Agenda - 09-19-2017 - 6-a - Review of Affordable Housing Bond Scoring Criteria

Browse Search

2 also awarded an additional twenty (20) points to projects serving at least one special needs population. Both of the projects submitted by CASA as well as the project submitted by Habitat for Humanity earned the additional points for serving at least one special needs population. The EmPOWERment projects did not receive those additional special needs points. Affordable Housing Coalition members requested a clear definition of the special needs populations that would qualify for the additional points and a way to prorate the special needs scores based on the number of units dedicated to serving a special needs population. 2. Local Residency The Local Residency category was intended to award points based on whether the project would serve County residents. The Request for Proposal was not prescriptive on how achieving that goal should be reported. As a result, the responses varied too widely to score them consistently. This criterion will be better defined in the next scoring process to correct this issue. Affordable Housing Coalition members also requested more clarity on residency qualifications in its review of the criteria. 3. Leveraging The Leveraging category awarded points based on the degree to which non-County funds were used to fund the project. The project submitted by Habitat for Humanity leveraged sixty four percent (64%) of non-County funding. The two projects submitted by CASA leveraged between sixty five percent (65%) and sixty seven percent (67%) of non- County funding. The projects submitted by EmPOWERment did not apply any non- County funds. This category also evaluated the project's ability to pay property taxes. The scoring team noted that this criterion rewards projects that would be privately owned rather than owned and operated by a non-profit. This incentive seems inconsistent with the need to increase the supply of affordable rental housing that is often owned by a non-profit entity and exempt from property taxes. Affordable Housing Coalition members also questioned awarding points for the repayment of bond funds noting that serving lower income households requires significant subsidy and does not allow for financial margins that would support bond repayment. This criterion may be appropriate if a private developer were building a mixed income project that generated enough income to repay some of the public investment. 4. Building Design The Building Design category awards points for energy efficiency, accessibility, proximity to public transportation, and high quality water and sewer services. The new construction projects submitted by CASA and Habitat were able to score well in energy efficiency and accessibility. The EmPOWERment projects did not score as well because EmPOWERment proposed purchasing existing homes that would require extensive retrofitting to compete with new construction.