended beneficiaries of the 2 , project in the planning Rrocess. 3. The applicant can demonstrate that it has been actively 2 involved, or describes the steps it will take to become actively involved in the Community's Consolidated Planning process to identify and address a housing need or problem that is related in whole or part to the proposed project. 4. The applicant has developed, or describes the plans to develop 3 linkages with other community activities, programs or projects related to the proposed project (i.e. support services) to coordinate its activities so solutions are holistic and co rehensive. E. Protect Feasibility(15 points) Project feasibility is the degree to which the project is judged to have a likelihood of successful completion,addressing such elements as zoning, site control,construction schedule,and funding. The proposal should be complete and present a budget that is reasonable and is based on reasonable assumptions. Maximum Points Scoring Criteria to be Awarded 1. The applicant can demonstrate site control, zoning 4 compliance,and a timely construction schedule that is feasible 2. Funding(other than bond funding) is in place at the time of 4 application. 3. The applicant's proposal is complete and presents a proposed 7 project budget that is reasonable and is based on reasonable assumptions 7 fa F. Developer Experience(15 points) Developer experience is judged based on the scope, extent and quality of the applicant's. experience in housing or related services to those proposed to be served by the project and the scope of the proposed project(i.e. number of units, services,relocation costs, development,and operation) in relationship to the applicant's demonstrated development and management capacity, as well as its financial management capability. This includes the applicant's utilization of minority and women-owned businesses, and other allied small businesses in the planning and development of the project. Partnerships by local organizations will be encouraged. The amount of experience of the project sponsor and the proposed development team in carrying out similar projects in a successful fashion,particularly with respect to reasonably meeting project budgets and timetables on such projects will also be considered. This would include review of the organization's track record in handling projects which used town or county local funds and/or funds awarded to the local governments in Orange County by the federal or state government. In the case of rental projects,the amount of experience the project sponsor and management company have in managing low income housing(including an adequate management plan for dealing with special population needs and special community needs) must be demonstrated. Maximum Points Scoring Criteria to be Awarded 1. Experience of the applicant in carrying out projects of 5 comparable scope and nature (e.g.,new construction, rental housing,rehabilitation, etc.) to that proposed, and has met re lstory compliance for prior projects 2.Applicant has proposed a team with demonstrated development,managerial, and financial management 5 ca abilities in Rrior projects 3. Applicant has successful record of meeting proposed 5 bud ets and timetables 8 ATTACHMENT 1 —ELIGIBLE PROJECTS Existing_Housine Programs Affordable Housing Loan Program: The focus of this, homeownership program would be direct assistance to eligible borrowers. An eligible homeowner is one that has not owned a home in the past three (3)years. Income-eligible borrowers would be pre-qualified for first and second mortgages by a local housing non-profit agency with the cooperation of local lenders. All prospective homebuyers would have to complete a county-approved homebuyer education program prior to receiving approval to participate in the program. The County would provide a "pre-commitment'' letter to the borrower, who could then purchase a standard home available on the market that'they could afford and that sold for less than the FHA maximum sales price for this area. The eligible borrower must provide a minimum of $750 cash contribution to this transaction. Rehabilitation of Substandard Housing — Second Mortgage: This program would provide direct assistance to eligible homeowners and 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations that own rental property for rehabilitation of units with code violations. Community Revitalization Loan Program: This program would provide assistance with the purchase and rehabilitation of existing property by first-time homebuyers. The guidelines governing this program will be in accordance with the existing County and Town of Chapel Hill Programs with the same name. Acquisition for Low Income Rental Housing: Funds would be used to assist local 501(c)(3) organizations purchase and, if necessary, renovate available property for lease to low income Orange County residents. Urgent Repair Program: The program would be used to provide funds for home repairs that eliminate potential life or safety threats to low-income homeowners and/or enable the elderly and disabled to remain in their homes by providing essential accessibility modifications. New Construction Programs Assistance may be provided to non-profit housing developers of new construction projects for first-time homebuyers and/or renters. A Builder Participation Agreement would set aside a funding allocation for second mortgages to developers/homebuyers in a specific project For rental projects, the use of federal income tax credits and Section 8 certificates and vouchers must be utilized if available. 