Morrisville Town Council Work Session February 24, 2018, 8:00 AM
1.
Call to Order
2.
Discussion Items 2.a.
Approved Agenda
2.b.
Strategic Plan Discussion - Todd Wright, Assistant Town Manager and Lou O'Boyle, Zelos 1 Info Sheet-Strategic Plan #1.docx 1 Strategic Planning-2018 Council Retreat #2.pdf 1 Strategic Plan Draft Components #3.docx 1 Strategic Plan Zelos Planning Method #4.docx
2.c.
CIP Discussion - Jeanne Hooks, Assistant to the Town Manager and Budget Manager 2 Info Sheet _CIP Update Presentation.docx 2 CIP Presentation.pdf 2 ATTH 1 CIP Project Narrative.pdf 2 ATTH 2 CIP Council Areas of Interest Input.pdf 2 ATTH 3 CIP Policy Approval.pdf 2 ATTH 4 CIP Worksession Feb 2018.pdf 2 ATTH 5 CIP Initiated Projects.pdf
2.d.
Development Topic Discussion: Affordable Housing - Courtney Tanner, Planning Director 4 Info Sheet _Affordable Housing.docx 4 Affordable Housing_v3.pdf 4 Supp Wake County Affordable Housing Plan.pdf
2.e.
Development Topic Discussion: Airport Overlay District - Courtney Tanner, Planning Director 3 Info Sheet _Airport Overlay.docx 3 Airport Overlay_v3.pdf 3 Supp Morrisville UDO - June 2017_Table of Permitted Uses.pdf
1 Page 1
2.f.
3.
Development Topic Discussion: Transportation-Related Topics - Benjamin Howell, Long Range Planning Manager 5 Info Sheet_Transportation Presentation.docx 5 2018 TC Retreat Presentation_Public Trans and Infrastructure Req.pdf
Adjournment
2 Page 2
TOWN COUNCIL ITEM INFORMATION SUMMARY Item Title:
Strategic Plan
Item Type:
Work Session
Discussion Date:
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Related Documents:
Draft Components, Strategic Planning Methodology, Citizen Survey and Community Input Sessions Results
Item Summary:
Staff and Zelos Director of Engagement, Lou O’Boyle, will begin by providing an overview of the strategic planning process schedule. Staff and Ms. O’Boyle will review the feedback received from the recent Citizen Survey and public input meetings, as well as review the draft components of the Strategic Plan.
Action Requested:
Council will be asked to review the draft components of the strategic plan, discuss and provide feedback so that a final plan may be drafted for Council’s consideration. Council will have the opportunity to: Confirm Plan Name Confirm Mission Statement Select Vision Statement Confirm Goals Confirm Objectives Confirm Outcome Measures Confirm Initiatives Prioritize Initiatives Determine plan implementation strategies
3 100 Town Hall Drive | Morrisville, NC 27560 | P: 919.463.6200 | F: 919.481.2907 | to wnofmorrisville.org
Strategic Planning 2018 Council Retreat 4
Strategic Planning Retreat Objectives 5
Objectives • Review Strategic Planning Process – Outreach Efforts
• Introduce New Strategic Planning Draft Components • Review Existing Draft Components • Provide Feedback on All Draft Components
6
Retreat Outcome • Provide Feedback on Draft Components – – – –
Confirm Plan Name Confirm Mission Statement Select Vision Statement Confirm Goals, Objectives, Outcome Measures & Initiatives
• Prioritize Initiatives • Develop an Implementation Plan – Oversight – Decision Making and Allocation of Resources – Reporting Requirements
7
Strategic Plan Input and Engagement January-February, 2018 Demographic study
Community meetings
Past survey results
– 330 attendees (adults, children, Council, staff) – 294 response for on-line survey
Strategic plan
Citizen survey/Online Survey
Existing organizational data
Interviews
September-October, 2017 – 230 responses: Business community, Advisory Committee, Staff, Council 8
What do you like best about living in Morrisville? Themes from January-February community meetings and on-line survey 0
50
100
150
136
WELCOMING / FRIENDLY / COMMUNITY 96
AMENITIES / THINGS TO DO /ACTIVITIES 70
DIVERSITY / MULTICULTURAL 58
SAFE / CLEAN / QUIET 50
GREEN SPACE / PARKS / TRAILS
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
250
194
PROXIMITY / LOCATION / CONVENIENCE
GOOD SCHOOLS
200
30 30
9
What would you say are the 2-3 most critical issues facing Morrisville today? Themes from January-February community meetings and on-line survey TRAFFIC / CONGESTION / MOBILITY 339 GROWTH / DEVELOPMENT / INFRASTRUCTURE 176 SCHOOLS / TOO CROWDED / LOCATION 132 MORE AMENITIES / ACTIVITIES / THINGS TO DO 67 SAFE / CRIME
64 HOUSING CHOICE / HOUSING MIS 33 MORE OPEN SPACE / GREEN / PARKS 32 0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
10
What are a few words or phrases to describe Morrisville 10 years from now? Themes from January-February community meetings and on-line survey
GREAT PLACE / COMMUNITY / SMALL TOWN
169
MOBILITY / PUBLIC TRANSIT /EASY TO GET AROUND
114
AMENITIES / EVENTS / ACTIVITIES
101
ENV. SUSTAINABILITY / PARKS / GREEN
88
SAFE / CLEAN
83
WELL DEVELOPED / HOUSING CHOICE & MIX
81
QUALITY SCHOOLS / CLOSE BY
65
INNOVATIVE / HI-TECH
60 0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
11
Connect Morrisville – Strategic plan MISSION: Connecting our diverse community to an enhanced quality of life through innovative programs and services VISION: Option #1 The Town of Morrisville will be an innovative crossroads where cultural heritage meets the next generation, nurturing vibrant communities of diverse families and businesses, while preserving small-town values Option #2 A sustainable and thriving community that enhances the well-being of everyone that lives, works and plays in Morrisville VALUES: Dedication – Integrity – Courtesy - Innovation
GOAL 1: Improved transportation mobility Enhance modes of transportation through improved accessibility, connectivity and collaboration Obj. 1.1 Manage traffic congestion at targeted locations and targeted times of day Obj. 1.2 Leverage resources through partnerships with other government entities and the private sector Obj. 1.3 Improve mobility options for non-drivers
GOAL 2: Thriving, sustainable communities Enrich the quality of life through the preservation of natural resources, well-planned development and strengthening neighborhood vitality Obj. 2.1: Provide a mix of housing options that meet the current and future needs of the community Obj. 2.2: Create a sense of place through planful development that balances commercial and residential growth Obj. 2.3: Be responsible stewards of the natural environment Obj. 2.4: Establish a planned approach for redevelopment and revitalization Obj. 2.5: Plan and provide for current and future infrastructure GOAL 3: Engaged, inclusive community Enrich the quality of life through programs, events, amenities and services valued by the community Obj. 3.1: Offer events and programs that meet the needs and interests of the community Obj. 3.2: Increase awareness of activities and opportunities for engagement Obj. 3.3: Effectively maintain assets and make the most of existing resources Obj. 3.4: Promote meaningful public engagement and collaboration
GOAL 4: Public safety readiness Provide a safe and secure community through prevention, education, readiness and responsiveness Obj. 4.1: Provide educational opportunities and encourage preparedness Obj. 4.2: Be operationally ready Obj. 4.3 React responsively to the public safety needs of the community
12
GOAL 5: Operational excellence Deliver exceptional service with an engaged workforce that effectively manages public assets and promotes transparency Obj. 5.1: Promote financial integrity through effectively and efficiently managing public assets Obj. 5.2: Deliver customer-focused service Obj. 5.3: Require the highest professional standards Obj. 5.4: Attract, develop and retain a diverse, high-performing workforce Obj. 5.5 Align priorities with resources
Goal 6: Economic prosperity Grow a diverse economy through innovative partnerships and a business-friendly environment Obj. 6.1: Attract and retain businesses that provide a diverse tax base Obj. 6.2: Support new and existing businesses by streamlining processes and minimizing complexities Obj. 6.3: Understand business needs in order to supply a ready workforce
13
GOAL 1: Improved transportation mobility GOAL DESCRIPTION: Enhance modes of transportation through improved accessibility, connectivity and collaboration OUTCOME MEASURES
OM1.1: Ratio of peak to off peak travel times at targeted locations OM1.2: Duration of ‘rush hour’ at targeted locations OM1.3: Linear feet of sidewalks, greenways, bike and pedestrian infrastructure (existing and new) OM1.4: Funding streams and dollars leveraged OM1.5: Citizen survey mobility data OBJECTIVES Obj. 1.1 Manage traffic congestion at targeted locations and targeted times of day
INITIATIVES Init. 1A: Adopt Comprehensive Transportation Plan update
Obj. 1.2 Leverage resources through partnerships with other government entities and the private sector
Init. 1B: Incorporate short term Capital Improvement Project plans into Comprehensive Transportation Plan (infrastructure)
Obj. 1.3 Improve mobility options for non-drivers
Init. 1C: Develop capital improvement projects with viable, identified resources using a consistent methodology for estimating Init. 1D: Develop a sidewalk priority policy to increase mobility and connectivity by installing a minimum of one sidewalk gap project per year Init. 1E: Leverage resources to increase access to public transit Init. 1F: Research traffic management options with proven results and determine applicability to Morrisville (example: regional traffic light timing, etc.)
14
GOAL 2: Thriving, sustainable communities GOAL DESCRIPTION: Enrich the quality of life through the preservation of natural resources, well-planned development and strengthening neighborhood vitality OUTCOME MEASURES OM2.1: Ratio of residential/commercial tax OM2.2: Acreage - park space / green space / open land OM2.3: Water quality or stormwater measure – TMDL compliance measure OM2.4: Percentage of recycled material to total waste (trash + recycling) OBJECTIVES Obj. 2.1: Provide a mix of housing options that meet the current and future needs of the community Obj. 2.2: Create a sense of place through planful development that balances commercial and residential growth
INITIATIVES Init. 2A: Clarify and define the appropriate housing type mix, affordability standards and ideal balance of commercial to residential tax base Init. 2B: Mitigate the impact of development on the natural environment
Obj. 2.3: Be responsible stewards of the natural environment
Init. 2C: Identify and prioritize specific areas that are ripe for development
Obj. 2.4: Establish a planned approach for redevelopment and revitalization
Init. 2D: Develop Town Core
Obj. 2.5: Plan and provide for current and future infrastructure
Init. 2E: Research successful initiatives for walkable activity centers and adapt for Morrisville
15
GOAL 3: Engaged, inclusive community GOAL DESCRIPTION: Enrich the quality of life through programs, events, amenities and services valued by the community OUTCOME MEASURES OM3.1: Applicable citizen satisfaction data OM3.2: Number of Town sponsored events / attendance OM3.3: Town of Morrisville engagement opportunities and participation levels (Morrisville 101, CERT, PD Citizen Academy, Advisory Committees, Volunteer) OBJECTIVES Obj. 3.1: Offer events and programs that meet the needs and interests of the community
INITIATIVES Init. 3A: Gather and analyze data on how to best engage the community
Obj. 3.2: Increase awareness of activities and opportunities for engagement
Init. 3B: Maximize functions of the new website and existing social media platforms
Obj. 3.3: Effectively maintain assets and make the most of existing resources
Init. 3C: Improve public understanding of offerings and opportunities for engagement
Obj. 3.4: Promote meaningful public engagement and collaboration
Init. 3D: Implement a public participation platform and utilize across departments Init. 3E: Update Parks and Recreation master plan and begin implementation Init. 3F: Expand maintenance and replacement schedules for Town assets
16
GOAL 4: Public safety readiness GOAL DESCRIPTION: Provide a safe and secure community through prevention, education, readiness and responsiveness OUTCOME MEASURES OM4.1: Crime rate – Part 1 and Part 2 OM4.2: Crime clearance rates OM4.3: Fire loss OM4.4: Lives saved OM4.5: Citizen satisfaction data about perception of safety OBJECTIVES Obj. 4.1: Provide educational opportunities and encourage preparedness Obj. 4.2: Be operationally ready Obj. 4.3 React responsively to the public safety needs of the community
INITIATIVES Init. 4A: Execute identified prevention and education programs that address health and safety issues including fire, crime, victimization and wellness Init. 4B: Achieve and maintain highest level of accreditation for Police and Fire Init. 4C: Adhere to nationally accepted models for Police and Fire staffing Init. 4D: Continually assess and reassess technological upgrades and training Init. 4E: Expand evidence-based services related to prevention and victimization Init. 4F: Deliver strategies, programs and services to meet health, safety and self-sufficiency needs
17
GOAL 5: Operational excellence GOAL DESCRIPTION: Deliver exceptional service with an engaged workforce that effectively manages public assets and promotes transparency OUTCOME MEASURES OM5.1: Bond rating OM5.2: Customer satisfaction data OM5.3: Employee satisfaction data OM5.4: Voluntary turnover rate OBJECTIVES Obj. 5.1: Promote financial integrity through effectively and efficiently managing public assets
INITIATIVES Init. 5A: Establish a systematic process to review and revise policies, programs and procedures
Obj. 5.2: Deliver customer-focused service
Init. 5B: Develop and deliver a Town-wide customer service training program
Obj. 5.3: Require the highest professional standards Obj. 5.4: Attract, develop and retain a diverse, highperforming workforce Obj. 5.5: Align priorities with resources
Init. 5C: Design and deploy a succession planning program Init. 5D: Provide professional development opportunities Init. 5E: Maintain a competitive compensation and benefits package Init. 5F: Implement the phases of the strategic planning process (Connect Morrisville)
18
GOAL 6: Economic Prosperity GOAL DESCRIPTION: Grow a diverse economy through innovative partnerships and a business-friendly environment OUTCOME MEASURES OM6.1: Business retention rates OM6.2: Net gain in business OM6.3: Unemployment rates OM6.4: Commercial tax base by job sector OBJECTIVES Obj. 6.1: Attract and retain businesses that provide a diverse tax base
INITIATIVES TBD
Obj. 6.2: Support new and existing businesses by streamlining processes and minimizing complexities Obj. 6.3: Understand business needs in order to supply a ready workforce
19
Strategic Planning Methodology Definition of Terms:
Mission
Mission: Purpose, fundamental reason for existence
Vision Values
Vision: A word picture of the future you hope to create or influence
Goals
Values: Guiding principles that govern behavior and the way you do business Goals: Broad statements of measurable outcome to be achieved on behalf of customers
Objectives
Objectives: Statements of what you must do well or barriers to overcome in order to achieve the goals
Initiatives
Initiatives: Actionable effort that when executed will impact the objectives and influence the goals Resources: People, money, time, equipment, etc.
Resources
Measures: Meaningful indicators that assess progress
Zelos
1800 Diagonal Road, Suite 600 | Alexandria, Virginia 22314 | 703-828-7831 | www.zelosllc.com Page 1
20
TOWN COUNCIL ITEM INFORMATION SUMMARY Item Title:
Capital Investment Program Update
Item Type:
Presentation
Discussion Date:
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Related Documents:
CIP Policy, CIP Project Narrative Summary, CIP Council Areas of Interest Input, CIP Update/Retreat Preview Presentation, & CIP Initiated Projects
Item Summary:
Town Council is in the process of a major update to the Capital Investment Program (CIP) for the purposes of planning sound long-term investment expectations and to provide direction for staff in developing a usable funding plan that delivers tangible results for the community. The purpose of the presentation is to provide an opportunity to discuss at a high level Council’s common areas of interest. It is important to think about: The Big picture Needs vs. wants Driving influences Opportunities Staff will reference the CIP Project Narrative Summary and Council Areas of Interest Input attachments throughout the presentation as staff shares influences and ask Council for any other considerations. This input will be used to update/develop projects for Council prioritization at an upcoming work session.
Action Requested:
The primary discussion expectations for this presentation are as follows: Identify common project interest by reviewing existing projects & any new projects for staff to develop Discuss potential influences to update/remove/add projects Determine how to identify project priorities for the FY2019-FY2023 CIP planning period In order to maximize our time on this topic, Council is asked to review the attachments provided and come prepared to share and discuss the points identified above.
21 100 Town Hall Drive | Morrisville, NC 27560 | P: 919.463.6200 | F: 919.481.2907 | to wnofmorrisville.org
CIP Update 2018 Town Council Retreat 22
Discussion Expectations • Review Existing Projects & New Project Interest • Discuss Potential Influences to Update/Remove/Add Projects • Determine How to Identify Project Priorities FY2019 – FY2023 23
Overview • Potential Future Capital Projects • Identifying How to Determine Project Priorities • Looking Ahead
24
Capital Projects Potential Future Projects for Review
25
Discussion Tips This Round • Focus on Common Areas of Interest
• Think About the Strategic Big Picture
• Needs vs Wants
• Evaluate by Category
• Driving Influences
• Opportunities
Discussion will Use CIP Project Narrative Summary for Project Details as Staff Shares Project Influences & Asks Council for Other Considerations. Reference Council Input Summary for Common Areas of Interest.
26
Bicycle & Pedestrian Crabtree Crossing Greenway Connector
Sawmill Creek Greenway
Environmental/Stormwater Sawmill Creek Stream Restoration 27
Green Highlight Denotes Council’s Previous Designation as a Priority Project
Parks & Recreation Cedar Fork Elementary Park
Civil War Battleground Park
Crabtree Nature Park PH 1
Crabtree Nature Park PH2
Recreation Center Town Center
Rural Heritage Park
Senior Activity Center
Sports Facility Improvements
Town Green 28
Green Highlight Denotes Council’s Previous Designation as a Priority Project
Public Facility Public Works
Town Center Parking Lot
Train Depot
Public Safety Northwest Fire Station
Police & Fire Local Training Facility 29
Green Highlight Denotes Council’s Previous Designation as a Priority Project
Transportation International Drive Extension
Morrisville East Connector
Odyssey Drive Extension
Town Hall Drive Medians – Bike Lanes 30
Green Highlight Denotes Council’s Previous Designation as a Priority Project
Identified Potential Projects • Pugh House Assessment
• Fire Station 2 Road Widening Impacts
• Sidewalk Projects – Airport Blvd. I-5700 Interchange Betterments – Church Street Sidewalk (NCDOT Grant 80/20)
• Morrisville Community Park Phase III
• Other New Projects
• Greenway Connectors
• Town Operational Needs
– Crabtree/Hatcher Creek Greenway Connector to Indian Creek Trailhead – Town Hall Terraces
– Plan Updates – Citizen Survey Input
– Major Renovation/Maintenance – Meeting Space – Expanded Capacity Needs
31
Other Potential Projects What are Other Council Project Interests?
32
Identifying Priorities FY2019-FY2023 How to Determine Project Priorities this Planning Period
33
CIP Prioritization • CIP Policy Outlines: – CIP Review Team Provides Recommendation – Staff Use of Project Evaluation Criteria Adopted by Council – Produces Score Project Cost
Safety
Fiscal Efficiencies
Availability of Funding
Level of Service
Mandates
Alignment to Goals
Economic Impact
Improvement of Public Asset
Project Readiness
• How Does Council Want to Identify Priorities?
