Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
9 <br /> special needs scores based on the number of units dedicated to serving a special needs <br /> population. <br /> 2. Local Residency <br /> The Local Residency category was intended to award points based on whether the project <br /> would serve County residents. The Request for Proposal was not prescriptive on how <br /> achieving that goal should be reported. As a result, the responses varied too widely to score <br /> them consistently. This criterion will be better defined in the next scoring process to correct <br /> this issue. Affordable Housing Coalition members also requested more clarity on residency <br /> qualifications in its review of the criteria. <br /> 3. Leveraging <br /> The Leveraging category awarded points based on the degree to which non-County funds <br /> were used to fund the project. The project submitted by Habitat for Humanity leveraged sixty <br /> four percent (64%) of non-County funding. The two projects submitted by CASA leveraged <br /> between sixty five percent (65%) and sixty seven percent (67%) of nonCounty funding. The <br /> projects submitted by EmPOWERment did not apply any nonCounty funds. This category <br /> also evaluated the project's ability to pay property taxes. The scoring team noted that this <br /> criterion rewards projects that would be privately owned rather than owned and operated by <br /> a non-profit. This incentive seems inconsistent with the need to increase the supply of <br /> affordable rental housing that is often owned by a non-profit entity and exempt from <br /> property taxes. Affordable Housing Coalition members also questioned awarding points for <br /> the repayment of bond funds noting that serving lower income households requires <br /> significant subsidy and does not allow for financial margins that would support bond <br /> repayment. This criterion may be appropriate if a private developer were building a mixed <br /> income project that generated enough income to repay some of the public investment. <br /> 4. Building Design <br /> The Building Design category awards points for energy efficiency, accessibility, proximity to <br /> public transportation, and high quality water and sewer services. The new construction <br /> projects submitted by CASA and Habitat were able to score well in energy efficiency and <br /> accessibility. The EmPOWERment projects did not score as well because EmPOWERment <br /> proposed purchasing existing homes that would require extensive retrofitting to compete <br /> with new construction. <br /> 5. Community Design <br /> The projects scored comparably in this category, but it does slightly favor new construction <br /> projects in that it award points to adding to a mix of housing within an existing <br /> neighborhood. <br /> 6. Community Sponsorship/Support <br /> The projects scored comparably in this category. <br /> 7. Project Feasibility <br /> The project feasibility category favors projects where funding, other than bond funding, is in <br /> place at the time of application. Since the EmPOWERment projects did not leverage outside <br /> funding, they did not score as well as others in this category. 8. Developer Experience The <br /> projects scored comparably in this category. All of the projects were sponsored by <br /> affordable housing providers with extensive experience serving the Orange County <br /> community. <br /> Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation: <br /> Review of Affordable Housing Bond Scoring Criteria <br />