9 ATTACHMENT 2-- PROGRAM MONITORING AND REPORTING Advisepy Bewd will reNiew the bead pmgmn at least sefri eafmally to ffierAer the housing e and reesive . f an Ammal Report will be prepaFed detailifig a Fe-Asw ef Fe-As the pas! year's bead pregmm aetvifies. . , sal ,to ff &ad ... mben_ef the Of-8s e The Affordable Housing Advisory Board will review the bond program semi-annually to monitor the housing bond program, raise policy issues with staff,and receive information. All housing bond projects are required to file semi-annual reports upon expenditure of funds and a final end of project report with the Orange County Department of Housing and Community Development. These reports involve the completion of a standardized form that is intended both to collect baseline information on each phase of every project(pre-development,development, and marketing)as well as to provide an opportunity for self-reporting on the particular details of each project. w The final report will include a review of project activities,a current market analysis, and recommended program priorities for the future. This information would be made available to all County residents and formally presented to the Orange County Board of Commissioners during a regularly scheduled meeting. 10 - 13 ATTACHMENT 3 — LONG-TERM HOUSING AFFORDABILITY POLICY Purpose: This policy establishes the acceptable strategies for bnsuring long-term affordability in all affordable housing programs supported by County financial resources. Target Population: Homeownership programs are targeted to families with incomes at or below 80% of the HUD published area median income. Rental housing programs are targeted to families with incomes at or below 60% of the HUD published area median income. Definitions Affordable Housing—is defined as(1)owner-occupied housing which can be purchased for no more than 2.5 times to 3.0 times the total annual family income, or(2)rental housing for which the occupant pays no more than 30%of gross income for all housing costs including utilities. First-time homebuyer/Qualified buyer - A first-time homebuyer for the purposes of this program is any low income household that has not owned a home within the past three(3) years including households living in manufactured housing not permanently affixed to a foundation, or owner-occupants of homes not feasible for renovation. I. Impact Fee Reimbursement Program(existing policy last revised March 4, 1998.) A. Owner-Occupied Housing Any organization requesting impact fee reimbursement must certify in writing, that for owner occupied housing, it will remain affordable to the anticipated beneficiary or beneficiaries for a period of a minimum of ninety-nine(99)years or longer depending upon the funding source. This requirement will be secured by a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants. B. Rental Housing An organization requesting impact fee reimbursement for rental housing must certify that the property will remain affordable for ninety-nine (99) years. The rental housing certification must be secured by a Declaration of Restrictive Covenant requiring repayment to Orange County of the impact fee if the rental housing does not remain affordable during the period of affordability, which covenant will be further secured by a note and deed of trust. Evidence must be provided that agency and/or program guidelines are in place to assure affordability compliance. II. Land Trust Model The Land Trust model utilizes a non-profit, community based organization known as a Community Land Trust (CLT) whose purpose is to acquire land and make it available to u individual families and others, such as cooperatives, through a long-term lease for a term up to 99 years. The leaseholders or homebuyers do not hold title to the land - the title is retained by the CLT - they own the improvements or housing units/structures on the land. The benefits of this model include the ability of the CLT to provide first-time homeownership opportunities for the initial buyer as well as protection of affordability for future residents in the sale of buildings and other improvements on the land. The land lease gives the CLT the first option to purchase the home, when and if it is sold, at an affordable price set by a resale formula. The resale formula gives homeowners a fair return for their investment, while keeping the price of the housing units/structures affordable for future residents. III. New and Existing First-Time Homebuyer Programs A. Period of Affordability All properties supported by County financial resources for the purpose of facilitating homeownership must remain affordable to families at or below 80% of median income for a minimum of ninety-nine(99)years from the date of initial assistance. B. Right of First Refusal A right of first refusal or right to purchase is accomplished by means of a Declaration of Restrictive Covenants on the property purchased by the first-time homebuyer. Any assignment, sale, transfer, conveyance, or other disposition of the Property or any part thereof whether voluntarily or involuntarily or by operation of law ("Transfer') shall not be effective unless and until the below-described procedure is followed. If the original homebuyer or any subsequent qualified homebuyer (`Buyer') contemplates a Transfer to a non low-income household as defined herein, Buyer shall send to Orange County and/or