34
Looking Ahead
35
Looking Ahead - Process • Staff is Updating/Proposing New Projects • Staff CIP Review Team Scheduled to Evaluate Projects – for Completeness, Consistency & Factors Affecting Town Council Decisions to Provide Recommendations on Priorities
• Council Will Identify Priorities for Next 5-Year Planning Period • Staff Will Develop & Recommend CIP Funding Plan Based on Council’s Identified Priorities • Council Adoption of CIP (with Annual Operating Budget) 36
Looking Ahead – Next Discussion Next CIP Work Session Expectations • Identify Project Priorities for 5-Year Planning Period When • Next Work Session – March 27
37
Questions & Info Needs What other information does Council need to prepare for next CIP discussion?
38
CIP Project Narrative The following items represent existing projects within the CIP program that staff is currently working to update.
Category
Project Title
Brief Scope
Influences
Bicycle & Pedestrian
Crabtree Crossing Greenway Connector
Improve greenway connectivity from Crabtree Hatcher Creek Greenway ‐ extend Parks Master Plan 0.50 miles along Crabtree Crossing from Morrisville Parkway to current stub ‐ within existing ROW
Bicycle & Pedestrian
Sawmill Creek Greenway
Construct 1.75 miles of greenway along Sawmill Creek north to south ‐ between Church Street and Railroad corridor ‐ may relate to Sawmill Creek Stream Restoration BMP project
Parks Master Plan
Stream restoration and water quality improvements ‐ 338 Page Street ‐ opportunity to incorporate future Sawmill greenway trailhead
Stormwater Management
Environmental Sawmill Creek Stream & Stormwater Restoration & BMP
Parks & Recreation
Cedar Fork Elementary Multi‐purpose field at Cedar Fork Elementary School site to accommodate Park different recreational programs (youth soccer, lacrosse, etc…) with lighting to enhance programming options ‐ land joint use agreement
Parks & Recreation
Civil War Battleground Park to commemorate and preserve military skirmish history in Morrisville ‐ Parks Master Plan, Target Park Stadelmaier property believed to possess some historic significance ‐ incorporate property sold to with Indian Creek Trailhead ‐ passive park amenities and visitor attraction developer
Parks & Recreation
Crabtree Creek Nature Passive recreation with nature park attributes abutting Cedar Fork District Park Parks Master Plan, land Park Phase I and Crabtree Creek on Keybridge Drive ‐ Phase one includes 100 space parking lot, donated picnic shelter & restroom facility and large nature themed playground
Parks & Recreation
Crabtree Creek Nature Passive recreation with nature park attributes abutting Cedar Fork District Park Parks Master Plan, land Park Phase II and Crabtree Creek on Keybridge Drive ‐ Phase two expands the park to include a donated nature trail, boardwalk, off‐road bicycle trials, small picnic shelter and interpretive signage about ecology/wildlife
Parks & Recreation
Recreation Center in Town Center
Recreation Center ‐ community focal point‐ improve program offerings (i.e gym, multi‐purpose rooms, senior & youth programs, indoor activities, office/storage space)
Parks & Recreation
Rural Heritage Park
Unique heritage park ‐ open space ‐ historic and agricultural experience ‐ 9 acres Parks Master Plan, Target Smith and Lumley properties ‐ passive park amenities and educational experience site sold
Parks & Recreation
Senior Activity Center
Parks & Recreation
Sports Facility Improvements
Construct a dedicated facility for senior activities on existing Town owned propertyParks Master Plan, ‐ two tracts on Jeremiah Street or corner of Church Street and Scoggins Avenue ‐ Historic Church Parking relieve programming congestion at current Cedar Fork Community Center Lot Exp. project provides expanded programming & Improvements to several existing sport facilities, Cedar Fork District Park Parks Master Plan (irrigation, lighting, second access point) , Morrisville Community Park (field upgrades & aesthetics)
Parks & Recreation
Town Green
Public open space in Town Center Main Street ‐ gathering space for events, multi‐ Parks Master Plan, Town use, and passive recreation amenities ‐ draw people to Main Street destination ‐ Center two potential locations ‐ Jeremiah St & Town Hall Drive
Public Facility
Public Works Facility Renovation
Construct a new public works facility on existing site to include a Pending Study, Built 1988, administration/fleet building, workshop/ storage building and vehicle/equipment Expanded 2000 storage building. 21,700 sqft of buildings, 7.11 acres, & includes road frontage improvements per code
Public Facility
Town Center Parking Lot Public parking lot to support community use and business development in the Farmer's Market located Town Center ‐ expansion PSMS building parking lot Phase II of approved 2009 site on designated site, Town plan Center
Public Facility
Train Depot
Replica Train Depot ‐ Ben's Bargain Barn property or on Old Fire Station One property ‐ preserve railroad heritage
Parks Master Plan
Parks Master Plan & Town Center
Town Center
39
Page 1
Category
Project Title
Brief Scope
Influences
Public Safety
Northwest Fire Station
Fire station in northwestern area of fire district ‐ improve public safety to area. Approximately 10,000 square feet. Collaboration with Wake County School System to co‐locate on a 30 acre site to be developed as elementary school on Little Drive near Breckenridge
Pending Fire Study
Public Safety
Police & Fire Training Facility
Construct a local and regional public safety training facility with neighboring jurisdictions. Facility would provide multiple classroom style set for Police/Fire/EMS training in‐service needs including training structures (i.e. burn building, drill tower).
Pending local partnership discussion
Transportation
International Drive Extension
Extend International Drive 0.35 miles ‐ current northern terminus to intersect with Transportation Plan, Airport Boulevard ‐ 3‐lane roadway within 80ft ROW Likely constructed as development occurs
Transportation
Morrisville East Connector
Connect International Drive to Nova Drive with a 0.65 mile 2‐lane connector
Transportation
Odyssey Drive Extension Connect stub heading south from Trans Air Drive to the McCrimmon Parkway Extension ‐ 0.15 miles 2‐lane connector
Transportation Plan, Likely constructed as development occurs
Transportation
Town Hall Drive Medians/Bike Lanes
Transportation Plan, Potentially less expensive option
Pedestrian and community aesthetic enhancement to existing Town Hall Drive
Transportation Plan, contingent on McCrimmon Parkway Extension project completion
Notes: List does not include current initiated projects with approved Project Ordinances
40
Page 2
CIP Update/ Retreat Preview Work Session - February 13, 2018
Council Input - Raw Information Council Member Cawley Cawley
Short-Term (Operational, Core Service Delivery) 1. Eliminate Road Maintenance Deficit 2. Eliminate Sidewalk Gaps
Council Member Cawley Cawley
3. Farmers Market Phase 2 Cawley Cawley
Cawley Garimella Garimella Garimella Garimella Garimella Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Rao Rao Rao Rao Rao
Schlink Schlink
Schlink Schlink Schlink Scroggins-Johnson Scroggins-Johnson Scroggins-Johnson Scroggins-Johnson Scroggins-Johnson Windle Windle Windle Windle Windle
Cawley 4. Greenway connection(s) to Parkside Elementary School 5. Provide alternative location for athletics when MAFC renovated. / MSV Community Park Phase 3 Bond Fulfillment 1. Online Permit submission for Town of Morrisville 2. Opportunities for more funding agencies for town for partnership 3. Greater User-friendly UI between Planning and Business Owners 4. More competitive youth programs 5. Measures to reduce the break-in . 1. Enhanced Recycling-town facilities, events,… 2. Greenway & Sidewalk Development 3. Town Green with stage/gazebo for programming 4. Enhanced pedestrian safety 5. Community Appearance - Landscaping, Gateways… 1. Public Works Facility 2. Senior Activity Center 3. Morrisville Community Park- Tennis Courts 4. Fund Open Data Initiative (Staff, Technology) 5. Sports Facility Improvements 1. Current cost completion of major projects, Twn Center, MAFC, McCrimmon Extension, those cost overruns 2. Intersection improvments Parkside/Davis Dr/betterment costs 3. Land acquisition Church St Park, Morrisville Community Park, 2 pocket parks in Providence Place & Kitts Cr 4. Bond Referendum public works, bike lanes 5. Green way connections e-50,CCE,Millicent 1. Historic Church Parking Lot Completion 2. Street Light Additions from Savannah to Addison Park 3. Maintenance of Pugh House 4. Replace Morrisville Community Park Bathrooms by Playground Area 5. Identify Bus Stops and related budget for Town of Morrisville 1. Addition of 2 patrol officers 2. Completion of phase 2 Farmers Market (electrical and pavement) 3. Rebuild Morrisville Comm Park Restrooms 4. Create bus stops in Morrisville 5. Community parks
Cawley
Cawley Garimella Garimella Garimella Garimella Garimella Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Johnson Rao Rao Rao Rao Rao
Schlink Schlink
Schlink Schlink Schlink Scroggins-Johnson Scroggins-Johnson Scroggins-Johnson Scroggins-Johnson Scroggins-Johnson Windle Windle Windle Windle Windle
Long-Term (Policy Discussion, Major Projects, Major Changes, Capital Projects) 1. Public Safety Building 4. Early Childhood Education 2. Customer Service Orientation/Citizen Engagement Increase(Police in the Community)/Committees 3. Affordable Housing 5. Town Center Core/TOD/DFI/Landbanking for Future Parks and Schools 1. Public Works 4. Smart and Sister Cities 2. Major Intersection Accidents Area improvements 3. 5. 3. 5.
School /Town Council/Staff Affordable Living /TOD New Public Works Facility New Community Center
2. Re-Development Opportunities (Outlet Mall,…) 4. Public Transit 1. TOD 2. Complete Downtown Morrisville! (Shops, Restaurants) 3. Identify Funding for Cultural Arts Center (Town Center) 4. Recreation Center (Town Center) 1. Affordable Housing 5. Raleigh HQ type Incubator 2. Fix NC 54 first- buy up row, planning like M/C which cost twn how much? 3. Bond referendum- phase 2 Twn Center, TOD 1. TOD - transit oriented development- tiger grant, greenn space, affordable housing, all part of the plan 4. n/a 5. n/a 2. Additional Fire Station 3. Public Works Facility Updates 4. Senior Center 1. Affordable Housing Policy 5. TOD – Transportation Overlay District – McCrimmon Pkwy/Church 2. Rail station 3. Senior Center 5. Public Works facility upgrade 1. Affordable housing policy 4. Partners for Charter middle and high school 41
CIP Update/ Retreat Preview Work Session - February 13, 2018
Council Input - Sorted by Common Areas of Interest 3. Rebuild Morrisville Comm Park Resteoms 3. Land acquisition Church St Park, Morrisville Schlink Community Park, 2 pocket parks in Providence Place & Kitts Cr Rao 3. Morrisville Community Park- Tennis Courts Garimella 4. More competitive youth programs 4. Replace Morrisville Community Park Bathrooms Scroggins-Johnson by Playground Area 5. Provide alternative location for athletics when Cawley MAFC renovated. / MSV Community Park Phase 3 Bond Fulfillment Windle 5. Community parks Rao 5. Sports Facility Improvements
Parks & Recreation
Windle
Long-Term (Policy Discussion, Major Projects, Major Common Area of Interest Changes, Capital Projects) Policy Discussions AH/TOD 1. Affordable housing policy
Parks & Recreation
Rao
1. Affordable Housing
Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation
Scroggins-Johnson 1. Affordable Housing Policy Cawley 3. Affordable Housing
Policy Discussions AH/TOD Policy Discussions AH/TOD
Parks & Recreation
Garimella
5. Affordable Living /TOD
Policy Discussions AH/TOD
Parks & Recreation
Schlink
1. TOD - transit oriented development- tiger grant, Policy Discussions AH/TOD greenn space, affordable housing, all part of the plan
Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation
Johnson Schlink
Cawley
Pedestrian
Council Member
Short-Term (Operational, Core Service Delivery)
Windle
Common Area of Interest
Council Member
Policy Discussions AH/TOD
Policy Discussions AH/TOD Policy Discussions AH/TOD
PW Capital Project
2. Greenway & Sidewalk Development 2. Street Light Additions from Savannah to Addison Scroggins-Johnson Park 2. Intersection improvments Parkside/Davis Schlink Dr/betterment costs 4. Greenway connection(s) to Parkside Elementary Cawley School
Pedestrian
1. TOD 3. Bond referendum- phase 2 Twn Center, TOD 5. TOD – Transportation Overlay District – Scroggins-Johnson McCrimmon Pkwy/Church Garimella 1. Public Works
Pedestrian
Johnson
Pedestrian
Scroggins-Johnson 3. Public Works Facility Updates
PW Capital Project
Pedestrian
Windle
PW Capital Project
Johnson
4. Enhanced pedestrian safety
Pedestrian
Rao
Schlink
5. Green way connections e-50,CCE,Millicent
Pedestrian
Rao
Cawley 1. Eliminate Road Maintenance Deficit Scroggins-Johnson 3. Maintenance of Pugh House 5. Community Appearance - Landscaping, Johnson Gateways… 2. Completion of phase 2 Farmers Market Windle (electrical and pavement) Cawley 3. Farmers Market Phase 2 Rao 1. Public Works Facility
Maintenance Maintenance
Rao Johnson
2. Complete Downtown Morrisville! (Shops, Restaurants) 3. Identify Funding for Cultural Arts Center (Town Center) 4. Recreation Center (Town Center) 5. New Community Center
Maintenance
Schlink
3. Bond referendum- phase 2 Twn Center, TOD
Town Center
Food Hub
Garimella
3. School /Town Council/Staff
Policy Discussion Schools
Food Hub PW Capital Project
Cawley Windle
4. Early Childhood Education 4. Partners for Charter middle and high school
Policy Discussion Schools Policy Discussion Schools
Schlink
4. Bond Referendum public works, bike lanes
PW Capital Project
Garimella
2. Major Intersection Accidents Area improvements
Transportation
Windle
1. Addition of 2 patrol officers
Public Safety
Schlink
5. Measures to reduce the break-in . 5. Identify Bus Stops and related budget for Town Scroggins-Johnson of Morrisville
Public Safety
Cawley
Public Transportation
Scroggins-Johnson 2. Additional Fire Station
2. Eliminate Sidewalk Gaps
Johnson
Garimella
3. New Public Works Facility
5. Public Works facility upgrade
2. Fix NC 54 first- buy up row, planning like M/C which cost twn how much? 1. Public Safety Building
Policy Discussions AH/TOD PW Capital Project
Town Center Town Center Town Center Town Center
Transportation Public Safety Public Safety 42
Council Member
Short-Term (Operational, Core Service Delivery)
Windle
4. Create bus stops in Morrisville 1. Current cost completion of major projects, Twn Schlink Center, MAFC, McCrimmon Extension, those cost overruns Scroggins-Johnson 1. Historic Church Parking Lot Completion 1. Online Permit submission for Town of Garimella Morrisville Rao 4. Fund Open Data Initiative (Staff, Technology)
Common Area of Interest
Council Member
Long-Term (Policy Discussion, Major Projects, Major Common Area of Interest Changes, Capital Projects) Senior Ctr Capital Project 3. Senior Center
Public Transportation
Windle
Completion of Current Pjts.
Scroggins-Johnson 4. Senior Center
Senior Ctr Capital Project
Completion of Current Pjts.
Johnson
2. Re-Development Opportunities (Outlet Mall,…)
Economic Development
Technology
Rao
5. Raleigh HQ type Incubator
Economic Development
Technology
Johnson
4. Public Transit
Other
Johnson
3. Town Green with stage/gazebo for programming Other
Windle
2. Rail station
Other
Garimella
2. Opportunities for more funding agencies for town for partnership
Other
Garimella
4. Smart and Sister Cities
Other
Garimella
3. Greater User-friendly UI between Planning and Business Owners
Other
Cawley
2. Customer Service Orientation/Citizen Engagement Other Increase(Police in the Community)/Committees
Rao
2. Senior Activity Center
Other
Cawley
5. Town Center Core/TOD/DFI/Landbanking for Future Parks and Schools
Johnson
1. Enhanced Recycling-town facilities, events,…
Other
Other
43
TOWN OF MORRISVILL E
*
PO BOX 166
*
MORRISVILLE, NC
27560
RESOLUTION 2015 -024 OF THE MORRISVILLE TOWN COUNCIL ADOPTING THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM POLICY UPDATE
WHEREAS, a Capital Investment Program's (CIP) main purpose is to establish sound long-term investment expectations and provide direction for staff to create a usable funding plan that delivers tangible results;and WHEREAS, such large financial investments are necessary to maintain and improve public facilities and
public infrastructure to assure ongoing quality service delivery ; and WHEREAS, Town Council has evaluated the key elements of the current CIP Policy adopted in October
of 2010 to consider desired enhancements : NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE MORRISVILLE TOWN COUNCIL hereby approves the
updated CIP Policy to include the following key elements : Term Length - The CIP will span a 5-year planning period. Type of Projects - The type of Projects to be included in the CIP will be determined using the following benchmarks : • Useful life greater than 5-years • Cost value threshold greater than $100,000 • Project characteristics : o Acquisition , renovation/improvement, and/or construction of a single fixed public asset o Land purchases not associated with or included in another CIP project o Major equipment for any public facility when first constructed or acquired o Capital road maintenance or construction - excluding recurring or routine maintenance projects o May include State Roadway projects deemed important to advance within the State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP), that would decrease congestion along major routes or may contribute to improving public safety or economic development • Project categories - The projects will be organized within the CIP by the following major categories : o Public Facilities o Public Safety o Parks/Recreational o Environmentai/Stormwater o Bicycle/Pedestrian o Public Roadways/Transportation o State Roadways (design,grant match funds, or mitigating improvements) Citizen Engagement - The purpose of citizen engagement will be a strategic focus on values and service needs obtained via a comprehensive survey conducted every four years to gauge community support for certain types of projects. Other methods of citizen engagement will utilize the Town's
Page 1of 2
44
Budget Portal and Public Hearing to receive input on needs to influence potential new projects and input on Town Council's prioritized projects. Internal Review- An executive CIP Review Team shall be appointed by the Town Manager to critically assess project concept submittals for accuracy, project benefits, alignment to Town Goals, cost feasibility, and practicality of project. • Staff will utilize Project Evaluation Criteria established by Town Council to gauge the merits of an individual project based on the following criteria listed below in order of their weighted significance : Project Cost Safety Fiscal Efficiencies Availability of Funding Level of Service Mandates Alignment to Goals/Objectives Economic Impact Improvement of Public Fixed Asset Project Readiness Prioritization of Projects - Council will produce a prioritized list of projects representing the highest priorities using key information tools every 4 years . Primary Resources - Potential funding sources will include, but are not limited to debt methods that may include installment purchase, General Obligation Bonds, and Revenue Bonds; non-debt methods or pay-as-go options that may include the use of the General Fund, Unassigned Fund Balance, Capital Reserve Funds (if established), or Special Assessment/District Tax; and other methods that may include grants, State funding, or developer funding . Funding source(s) will be identified for each project . Frequency of CIP Update - The CIP will receive a Major Update of the CIP Policy, Projects, and Prioritization on a 4-year cycle, a Mini- Update every 2-years to adjust for necessary project modifications, and a simple cursory review by staff annually for urgent circumstances . e 24 day of March, 2015.
