Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
8 <br /> 1 The special needs score will be prorated based on the number of units dedicated to <br /> 2 serving residents with special needs. <br /> 3 3. Define residency as households currently residing or working in Orange County. <br /> 4 Clarify reporting to include marketing and recruitment efforts to Orange County <br /> 5 residents and reporting requirements once the project is completed. <br /> 6 4. Eliminate the ability to pay property taxes as a scoring criterion since most affordable <br /> 7 rental property is owned by a non-profit and exempt from property tax. <br /> 8 5. Eliminate the ability to repay bond funds as a scoring criterion since the focus of bond <br /> 9 funds should be to serve lower income households. <br /> 10 <br /> 11 BACKGROUND: <br /> 12 On June 6, 2017 the Board of County Commissioners awarded $2.5 million in affordable <br /> 13 housing bond funds to projects that had submitted proposals through a request for proposal <br /> 14 process. The County received six proposals from affordable housing providers. One of the <br /> 15 proposals was incomplete, so five of the six proposals were scored using standard scoring <br /> 16 criteria (Attachment 1). <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Based on the scoring criteria and available funds, four of the five remaining projects were <br /> 19 recommended for funding. One of the projects submitted by EmPOWERment (606 Bynum <br /> 20 Street) was not recommended for funding. The Board of Commissioners funded this project <br /> 21 using other affordable housing funds appropriated in the Capital Investment Plan. <br /> 22 <br /> 23 During the discussion of the bond awards, the Board requested an analysis of the scoring <br /> 24 criteria to determine why some projects scored higher than others. The following describes how <br /> 25 the projects scored under each category as well as feedback from the Affordable Housing <br /> 26 Coalition. A summary of scores by project is attached (Attachment 2) as well as a selection <br /> 27 narrative (Attachment 3). Each project was scored using eight categories as described below. <br /> 28 <br /> 29 1. Income Targeting and Special Needs <br /> 30 The income targeting and special needs category awarded more points to projects that <br /> 31 served lower income households. Up to twenty-five points were available to projects serving <br /> 32 households with incomes under thirty percent (30%) of the area median income. All of the <br /> 33 projects scored well for serving low income households. However, this category 1 also <br /> 34 awarded an additional twenty (20) points to projects serving at least one special needs <br /> 35 population. Both of the projects submitted by CASA as well as the project submitted by <br /> 36 Habitat for Humanity earned the additional points for serving at least one special needs <br /> 37 population. The EmPOWERment projects did not receive those additional special needs <br /> 38 points. Affordable Housing Coalition members requested a clear definition of the special <br /> 39 needs populations that would qualify for the additional points and a way to prorate the <br /> 40 special needs scores based on the number of units dedicated to serving a special needs <br /> 41 population. <br /> 42 2. Local Residency <br /> 43 The Local Residency category was intended to award points based on whether the project <br /> 44 would serve County residents. The Request for Proposal was not prescriptive on how <br /> 45 achieving that goal should be reported. As a result, the responses varied too widely to score <br /> 46 them consistently. This criterion will be better defined in the next scoring process to correct <br /> 47 this issue. Affordable Housing Coalition members also requested more clarity on residency <br /> 48 qualifications in its review of the criteria. <br /> 49 3. Leveraging <br />