the sponsoring non-profit organization, not less than 90 days prior to the contemplated closing date of the Transfer, a "Notice of Intent to Sell." This Notice of Intent to Sell shall be accompanied by a copy of a completed, fully executed bona fide offer to purchase the Property on the then current North Carolina Bar Association "Offer to Purchase and Contract" form. If Orange County and/or the sponsoring non-profit organizations elects to exercise its said right of refusal, it shall notify the Buyer of its election to purchase within 30 days of its receipt of the Notice and shall purchase the Property or portion thereof within 90 days of the receipt of the "Notice of intent to Sell.' As between the County and the sponsoring non-profit organization, if both wish to and have the means to exercise the right of first refusal, the sponsoring non- profit organization shall have priority. If neither Orange County nor the sponsoring non-profit organization advises the Buyer in a timely fashion of an intent to purchase the Property, then the Buyer shall be free to Transfer the property in accordance with the Equity Sharing subsection of this policy. 12 IS B. Equity Sharing All financial contributions provided by the County will be provided as a deferred second loan secured by a forty (40) year Deed of Trust and Promissory Note, forgivable at the end of 40 years. This Deed of Trust and Promissory Note shall constitute a lien on the Property, subordinate only to private construction financing or permanent first mortgage financing. The 99 year period of affordability for each individual housing unit will be secured by a declaration of restrictive covenants that will incorporate a right of first refusal that may be exercised by a sponsoring non-profit organization and/or Orange County. This declaration of restrictive covenants will be further secured by a deed of trust. The non-profit organization and/or the County as applicable retains full responsibility for compliance with the affordability requirement for assisted units throughout the term of affordability,unless affordability restrictions are terminated due to the sale of the Property to a non-qualified buyer, If the buyer no longer uses the Property as a principal residence or is unable to continue ownership, then the buyer must sell, transfer, or otherwise dispose of their interest in the Property only to a qualified homebuyer, i.e., a low-income household, one whose combined income does not exceed 80% of the area median household income by family size,as determined by the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development at the time of the transfer, to use as their principal residence. However, if the property is sold during the term of affordability to a non-qualified homebuyer to be used as their principal residence, the net sales proceeds (sales price less: 1) selling cost, 2) the unpaid principal amount of the original first mortgage and 3) the unpaid, principal amount of the initial County contribution and any other initial government contribution secured by a deferred payment promissory note and deed of trust) or "equity" will be divided 50150 by the seller of the Property and the County. If the initial County contribution does not have to be repaid because the sale occurs more than forty years after the County contribution is made, then the seller of the Property and the County will divide the entire equity realized from the sale. Any proceeds from the recapture of funds under this provision will be used to facilitate the acquisition,construction, and/or rehabilitation of housing for the purposes of promoting affordable housing. IV. Policy Review This policy will be reviewed by County staff and officials within two (2) years of the original approval date to ensure continued congruency with local affordable housing programs. Effective Date: April 3, 2000 Revised: June 6,2000 13 16 Housing Bond Polic Written Comments 1. Dawn Peebles, Weaver Community Housing Association 2. Richard Duncan, Center for Universal Design,NC State University 3. Susan Levy, Habitat for Humanity of Orange County,NC,Inc. 4. Robert Dowling,Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, Inc. 5. Nancy Milio,Affordable Rentals,Inc. 9/3/2002 I-7 Weaver Community Housing Association 621 Hillsborough Rd. Carrboro, NC 27510 919.619.0842 www.wcha;c000; infoODwcha.coop To the Affordable Housing Advisory Board: A local group of affordable housing advocates has founded the Weaver Community Housing Association (WCHA)to create permanent affordable housing targeted at individuals earning less than 60% of area median income. We are using the cooperative model as a means to create affordable housing.Though there are some differences, the cooperative model bears great resemblance to rental housing, In a cooperative,member/residents make monthly payments(a rental equivalent)to the 501(c)(3) corporation (WCHA)that owns the title to the properly. Members pay the WCHA for their share of the actual operating cost, building mortgage,and real estate taxes, based on the non-profit operation of the WCHA. The move-in cost is a small member deposit, similar to a rental security deposit Unlike traditional rental housing,the resident members play a significant role in governing and maintaining the property. Residents meet regularly to determine co-op procedures and make decisions on property upkeep, and residents elect representatives to serve on the Board of Directors of the WCHA. Corp resident