Page 2 of 2
45
CIP Update/Retreat Preview February 13, 2018 46
Work Session Expectations 1. Share Council Collected Input 2. Looking Ahead to Retreat Discussion 47
Work Session Overview • Areas of Interest • Budget & CIP Planning • Capital Projects • Looking Ahead 48
Budget & CIP Planning
49
Budget & CIP Parallel
50
CIP Planning Adopted CIP Policy 2015 5 Year Forecasting Term
Needs Assessments
Major Update – 4th Year Capital Budget Adoption
Develop/Update Projects
Mini Refresh – 2nd Year Useful Life > 5 Years Value > $100K
Council Prioritization Action
Project Evaluation
Internal Review
Project Types: Unique construction projects that provide improvements/ additions such as buildings, facilities and infrastructure
51
Budget & CIP Influences • Strategic Plan • Master Plans or Replacement Plans • Transportation & Land Use Plans
• Citizen Survey Feedback or the Like • Demographics & Other Data
• Resource Capacity & Financing Strategies • Council Interest & Input
52
Areas of Interest (Budget & Capital) Council Areas of Interest Citizen Survey Areas of Interest 53
Council Areas of Interest • Short-Term Operational Budget
• Long-Term Capital Budget
Information to be provided in Handout once available.
54
Citizen Survey Areas of Interest
Mobility Infrastructure Improvements • Roadway, transportation, and/or transit style improvement projects
Public Safety • Operation or facility improvements that maintain high standards
Mobility Bicycle/Pedestrian Improvements • Pedestrian connectivity and/or safety improvements (i.e. sidewalks, greenways, crosswalks, lighting)
Parks & Recreational
Environmental/ Stormwater
• Recreational facility and related programming, open space and parks
• Water quality & environmental improvements (i.e stream restoration, best management practices, drainage)
Top Five Results from Survey with General Definition of Project Types for Context.
55
Capital Projects High Overview of Existing & Potential New Projects Set Stage for Retreat Discussion 56
Initiated Capital Projects Environmental & Stormwater • MAFC Stream Restoration • Town Center Stormwater Treatment
Bicycle & Pedestrian
Parks & Recreational
• Crabtree/Hatcher Creek Greenway • Sidewalks (NC54, Church St. Walking Loop, Airport Blvd.)
• Morrisville Aquatics & Fitness Center (MAFC) • Church Street Park Lights • Historic Church Parking Lot Expansion (Senior Programming)
Transportation
Other
• McCrimmon Parkway Phases 1 &2 • MorrisvilleCarpenter Road • Carolina Street Extension & Roundabout
• Branding Initiative (Town Center Gateway Signage)
57
Reference CIP Project Narrative for summary of project scope and notes.
Council’s Current CIP Priorities Parks & Recreation • Crabtree Nature Park PH 1 • Recreation Center Town Center • Senior Activity Center • Sports Facility Improvements • Town Green
Public Facility • Public Works • Town Center Parking Lot
Transportation • International Drive Extension
• Priorities Established FY2016 • Historic Church Parking Lot Expansion, Carolina Street Projects have been initiated Reference CIP Project Narrative for summary of project scope and notes.
58
Other CIP Projects Bicycle & Pedestrian • Crabtree Crossing Greenway Connector • Sawmill Creek Greenway
Environmental & Stormwater
Parks & Recreation
• Sawmill Creek Stream Restoration BMP
• Cedar Fork Elementary Park • Crabtree Creek Nature Park Phase 2 • Civil War Battleground Park • Rural Heritage Park
Public Facility • Train Depot
Public Safety • Northwest Fire Station • Police & Fire Local Training Facility
Transportation • Morrisville East Connector • Odyssey Drive Extension • Town Hall Drive Medians – Bike Lanes
• Town Center Gateway Signage & Town Center Stormwater Treatment Projects have been initiated 59
Reference CIP Project Narrative for summary of project scope and notes.
Identified/Potential Projects • Pugh House Assessment
• Fire Station 2 Road Widening Impacts
• Sidewalk Projects – Airport Blvd. I-5700 Interchange Betterments – Church Street Sidewalk (NCDOT Grant 80/20)
• Other New Projects • Morrisville Community Park Phase III • Greenway Connectors – Crabtree/Hatcher Creek Greenway Connector to Indian Creek Trailhead – Town Hall Terraces
– Plan Updates – Citizen Survey Input
• Town Operational Needs – Major Renovation/Maintenance – Meeting Space – Expanded Capacity Needs 60
• Other Council Interest
Looking Ahead
61
Looking Ahead • Major Influences to Project Planning – – – –
Major Plan Updates Citizen Survey Resource Capacity & Financing Strategies Council Interest
• Council Will Identify Priorities for Next 5 Year Planning Period • Staff is Updating/Proposing Project Concepts • Staff CIP Review Team will Evaluate Projects for Completeness, Consistency & Factors Affecting Town Council Decisions to Provide Recommendations on Priorities
• Staff Will Develop & Recommend CIP Funding Plan Based on Council’s Priorities • Council Adoption of CIP (with Annual Operating Budget)
62
Looking Ahead Next CIP Work Session Expectations • Discussion on Existing Projects & New Project Interest • Discussion on Potential Influences to Update/Remove/Add Projects • Determine How Council will Establish Project Priorities FY2019 – FY2023 When • Retreat 63
Discussion What other information does Council need to prepare for next CIP discussion?
64
Initiated Capital Projects Bicycle & Pedestrian • Crabtree/Hatcher Creek Greenway • Sidewalks (NC54, Church St. Walking Loop, Airport Blvd.)
Environmental & Stormwater • MAFC Stream Restoration • Town Center Stormwater Treatment
Parks & Recreational • Morrisville Aquatics & Fitness Center (MAFC) • Church Street Park Lights • Historic Church Parking Lot Expansion (Senior Programming)
Transportation
Other
• McCrimmon Parkway Phases 1 &2 • MorrisvilleCarpenter Road • Carolina Street Extension & Roundabout
• Branding Initiative (Town Center Gateway Signage)
Projects having some level of designated funding, active progress and/or planning stages.
65
TOWN COUNCIL ITEM INFORMATION SUMMARY Item Title:
Affordable Housing
Item Type:
Presentation
Discussion Date:
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Related Documents:
Wake County Affordable Housing Plan
Item Summary:
An overview of the Wake County Affordable Housing Plan, including the importance of affordable housing, how affordable housing benefits the County, impacts of regional growth, and a growing affordable housing crisis. A general overview of who lives and works in Morrisville is also included in the presentation.
Action Requested:
In order for staff to develop an RFP for an Affordable Housing Plan, staff is requesting Town Council to provide general guidance on three discussion topics. Staff will answer questions throughout the presentation. In depth discussions should be held until the discussion topic portion of the presentation.
66 100 Town Hall Drive | Morrisville, NC 27560 | P: 919.463.6200 | F: 919.481.2907 | to wnofmorrisville.org
Affordable Housing 2018 Town Council Retreat 67
Overview
• • • • • •
Wake County Affordable Housing Plan Regional Growth Growing Housing Crisis Who Lives and Works in Morrisville Existing Morrisville Actions Morrisville Strategies 68
Wake County Affordable Housing Plan General Overview
69
What is affordable housing?
70
Who does it serve?
Home Health Aide Single parent 2 children (3-person household)
Retail Salesperson Single person 0 children (1-person household)
Preschool Teacher Single parent 1 child (2-person household)
Firefighter 2 parents 2 children (4-person household)
Income
Income
Income
Income:
$20,200
$25,600
$28,500
$34,300
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
30-50% AMI
30-50% AMI 71
AMI: Area Median Income
Why it is important? Economic Benefit • Affordable homes can attract and retain employees • Provide a competitive advantage for area employers • Shorter commutes benefit from reduction in traffic congestion, air pollution, and expenditures on roads • Home construction or rehabilitation can assist economic growth • Often increases surrounding property values and tax base
Individual Benefit • Fulfills a basic human need for shelter • Contributes to the well being of both parents and children • Reduces stress, toxins, and infectious disease • Leads to improvement in both physical and mental health • Frees up funds to spend on health care and food 72
Regional Growth Research Triangle and Wake County
73
74
75
Sources: Social Explorer; U.S. Census; HR&A Advisors
Growing Housing Crisis Five Trends in Wake County
76
Trend 1: Wake County’s rapid population growth is generating upward pressure on the cost of rental and ownership housing.
77
Sources: US Census, North Carolina Office of State Budget & Management; HR&A Advisors
Trend 2: Household incomes are not keeping pace with escalating housing costs, especially for the lowest-income households.
78
Source: U.S Census; CoStar Group; Zillow; HR&A Advisors
Trend 3: While Wake County has experienced substantial housing production, affordable housing has been a very small part of this.
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS Wake County, 2000-2016 Average Annual Housing Production: 10,300 units
16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016
79
Sources: US Census, North Carolina Office of State Budget & Management; HR&A Advisors
Trend 4: Wake County is losing its existing affordable housing stock due to redevelopment and conversion faster than it can produce or preserve it.
Acronyms LIHTC: Low Income Housing Tax Credit NOAH: Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing
80
Trend 5: Households with incomes below $39,000 are largely unable to find affordable housing, with the majority spending more than half their income on housing.
81 Note: Total cost-burdened includes the total number of households spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs. Source: HUD CHAS data; HR&A Advisors
Who lives and works in Morrisville?
82
Home Health Aide (3-person household)
Retail Salesperson (1-person household)
Preschool Teacher (2-person household)
Firefighter (4-person household)
Income
Income
Income
Income:
$20,200
$25,600
$28,500
$34,300
Morrisville Household Income Households
% of Total
Household Incomes Up to $24,999
637
7.6%
Household Incomes $25,000 to $34,999
553
6.6%
Subtotal – Household Incomes Up to $34,999
1,190
14.2%
Total
8,378
100% 83
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey. 2012-2016 5-year average.
Household Income
Households
Percent
Less than $10,000
193
2.3%
$10,000 to $14,999
84
1.0%
$15,000 to $24,999
360
4.3%
$25,000 to $34,999
553
6.6%
$35,000 to $49,999
670
Morrisville Home Values Owner-Occupied Units: 4,101 Median Housing Value $291,400 0% Less than $50,000 $50,000 to $99,999
10% 20% 30% 40%
1% 0%
8.0%
9%
$100,000 to $149,999
$50,000 to $74,999
1,332
15.9%
16%
$150,000 to $199,999
$75,000 to $99,999
1,248
14.9%
$100,000 to $149,999
2,254
26.9%
$150,000 to $199,999
989
11.8%
$200,000 or more
695
8.3%
$500,000 to $999,999
8,378
100%
$1,000,000 or more
Total
26%
$200,000 to $299,999
36%
$300,000 to $499,999
Morrisville – Median $97,769 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. American Community Survey. 2012-2016 5-year average.
10% 2%
84
Employment Inflows/Outflows 4.4% of Morrisville residents live and work in the Town 2015 Inflow/Outflow Job Counts (Primary Jobs) Employed in Morrisville
23,657
100%
Employed in Morrisville BUT Living Outside
22,620
95.6%
Employed AND Living in Morrisville
1,037
4.4%
Living in Morrisville with a Primary Job
11,404
100%
Living in Morrisville BUT Employed Outside
10,376
90.9%
Living AND Employed in Morrisville
1,037
9.1%
85 * A primary job is the highest paying job for an individual worker for the year. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (2002-2015) accessed on February 9, 2018 at https://onthemap.ces.census.gov. LODES 7.3 [version 6]
Where do Morrisville workers live?
1- 2 Jobs 3 - 8 Jobs 9 - 18 Jobs 19 - 32 Jobs 33 - 50 Jobs
86 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (2002-2015) accessed on February 9, 2018 at https://onthemap.ces.census.gov. LODES 7.3 [version 6]
Where do Morrisville residents work?
1- 5 Jobs 6 - 39 Jobs 40 - 131 Jobs 132 - 309 Jobs 310 - 604 Jobs
87 Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (2002-2015) accessed on February 9, 2018 at https://onthemap.ces.census.gov. LODES 7.3 [version 6]
Town Employment Figures: All Incomes
Morrisville 2015
Count
Share
Workers Earn $15,000/year or Less
3,138
13.3%
Workers Earn $15,000 to $40,000/year
5,737
24.3%
Workers Earn More than $40,000/year
14,782
62.5%
Top 3 Jobs by Industry Sector
5 - 511 Jobs/Sq. Mile 512 - 2,032 Jobs/ Sq. Mile 2,033 - 4,567 Jobs/Sq. Mile 4,568 - 8,116 Jobs/Sq. Mile 8,117 - 12,679 Jobs/Sq. Mile
Professional, Scientific, & Technical Services
5,436
23.0%
Manufacturing
4,651
19.7%
Information
2,237
9.5%
1- 5 Jobs 6 - 68 Jobs 69 - 343 Jobs 344 - 1,082 Jobs 1,083 - 2,642 Jobs
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (2002-2015) accessed on February 9, 2018 at https://onthemap.ces.census.gov. LODES 7.3 [version 6]
88
Town Employment Figures: < $15K per year 13.3% of primary jobs in Morrisville pay < $15K per year Morrisville 2015
Count
Share
3,138
100%
Workers Earn $15,000 to $40,000/year
0
0%
Workers Earn More than $40,000/year
0
0%
Workers Earn $15,000/year or Less
Top 3 Jobs by Industry Sector
5 - 86 Jobs/Sq. Mile 87 - 331 Jobs/ Sq. Mile 332 - 738 Jobs/Sq. Mile 739 - 1,309 Jobs/Sq. Mile 1,310 - 2,043 Jobs/Sq. Mile
Accommodation and Food Services
908
28.9%
Retail Trade
728
23.2%
Waste Management and Remediation
500
15.9%
1- 5 Jobs 6 - 39 Jobs 40 - 132 Jobs 133 - 312 Jobs 313 - 609 Jobs
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (2002-2015) accessed on February 9, 2018 at https://onthemap.ces.census.gov. LODES 7.3 [version 6]
89
Town Employment Figures: Between $15,000 and $40,000 a year 24.3% of primary jobs in Morrisville pay between $15,000 and $40,000 a year Morrisville 2015 Workers Earn $15,000/year or Less
Workers Earn $15,000 to $40,000/year Workers Earn More than $40,000/year
Count
Share
0
0%
5,737
100%
0
0%
Top 3 Jobs by Industry Sector
5 - 144 Jobs/Sq. Mile 145 - 564 Jobs/ Sq. Mile 565 - 1,264 Jobs/Sq. Mile 1,265 - 2,244 Jobs/Sq. Mile 2,245 - 3,504 Jobs/Sq. Mile
Waste Management and Remediation
1,011
19.2%
Accommodation and Food Services
665
11.6%
Retail Trade
613
10.7%
1- 2 Jobs 3 - 22 Jobs 23 - 110 Jobs 111 - 348 Jobs 349 - 849 Jobs
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (2002-2015) accessed on February 9, 2018 at https://onthemap.ces.census.gov. LODES 7.3 [version 6]
90
Town Employment Figures: > $40,000 a year 62.5% of primary jobs in Morrisville pay > $40,000 a year Morrisville 2015
Count
Share
Workers Earn $15,000/year or Less
0
0%
Workers Earn $15,000 to $40,000/year
0
0%
14,782
62.5%
Workers Earn More than $40,000/year
Top 3 Jobs by Industry Sector
5 - 354 Jobs/Sq. Mile 355 - 1,403 Jobs/ Sq. Mile 1,404 - 3,151 Jobs/Sq. Mile 3,152 - 5,597 Jobs/Sq. Mile 5,598 - 8,744 Jobs/Sq. Mile
Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services
4,727
32.0%
Manufacturing
3,859
26.1%
Information
1,634
11.1%
1- 4 Jobs 5 - 63 Jobs 64 - 316 Jobs 317 - 997 Jobs 997 - 2,434 Jobs
Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. LEHD Origin-Destination Employment Statistics (2002-2015) accessed on February 9, 2018 at https://onthemap.ces.census.gov. LODES 7.3 [version 6]
91
Existing Morrisville Actions that support Affordable Housing
92
UDO Regulations • Enable a mix of housing types • Allow smaller lot sizes • Allow high densities near planned transit and activity centers • Allow accessory dwelling units • Permit higher densities as of right 93
Infrastructure Improvements • Define greenways and sidewalks as infrastructure • Leverage funds to build sidewalks and greenways – CDBG funds for sidewalks on Church Street – CMAQ grant for Crabtree Hatcher Creek Greenway 94
Morrisville Strategies To Develop an Affordable Housing Plan
95
Discussion Topic #1 Define target populations
96
Define Target Populations • Option 1 – All underserved populations – <50% AMI
• Option 2 – Some underserved populations – 30-50% AMI Area Median Income (AMI): Determined by Morrisville Affordable Housing Plan Consultant
97
Discussion Topic #2 Define Areas of Development
98
Define Areas of Development • Option 1 – Town wide
• Option 2 – Targeted areas – Examples: • Town Center • TOD • Older neighborhoods
99
Discussion Topic #3 Reducing Land Costs
100
Reducing Land Costs • Option 1 – Develop criteria for public land disposition
• Option 2 – Develop ways to artificially reduce the cost of land by waiving development fees and/or fees in lieu parkland
• Option 3 – Combination of Option 1 and 2
101
Questions
102
Wake County Affordable Housing Plan Final Briefing Book October 2017
103
PLAN ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Affordable Housing Plan was prepared by HR&A Advisors, on behalf of the Wake County Housing Division and at the direction of the Wake County Board of Commissioners. Plan development was a collaborative process that involved contributions from a broad range of stakeholders, and would not have been possible without the expertise and insight of the following individuals and entities: Wake County Board of Commissioners
Wake County Housing Division & Wake County Department of Human Services Staff Alicia Arnold Kelly Baraldi Emily Fischbein Denise Foreman Tim Gardiner Elizabeth Harmantzis David Harris Sharon Peterson
Wake County Affordable Housing Steering Committee & Supporting Subcommittees Commissioner Jessica Holmes New Rental Production Daniel Coleman Tim Morgan Howard Manning Stephen Player Jacob Rogers Jean Tedrow Harris Tulloss
City of Raleigh Housing Staff The Corporation for Supportive Housing
The University of North Carolina School of Government Kara Millonzi Tyler Mulligan Plan prepared by: HR&A Advisors Sara Brown Phillip Kash Tania O’Conor Kyle Vangel Mary Beth Williams
Enterprise Community Partners Anne Jordan Chris Kizzie Laura Searfoss
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Karen Lado
Preservation Sonia Barnes Theresa Dew Tyran Hill Larry Jarvis Debra King Joe Stallings
Homeownership Tom Anhut Aaliyah Blaylock Kevin Campbell Marvin Connelly John Verdejo Devone Young Supportive Housing Teresa Piner Kent Jackson Ann Oshel Gregg Warren Burnetta Smith Cathy Tamsberg Community Engagement Lori Bush Gina Clapp William Rowe Vicki Scroggins-Johnson Julie Paul Shana Overdorf 104 1
Executive Summary Wake County’s Affordable Housing Need Recommendations
Implementation Roadmap Appendix
105
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
4
Wake County’s Affordable Housing Need
16
Recommendations
31
Implementation Roadmap
123
Appendix
133
Produced by HR&A Advisors, Inc., Enterprise Community Partners and Karen Lado for the Wake County Department of Human Services | August 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
3
106
PLAN CONTEXT In September 2016, the Wake County Board of Commissioners (BOC) passed a resolution committing to the development of a long-term (20-year) affordable housing plan for Wake County and establishing a Steering Committee to guide the process. The goal of the process was to identify strategies to preserve and produce affordable housing and address the growing housing crisis in Wake County, as well as engage local municipalities grappling with the same issues on a smaller scale. The Steering Committee, Wake County Human Services, and the HR&A Team worked together to develop the Affordable Housing Plan. The Steering Committee was comprised of 32 local stakeholders appointed by the Board of Commissioners and representing different communities in Wake County. The Steering Committee was chaired by Commissioner Jessica Holmes. The Wake County Human Services Department (WCHS), which provides public health, social services, housing, and transportation services to Wake County residents, served as the lead county agency for the effort. The HR&A Team, which was comprised of HR&A Advisors, Enterprise Community Partners, and Karen Lado, provided technical expertise and facilitated Steering Committee meetings. The plan development process was highly collaborative. At the beginning of the process, the HR&A Team interviewed 80+ local elected officials, County and municipal staff members, developers, nonprofit service providers, and other housing experts to gather insight into the affordable housing landscape. The HR&A Team met regularly with the Steering Committee
throughout the entire plan development process to gather ongoing feedback.
