Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
9 <br /> 1 The Leveraging category awarded points based on the degree to which non-County funds <br /> 2 were used to fund the project. The project submitted by Habitat for Humanity leveraged sixty <br /> 3 four percent (64%) of non-County funding. The two projects submitted by CASA leveraged <br /> 4 between sixty five percent (65%) and sixty seven percent (67%) of nonCounty funding. The <br /> 5 projects submitted by EmPOWERment did not apply any nonCounty funds. This category <br /> 6 also evaluated the project's ability to pay property taxes. The scoring team noted that this <br /> 7 criterion rewards projects that would be privately owned rather than owned and operated by <br /> 8 a non-profit. This incentive seems inconsistent with the need to increase the supply of <br /> 9 affordable rental housing that is often owned by a non-profit entity and exempt from property <br /> 10 taxes. Affordable Housing Coalition members also questioned awarding points for the <br /> 11 repayment of bond funds noting that serving lower income households requires significant <br /> 12 subsidy and does not allow for financial margins that would support bond repayment. This <br /> 13 criterion may be appropriate if a private developer were building a mixed income project that <br /> 14 generated enough income to repay some of the public investment. <br /> 15 4. Building Design <br /> 16 The Building Design category awards points for energy efficiency, accessibility, proximity to <br /> 17 public transportation, and high quality water and sewer services. The new construction <br /> 18 projects submitted by CASA and Habitat were able to score well in energy efficiency and <br /> 19 accessibility. The EmPOWERment projects did not score as well because EmPOWERment <br /> 20 proposed purchasing existing homes that would require extensive retrofitting to compete with <br /> 21 new construction. <br /> 22 5. Community Design <br /> 23 The projects scored comparably in this category, but it does slightly favor new construction <br /> 24 projects in that it award points to adding to a mix of housing within an existing neighborhood. <br /> 25 6. Community Sponsorship/Support <br /> 26 The projects scored comparably in this category. <br /> 27 7. Project Feasibility <br /> 28 The project feasibility category favors projects where funding, other than bond funding, is in <br /> 29 place at the time of application. Since the EmPOWERment projects did not leverage outside <br /> 30 funding, they did not score as well as others in this category. 8. Developer Experience The <br /> 31 projects scored comparably in this category. All of the projects were sponsored by affordable <br /> 32 housing providers with extensive experience serving the Orange County community. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 <br /> 35 Travis Myren made the following PowerPoint presentation: <br /> 36 <br /> 37 Review of Affordable Housing Bond Scoring Criteria <br /> 38 September 19, 2017 <br /> 39 Southern Human Services Center <br /> 40 <br /> 41 Decision Points <br /> 42 • Review and consider revisions to scoring criteria used to evaluate affordable housing <br /> 43 bond proposals <br /> 44 o New construction versus preservation <br /> 45 o Refined definition of special needs populations <br /> 46 o Refined definition of local residency <br /> 47 o Ability to repay property taxes (Non-Profits) <br /> 48 o Ability to repay bond funds (Non-Profits) <br /> 49 <br /> 50 Projects Awarded <br />