members also elect the Board of Directors,which decides all policy matters. The community control aspect of a cooperative provides a natural base for service and activity. In spite of the differences between rental and cooperative housing, this nonprofit cooperative model is definitely NOT owner-occupied.The nonprofit will retain the title to the property into perpetuity, and the bylaws of the nonprofit stipulate that the properties will always remain affordable as meets the terms defined for"affordable housing" in the bond policy. In addition, our organization's mission and bylaws meet all the terms the bond policy sets forth for rentals in "Attachment 1-Eligible Projects"and "Attachment 3-Long-Term Housing Affordability policy." Therefore, in order to be eligible for funding from the bond,we would like to request that cooperative housing is not excluded in the language of the revised bond policy. We request that cooperative housing be included in the 40%of bond money designated for the non-special needs rental housing pool. We suggest one of the following revisions: 1."...40%will be designated for the non-special needs rental /cooperative housing pool"or 2."...40%will be designated for the non-special needs rental non-owner occupied housing pool" The first revision will specifically include cooperative housing in the bond policy; the second defines the 40%portion to be designated for forms of housing other than owner-occupied. Thank you: Please email us at infoCOwcha.coop (after Tuesday 9/3)or christy(dweaverstreetmarket.c000 or call 619.0842 if you have any questions or need any additional information. Sincerely, Dawn Peebles, Executive Director Ruffin Slater, Chair Christy Raulli,Treasurer Weaver Community Housing Association _ Page j. Prom: Richard Duncan <rc duncan@ncsu.edu> To: <tflkes @co.orange.nc.us> Date: 8/30/02 10:48AM Subject: Bond Policy >Ms. Fikes: >This is my response to The County's Affordable Housing Advisory >Board's (AHAB) Affordable Housing Bond Policy. I commend the Board for including accessible and universal housing in Its points criteria. Perhaps the Board and Orange County might be served well with more detailed backup to guide developers. I have attached a preliminary list for your consideration. The idea would be to have all or most of he homes built with bond money to posses a minimum of features, understanding that state or federal guidelines, standards or codes may apply to some of the housing as well. We think that basic LID features shouldn't be restricted to so called "fully accessible" homes and that most homes can achieve a UD outcome in ways that make them appealing to all buyers or residents. Dick Duncan CC: <NCProut @aol.com> Cl BASIC UNIVERSAL DESIGN FEATURES IN HOUSES The following characteristics are the very basic elements,features,ideas or concepts that contribute to or can be components of a universalhouse.This list is intended as a guide and represent those features which would be most challenging to add to an existing home.A fully universal home would posses more features than are listed below. Some are finite recommendations, some are lists of options,and some are scope statements in regard to how many particular features must or should be included. Entrances Stealess Entrances •At least one stepless entrance is essential,if only one,not through a garage or from a patio or raised deck. •Level bridges to uphill point. • Drive and garage elevated to floor level,so vehicles do the climbing. •Earth berm and bridge and sloping walk details. • Site grading and earth work(with foundation waterproofing) and sloping walks at 1 in 20 maximum slope. • Avoid ramps. If ramps are used,integrate into the design Other Entrance Features • One-half inch maximum rise at entrance thresholds. • Space at entry doors should be a minimum 5'x 5'level clear space inside and outside of entry door for maneuvering while opening or closing door. Decks • Build deck at same level as house floor. Interior Circulation The Center for Universal Design College of Design•North Carolina State University a® UNIVERSAL DESIGN FEATURES IN HOUSES •At least one bedroom and accessible bathroom should be located on an accessible ground floor entry level (same level as kitchen,living room,etc.). • Clear door opening width(32"minimum,34" -36"wide doors),for all doorways. • Clear floor space (18" minimum)beside door on pull side at latch jamb provides space to move out of the way of the door swing when pulling it open • Circulation route(42" mini*num width) to provide maneuvering room in the hallways and archways. Vertical Circulation • Stair handrails placed on both sides of stairs and extending horizontally beyond top and bottom risers. Bathrooms At least one bathroom on the accessible level must have one of the following accessible bathing fixtures: • Minimum 5'x 3' (4'preferred),deep curbless shower •Adequate maneuvering space:60" diameter turning space in the room and 30" x 48" clear floor spaces at each fixture.Spaces may overlap. • Clear space (3') in front and to one side of toilet allows for easy maneuvering to and around toilet. •Toilet centered 18"from any side wall;cabinet or tub. • Broad blocking in walls around toilet,tub,and shower allows for future placement and relocation of grab bars while assuring adequate load-bearing and eliminates the need to open up wall to add blocking later. Fixture Controls • Single-lever water controls at all plumbing fixtures and faucets. • Mix valve with pressure balancing