Sep Oct Steering Committee: Jan: Launch of planning process Feb: Market scan & housing gap analysis Mar: Program review & housing inventory Apr: Cross-cutting housing challenges
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Apr May Steering Committee: Jul: Cross-cutting tool prioritization Aug: Review revised recommendations Sep: Feedback on draft plan Oct: Plan approval
Jun Jul Aug
Subcommittees: Apr: Goal-setting May: Preliminary tool development Jun: Tool refinement & prioritization Wake County Commissioners review draft Affordable Housing Plan.
Sep Oct
County Commissioners Steering Committee
Implementation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Wake County Commissioners pass resolution forming the Steering Committee and committing to Plan development.
Subcommittees 4
107
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PLAN The goal of the Affordable Housing Plan is to ensure that quality affordable housing is available for all Wake County residents. Affordable housing is critical to preserving Wake County’s economic competitiveness by offering housing for workers at all income levels, supporting housing stability and economic opportunity for its residents, and furthering Wake County’s commitment to healthy and inclusive growth. The consulting team collaborated with the Steering Committee to develop five principles to guide development of the Plan’s recommendations.
Since the Affordable Housing Plan is meant to serve as a comprehensive strategy for addressing affordable housing needs in Wake County, it considers the conditions and needs of all areas in Wake County, including the incorporated areas falling within the municipalities and the unincorporated areas. Recognizing that the County and the municipalities have different powers and areas of focus, the Plan will be most successfully implemented if the County and municipalities work together.
Five core principles guided the creation of the Affordable Housing Plan. Realize Maximum Benefit from Public Resources Support Overall Housing Growth
Maximize efficient use of public subsidy, including land.
Use land use policy to support housing production that keeps pace with population growth and includes a proportionate share of affordable housing.
Focus on Populations in Greatest Need
Focus limited County resources on serving the populations in greatest need of affordable housing.
Pursue Context-Appropriate Solutions
Ensure that recommended tools respond to the diverse market conditions and regulatory frameworks that exist across Wake County.
Use Housing as a Platform for Economic Opportunity
Provide housing in high-opportunity areas that provide access to high-frequency transit and other 108 essential services to support economic opportunity for residents and deconcentrate poverty.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
5
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED Within Wake County, there are several trends that are increasing the unmet need for affordable housing. •
Wake County’s rapid population growth is generating upward pressure on the cost of rental and ownership housing. Wake County is projected to grow an average of ~22,000 people each year, making it the second fastest-growing county with more than a million residents.
•
Household incomes are not keeping pace with escalating housing costs, especially for the lowest-income households. Since 2006, the median household income for those without a bachelor’s degree has increased by 10%, while rental housing costs have increased by 35%.
•
While Wake County has experienced substantial housing production in response to growth, affordable housing has been a very small part of this, and development patterns vary across the County. In 2015, 500 units of affordable housing were produced, representing just 5% of the county’s total housing production.
•
Wake County is losing both existing naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) and publicly-subsidized housing through redevelopment and conversion. From 2009-2015 Wake County experienced a loss of approximately 5,000 units at prices affordable to low-income households.
•
In 2015, Wake County had an unmet housing need of ~56,000 affordable units, due in large part to the fact that low-income households are largely unable to find affordable housing within the County. This gap is likely to expand to as much as 150,000 units in the next 20 years.
Source: Shutterstock
Source: DHIC
Source: Wake County
109
Note: Low-income is defined as 50% of AMI or $39,400 for a four-person household based on HUD’s 2015 income limits for Wake County.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
6
Wake County’s growing affordable housing need and diminishing affordable housing supply is likely to cause the number of low-income households unable to find housing to more than double over 20 years. There is a current unmet housing need of roughly 56,000 units for low-income households. With Wake County’s growing population, the need for additional affordable units to accommodate a greater total number of low-income households is expected to rise by
approximately 3,100 to 3,700 households annually. Simultaneously, overall supply of affordable housing in Wake County is decreasing by up to 900 units each year. Together, these trends create an unmet housing need of 120,000 to 150,000 units by 2035.
UNMET HOUSING NEED EXPANDING UNMET HOUSING NEED
2035
120K to 150K HHs
2015
56,000 HHs
DECREASING SUPPLY
2035
INCREASING NEED
2015
2035 2015
ANNUAL CHANGE + 3,100 to 4,600 increase in unmet housing need
0 to 900 net affordable units lost 3,100 to 3,700 new households that need affordable housing 110
Note: Low-income is defined as 50% of AMI or $39,400 for a four-person household based on HUD’s 2015 income limits for Wake County.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
7
Over 42,000 low-income households in Wake County are extremely cost-burdened, meaning that they spend half or more of their income on housing. Of these households, about 60%, or about 26,000 households, earn less than $24,000 annually, leaving them with less than $1,000 per month to cover their remaining household costs, including food, transportation, clothing, and healthcare.
housing cost-burdened. Together, there are more than 91,000 households in Wake County that are at least cost-burdened. Households that make less than $39,000 a year (<50% AMI), represent 62% of those that are housing cost-burdened. Low-income households are more impacted by housing affordability due to their limited resources. The Affordable Housing Plan focuses on solutions that address the need of lowincome families, those making less than $39,000 (<50% AMI), in order to address the population with the greatest need.
Another 49,000 low-income households spend between 30% and 50% of their income on housing, and are considered
COST-BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS Wake County, 2014 Extremely Cost-Burdened (>50% of income)
100% 80%
30,500
26,000
12%
60%
40%
69%
81%
20%
26,900
44%
75% 31%
0%
Income:
Cost-Burdened (30-50% of income)
<30% AMI Less than $24,250
30% to 50% AMI $24,250 to $39,400
38%
8,100
47%
9% 50% to 80% AMI $39,400 to $63,050
3%
20%
23%
80% to100% AMI $63,050 to $78,800
Sources: HUD 2014 CHAS data; HR&A Advisors. Note: Total cost-burdened households includes the total number of households spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs. Low-income households are defined as 50% of AMI or $39,400 for a four-person household based on HUD’s 2015 income limits for Wake County.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
8
111
By focusing on low-income households, Wake County will ensure that a diverse cross-section of residents, including many individuals who perform essential community functions, such as teaching, healthcare, and emergency response, have access to affordable housing options. The community members below represent sample low-income households in Wake County.
Source: Shutterstock
Affordable housing is critical to helping households achieve greater financial stability and access economic opportunity. It enables them to dedicate a greater share of their resources to other needs, including healthcare, nutritious food, and educational activities. In addition, affordable housing options help low-income workers access labor markets near their homes, benefiting individual households and the community as a whole.
Source: Shutterstock
Source: Shutterstock
Home Health Aide Single parent, 2 children (3-person household)
Retail Salesperson Single person, 0 children (1-person household)
Preschool Teacher Single parent, 1 child (2-person household)
Firefighter Two parents, 2 children (4-person household)
Income:
Income:
Income:
Income:
$20,200
$25,600
$28,500
$34,300
<30% AMI
30-50% AMI
30-50% AMI
30-50% AMI
Sources: NC Department of Commerce, HUD; HR&A Advisors. Notes: Income defined using the North Carolina average annual income for each occupation. Area Median Income (AMI) is the midpoint of the income distribution for a specific geographic area. AMI is defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and varies according to household size. Low-income is defined as 50% of AMI or $39,400 for a four-person household based on HUD’s 2015 income limits for Wake County.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
9
112
RECOMMENDED APPROACH Together, the County and municipalities have the capacity to mitigate Wake County’s growing housing crisis by deploying a set of recommended tools to address residents’ housing needs. The tools represent three major categories of strategies, summarized below. The tools focus on addressing the unmet affordable housing need of Wake County residents by increasing housing supply. By pursuing the tools, the County and the municipalities can act to both increase the production of affordable housing and reduce the loss of existing affordable
Three Strategies
housing. The recommended tools focus on increasing housing supply because local governments have limited ability to affect the growth in affordable housing need by influencing the income levels of existing and future residents. Increasing need reflects population growth, combined with stagnant or declining wages for low-income households. These factors are largely driven by federal policy and market forces.
Land Use Policy
These tools enable the County and municipalities to use their land use regulations and zoning authority to indirectly support the production and preservation of affordable housing. More intensive and flexible land use better enables housing supply to keep pace with housing need, helping to mitigate housing cost increases and reduce the pressure to convert existing affordable units to market-rate housing.
Leveraged Programs
These tools directly create or preserve new subsidized affordable housing to meet the needs of Wake County residents. Structuring programs to effectively combine public funding with private and philanthropic capital increases the total amount of affordable housing that can be produced or preserved with available public funding.
Additional Public Resources
These tools develop new funding sources for affordable housing production and preservation in order to increase the resources available to meet the housing challenges Wake County faces. Dedicated public subsidy is necessary to produce affordable housing, as it closes the gap between what a household can afford to pay and the cost to develop and maintain quality housing. 113
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
10
Recognizing that the County and municipalities face resource constraints in terms of staff time and funding, select recommended tools have been identified as highest-priority based on three factors. Need reflects the selected tools’ ability to serve the lowest-income populations in Wake County that have the greatest need for affordable housing. Impact describes the selected tools’ ability to generate the greatest
number of units that provide access to opportunity by significantly increasing the number of affordable units produced or preserved and households served in high-opportunity areas. Feasibility is tied to Wake County’s capacity to successfully implement the selected tools, either independently or in partnership with the municipalities or other actors, and is impacted by costs and other factors.
Highest-Priority Tools
LAND USE POLICY
LEVERAGED PROGRAMS
County & Municipal Land Use Policy, which encompasses:
Acquisition & Preservation Fund
Establishment of Affordable Housing Overlays Expanded Accessory Dwelling Units
Affordable Housing Preservation Warning System & Annual Report Enhanced County Rental Production Loan Program
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC RESOURCES
New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing Public Land Disposition Requirements
“Familiar Faces” Supportive Housing Pilot PSH Provider & Funder CapacityBuilding Affordable Mortgage Program
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
114 11
LAND USE POLICY Wake County is experiencing rapid population growth, which it must accommodate to successfully address the housing needs of its residents. Land use policy that supports development that keeps pace with population growth can help mitigate housing costs and pressure to convert existing affordable housing to market-rate housing. Wake County increasingly requires higher-density housing to keep pace with population growth and strong housing demand in more desirable locations, especially those near transit. If land use policy does not support the higher-density development necessary to meet market pressure, Wake County will continue to see the rapid loss of existing affordable housing.
While increased overall housing demand puts affordable housing at risk, it also creates an opportunity to use land use policy to encourage developers and homeowners to produce new affordable housing. By adjusting land use requirements to allow for residential projects at higher densities in exchange for the provision of affordable units, municipalities and, to a lesser extent, the County can provide a financial incentive to create new affordable housing. While land use policy is essential to meeting housing needs, it cannot address Wake’s housing crisis alone. Lower housing development costs associated with reduced per unit land and entitlement expenditures will not be enough to make housing affordable for many low-income households, with leveraged programs and additional public resources still necessary to close the affordability gap.
County & Municipal Land Use Policy Revise Wake County’s Uniform Development Ordinance (UDO) and also support revisions to local municipalities’ UDOs to allow for higher residential density on a as-of-right basis, especially in high-opportunity areas, such as those near current or planned future transit. The UDO revisions should be done in coordination with efforts to establish affordable housing incentive overlays and expand capacity for accessory dwelling units (see below).
Establishment of Affordable Housing Incentive Overlays As part of the revisions to the County’s and municipalities’ UDOs, create affordable housing incentive overlays that offer developers the opportunity to build projects under alternative standards in exchange for including affordable units.
Expanded Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) Encourage municipalities to change zoning to enable the construction of ADUs as-of-right in single-family or lowdensity neighborhoods. In addition, conduct public education to support ADU creation and expand access to low-cost loans. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
12
115
LEVERAGED PROGRAMS To increase the supply of subsidized affordable housing and realize the greatest impact from limited public resources, Wake County should establish new housing programs and modify existing programs to better leverage outside resources and expertise and meet residents’ changing housing needs. Programs are needed because the cost to develop, maintain, and operate housing is often higher than what low-income
households can afford to pay. Leveraged programs address that gap to successfully create subsidized affordable housing, while expending minimum public funds. Multiple programs are required to address the range of housing needs in Wake County, which include access to new affordable rental units, existing affordable rental units, affordable homeownership opportunities, and permanent supportive housing options.
Acquisition & Preservation Fund
Enhanced County Rental Production Loan Program
Establish an acquisition and preservation loan fund, with philanthropic or mission-motivated investors and municipalities, to acquire sites for affordable housing development and provide low-cost permanent financing to maintain existing affordable multifamily rental properties.
Increase the scale and refine the focus of the County’s existing Affordable Housing Development Program, which provides gap funding for affordable rental housing, including by emphasizing the production of units for populations below 50% AMI and permanent supportive housing units.
Affordable Housing Preservation Warning System & Annual Report
Enhanced Housing Placement & Coordination
Develop and maintain an affordable housing preservation warning system that tracks existing affordable units and guides preservation investments, including those made through the Preservation Fund, to prevent units from being converted to market-rate and improve their quality.
Affordable Mortgage Program Provide funding to a nonprofit partner to offer guarantees for first mortgage loans and provide no-interest second mortgages for eligible low-income homebuyers.
“Familiar Faces” Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Pilot Develop a high-quality pilot permanent supportive housing project focused on high-need, high-cost clients. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Improve the County’s system for assessing and placing populations into housing and perform ongoing monitoring to confirm that populations are appropriately matched to housing based on their needs.
Redevelopment of Public Housing Sites Extended Affordability Provisions Targeted Homeowner Rehabilitation Program Housing Counseling Shared Equity Homeownership Program Permanent Supportive Housing Service Roadmap Permanent Supportive Housing Provider & Funder Capacity-Building Landlord Partnership Program
13
116
ADDITIONAL PUBLIC RESOURCES To respond to the scale of the affordable housing need, Wake County and the municipalities must increase total public resources dedicated to housing. Thoughtful land use policies can lower development costs and thus the price at which the market can provide housing. In addition, leveraged housing programs can stretch the impact of public funding. Nonetheless, there still will be need for greater public resources.
The federal government traditionally has provided much of the public resources to support affordable housing, but funding has decreased in recent years, and is likely to continue to fall. The private market will not deliver sufficient affordable housing on its own. To expand public resources, Wake County and the municipalities can dedicate more general fund revenue, expand the use of increment financing, and consider implementing special assessment districts. For increased funding to produce the greatest possible impacts, it must be allocated to effective programs.
New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing Develop new sources of affordable housing funding, with an emphasis on value capture (e.g., increment financing and special assessments) given the current level of development activity in Wake County.
Public Land Disposition Requirements Dispose of available County and other publicly owned sites to support affordable housing development. The sites can be used to directly provide affordable units or provide resources to fund affordable housing through their sale proceeds. Both the County and municipalities have land available for disposition that is appropriate to support affordable housing development.
Changes to North Carolina’s Qualified Allocation Plan Support changes to the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency (NCHFA)’s process for allocating federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits to better address the housing needs of Wake County residents. 117 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
14
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS To effectively implement the Wake County Affordable Housing Plan, the County must undertake multiple actions to support execution of the overall Plan and high-priority recommended tools. These actions fall into six major categories, summarized below.
Source: Wake County Habitat for Humanity
1. Sizing Impacts & Required Funding
Identify the County’s requested budget allocation, based on desired impacts and funding required to achieve those impacts.
2. Refining Policy
Refine the County’s existing income and location targeting policies.
3. Strengthening Internal & Partner Capacity
Internal
• Add necessary staff capacity (new FTEs) to ensure successful plan implementation. • Revise Housing Division budget to reflect expanded scale of activities (to be phased in over 3 years).
Partner
• Strengthen coordination between the County and municipalities, recognizing that the Plan will be most successful if implemented jointly by both entities. • Establish partnerships with nonprofits, lenders and other partners necessary to support the implementation of specific recommended tools.
4. Building Community Support
• Conduct an affordable housing public education campaign tied to the plan’s release that explains what the current Wake County affordable housing need is and how the recommended tools will help address it. • Encourage Steering Committee members to support efforts to build a countywide housing coalition, committed to increasing both overall housing production and affordable housing production.
5. Guiding & Tracking Implementation
• Pursue a continued role for the Affordable Housing Steering Committee in overseeing and guiding plan implementation, including identifying emerging issues. • Produce an annual report that tracks the state of Wake County’s housing and helps to evaluate the County and municipalities’ progress towards meeting their goals.
6. Launching Priority Programs
Select priority affordable housing recommended tools and organize them into related workstreams to design and launch the tools over a 24-month period.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
15
118
Executive Summary Wake County’s Affordable Housing Need Recommendations
Implementation Roadmap Appendix
119
TRENDS DRIVING WAKE’S GROWING AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS Wake County is experiencing a growing housing crisis as residents are increasingly unable to afford to live within the County. To evaluate Wake County’s affordable housing need, a multi-part analysis of the existing affordable housing landscape in Wake County was conducted. This effort involved a series of interviews with local affordable housing experts; a thorough review of current housing programs and policies; a synthesis of existing housing plans; an evaluation of demographic and market conditions; a census of current affordable housing; and an affordable housing gap analysis for Wake County residents at various income levels. This process revealed wide variation in housing affordability throughout Wake County, as well as significant challenges to affordable housing production and preservation. Overall, five key themes emerged from the existing conditions analysis:
1
Wake County’s rapid population growth is generating upward pressure on the cost of rental and ownership housing. By 2035, Wake is projected to reach 1.45 million residents, which means that it will add ~430,000 more residents over the next 20 years, growing by an average of ~22,000 people each year.
2
Household incomes are not keeping pace with escalating housing costs, especially for the lowest-income households. Since 2006, the median household income for those without a bachelor’s degree has increased by 10%, while rental housing costs have increased by 35%.
3
While Wake County has experienced substantial housing production in response to growth, affordable housing has been a very small part of this, and development patterns vary across the County. In 2015, 500 units of affordable housing were produced, representing just 5% of the County’s total housing production.
4
Wake County is losing both existing naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) and publicly-subsidized housing through redevelopment and conversion. In 2015, Wake County lost approximately 800 units of affordable housing supply and gained only 500 units, a net loss of approximately 300 units.
