Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
14 <br /> 1 housing providers. All respondents were local non-profits. One (1) of the proposals was <br /> 2 incomplete and therefore was not scored, so five (5) of the six (6) proposals were scored using <br /> 3 the original standard scoring criteria. <br /> 4 <br /> 5 Based on the scoring criteria and available funds, four (4) of the five (5) remaining projects <br /> 6 were recommended for Affordable Housing (AH) Bond funding. One of the projects submitted <br /> 7 by EmPOWERment (606 Bynum Street) was not recommended for funding due to non- <br /> 8 availability of AH Bond funds in the applicable funding round. The Board of Commissioners <br /> 9 funded this project using other affordable housing funds appropriated in the Capital Investment <br /> 10 Plan. See Attachment 1 for an update and information on the funded projects. <br /> 11 <br /> 12 Commissioner Dorosin referred to the CASA projects, and asked if these are moving <br /> 13 forward at this point. <br /> 14 Sherrill Hampton said CASA submitted an application, and were not funded in 2017; <br /> 15 but has re-submitted a revised application, which is in the process of being reviewed, with <br /> 16 some additional documentation being submitted in May 2019. She said CASA will receive a <br /> 17 decision in August 2019. <br /> 18 <br /> 19 During discussion on June 6, 2017, the Board requested an analysis of the scoring criteria to <br /> 20 determine why some projects scored higher than others. On September 19, 2017, County staff <br /> 21 proposed recommended changes to the Affordable Housing Bond Scoring Criteria, which were <br /> 22 approved by the BOCC. The approved changes and programmatic refinements are highlighted <br /> 23 in "yellow" on Attachment 2. Note that items "underlined" on Attachment 2 are the new <br /> 24 proposed changes outlined below. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 Staff is requesting approval for additional programmatic changes to ensure that identified <br /> 27 County needs are being met, as well as to enhance the operational efficiency and optimization <br /> 28 of the Affordable Housing Bond Program. It is recommended that these proposed changes <br /> 29 also be applicable to the disposition of County surplus properties for affordable housing <br /> 30 projects. <br /> 31 <br /> 32 The proposed changes are as follows: <br /> 33 • Add the phrase "or other" to Footnote 1 on Page 1 as it relates to including all types of <br /> 34 vouchers in the definition of Special Needs Populations, especially since the County <br /> 35 approved the new Local Voucher Program. <br /> 36 • On Page 2 of the Scoring Criteria, the following changes are proposed: <br /> 37 • Reorganize Section D for clarification purposes and enhance maximum points to be <br /> 38 awarded for Questions 2 and 4, as well as reduce the points awarded for Question 5. <br /> 39 • Reorganize Section E for clarification purposes and enhance maximum points to be <br /> 40 awarded for Question 2, as well as add a new question and points awarded for the <br /> 41 project being located in an area of the County that is traditionally underserved. <br /> 42 • Under the Scoring Criteria section on Developer Experience on Page 3, add a <br /> 43 Question 4: /s the project sponsor a non-profit?The proposed number of points for this <br /> 44 new question is "15'. This helps negate an inequitable total score between nonprofits <br /> 45 and for-profit developers given earlier changes to the section on Leveraging on Page 1. <br /> 46 • The total available score has been increased to 235 given the aforementioned changes <br /> 47 to the Scoring Criteria. <br /> 48 • Establish application requirements for bond funding based on project size. For future <br /> 49 applications, the projects must have a project size of five (5) or more units. If a <br />