and hot water limiter prevents scalding people who cannot move out of the way if water temperature and/or pressure changes suddenly. Kitchens The Center for Universal Design College of Design• North Carolina State University Page 2 UNIVERSAL DESIGN FEATURES IN HOUSES a I •Space between face of cabinets and cabinets and walls should be 48" minimum. • Full-extension,pull-out drawers,shelves and racks in base cabinets for easy reach to all storage space. • Adjustable height shelves in wall cabinets, • Pantry storage with easy access pull-out and/or adjustable height shelves for easy reaching of otherwise hard-to-get items. (See Stor-Ease pantry storage system.) • Single-lever water controls at all plumbing fixtures and faucets. Switches and Controls • Light switches above floor,36" -44" maximuny and thermostats at 48"maximum height. • Electrical outlets, 18" minimum height,allows easy reach from a sitting position as well as for those who have trouble bending over. • Electrical panel with top no more than 34" above floor located with a minimum 30"x 40" clear floor space in front. The Center for Universal Design College of Design•North Carolina State University Page 3 as Habitat for Humanity iff Orange County, NC, Inc. P.O. Box 459• Hillsborough, NC 27278 •(919)732-6767,FAx: (919)732-2337•ochabitat @earthlink.net August 27,2002 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Susan Levy, Exec. Director,Habitat for Humanity RE: Comments on proposed revisions to Affordable Housing Bond Policy First, as one who worked on developing the original bond policy and criteria,I know how complex the task is. I am appreciative of the hard work of the members of the County's AHAB and commend them for a job well done. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions. The following comments are made on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. Land banking. We are very disappointed that the AHAB was not able to make recommendations for criteria for land banking so that it could be included in the initial round of RFPs. This omission is unfortunate since land acquisition is-often very time sensitive,and opportunities to purchase land are quite limited in Orange County. We are especially disappointed because Habitat for Humanity currently has a contract on a 16-acre tract in a very desirable location for affordable housing in Chapel Hill. In our negotiations with the seller, we had to agree to a very short time flame in which to secure funding for the purchase. In fact, our offer was accepted over that of a private developer based on nur T.greeing to have funding secured by the end of 2002, or lose the contract We had hoped that land banking would be included in the initial round of funding, and that we could meet the seller's conditions, if we were able to submit a successful application. We strongly urge the BOCC to include land banking in the initial round of RFPs. While it is understandable that the AHAB ran out of time, and perhaps felt they lacked the expertise to suggest criteria for this category,there should be another mechanism for developing the criteria, perhaps through a special subcommittee. Coming up with the criteria should not be so time consuming or difficult that it cannot be included in the first round Separate Funding Pools Strategy While there are no doubt administrative difficulties in doing so, we suggest that there be some provision for evaluating proposals that include rental,homeownership, and special needs housing as one integrated project The way the proposed policy is currently worded,the project must be submitted as three separate M's that will be judged independently. Thus, one portion of the project might receive funding when the other would not,which would threaten the success of the entire project since it would be impossible to move forward with only partial funding. - a3 Leveraging The requirement that all outside funding sources be committed within six months of the date of the finding award is unrealistic. Many funding sources are cyclical,and can only be applied for at specified times of the year. Likewise,notifications of awards of funding are not within the control of the applicant. Since the bond funding may be the first source that is approved, and the source that is key to moving forward with the project, it will be used to leverage additional finding that often cannot be applied for until notification that the bond finding has been awarded. Under the project completion section, existing housing program activities must be completed within three years of finding award,and new construction must begin within three years. This implies a longer period of time to put together the project financially. A minimum one year time frame with the possibility of extensions would be more acceptable and certainly more realistic, giving the applicant adequate time to apply for all possible funding. General comments about scoring The use of"maximum points to be awarded"under each category implies that points less than the maximum may be awarded within each subcategory. For example,under project feasibility, item 1 states "The applicant can demonstrated site control zoning compliance, and a timely construction schedule that is feasible,"for a maximum of 4 points. If the applicant meets the site control and timely construction requirements,but the property must undergo rezoning, would some points be awarded, or is it an all or nothing criteria? Hopefully,partial points will be awarded within each of the sub categories. August 28,2002 Ms. Tara Fikes Housing and Community Development PO Box 8181 Hillsborough,NC 27278 Re: Revisions to Bond Policy Dear Tara: Thanks for sending the revised bond policy out for comment I think the Affordable Housing Advisory Board has recommended some thoughtful revisions to the current policy. My comments on those changes,as well as the old policy are as follows: 1. If we assume that much of the special needs funding will be used for rental housing,then the first RFP will contain just$260,000 for homeownership opportunities and$780,000 for predominantly rental projects. This distribution seems overly weighted in favor of rental. 