5
In Wake County today, 56,000 low-income households are unable to find affordable housing and this number is likely to increase to as much as 150,000 over the next 20 years. This increase is driven by the loss of affordable housing and the growth in the number of low-income households. 120
Note: Low-income is defined as 50% of AMI or $39,400 for a four-person household based on HUD’s 2015 income limits for Wake County.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
17
TREND 1: Wake County’s rapid population growth at all income levels is generating upward pressure on the cost of rental and ownership housing. Out of all U.S. counties with more than a million residents, Wake County is currently experiencing the second-highest growth rate. By 2035, Wake is projected to reach 1.45 million residents, which means it will add ~430,000 more residents over the next 20 years, growing by an average of ~22,000 people each year. If current population trends continue, by 2035, 68,000 new low-income households making less than $39,000 a year will require affordable renter and ownership housing. Unless this population growth is matched or exceeded by housing supply expansion, it will add pressure to the housing market, making it more challenging for low-income residents to find affordable housing options.
TOTAL POPULATION Wake County, 2000-2035
projected
1,600,000
+110K +110K
1,400,000 1,200,000
+120K
1,000,000
800,000 600,000
+110K 1.45M 1.34M
+143K
1.23M
+129K 1.12M
+119K
1.02M 900K
400,000 200,000
+100K
628K
757K
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
2035
121
Sources: US Census, North Carolina Office of State Budget & Management; HR&A Advisors
AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
18
TREND 2: Household incomes are not keeping pace with escalating housing costs, especially for the lowest-income households. Affordability is determined by the interaction between two factors: housing costs and household income. In Wake County, though overall incomes are increasing, housing costs for both for-sale housing and rental housing have outpaced income growth. Since 2006, the median household income in Wake County has increased by almost 16% and the median income for populations without a bachelor’s degree has increased by 10%. However, for-sale housing costs and rental housing costs have increased by 19% and 35% respectively. While the Affordable Housing Plan focuses on one side of the affordability equation, increasing the supply of affordable housing, the County should continue to pursue opportunities to increase the incomes of low-income households.
GROWTH IN HOUSING COST RELATIVE TO INCOME Wake County, 2000-2016
40%
+35%
30%
+19% +16% +10%
20% 10% 0% 2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
-10% For-Sale Housing
Rental Housing
Median Household Income Houshold Income
Median Income for Population Bachelors Degree those w/outw/o Bachelor’s Degree
Source: U.S Census; CoStar Group; Zillow; HR&A Advisors
AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
19
122
TREND 3: While Wake County has experienced substantial housing production in response to growth, affordable housing has been a very small part of this, and development patterns vary across the County. In response to Wake County’s rapid population growth, developers have produced a significant amount of new housing. Since 2000, an average of 10,300 housing units have been permitted annually in Wake County. Although production dipped during the Great Recession, it accelerated rapidly in 2012, and annual permits are now holding steady just below pre-recession levels. Production has facilitated Wake County’s growth by offering new and diverse units to entering residents.
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS Wake County, 2000-2016 Average Annual Housing Production: 10,300 units
16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016 123
Note: The rest of Wake County includes all incorporated and unincorporated areas outside of the City of Raleigh. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; State of Cities Data Systems; HR&A Advisors.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
20
In recent years, the production of subsidized affordable rental housing in Wake County has grown due to expanded use of the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, with the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency (NCHFA) responsible for allocating LIHTC credits. Wake County and the City of Raleigh have significantly increased the production of subsidized affordable rental units in the past two years by dedicating local funds to match LIHTC awards. In 2016, there were over 700 LIHTC units produced in Wake County, compared to just over 400 LIHTC units in 2015. The increase reflects efforts to increase 4% credit use over the last several years. Wake County now is producing more affordable rental housing through the LIHTC program than any other county in North Carolina.
TOTAL AWARDED LIHTC UNITS Wake County, 2012-2016 9% Credits Awarded
4% Credits Awarded
800
736
700 600 500
442
400 300
413
65%
264
277
45%
39%
100%
100%
55%
61%
35%
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
200 100 0
124 Sources: NCHFA; HR&A Advisors
AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
21
While Raleigh has shifted towards denser housing product, single-family remains the dominant topology throughout the rest of Wake County. Outside of Raleigh, single-family housing accounts for 90% of total units permitted, while multifamily units represent 68% of total units permitted in Raleigh. The County and municipalities will need to pursue strategies to increase density outside of Raleigh to allow residential development to keep pace with population growth.
MULTIFAMILY UNITS AS A % OF TOTAL UNITS City of Raleigh v. Rest of Wake County, 2000-2015 City of Raleigh
Rest of Wake County
80% 70%
68%
60% 50% 40%
30% 20%
10%
10% 0% 2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014 125
Note: The rest of Wake County includes all incorporated and unincorporated areas outside of the City of Raleigh. Source: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; State of Cities Data Systems; HR&A Advisors.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
22
Large-tract single-family development is occurring across Wake County outside Raleigh’s central core, but market strength varies between western and eastern Wake. The western portion of Wake County primarily consists of homes priced towards the higher end of the market, with listing prices generally greater than $300K. This area offers good access to jobs, transit, and community amenities. There is lower market demand for new homes in the eastern portion of Wake County, reflected in less expensive housing prices.
SELECT SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS Wake County, 2017
The Reserve at Brookhaven 40 Homes, $550-680K
Holding Village 390 Homes, $245-330K
Estates at Young Landing 54 Homes, $440-640K
Wendell Falls 4,000 Homes, $180-440K
12 Oaks 900 Homes, $265-900K
Cleveland Bluffs 43 Homes, $260-310K
AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
126 23
TREND 4: Wake County is losing existing naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) and subsidized housing due to redevelopment and conversion faster than it can produce or preserve it. From 2009 to 2015, Wake County experienced a loss of approximately 5,000 naturally occurring affordable rental units offered at prices affordable to households with incomes below $39,000. This loss translates to an alarming annual net loss range of 700 to 900 affordable rental units each year, with these units either being converted into more expensive housing options or redeveloped as non-housing options. In addition, a projected 100 to 400 LIHTC units risk being lost as they reach the end of their legal affordability obligations. Taking into account both NOAH and publicly-subsidized housing, Wake County faces a projected annual loss of 800 to 1,300 units of affordable rental housing per year. This rapid rate of loss will overwhelm Wake County’s efforts to create new affordable housing if it is not addressed.
HIGH LOSS ESTIMATE
MODERATE LOSS ESTIMATE
Annual Loss of LIHTC Units
-400
-100
Annual Loss of NOAH Rental Units
-900
-700
-1,300
-800
ANNUAL LOSS OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS
127
Sources: US Census, NCHFA; HR&A Advisors. Note: The LIHTC loss estimate reflects subsidized properties that have affordable periods expiring. Those properties do not always immediately lose their affordability.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
24
As of 2015, Wake County has approximately 61,500 affordable rental housing units, representing approximately 47% of the occupied rental stock and 17% of total occupied units in Wake County. Wake’s affordable rental housing units consist of both publicly-subsidized housing and naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) units. NOAH units make up the majority (approximately 80%) of the affordable rental stock, representing approximately 26,000 multifamily NOAH rental units and 24,000 single-family NOAH rental units. The remainder of the affordable housing rental inventory consists of 11,500 publiclysubsidized units.
OCCUPIED RENTAL STOCK BREAKDOWN Wake County, 2015
20%
MULTIFAMILY NOAH RENTAL UNITS
~26,000 SINGLE-FAMILY NOAH RENTAL UNITS
~24,000
53%
18%
PUBLICLY-SUBSIDIZED RENTAL UNITS 9%
Multifamily rental NOAH Publicly-subsidized units
~11,500
Single-family rental NOAH Market-rate rental units
Sources: American Community Survey PUMS Data, Total rental households; HR&A Advisors Note: The publicly-subsidized number does include rental assistance vouchers. In 2015, 4,574 vouchers were issued. Given data limitations, the single-family NOAH estimate may include units with vouchers.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
25
128
Wake County’s existing stock of affordable rental housing includes publicly-subsidized housing, or units that receive public subsidy from local, state or federal sources and have rent requirements in place, as well as naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH). In this context, NOAH units are defined as those priced by market forces at levels that are affordable to households earning less than $39,000 annually. The majority of multifamily NOAH units are concentrated in Raleigh, while publicly-subsidized properties are more evenly spread throughout the County. As of 2015, the municipalities with the highest shares of subsidized housing units (9-10% of total units) are Knightdale, Zebulon, and Wendell. In addition, 66% of subsidized units in the County are located in areas with poverty rates exceeding the countywide poverty rate.
TOTAL UNITS IN PUBLICLY-SUBSIZED PROPERTIES
TOTAL UNITS IN MULTIFAMILY NOAH PROPERTIES
*PHA units are not shown on map.
Source: National Housing Preservation Database; HR&A Advisors. Note: These numbers do not include rental assistance vouchers. In 2015, 4,574 vouchers were issued. NOAH units are defined as those affordable (>30% cost burden) to households earning up to $39,000 annually, adjusted for bedroom size.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
129 26
TREND 5: In Wake County today, 56,000 low-income households are unable to find affordable housing and this number is likely to increase to as much as 150,000 over the next 20 years. Over 42,000 households in Wake County are extremely cost-burdened, meaning that they spend more than half of their income on housing. Over 85% of these households earn less than $39,000 a year. Because these low-income households cannot find affordable housing, they have little income remaining to cover other household needs. Another 49,000 households are costburdened, meaning that they spend less than half, but more than one-third, of their income on housing. These households are a mix of those who cannot find more affordable options, typically at lower incomes, and those who choose to dedicate more of their income to housing. Together, there are more than 91,000 households in Wake County that are at least cost-burdened, if not extremely cost-burdened, and more than 62% or 56,000 of these households are making less than $39,000 a year (<50% AMI).
COST-BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS Wake County, 2014 Extremely Cost-Burdened (>50% of income) 100% 80%
30,500
26,000
12%
60% 40%
69%
26,900
44%
81%
75%
20%
31%
38%
8,100
47%
<30% AMI
30% to 50% AMI
9% 50% to 80% AMI
Less than $24,250
$24,250 to $39,400
$39,400 to $63,050
0%
Income:
Cost-Burdened (30-50% of income)
3%
20%
23%
80% to100% AMI $63,050 to $78,800
Sources: HUD 2014 CHAS data; HR&A Advisors. Note: Total cost-burdened households includes the total number of households spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs. Low-income households are defined as 50% of AMI or $39,400 for a four-person household based on HUD’s 2015 income limits for Wake County.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
27
130
Wake County’s lowest-income residents in need of affordable housing (households below 50% AMI) include a diverse mix of households in terms of race, household type, and household tenure. In terms of racial distribution, African Americans represent one-third of Wake County’s households below 50% AMI, compared to only one-fifth of its total population. Among low-income households, there is a roughly equal share of female-headed households and married-couple
households, suggesting a greater share of single mothers among Wake County’s low-income population than its total population. In addition, roughly two-thirds of Wake County’s low-income population are renters rather than owners, the inverse of its total population. The dominance of renters reflects Wake’s critical need for affordable rental housing options.
RACE DISTRIBUTION
HOUSEHOLD TYPE
TENURE
Wake County Pop <50% AMI
Wake County Pop <50% AMI
Wake County Pop <50% AMI
73% 63%
61%
66%
49% 44%
43% 34%
33% 20%
37%
19% 14% 7%
10% 11% 9% 6% African White Hispanic Other American
Married Couple
Male Female Householder Householder
Low-Income Population (<50% AMI)
Owner
Renter
Wake County Total Population
Sources: US Census; HR&A Advisors
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
28
131
Wake County is experiencing a growing housing crisis. Today, there is a current unmet housing need of roughly 56,000 affordable units, with this number of units required to satisfy the need for affordable housing. Over the next 20 years, Wake County’s population is projected to grow by almost 184,000 households. Based on recent trends in Wake County, 68,000 of these households are likely to be making less than $39,000. The need for
additional affordable units to accommodate a greater total number of low-income people is expected to rise by 3,100 to 3,700 units each year. Simultaneously, overall net supply of affordable housing in Wake County is declining by up to 900 units each year. Together, these trends create an unmet housing need between 120,000 to 150,000 by 2035.
UNMET HOUSING NEED EXPANDING UNMET HOUSING NEED
2035
120K to 150K HHs
2015
56,000 HHs
DECREASING SUPPLY
2035
INCREASING NEED
ANNUAL CHANGE + 3,100 to 4,600 increase in unmet housing need 0 to 900 net affordable units lost
2015
2035 2015
3,100 to 3,700 new households that need affordable housing
Sources: U.S Census; HR&A Advisors. Note: Unmet housing need includes only households at or below 50% AMI. All of the projections assume that current demographic and housing market trends continue along a straight line for the next 20 years. Low-income is defined as 50% of AMI or $39,400 for a four-person household based on HUD’s 2015 income limits for Wake County.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
29
132
The declining supply of affordable housing in Wake County is being driven by two interrelated factors. Factor 1. Limited New Affordable Housing Production New affordable housing can be produced through either the use of public subsidy or the action of the private market. While new publicly-subsidized housing is being created in Wake County, production is insufficient to keep pace with growing need. In addition, the private market currently is not generating a net increase in the naturally occurring affordable housing supply via inexpensive new development or reduced rents as buildings age. Few new developments are affordable. In addition, cases of existing properties where rents have recently declined to affordable levels are more than offset by the loss of existing naturally occurring affordable housing elsewhere.
Factor 2. Loss of Existing Affordable Housing From 2009 to 2015, Wake County experienced a loss of approximately 5,000 housing units affordable to households earning less than $39,000 a year. The loss is driven by expiring affordability requirements, rent increases, and redevelopment. Future loss of naturally occurring affordable housing will be approximately 700 to 900 units each year. In addition, a large portion of Wake County’s publicly-subsidized housing properties are scheduled to reach the end of their required affordability periods over the next 20 years, placing them at risk of losing their affordability. If these units do not receive further public subsidy, they may fall into disrepair and leave the market or raise their rents. Either outcome will result in a loss of affordable housing in Wake County.
HIGH LOSS EST. Annual New Subsidized Rental Units
LOW LOSS EST.
400
800
Annual Loss of Subsidized Rental Units
-400
-100
Annual Loss of NOAH Rental Units
-900
-700
ANNUAL NET LOSS OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL UNITS
-900
0
Sources: US Census, NCHFA; HR&A Advisors. Note: The annual subsidized rental unit loss estimate reflects subsidized properties that have affordable periods expiring. Those properties do not always immediately lose their affordability.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEED | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
30
133
Executive Summary Wake County’s Affordable Housing Need Recommendations
Implementation Roadmap Appendix
134
RECOMMENDED TOOLS | OVERVIEW While Wake County and the municipalities face a growing housing crisis, they have the capacity to mitigate this situation by implementing the recommended tools to more effectively address residents’ housing needs. Collectively, the recommended tools represent three categories of strategies: land use policy, leveraged programs, and additional public resources.
Strategy Categories
Land Use
These tools enable the County and municipalities to use their land use regulations and zoning authority to indirectly support the production and preservation of affordable housing.
Leveraged Programs
These tools directly create or preserve subsidized affordable housing to meet the need of Wake County residents.
Additional Public Resources
These tools generate new funding sources for affordable housing production and preservation in order to meet the housing challenges Wake County faces.
Source: Shutterstock
Source: DHIC
135
Source: Wikimedia
RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
32
The recommended tools were developed in four topical areas linked to major housing needs in Wake County, as well as a cross-cutting area tied to multiple housing needs. • New Rental Production Tools focus on meeting the growing need for affordable rental options among Wake County residents. • Preservation Tools focus on preserving existing affordable housing in Wake County, given the loss of publiclysubsidized and naturally occurring affordable housing.
• • •
Homeownership Tools focus on creating new affordable owner-occupied units and providing services to help residents become and stay homeowners in Wake County. Supportive Housing Tools focus on providing integrated housing and support services to meet the needs of Wake County’s most vulnerable populations. Cross-Cutting Tools serve multiple areas of housing need.
Key: Land Use | Leveraged Programs| Funding New Rental Production
Preservation
Homeownership
• Acquisition Fund • Enhanced County Rental Production Loan Program
• Preservation Fund • Affordable Housing Preservation Warning System & Annual Report • Redevelopment of Public Housing Sites • Extended Affordability Provisions
• Affordable Mortgage Program • Targeted Homeowner Rehabilitation Program • Housing Counseling • Shared Equity Homeownership Program
Supportive Housing • “Familiar Faces” PSH Pilot Project • Service Roadmap • Provider & Funder Capacity-Building
Cross-Cutting Tools County & Municipal Land Use Policy, including: Establishment of Affordable Housing Incentive Overlays Expanded Capacity for Accessory Dwelling Units Landlord Partnerships RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Public Land Disposition Requirements Changes to North Carolina’s Qualified Allocation Plan New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing Enhanced Housing Placement & Coordination System
136 33
Recommended Tools •
Cross-Cutting
•
New Rental Production
•
Preservation
•
Homeownership
•
Supportive Housing
137
CROSS-CUTTING TOOLS | OVERVIEW The recommended cross-cutting tools serve multiple affordable housing needs, including the production of new affordable rental units, preservation of existing affordable rental units, the creation of affordable homeownership opportunities, and the expansion of permanent supportive housing options. These tools focus on reducing barriers that add time and cost to the development process and expanding the resources available to support all types of affordable housing.
Land Use | Leveraged Programs| Funding Revised County & Municipal Land Use Policy Revise Wake County’s Uniform Development Ordinance and also support revisions to local municipalities’ UDOs to enable greater overall and affordable housing production. This tool is linked to two other tools, Establishment of Affordable Housing Overlays and Expanded Accessory Dwelling Units, both of which are discussed in this section.
Public Land Disposition Requirements Dispose of available County and other publicly-owned sites to support affordable housing development through discounted land prices or sale proceeds.
New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing Develop new sources of affordable housing funding, with an emphasis on value capture tools to harness Wake County’s rapid growth. The three potential funding approaches include increasing County General Fund revenue, expanding the use of increment financing, and deploying special assessments districts.
Changes to North Carolina’s Qualified Allocation Plan Support changes to the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency (NCHFA)’s process for allocating federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs) to better address the housing needs of Wake County residents and help meet the County’s housing goals, particularly in regard to increased rental production, preservation, and supportive housing.
Landlord Partnerships Establish a Landlord Partnership program to increase private landlords’ willingness to accept vouchers by educating landlords about the voucher process, streamlining the voucher administration system, and providing landlords with greater support and risk mitigation. 138 CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
35
Fundamentally, the cross-cutting tools respond to three major challenges shaping the County’s affordable housing need.
Increasing market pressures As its population grows, land costs across Wake County are rising and there is growing competition for development sites, especially in high-opportunity areas near current or planned transit. To respond to market demand and mitigate housing cost increases, Wake County must allow higher-density development. To a modest extent, Wake County’s development patterns are already changing to reflect market preferences. Since 2000, Wake County has experienced significant housing production, creating an average of 10,300 housing units annually. In recent years, there has been some shift to denser product, but concentrated in Raleigh. In 2015, multifamily represented 68% of units permitted in Raleigh, compared to just 10% of units permitted outside Raleigh.
