Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
August 28,2002 <br /> Ms. Tara Fikes <br /> Housing and Community Development <br /> PO Box 8181 <br /> Hillsborough,NC 27278 <br /> Re: Revisions to Bond Policy <br /> Dear Tara: <br /> Thanks for sending the revised bond policy out for comment I think the Affordable <br /> Housing Advisory Board has recommended some thoughtful revisions to the current <br /> policy. My comments on those changes,as well as the old policy are as follows: <br /> 1. If we assume that much of the special needs funding will be used for rental <br /> housing,then the first RFP will contain just$260,000 for homeownership <br /> opportunities and$780,000 for predominantly rental projects. This distribution <br /> seems overly weighted in favor of rental. <br /> 2. Regarding Project Completion guidelines,perhaps larger projects could be <br /> allowed more time(like the three years provided in the guideline)and smaller <br /> projects should be given less time(buying and renovating three houses should <br /> not take three years). The same holds true for new construction projects— <br /> building three houses should not take as long as doing a thirty home <br /> development. <br /> 3. Regarding the Leveraging section of the Evaluation Criteria,it seems that if a <br /> project can repay bond funds to the County that should be worth more than 2 or 3 <br /> points. <br /> 4. Regarding the Building Design section, it seems that unless you exceed the <br /> energy standards and meet universal Design standards,only 4 points are possible <br /> in this entire section. This would work against townhomes(that are built to the <br /> energy standard)where the bedrooms are located upstairs. The increasing <br /> scarcity of land(and the associated high cost)will compel affordable housing <br /> developers to consider townhomes and condominiums in the years ahead. The <br /> County's evaluation criteria should recognize and not penalize this`natural path'. <br /> 5. The Community Sponsorship and Support section now seems skewed toward <br /> rental housing because both of the new criteria refer to supportive services, <br /> which typically are more relevant to rental housing. <br /> 6. Regarding Attachment A Eligible Projects—Perhaps it should be stated that some <br /> funds are provided as grants rather than as second mortgages,as stated in the <br /> Attachment <br /> 7. Under Program Monitoring and Reporting-it is stated that the final project <br /> report will include a current market analysis. What does this entail? Will it <br /> include hiring a professional and increasing project costs? <br /> S. Regarding the County's Long Term Affordability policy—The Equity sharing <br /> formula could use some revisions in order to make it fairer. First,the County <br /> might consider subordinating its Deed of Trust to a homeowner who wants to <br /> borrow money to make improvements to their home. It is in all of our interest <br /> that homes built or rehabbed with public funds are maintained <br />