2. Regarding Project Completion guidelines,perhaps larger projects could be allowed more time(like the three years provided in the guideline)and smaller projects should be given less time(buying and renovating three houses should not take three years). The same holds true for new construction projects— building three houses should not take as long as doing a thirty home development. 3. Regarding the Leveraging section of the Evaluation Criteria,it seems that if a project can repay bond funds to the County that should be worth more than 2 or 3 points. 4. Regarding the Building Design section, it seems that unless you exceed the energy standards and meet universal Design standards,only 4 points are possible in this entire section. This would work against townhomes(that are built to the energy standard)where the bedrooms are located upstairs. The increasing scarcity of land(and the associated high cost)will compel affordable housing developers to consider townhomes and condominiums in the years ahead. The County's evaluation criteria should recognize and not penalize this`natural path'. 5. The Community Sponsorship and Support section now seems skewed toward rental housing because both of the new criteria refer to supportive services, which typically are more relevant to rental housing. 6. Regarding Attachment A Eligible Projects—Perhaps it should be stated that some funds are provided as grants rather than as second mortgages,as stated in the Attachment 7. Under Program Monitoring and Reporting-it is stated that the final project report will include a current market analysis. What does this entail? Will it include hiring a professional and increasing project costs? S. Regarding the County's Long Term Affordability policy—The Equity sharing formula could use some revisions in order to make it fairer. First,the County might consider subordinating its Deed of Trust to a homeowner who wants to borrow money to make improvements to their home. It is in all of our interest that homes built or rehabbed with public funds are maintained as a. Secondly,I do not think its fair that the County should receive 50% of the entire equity in the home if a homeowner sells their home to someone earning more than 80%of median income. The County should only receive a percentage of the appreciation, The homeowner should be allowed to retain whatever amount of the mortgage they paid down. b. The percentage of appreciation shared with the County should be less than 50%if the County only provided 10%of the costs of the home originally. Perhaps a schedule could be developed whereby the County's share of appreciation increases as the County's funding increases. For example: • If a home has$10,000 or less in subsidy,then the homeowner earns 75%of the appreciation. • If a home has more than$10,000 of subsidy,then the homeowner only earns 505/o of the appreciation. Tara,thank you again for the opportunity to provide comment to the proposed policy. Thanks also to the members of AHAB. Please call me at 967-1545 if you have any questions about these comments. Sincerely, Robert Dowling Executive Director Affordable Rentals. Inc 109 N. Graham Street, Suite 101, Chapel Hill, NC 27516 Orange County Housing/Community Development Dept. Afton able Housing Advisory Board Brian Crawford, Chair Box 8181 Hillsborough, NC 27278 Attn:Tara Fikes, Dir. RE: Response to Housing Bond Policy Proposed Revision:August,2002 Dear Mr.Crawford: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to AHAB's proposed revision ofthe Bond Policy. Affordable Rentals, Inc. is a non profit organization which seeks to expand the availability of rental units in the County for families whose income is between 30-50%ofthe area median income. We buy, rehab,construct,and manage family rentals in cooperation with other local nonprofits.Our funding strategy leverages loans from below market lenders with public funding. We believe the Bond Policy revision is a big step forward in following up on a central recommendation ofthe Commissioners'Affordable Housing Task Force-Report(which several of our Board were involved in), namely, addressing the severe lack of affordable rentals.The proposed pooling strategy,and the 40%allocated for rental housing is a creative avenue for dealing with this aspect ofthe housing problem.The other pooling components guarantee other necessary and useful options to deal with housing issues. We also thinkthat the proposed changes in proposal review and project monitoring provides an apt mix of citizen and expert assessments.This will help select and move good projects forward to the desired purpose of all of us,affordable housing opportunities for County residents. We appreciate your consideration of our views. Sincerely, Nancy Milio President and Chair,AR Inc. Alex Asbun, Executive Director 1