Community resistance to development The current zoning and development approval process makes it relatively easy for community groups to stop or reduce the size of higher-density and affordable housing projects. While those opposing the projects may not intend this outcome, they are exacerbating the housing crisis in Wake County by reducing the overall housing supply. Preventing or decreasing the size of higher-density and affordable housing projects helps increase unmet affordable housing need in two ways. First, it decreases total housing supply, with low-income households the least prepared to compete for a limited set of affordable housing
options. Second, it increases housing development costs due to higher per-unit land and entitlement costs. There is a need for a shared commitment to higher-density and affordable housing across Wake County.
Cary Habitat for Humanity Trimble Avenue Project In early 2016, Habitat for Humanity purchased a 2.6-acre lot on Trimble Avenue in Cary for approximately $400,000. Habitat asked the Town of Cary to rezone the site for an affordable homeownership project. Habitat originally intended to create 23 attached homes on the site, but reduced their proposal to 15 and then nine detached single-family homes in response to community demands. Residents in the nearby Scottish Hills neighborhood organized to block the rezoning, expressing concerns that the project did not fit in with their neighborhood’s density or appearance and could cause flooding. In May 2017, the Town Planning Board denied the project. However, in June 2017, the Cary Town Council approved the project, now reduced to 7 single-family homes. The Town also provided $420,000 in funding commitments to the project. The project illustrates the challenges of finding a suitable place for affordable housing and the lack of sufficient land zoned for as-of-right higher-density development to house Wake County’s growing population. 139
Sources: The News & Observer, “Neighbors Oppose Habitat’s Plan to Build in Cary,” 5/8/17 and “Cary Approves Scaled-Back Habitat Project,” 6/22/17
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
36
Shortage of essential resources The majority of Wake County’s affordable housing funding comes from federal sources, which are declining. Wake County also receives money from the state, which faces pressure to allocate its resources across a broad range of communities. As federal funding sources decline, and the affordable housing need in Wake County grows, new local funding sources will be required to meet the gap between what households can
afford to pay for housing and what it costs to actually build housing (see diagram below). The recommended tools include several actions to help narrow that gap. However, expanded subsidy resources will be necessary to support the production and preservation of units affordable to the lowestincome households (annual incomes below $39,000).
HOUSING GAP ANALYSIS EXAMPLE Return to Owner (~15%) Gap Debt Service (60%)
Low-Income Household Budget for Housing
Operations & Maintenance (25%)
Payment For Housing
Cost of Rental Housing 140
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
37
County and Municipal Land Use Policy to Facilitate Overall Housing Production What
Revise Wake County’s Uniform Development Ordinance (UDO) and also pursue revisions to local municipalities’ UDOs to enable higher housing density. The proposed UDO changes focus on supporting higher residential density as-of-right in order to reduce interest groups’ capacity to stop or decrease the size of higher-density projects. The changes also focus on ensuring that Wake County has zoning in place for sufficient density to accommodate growth. In addition to other regulatory mechanisms, the proposed changes include the Establishment of Affordable Housing Incentive Overlays and Expanded Capacity for Accessory Dwelling Units, discussed as separate recommended tools.
Why
No affordable housing plan can succeed if housing production does not keep pace with population growth, as lowincome residents lack the financial resources to compete for housing in high-opportunity areas if there is a housing shortage. Updating the County’s and municipalities’ UDOs to enable higher density and a more streamlined development review process will help housing construction keep pace with population growth and relieve housing cost pressures. As-of-right development capacity is particularly important to affordable housing production, as interest groups can oppose it on multiple grounds, such as insufficient parking, negative environmental impacts, traffic, and school crowding, when their primary objection may be to the housing’s residents. It is critical that the County find ways to encourage municipalities to zone for higher-density housing because it cannot directly support higher-density development due to the lack of public water and sewer service in unincorporated areas.
Lead Entity
County and municipalities
Estimated Impact
Expands speed and scale of overall housing production, helping to reduce housing cost pressures and overcome barriers to affordable housing development.
Population Served
All residents
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Source: Wake County
141 38
County and Municipal Land Use Policy to Facilitate Overall Housing Production Zoning establishes limits on a building’s use, size, and shape, and also controls other factors, such as parking, signage, accessory structures, and landscaping. In Wake County, the County controls zoning, subdivision regulations, and North Carolina building code enforcement in areas that lie outside the municipalities’ jurisdictions. The municipalities control zoning, subdivision regulations, and State building code enforcement within their corporate limits and extra-territorial jurisdictions (ETJ). ETJs are areas that lie just outside municipalities’ corporate limits, where future municipal development is expected to reach.
Proposed Changes to County and Municipal UDOs •
•
•
•
Greater density via more flexible dimensional standards: The County and municipalities should consider opportunities to selectively increase height and floor area ratios and reduce setback requirements in zoning districts to expand housing development capacity. Greater density via reduced parking requirements: Higher parking requirements increase development costs by using up land and incurring construction costs. The County and municipalities should reduce parking requirements, including by allowing increased use of on-street parking, especially in transit-accessible areas. Reduced minimum lot sizes in lower-density residential neighborhoods: The County and municipalities should consider lot size reductions to enable the construction of smaller homes, which tend to be more affordable because of their size. More extensive areas of higher-density and multifamily zoning: The County should support as-of-right higher-density and multifamily development in high-opportunity areas within municipalities. For example, 2- to 4-unit buildings
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
could be allowed as-of-right in single-family neighborhoods, subject to design restrictions that ensure they fit the neighborhoods’ character. •
Streamlined development review processes: The County and municipalities should explore opportunities to shorten the timeline for development review, including potentially offering expedited or fast-track review processes for affordable housing.
•
Prioritization of County infrastructure investments for areas supporting high-density development: The County should prioritize infrastructure funds allocation to benefit areas that are supporting higher-density development, especially if it includes a share of affordable units.
•
Expanded capacity for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) in low-density neighborhoods: Discussed as a separate tool.
•
Establishment of Affordable Housing Incentive Overlays, which could offer more flexible dimensional standards, reduced parking requirements, expedited review, and other incentives to motivate affordable housing production: Discussed as a separate tool.
39
142
County and Municipal Land Use Policy to Facilitate Overall Housing Production Range of Options
The County and municipalities should work together to review their current UDOs and identify opportunities to adjust development regulations to facilitate overall and affordable housing production. They also should plan to regularly review new development regulations to ensure that they do not pose barriers to affordable housing development. It is critical for Wake County and the municipalities to work together to adjust land use controls for several reasons. First, the land for which the County manages development does not have the infrastructure (especially water and sewer) necessary to support higher-density development. Second, Wake County must comply with municipal land use controls when it builds projects in municipal planning areas, including both incorporated areas and ETJs. To assist municipal partners, the County can prioritize infrastructure and service investments in areas supporting higherdensity projects and affordable housing.
Existing Efforts
Wake County is planning to undertake a revision of its Uniform Development Ordinance in 2018.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS
• Launch Wake County’s UDO update process and engage supporting
• Through the UDO revision process, assess how
technical experts. • Engage municipalities to discuss both how the provisions of their existing UDOs can be adjusted to meet the growing affordable housing need and how the County can support that process. • Define opportunities to streamline the development review process, especially through fast-tracked or expedited review for affordable housing.
growth can be physically accommodated within Wake County and in high-opportunity areas, including conducting stakeholder engagement. • Reach agreement with the municipalities on the adjustments to be made to their UDOs and County support to be provided.
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
40
143
New Affordable Housing Incentive Overlays What
During the process of updating the County and municipalities’ UDOs, create Affordable Housing Incentive Overlays that offer developers the opportunity to build projects under alternative standards in exchange for including affordable housing or contributing funds to create affordable housing. The alternative standards could serve to either increase the value that developers can realize on-site, such as through higher-density development, or reduce their development costs, such as through reduced minimum parking requirements or expedited development review processes, with the idea that the higher value or reduced costs can compensate them for the affordable units.
Why
The overlays can support affordable housing production in specific geographic areas where allowable density is less than what the market demands. Enabling land to be used more intensely makes it more valuable, creating opportunities for jurisdictions to “trade” the incremental value for affordable housing. In addition to higher density, additional incentives, such as tax and fee rebates, could be provided as part of the districts to either make deals feasible or motivate the creation of affordable units serving low-income households. Incentive overlays have been recommended because, under state law, Wake County cannot require mandatory inclusionary housing or linkage fees, which are tools available in jurisdictions located outside North Carolina.
Lead Entity
County & municipalities, as both have UDOs that could be modified.
Estimated Impact
Depends on the nature of the overlays and neighborhoods targeted. Overlays could target 10-20% of units being affordable.
Population Served
Below 60% AMI for rental; below 80% AMI for homeownership.
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Source: Wake County
144 41
New Affordable Housing Incentive Overlays Structuring the Overlays The most common type of zoning incentive programs are density bonus programs, which allow greater density in exchange for the creation of affordable housing. Under an affordable housing overlay district that offers a density bonus, developers can either build their projects at the existing (lower) density asof-right or include a specified percentage of affordable units in exchange for being allowed to build at a higher density. For overlay districts to produce affordable units, it is critical to strike the right balance between as-of-right and “by bonus” zoning, such that the bonus is significant enough to motivate developers, but the local government is satisfied with what is built even if developers do not take up the incentive. In Wake County, the capacity to use a density bonus to realize affordable housing will vary by municipality, as it is highly contingent on the as-of-right zoning established by the UDO. The value of the bonus also is affected by the local development landscape. For example, as noted in the 2012 Urban Land Institute City of Raleigh Technical Assistance Panel report, density bonuses can be challenging to calibrate “because increasing density [sometimes] means increasing construction costs.” A density bonus is likely to be most effective when it allows an increase in developable units that does not require a switch from surface to structured parking or wood to non-combustible construction. Other Incentives to Be Provided Due to the fact that density bonuses can only create so much
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
value for developers, it likely will be necessary to bundle higher density with other incentives under the overlay district structure to enable projects incorporating substantial affordable housing to move forward. The most feasible options for other incentives include: • Expedited development review: The County and municipalities could offer fast-track development review for projects including a specified share of affordable housing. • Assistance with pre-development and infrastructure costs: The County and municipalities could provide predevelopment assistance or infrastructure grants that directly or indirectly benefit the selected site. • Rebates of development impact and permitting fees: The County or municipalities could offer rebates of development impact fees. Under North Carolina law, impact fees cannot be waived, but they can be rebated. Since Wake County and municipalities’ impact fees are relatively low, a rebate will only provide a small incentive. • Rebates of incremental property taxes associated with development: The County and municipalities could provide a portion of future incremental tax revenues upfront as a grant. Under North Carolina, there are limitations on property tax abatements, but rebates are possible. It is important to note that establishing an overlay district wherein projects that include a specified share of affordable housing receive a rebate of incremental property tax revenues effectively achieves the same outcome as establishing a tax increment financing district (discussed as a recommended tool under New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing) . 42
145
New Affordable Housing Incentive Overlays Range of Options
The County and municipalities will need to structure the overlay districts so that they provide sufficient incentives to motivate developer participation, while still ensuring the underlying base zoning encourages sustainable development patterns. To motivate developer participation, the value of the incentives must be equal to or greater than the cost of the affordable housing provided (foregone rent or sales proceeds). The County and municipalities should consider establishing a standardized list, or “menu,” of available incentives, cross-matched with affordable housing benefits required. To receive specific incentives, developers would have to provide specific affordable housing benefits. If the County and municipalities do not want to establish overlay districts, which require zoning changes, they could achieve a comparable result (the exchange of incentives for affordable housing benefits) by negotiating individual development agreements with property owners. To standardize the negotiation process with developers, the County and municipalities should set up a similar “menu” of incentives offered in exchange for benefits provided. Standardization is important for both parties because it streamlines the development process and enables developers to plan for incentives during initial parcel acquisition. The County and municipalities will also need to determine the locations where overlay districts or development agreement negotiation zones will be in effect. The locations could be limited to neighborhoods that are experiencing strong demand pressures, be limited to high-opportunity areas near current and planned future transit, or exist across the County and municipalities.
Existing Efforts
Under its UDO, Wake County currently offers a density bonus to developers that allows one extra unit to be built for every four rental units restricted to households with incomes of less than 50% AMI or every four ownership units restricted to households with incomes of less than 80% AMI. No developers have used the program to date because it is difficult to develop multifamily housing without water and sewer service. In addition, the City of Raleigh offers lower minimum parking requirements for affordable housing (one space per unit vs. to two or more spaces for other housing types).
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS
• During UDO review process, identify target areas to be included in
• Conduct developer outreach to increase district
overlay districts or development agreement negotiation zones for each municipality. • Establish district provisions, including income levels to be served and incentives to be offered for specific benefits. • Modify UDOs to establish overlay districts or establish development agreement negotiation zones through policy.
awareness and uptake. • Evaluate district performance and adjust the affordability provisions and other incentives offered.
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
146 43
Expanded Capacity for Accessory Dwelling Units Countywide What
Modify local municipalities’ UDOs, which currently restrict accessory dwelling unit (ADU) development, to allow ADUs to be created as-of-right in single-family and low-density residential neighborhoods. ADUs are additional living quarters located on single-family lots that are independent of the primary dwelling unit, and tend to be naturally affordable. In addition, expand access to low-cost loans for ADUs and conduct public education initiatives to incentivize the creation of ADUs in single-family or low-density neighborhoods as a source of naturally occurring affordable housing throughout Wake County.
Why
ADUs offer multiple important affordable housing benefits. Due to their smaller size and lower development costs, they tend to be a source of naturally occurring affordable housing, helping to increase the full affordable housing supply without the expenditure of public subsidy. In addition, ADUs can provide affordable housing in neighborhoods of opportunity, in a form consistent with their existing single-family character. Furthermore, ADUs provide a source of rental income to homeowners, which can help them meet their mortgage payments. They also can support “aging in place,” both by helping senior owners on fixed incomes maintain homeownership, and by enabling seniors to live close to children and caregivers. While Wake County’s UDO currently allows more than one dwelling unit on a single lot, local municipalities’ zoning regulations (e.g., minimum lot size and required setbacks and open space) effectively eliminate ADUs as a feasible option except on the largest lots.
Lead Entity
Municipalities, with County backing
Estimated Impact
500 new units annually (top-end)
Population Served
No set income threshold; units typically affordable to households at 60% AMI or below Source: Shutterstock
147
Note: Estimated impact based on Portland’s ADU production rate applied to the stock of detached single-family homes in Wake County.
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
44
Expanded Capacity for Accessory Dwelling Units Countywide Range of Options
The most effective approach to increase the overall ADU supply is for municipalities to modify their UDOs to allow as-of-right ADU construction in all residential neighborhoods, which will require significant political will and community support. Alternatively, municipalities can pursue an elective approach, where neighborhoods can opt in as to whether or not they want an ADU overlay district. However, a neighborhood-by-neighborhood approach will slow ADU adoption and not generate enough units to make an appreciable difference. The County also can partner with the municipalities on outreach programs to increase awareness of ADUs and their benefits, as well as collaborate with local lenders who provide financial products for ADU construction.
Existing Efforts
In 2014, Wake County made changes to its Uniform Development Ordinance to facilitate ADU construction, including allowing detached units and separate entrances. In Raleigh, a neighborhood group petitioned the City Council to allow ADUs in the Mordecai neighborhood in 2015. In response, City staff created regulatory standards for a new ADU overlay district to be available on an opt-in basis to neighborhoods seeking ADUs. The Raleigh Planning Commission began initial review of the draft UDO amendment in March 2017. Under the amendment, to implement the district in a specific area, a formal rezoning request must be filed and approved.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS
• For each municipality, identify specific changes to
• Develop a countywide design guidebook and permitting
municipalities’ UDOs needed to enable as-of-right ADU construction in target neighborhoods. • Conduct a public education campaign to increase awareness of ADUs and their benefits.
manual for homeowners seeking to build ADUs. (Model: Santa Cruz) • Partner with local private lenders to provide access to low-cost financing for ADUs. (Model: Santa Cruz) 148
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
45
Public Land Disposition Requirements What
Dispose of available County, municipal, and other publicly owned sites to support affordable housing development. Sites can be used to directly provide affordable units by discounting their sale price or to provide revenue to fund affordable housing through their sale proceeds. They also can support site assembly by offering affordable housing developers the opportunity to combine publicly-owned parcels with privately-owned parcels. For projects where affordable housing is developed on-site, either as part of a fully affordable or a mixed-income project, the County and municipalities can offer the land at a discounted cost to provide an embedded subsidy for the affordable housing. It is important to note that while discounted public land can help close the affordability gap, for some projects, other in-kind or financial subsidies (e.g., fast-track permitting) will be needed, particularly for housing that offers deep levels of affordability.
Why
Both the County and municipalities have land that is appropriate for affordable housing. Property disposition is an effective way to provide subsidy for affordable housing development using existing County and municipal resources. It can be an important tool for creating mixed-income communities and supporting residents’ access to opportunity by creating affordable units in areas that currently do not have them. Given current efforts to implement the Wake County Transit Plan, the County and its partners have an opportunity to use County and municipally-owned land near planned future transit stations for on-site affordable housing creation or revenue generation, given that these sites are likely to experience rising land values.
Lead Entity
County & municipalities, as both have land for disposition
Estimated Impact
Over 5,000 units*
Population Served
Below 50% AMI for rental; below 80% AMI for homeownership
Source: DHIC
149
A highly preliminary analysis of land controlled by the County and municipalities was conducted to evaluate housing capacity. This analysis will need to be further refined by County and municipal staff as this recommendation is progressed.
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
46
Public Land Disposition Requirements In North Carolina, there are two major statutory requirements that guide the disposition of public land: 1.
The local government must receive valuable public services in exchange for land that it provides, and the value of the land cannot exceed the fair value of the services, or it represents an unconstitutional gift. 2. The local government can provide land for only constitutionally approved public purposes. In North Carolina, the provision of affordable housing is considered a public purpose, assuming the private market will not meet the need on its own. The state defines an affordable housing “project” as one where at least 20% of the units are affordable to and occupied by households with incomes at or below 60% of the area median income. If a property is going to be used for affordable housing, the local government is allowed to use “private sale” procedures to convey it to the buyer of its choice and not go through the standard competitive bidding process. If a local government wants to convey a “private sale” property for below fair market value, the value reduction cannot be greater than that necessary to make the on-site housing affordable, and the conveyance must be conditional on successful affordable housing delivery.
Recommended Criteria to Identify Potential Sites for Affordable Housing Development Criteria to determine basic feasibility Over 3,000 SF, with strong preference for larger sites (>1 acre) that will allow multifamily. Meets minimum size Either vacant or a “soft site” (land value > building value), with no County or municipal facility either currently No conflicting use occupying or planning to occupy the entire site. It may be appropriate to have a County or municipal facility partially occupying the site because of the benefits of housing-facility colocation. Located outside floodplain and protected open space areas, with priority for parcels with limited slope. No environmental constraints Criteria to determine priority In an existing residential or mixed-use district. Existing zoning Has public water and sewer service or falls in ETJ that is likely to receive it in the next 5-10 years Utility access Not located in area of concentrated poverty; in proximity to transit and essential services (see Location Policy). Located in highopportunity areas Site where proceeds (whether collected or applied to on-site provision of units via reduced disposition price) can Meets minimum support significant housing. assessed value 150
Sources: Mulligan, Tyler. “Local Government Support for Privately Constructed Affordable Housing” and “Conveyance of Local Government Land for Affordable Housing Development.” Coates’ Canons: Local Government Law. University of North Carolina.
