Agenda - 09-09-2002 - 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

as Habitat for Humanity iff Orange County, NC, Inc. P.O. Box 459• Hillsborough, NC 27278 •(919)732-6767,FAx: (919)732-2337•ochabitat @earthlink.net August 27,2002 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Susan Levy, Exec. Director,Habitat for Humanity RE: Comments on proposed revisions to Affordable Housing Bond Policy First, as one who worked on developing the original bond policy and criteria,I know how complex the task is. I am appreciative of the hard work of the members of the County's AHAB and commend them for a job well done. I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions. The following comments are made on behalf of Habitat for Humanity. Land banking. We are very disappointed that the AHAB was not able to make recommendations for criteria for land banking so that it could be included in the initial round of RFPs. This omission is unfortunate since land acquisition is-often very time sensitive,and opportunities to purchase land are quite limited in Orange County. We are especially disappointed because Habitat for Humanity currently has a contract on a 16-acre tract in a very desirable location for affordable housing in Chapel Hill. In our negotiations with the seller, we had to agree to a very short time flame in which to secure funding for the purchase. In fact, our offer was accepted over that of a private developer based on nur T.greeing to have funding secured by the end of 2002, or lose the contract We had hoped that land banking would be included in the initial round of funding, and that we could meet the seller's conditions, if we were able to submit a successful application. We strongly urge the BOCC to include land banking in the initial round of RFPs. While it is understandable that the AHAB ran out of time, and perhaps felt they lacked the expertise to suggest criteria for this category,there should be another mechanism for developing the criteria, perhaps through a special subcommittee. Coming up with the criteria should not be so time consuming or difficult that it cannot be included in the first round Separate Funding Pools Strategy While there are no doubt administrative difficulties in doing so, we suggest that there be some provision for evaluating proposals that include rental,homeownership, and special needs housing as one integrated project The way the proposed policy is currently worded,the project must be submitted as three separate M's that will be judged independently. Thus, one portion of the project might receive funding when the other would not,which would threaten the success of the entire project since it would be impossible to move forward with only partial funding.