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
47
Public Land Disposition Requirements Range of Options
Wake County and the municipalities could dispose of properties to support provision of affordable units on-site, especially in the context of mixed-income projects, or use the sale proceeds to fund off-site affordable housing development. The County and municipalities should consider both options, given the tradeoffs associated with each. On-site provision of units can create affordable housing in high-opportunity areas that offer good access to transit and other services, where it otherwise can be difficult to get site control due to high land costs and limited available parcels. However, selling properties and dedicating the proceeds to affordable housing elsewhere can create more efficient developments and more total units. Wake County and the municipalities also have the opportunity to incorporate housing as part of the development or redevelopment of sites for public purposes, especially on larger parcels. For example, housing can be located adjacent to schools, police and fire stations, libraries, community centers, and other facilities. Co-location may offer multiple benefits to tenants who work in or use these facilities.
Existing Efforts
The County and the municipalities have begun to review their land inventories to identify potential sites.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS • Identify the most appropriate County agency or department to oversee disposition and charge its staff with developing a disposition strategy, including coordinating with the municipalities. • Conduct a refined portfolio-wide analysis of County and municipally-owned land to identify priority sites for disposition.
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS • Establish a disposition process for sites to be sold for both onsite provision of units and revenue generation. • Set disposition terms and release a selection of parcels to gauge market interest.
151 48
New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing What
Develop new sources of local funding for affordable housing, with an emphasis on value capture. Value capture approaches seek to capture some of the benefits that private entities realize as a result of public investments, such as infrastructure investments that make an area more attractive for development, to fund those or other investments. The County and municipalities can work together to pursue three potential local funding approaches that are appropriate for different circumstances. • Increasing general revenue dedicated to affordable housing. • Pursuing expanded use of increment financing, wherein private developers are able to use incremental property tax revenue to fund public improvements that benefit their projects. • Pursuing expanded use of special assessment districts, wherein private property owners choose to pay an extra tax in exchange for special services.
Why
Given constrained federal and state funding combined with increasing affordable housing need, Wake County must expand both its funding toolkit and total funding available for affordable housing. With the high levels of development activity that Wake County is experiencing, it has the opportunity to use increment financing and special assessments to harness this growth to pay for much-needed affordable housing.
Lead Entity
County, municipalities, and local property owners
Estimated Impact
$500k-$20M annually, with the range of impacts based on the financing tools deployed by the County and municipalities.
Population Served
All affordable housing
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Source: DHIC
152 49
New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing We recommend that the County and municipalities work together to pursue all three funding mechanisms in order to establish a diverse portfolio of funding to support affordable housing.
General Revenue • •
Additional dedicated property or sales tax Dedicated affordable housing bond issuance
Increment Financing • •
Traditional TIF Synthetic TIF
Special Assessments •
Critical infrastructure special assessment district
Rationale: Increased general revenue dedicated to affordable housing can be used to establish a robust, stable, and flexible base of funding to produce and preserve affordable housing across Wake County.
Rationale: Expanded use of increment financing to capture value from new development occurring in Wake County and create, or preserve, affordable housing in areas experiencing significant new growth.
Rationale: Expanded use of special assessments can be used to capture value from new and existing development and produce and preserve affordable housing in areas with robust existing tax bases that are facing gentrification pressures.
Recommendation: The County should pursue an additional property or sales tax because of the greater complexity and unpredictability involved with bond issuance, due to debt structuring challenges and the need for a voter referendum for any pledges of local governments’ full faith and credit.
Recommendation: The County and municipalities should pursue expanded use of synthetic TIF (vs. traditional TIF) because it is simpler, requires fewer procedural steps to implement, and has broader acceptance within North Carolina.
Recommendation: The County and municipalities should collaborate to explore establishment of critical infrastructure service districts for affordable housing.
Next Steps: Work with the Wake County Board of Commissioners to evaluate the potential for an additional property or sales tax.
Next Steps: Engage with select developers to identify potential projects for synthetic TIF, especially in high-opportunity areas near current and planned future transit.
Next Steps: Partner with municipalities to test critical infrastructure special assessment districts for affordable housing.
153 Sources: David Paul Rosen & Associates, “New Revenue Sources for Affordable Housing (for) Town of Chapel Hill.” 2017.
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
50
New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing The three funding approaches offer different revenue and implementation benefits, which are summarized below. All of the tools involve different tradeoffs for the County and municipalities.
REVENUE
Makes tool more attractive Makes tool less attractive
INCREMENT FINANCING
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT
Addl. dedicated tax
Dedicated bond issuance
Traditional TIF
Synthetic TIF
Critical infra. special assessment
Generation potential
$10-25M
$10-25M
$1-5M
$1-5M
$1M
Interest costs
Low
Med.
Med.-High
Med.
High
Tax increase required?
Countywide increase
Likely
No (if project succeeds)
No (if project succeeds)
District-level increase
If incremental sales tax revenue approach, Yes
Yes
No
If implemented via GO bond, Yes
No referendum, but owner petition is required
No
No
Yes
If implemented via installment fin., Yes
No
Yes
No (not with an explicit focus on supporting affordable housing)
Yes (Brightwalk development in Charlotte)
No
Large mixed-use projects
Areas w/ robust existing tax base facing gentrification pressures
Voter referendum required?
IMPLEMENTATION
GENERAL REVENUE
NC Local Government Commission approval required? Previously used for affordable housing in NC? Best context for deployment
Yes
All
All
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Large mixed-use projects
51
154
New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing Local Precedents for Increasing General Fund Revenue
Nov. 8, 2016 Nov. 8, 2016
April 7, 2016
Nov. 8, 2016
Additional Dedicated Tax
Bond Issuance
•
•
• •
Wake County passed a half-cent additional sales tax to fund the Transit Plan’s implementation, increasing the sales tax from 6.75% to 7.25%. Raleigh established a one-cent property tax to fund affordable housing for households 60% AMI or below in 2016 (+$5M per year). Durham dedicated one cent of its property tax rate to fund affordable housing, which was increased to two cents in FY2018 (+$5M per year).
• •
Wake County and Raleigh previously issued affordable housing bonds. Raleigh approved $16M in bond authority in 2011. Charlotte approved $15M in bonds in 2016. For 2014-2020, the Charlotte City Council committed to seeking bonds every 2 years. Greensboro approved $20M of bonds in 2016.
155 CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
52
New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing TRADITIONAL TIF With a traditional TIF, a local government establishes a district and borrows funds to pay for public improvements required to enable private development in the district. The debt (project development financing bonds) is secured by and repaid from the incremental property tax revenue associated with the private development. Both the County and the municipalities could establish their own TIF districts to support mixed-income projects that include affordable housing. Ideally, they would establish joint TIFs in municipal areas because the incremental taxes dedicated to the TIF comes from the issuing unit of local government, so without a joint agreement, the County will continue collecting taxes in municipal TIFs and the municipalities in County TIFs. The incremental revenue, bonded against, could be used to pay for direct affordable housing construction or supporting infrastructure.
TRADITIONAL TIF Key Considerations
• • • • •
Procedures for Establishment
• 1.
2. 3. 4.
Project must meet “but for” test (e.g., private development could not move forward “but for” public improvements). Bond proceeds can be used only for capital costs that are incurred in the district or directly benefit private development in the district if they lie outside it. If local governments do not want to issue bonds, they can adopt a “pay as you go” approach, wherein the private developer pays the upfront costs of the public improvements, but is reimbursed by the government over time. Since affordable housing owned by a nonprofit entity receives a property exemption from the State of North Carolina, projects need market-rate components to generate incremental revenue. TIF usage inherently carries risk that incremental revenues associated with private improvements will not cover debt service costs, though capacity to mitigate this risk exists through 1) establishment of a minimum assessed value and 2) pledging of other sources of revenue as security for bonds. No more than 5% of land in a jurisdiction can be designated as a TIF district. Local government defines district and creates development financing plan identifying public and private improvement costs and incremental property tax revenue associated with private investment. For municipalities, County Board of Commissioners must approve plan. NC Local Government Commission grants approval for both district creation and bond issuance. Local government issues bonds, with proceeds used to construct public improvements. Private developer makes private improvements. Local government establishes special revenue fund and collects incremental property tax revenues associated with private improvements to pay debt service and principal on public improvements. 156
Sources: Joseph Blocher and Jonathan Q. Morgan, “Questions About Tax Increment Financing in North Carolina.” UNC Community and Economic Development Bulletin No. 5, August 2008.
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
53
New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing SYNTHETIC TIF Synthetic TIF is a source of debt financing wherein a local government establishes a district and borrows funds to pay for public infrastructure that will benefit new development in the district. The security for the debt is either the asset itself (the infrastructure being constructed, improved, or purchased) or the local government’s full faith and credit (general taxing power). Though the security for the debt issued is not the incremental tax revenues associated with the private improvements (as with traditional TIF), the tax revenues can be used to pay the debt service and principal of the public improvements. Both the County and the municipalities could establish synthetic TIFs to support mixed-income projects that include affordable housing. Ideally, they would collaborate to create joint synthetic TIFs in municipal areas. The County and municipalities should work with developers to identify large projects that could incorporate affordable units and might be appropriate for the use of synthetic TIF. These projects ideally would be located in high-opportunity areas.
SYNTHETIC TIF Key Considerations
• • • • •
Unlike traditional TIF, synthetic TIF does not require a formal “but for” test. The local government must follow all procedures for the borrowing approach that it chooses to implement the synthetic TIF: installment financing (where debt is issued against the asset itself) or general obligation bonds (where debt is issued against the local government unit’s full faith and credit). The interest costs on the debt for a synthetic TIF are based on the issuing local government’s credit rating. If installment financing approach used: Local government must purchase or already own the property being financed with the installment contract and must receive permission Local Government Commission approval if the installment contract has a term of at least 5 years and requires payments of at least $500,000. Synthetic TIF is far more broadly used in North Carolina than traditional TIF, as it is simpler and has fewer procedural steps than traditional TIF and does not require LGC approval. The local government issues certificates of participation (COPs) to fund public improvements. The security for the certificates of participation is either the asset or the unit’s full faith and credit. The local government unit uses the incremental revenues generated by the project to repay the COPs.
Procedures for Establishment
1.
Relevant NC Precedent
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Housing Partnership used a synthetic TIF for the development of Brightwalk.
2.
157 Sources: Millonzi, Kara. “What is Synthetic Project Development Financing?” Coates’ Canons: Local Government Law. UNC.
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
54
New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT In a special assessment district (SAD), a local government provides a specific public benefit to a group of properties and imposes a special assessment (extra tax) on them to pay the costs of providing the benefit. In North Carolina, local governments can create two types of SADs, traditional and critical infrastructure, but only critical infrastructure SADs currently include affordable housing provision as an allowable purpose for which a special assessment may be charged. The County and municipalities should explore the establishment of SADs for affordable housing.
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT Key Considerations
• •
•
•
Procedures for Establishment
1. 2. 3.
The local government must receive a petition from the majority of property owners in the proposed district, representing at least 66% of the total assessed value. The local government can issue revenue bonds against future special assessment revenues to fund improvements or use the revenues as additional security for TIF (project development financing) bonds, thus helping to mitigate risk associated with TIF usage. The local government also can issue general obligation bonds, but they involve greater risk than the revenue bonds. Determination of the appropriate special assessment amount may be difficult, because while the local government has the discretion to set the assessment rate, it must bear a proportional relationship to the amount of benefit provided. For this reason, it may be easier to limit the special assessment to commercial properties, for which the benefit of affordable housing is more easily defined (e.g., new housing options for workers, plus new customers for retail) than for residential properties. SADs were originally established to support infrastructure provision and have not been used for affordable housing in North Carolina to date, so there are some open legal issues remaining. Property owners submit a SAD petition to the local government that describes the proposed improvements, their costs, and the financing structure. The local government approves the petition. If the local government is issuing revenue or general obligation bonds, it must follow the applicable statutory procedures for issuing the debt. 158
Sources: Millonzi, Kara. “An Overview of Special Assessment Bond Authority in North Carolina.” UNC Local Finance Bulletin No. 40, August 2009.
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
55
Support for Changes to North Carolina’s Qualified Allocation Plan What
Support changes to the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency’s (NCHFA) process for allocating federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) to better address the housing needs of Wake County residents and meet the County’s housing goals, particularly in regard to increased rental and supportive housing production. LIHTC, which provide investors with a reduction in their federal tax liability in exchange for equity contributions to low-income rental housing, represent a major source of affordable housing funding for the County.
Why
Per federal requirements, the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency develops an annual Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP) to competitively allocate LIHTC across the state. The NCHFA can only allocate credits in conformance with the QAP. As currently structured, the QAP distributes new construction credits first to four geographic regions (West, Central, East, and Metro); then to counties within those regions based on population; and finally to projects within those counties based on a range of selection factors, including a site score that reflects neighborhood characteristics, proximity to amenities, and site suitability and “tie-breaker” criteria, such as the lowest amount of credits requested per unit. Since Wake County receives a limited total allocation for which there is generally strong competition among developers, projects effectively need to receive a perfect site score to be considered for credits, which can be challenging for urban infill sites.
Lead Entity
County, working in coordination with municipalities and affordable housing developers across North Carolina that share its priorities.
Estimated Impact
~60 new affordable rental units annually from one additional 9% tax credit award.
Population Served
Below 60% AMI for rental Source: US Airforce
159 Note: Estimated impact based on the average number of units in 9% projects in Wake County over the past 5 years.
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
56
Support for Changes to North Carolina’s Qualified Allocation Plan We recommend that Wake County and the municipalities pursue the following four changes to North Carolina’s Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP). 1.
Increase the total 9% credits being allocated across North Carolina that are awarded to Wake County by incorporating consideration of need factors into the allocation process: Need factors could include the relative rate of population growth and percentage of costburdened and extremely cost-burdened renters.
2.
Support the development of projects that are located in increasingly urban settings in Wake County through a) increases in per-unit and per-project maximum development costs, b) reduced parking requirements, c) changes in site selection criteria to reflect the realities of urban infill sites, and d) greater materials and design flexibility: The QAP currently includes a statewide cap on project costs (for 2017, $1M) and assesses negative points for projects with per-unit costs that exceed a specified threshold (for 2017, $68k and $79k., depending on unit characteristics). The recommended changes can support the development of more urban projects in Wake County, which may be larger in size and more expensive overall and per unit than typical tax credit projects in lowerdensity locations. Modifications in site selection criteria could include points for current and planned future transit accessibility (prioritizing higher-frequency service), overall walkability, and mixed-income environments. To support transit-oriented development, it may be appropriate to
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
amend the QAP’s provisions around “frequently used railroad tracks” as an incompatible use. 3.
Support the development of mixed-income projects that include both market-rate and affordable units by increasing flexibility about incorporating market-rate units: For example, developers currently are not allowed to include market-rate units in projects where they are requesting Rental Production Program loans.
4.
Provide additional support for projects that serve extremely low-income individuals, especially populations requiring permanent supportive housing: Units targeting very low-income households need a greater subsidy per unit. These changes could include establishing a set-aside of credits for defined “permanent supportive housing projects” that include a specified percentage of units (e.g., at least 25%) for extremely low-income households requiring supportive services in target geographies; increasing the per-unit maximum development cost for supportive housing units or providing a “basis boost” for permanent supportive housing projects; and coordinating with service funding providers to ensure service funds follow credit awards.
160 57
Support for Changes to North Carolina’s Qualified Allocation Plan Range of Options
The County can choose how actively it wants to support changes to the LIHTC allocation process, ranging from becoming part of efforts being led by regional entities to actively mobilizing municipalities and affordable housing advocates and leading outreach to NCHFA itself. The County also will need to determine the range of changes it will support – e.g., focusing only on changes that meet the needs of extremely low-income households, vs. the broader range of housing needs in Wake County.
Existing Efforts
The North Carolina Housing Finance Authority provides communities with an opportunity to comment on the draft QAP provisions before the plan is released each year.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS • Prioritize QAP changes to be requested in consultation with municipalities and other partners, including other urban counties. • Conduct outreach to North Carolina Housing Finance Agency.
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS • Assess outreach effectiveness and adjust strategy as needed.
161 CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
58
Establishment of Landlord Partnership Program What
Establish a Landlord Partnership Program in collaboration with the Raleigh Housing Authority and Housing Authority of Wake County (PHAs) to increase private landlords’ willingness to accept rental assistance vouchers. The County and the PHAs can work together to streamline the voucher administration system and increase support for landlords, including mitigating risk associated with tenants who may experience challenges remaining stably housed. The PHAs are the major voucher administrators in Wake County, and manage both general vouchers (e.g., standard Section 8/Housing Choice Vouchers) for low-income households and special-needs vouchers targeted to specific populations (e.g., HUD Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing vouchers for homeless veterans and their families, HUD Family Unification Program vouchers for families involved with the child welfare system and youth aged out of the foster care system who lack adequate housing). The County also administers approximately 300 vouchers.
Why
In strong markets like Wake County, landlords are less willing to accept tenants who rely on rental assistance vouchers because of their concerns about administrative burden associated with vouchers and the stability of tenants using them, as well as the availability of renters not using vouchers. Vouchers include both general vouchers for low-income households and special needs vouchers for low-income households with specific characteristics. Federal fair housing law explicitly prohibits landlords from discriminating against renters on the basis of race, religion, national origin, sex, familial status, or disability. However, in North Carolina, discrimination on the basis of voucher payment for rent continues to be legal in the absence of explicit source-of-income protections.
Lead Entity
County and Public Housing Authorities, which administer general and special needs vouchers
Estimated Impact
No direct change in units produced
Population Served
Below 50% AMI renters, most vulnerable populations
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Source: Shutterstock
162 59
Establishment of Landlord Partnership Program There are several changes that should be pursued through the Landlord Partnership program to increase voucher uptake by making it less risky and more attractive to landlords. However, these changes likely will have only a modest impact on voucher-holders’ capacity to access units because of the overall level of demand for rental housing in Wake County.
Proposed Components of Landlord Partnership Program 1. Hold regular landlord-PHA roundtables to educate landlords about vouchers and facilitate the voucher administration process. 2. Streamline the front and back end of the voucher administration process, including streamlining landlord application processes, reducing inspection delays, and shortening payment windows: Currently, there are multiple entities (voucher administrators) seeking landlords who are willing to rent to their voucher-holders. The County could work with these entities to streamline the landlord application process so landlords can submit a single application to become eligible to rent to voucherholders, instead of multiple applications to different administrators and programs. The County also can work with voucher administrators to decrease the time associated with the inspection process. Landlords who want to offer units to voucher-holders must have the units inspected to ensure that they meet minimum levels of health and safety. If not accomplished in a timely way, the inspection process can delay landlords’ capacity to rent their units.
3. Prioritize local rehabilitation funds for changes required as a result of inspections: In particular, these funds could be targeted towards smaller landlords that may have difficulty accessing capital.
4. Create a single point of contact for landlords when there are issues with tenants’ behavior: The single point of contact could be located within the County’s proposed Multiservice Center.
5. Support the establishment of service agreements between landlords and service providers: These service agreements could include commitments by service providers to provide tenants with minimum service levels. The County could emphasize the importance of these agreements and provide sample documents as part of its Provider and Funder Capacity-Building efforts.
6. If resources are available, increase risk mitigation funds available to landlords: These funds could include providing larger security depositions, pre-paying rents, and setting aside funds for excessive damages to properties above normal “wear and tear.” The County and PHAs could work together to determine the appropriate type and level of risk mitigation funds. CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
60
163
Establishment of Landlord Partnership Program Range of Options
The County and the PHAs can work together to pursue a range of changes to make voucher acceptance less risky and more attractive for landlords: The changes on the previous page are proposed, but should be evaluated in consultation with landlords. Given other affordable housing funding needs, the County and PHAs may not have sufficient resources to increase risk mitigation funds.
Existing Efforts
The County and PHAs currently are engaged in voucher administration in Wake County. Alliance Behavioral Healthcare also administers rental assistance funds for the populations affected by the recent Department of Justice settlement. The Raleigh Housing Authority offers a quarterly training for landlords that accept vouchers.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS • Hold a landlord roundtable with landlords who currently
are and are not accepting vouchers to understand barriers to uptake. • Identify high-priority changes to be pursued through the Landlord Partnership Program to significantly increase voucher uptake, while also being efficient with County and PHA resources.
CROSS-CUTTING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS • Define and track outcomes (e.g., reductions in the amount of
time that it takes voucher-holders to locate units) from the Landlord Partnership Program to ensure that it is producing desired results.
164 61
Recommended Tools •
Cross-Cutting
•
New Rental Production
•
Preservation
•
Homeownership
•
Supportive Housing
165
NEW RENTAL PRODUCTION | OVERVIEW The recommended rental production tools focus on supporting the creation of new affordable rental units in Wake County for renter households under 50% AMI, including by expanding access to public land; providing capital to acquire private development sites through the Acquisition Fund; enhancing the County’s existing Rental Production Loan Program, which provides gap funding for affordable rental housing; and encouraging municipalities to adjust their zoning to increase Accessory Dwelling Units.
Land Use | Leveraged Programs| Funding Public Land Disposition Requirements (Discussed under Cross-Cutting Tools) Expanded Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) (Discussed under Cross-Cutting Tools) New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing (Discussed under Cross-Cutting Tools) Changes to North Carolina’s Qualified Allocation Plan (Discussed under Cross-Cutting Tools) Acquisition Fund Establish an acquisition loan fund, in partnership with philanthropic or mission-motivated investors and municipalities, to acquire sites for affordable housing development, especially in strategic locations.
Enhanced County Rental Production Loan Program Increase the scale and refine the focus of the County’s existing Affordable Housing Development Program by emphasizing the production of affordable rental units for populations below 50% AMI and permanent supportive housing units.
166 NEW RENTAL PRODUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
63
Affordable rental represents the area of greatest unmet housing need in Wake County, and has been the primary focus of local government housing activities to date. Of the 91,000 households in Wake County spending at least 30% of their income on housing, almost 53,000 households, or 58%, are renters. Moreover, over 26,000 renter households are spending more than half of their income on gross rent. Renter households earning below $39,000 are the most impacted by affordability. To respond to this challenge, the County and municipalities have focused their housing programs primarily on rental housing, providing gap financing for new construction and rehabilitation of rental units.
RENT-BURDENED HOUSEHOLDS Wake County, 2014 Extremely Cost-Burdened (>50% of income) 100% 80%
17,600
22,200 11%
60%
40%
54% 72%
20% 0%
Income:
Cost-Burdened (30-50% of income)
83%
83% 29%
Household Income <= 30% HAMFI
Less than $24,250
11,300 37%
40%
3%
Household Income >30% to <=50% HAMFIHousehold Income >50% to <=80% HAMFI
$24,250 to $39,400
$39,400 to $63,050
1%
1,700 11%
12%
Household Income >80% to <=100% HAMFI
$63,050 to $78,800
Sources: HUD 2014 CHAS data; HR&A Advisors. Note: Total cost-burdened households includes the total number of households spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs. Low-income households are defined as 50% of AMI or $39,400 for a four-person household based on HUD’s 2015 income limits for Wake County. Gross rent is defined as rent plus utilities.
NEW RENTAL PRODUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
64
167
Rental housing programs currently receive the majority of affordable housing funding allocated in Wake County. However, this funding is not sufficient to keep pace with the growing affordable housing need. In 2015, rental housing production in Wake County received over $50M in public subsidy, including federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits. The funding focus on rental production explains why most publicly-subsidized affordable units being created in Wake County are rental units, with rental units accounting for over 90% of the roughly 500 units of affordable housing produced in 2015. However, most of the affordable rental units being produced are not serving households earning less $39,000 (<50% AMI), but households above that threshold (50-60% AMI).
SUBSIDIZED AFFORDABLE UNITS PRODUCED ANNUALLY Wake County, 2015 0
100
200
300
36
466
Homeownership Units
Rental Units
400
500
600
8
Supportive Housing Units
168 Sources: NCHFA, Wake County Human Services Division, City of Raleigh Housing & Neighborhood Department, CASA, HR&A Advisors.
NEW RENTAL PRODUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
65
In recent years, the production of affordable rental housing in Wake County has significantly increased as Wake County and the City of Raleigh have targeted their funding to effectively leverage federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC). Wake County is now producing more affordable rental housing through the LIHTC program than any other county in North Carolina. In 2016, 4% deals comprised more than half of all LIHTC deals in Wake County. However, if Wake County wants to sustain and expand affordable rental production, new tools will be required.
There are two types of LIHTC credits: • 9% tax credits are allocated through a competitive process and usually cover 70-80% of development cost. • 4% tax credits are awarded by right to qualifying projects and usually cover 30-40% of development cost.
TOTAL AWARDED LIHTC UNITS Wake County, 2012-2016 9% Credits Awarded
4% Credits Awarded
736
800 700
600 500 400 300
413
65%
264
277
45%
39%
100%
100%
55%
61%
35%
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
200 100
442
0 169
Sources: NCHFA, HR&A Advisors.
NEW RENTAL PRODUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
66
Existing affordable rental housing in Wake County is concentrated in areas of higher poverty, driving the need to create new affordable rental housing in high-opportunity areas moving forward. Today, 66% of publicly-subsidized units are located in areas with poverty rates exceeding the 2014 countywide poverty rate (11%). The largest share of publicly-subsidized units are located in areas with a poverty rate of 10-19.9%, followed by areas with a poverty rate of 30% or higher.
PUBLICLY-SUBSIDIZED PROPERTIES IN AREAS WITH POVERTY RATES ABOVE COUNTYWIDE RATE
SHARE OF PUBLICLY-SUBSIDIZED PROPERTIES BY POVERTY RATE OF AREA
30% or higher
25%
20-29.9%
14%
10-19.9%
32%
5-9.9%
15%
Less than 4.9%
11% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Sources: National Housing Preservation Database, 2014 American Community Survey.
NEW RENTAL PRODUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
67
170
Acquisition Fund What
Establish an acquisition loan fund, in partnership with philanthropic or mission-oriented investors, motivated lenders and municipalities, to acquire sites for affordable housing development, especially in strategic locations. An acquisition fund is a dedicated revolving pool of capital used to acquire sites for future affordable housing or mixed-income development.
Why
Given strong real estate market demand in Wake County, affordable housing developers struggle to compete for development sites with private buyers, who can often pay in cash and close deals quickly. While experienced affordable housing developers may be able to access acquisition funds through bank partners or Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs), these capital sources typically will only provide loans for 75-80% of project cost, leaving developers with a gap to be filled before they can act. Developers must either seek support from public-sector partners, which can take time, or deploy their own limited funds. Since nonprofit developers are often thinly capitalized, a single acquisition can tie up the bulk of their resources, leaving them unable to respond to other opportunities that may arise until those funds are released. These capital constraints make it very challenging for affordable housing developers to gain control of sites in desirable locations.
Lead Entity
County in partnership with private lenders, and ideally with participation from municipalities.
Estimated Impact
Minimum $2M investment to realize $10M fund, with investment able to create 400-700 units
Population Served
Below 50% AMI for rental Source: Wake County
Notes: Properties purchased with acquisition fund loans likely will need to leverage other back-end subsidy sources (e.g., LIHTC, HOME, local funds) to do new construction or rehabilitation. The availability of back-end subsidies will determine the maximum size of a potential loan fund, as it is not feasible to acquire more property than there is subsidy to develop. Estimated impact assumes $10M available ($2M County, $8M private), with average per unit land cost of $15K to $25K.
NEW RENTAL PRODUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
68
171
Acquisition Fund The below describes a potential structure and operating model for the acquisition fund. However, the County should work with potential funding partners and affordable housing developers to determine the most appropriate structure for Wake County.
Recommended Fund Structure Borrowers
Nonprofit and for-profit affordable housing developers with a track record of successful development.
Investors
The County, municipalities, philanthropies, anchor institutions, and financial institutions.
Fund Administrator
Experienced affordable housing lender, such as a local bank or Community Development Financial Institution. • The fund administrator would hold all funds and be responsible for underwriting, approving, and monitoring loans using its established procedures. • Loans made with County funds would be made within parameters established upfront via a funding agreement with the County and other investors. • The fund administrator would provide regular reports to the County about the deployment of funds and performance of acquisition loans made with County participation.
Loan Types
Loans that are fast-turnaround (able to be approved and closed quickly); high loan-to-value; either interest-deferred or interest-only; and as low-cost as possible. Based on precedents from other communities, loan parameters might include: • Loan-to-value ratio: Up to 97% loan-to-value ratio, with County funds (and potentially other capital) covering the gap between 80% LTV and the maximum LTV. • Overall size: Maximum loan size on the order of $1.5M-$2M. • Term: Initial term of up to 3 years, with potential to renew for 2 additional years (5 years total) • Position in the capital stack: Capacity to take subordinate position, such that the first lender provides an acquisition loan that goes up to 80% LTV and the fund provides a subordinate loan that covers the gap from 81-97% LTV. • Greater risk tolerance for acquisitions where takeout plans are not fully developed. 172
NEW RENTAL PRODUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
69
Acquisition Fund Transaction Structure The capital stack diagrams below show (1) a potential acquisition transaction in Wake County and (2) the capital stack used for the Denver Transit-Oriented Development Fund. For each acquisition in Wake County, the capital stack will vary based on the deal.
Example Project
Denver TOD Fund**
Housing Units: 96 Acreage: 8.4
3% ($29K)
Acquisition loan fund
97% ($946K)
19% ($189K)
78% ($757K)
Fund administrator equity
Developer equity
Public funding
Private and philanthropic funding
10% ($1.5M)
16% ($2.5M) 37% ($5.5M)
37% ($5.5M)
ACQUISITION COST: $975K*
Public funding
Philanthropic funding
Private funding
FUND SIZE: $15M
173
*Based on recent awarded project in Wake County. ** See Case study for additional details
NEW RENTAL PRODUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
70
Acquisition Fund Range of Options
There are two basic options to establish the fund: 1. County operates as the investor: Wake County could provide capital to an existing Community Development Finance Institution or a local bank which could leverage the County funds with existing loan capital to make the desired acquisition loans. The CDFI or local bank then would be responsible for underwriting, approving, and monitoring loans on an ongoing basis. 2. County operates as part of a pool of investors engaged in a multi-investor fund: Wake County could combine resources from multiple investors to create a dedicated pool of acquisition capital for affordable housing development. The fund would be managed by an experienced administrator, likely a CDFI, which would be responsible for underwriting, approving, and monitoring loans on an ongoing basis. While the second option could result in a larger loan pool, it is more complex and time consuming to establish because multiple entities with different priorities and levels of affordable housing expertise must reach a funding agreement. The County should launch the fund as a single investor and then engage private partners over time to make it as multi-investor fund.
Existing Efforts
N/A
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS
• Meet with local affordable housing developers to gather
• Publicize the new loan product(s) to affordable housing
additional input on the scale and terms required for the acquisition fund to be successful. • Meet with local banks and CDFIs to gauge their interest and willingness to participate. • Dedicate a portion of funding to support the launch of the Acquisition Fund. • Issue a Request for Proposals for a fund administrator and negotiate a funding agreement.
developers. • Monitor deployment of loan funds and adjust loan parameters as needed with fund administrator. • Conduct outreach to potential partners to expand the fund to other investors.
NEW RENTAL PRODUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
174 71
Enhanced County Rental Production Loan Program What
Enhance the County’s existing rental production loan program, officially known as the Affordable Housing Development Program, which provides gap funding to create affordable rental housing. In particular: • Expand the total amount of funding available for both LIHTC and non-LIHTC projects. • Strengthen program underwriting criteria and incentivize projects that meet County goals, including producing or preserving extremely low-income households (below 30% AMI) within the broader universe of low-income households, creating more permanent supportive housing units, and building units in strategic locations.
Why
The County’s existing Affordable Housing Development program is an effective program for the creation of affordable rental units in Wake County that can be modified to further increase production. The production of affordable rental housing has increased significantly in recent years, primarily due to Wake County and Raleigh’s provision of gap funding to LIHTC projects.
Lead Entity
County
Estimated Impact
Typically $10K-$40K per unit, depending on project type, location & income level served
Population Served
Below 50% AMI for rental, with targeting for 30% and supportive housing
Source: Shutterstock
175 Note: Estimated impact based on the range of loan subsidy provided to recently awarded 9% and 4% projects in Wake County.
NEW RENTAL PRODUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
72
Enhanced County Rental Production Loan Program Recommended Program Changes 1
To increase program efficiency, refine underwriting criteria used to assess project feasibility and determine necessary County investment levels, including close review of developer assumptions.
2
Increase program focus on extremely low-income populations.
A
Prioritize income levels to be served: Give priority for County funding to 9% LIHTC projects that provide units for households at or below 30% AMI. Likewise, give priority to all 4% LIHTC and non-LIHTC projects that provide units for households at or below 50% AMI.
B
Link total amount of funding provided to income levels served: For all 9% LIHTC projects, link total amount of County funding provided to total number of units for households at or below 30% AMI. For all 4% LIHTC and non-LIHTC projects, link total amount of County funding provided to total number of units for households at or below 50% AMI.
C
Revise per-unit funding limits based on income levels served: Provide greater per-unit funding for units serving the lowest-income households, such that as the target AMI drops, the total amount of potential County subsidy increases.
D
Increase voucher uptake in County-subsidized units: Require all funding recipients to accept County vouchers in at least 10% of their units. For 9% and 4% LIHTC projects, this would be above and beyond the percentage set aside for the Targeting Program.
3
Prioritize the creation of permanent supportive housing units.
A
Create a designated funding set-aside for projects that provide permanent supportive housing units, with clear guidelines about the type of PSH units expected (e.g., units that have a comprehensive service wrap-around).
4
Prioritize projects located in high-opportunity areas (see Location Targeting section).
Notes: The Targeting Program is a collaboration among the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency, Wake County Human Services Division of Housing, and local human service agencies to provide affordable housing for households with disabilities.
NEW RENTAL PRODUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
73
176
Enhanced County Rental Production Loan Program Range of Options
The County should consider the range of modifications to its existing rental production loan program summarized on the previous page. The size of the loan program expansion is dependent on the scale of funding that the County allocates to it. The Rental Production Loan Program is the leveraged program most capable of quickly absorbing additional public funds and creating new affordable housing. The County should allocate the greatest additional funds to this program in the near term as other programs ramp up.
Existing Efforts
Wake County currently provides funding for the new construction or rehabilitation of multifamily rental projects that contain units for households at or below 40% AMI (for 9% LIHTC projects) or at or below 50-60% AMI (for 4% LIHTC projects) through its Affordable Housing Development Program. The funds are provided through the County Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and the Home Investment Partnership grant programs, with the County offering $3M in funding in 2016. Wake County issues a request for proposals for LIHTC projects seeking County funds every December. The County issues an additional request for proposals for non-LIHTC projects every March, using any money left over from the December funding round. The County also has implemented a continuous call for projects through a rolling Request for Information. The County awards funds to projects using a scorecard, and generally limits projects to municipalities that contain less than the countywide percentages of subsidized housing.
County Action Steps
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS
NEAR-TERM STEPS • Develop refined underwriting standards, including
• Evaluate impact of program refinements and make additional
proposed per-unit funding by target income levels. Funding can be established based on a review of relevant financial models, local developer consultation, and best practice examples from other communities. • Revise the Request for Proposals for the Affordable Housing Development Program before the 2018 funding cycle.
NEW RENTAL PRODUCTION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
adjustments.
177 74
Recommended Tools •
Cross-Cutting
•
New Rental Production
•
Preservation
•
Homeownership
•
Supportive Housing
178
PRESERVATION TOOLS | OVERVIEW The recommended preservation tools are intended to help prevent Wake County’s existing affordable housing, which includes both publicly-subsidized and naturally occurring affordable housing, from being converted to market-rate units due to market pressures, expiring affordability restrictions, and declining federal funding. The preservation tools focus on providing the County with the resources and information that it needs to become more proactive in preserving affordable units so it can intervene when units are at risk; capitalize on opportunities to preserve significant amounts of existing affordable housing via the redevelopment of public housing; and ensure that units created with government subsidy maintain their affordability for as long as possible.
Land Use | Leveraged Programs| Funding Public Land Disposition Requirements (Discussed under Cross-Cutting Tools)
New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing (Discussed under Cross-Cutting Tools) Changes to North Carolina’s Qualified Allocation Plan (Discussed under Cross-Cutting Tools) Preservation Fund Establish a preservation loan fund, in partnership with philanthropic or mission-motivated investors and municipalities, to provide lowcost permanent financing to maintain existing affordable multifamily rental properties.
Affordable Housing Preservation Warning System Develop and maintain an affordable housing preservation warning system that tracks existing affordable units and guides preservation investments to prevent their conversion to market-rate units and improve their quality.
Redevelopment of Public Housing Sites Work with the Housing Authority of the County of Wake and Raleigh Housing Authority (PHAs) to develop a comprehensive redevelopment plan for all public housing sites to transform them into mixed-income communities or modern affordable housing developments.
Extended Affordability Provisions Extend the required affordability period for all projects receiving local, state, or federal subsidies administered by the County to 50 years or more.
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
76
179
Wake County’s existing portfolio of affordable housing consists of publicly-subsidized and naturally occurring affordable housing. Preserving Wake County’s existing affordable housing stock is critical to addressing its affordable housing crisis for two reasons: 1.
2.
Preservation is the other half of the solution to increasing the overall affordable housing supply, as it ensures that production yields net new units, instead of just replacing existing units that are being lost. Without effective preservation, construction of new affordable units will not be sufficient on its own to meet the affordable housing need. Preservation of existing affordable housing can be more cost-effective on per-unit basis than production, because either the government (for publicly-subsidized units) or the private sector (for naturally occurring affordable units) has already made major upfront expenditures for land and construction. According to one study, it cost 25% to 40% more to develop a unit of subsidized rental housing through new construction than through the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing housing units.
As of 2015, Wake County had approximately 61,500 affordable rental housing units, representing approximately 47% of the occupied rental stock and 17% of the total occupied housing stock.
There are approximately 26,000 multifamily NOAH rental units and 24,000 single-family NOAH rental units. The remainder of the affordable housing rental inventory consists of 11,500 publicly-subsidized units.
OCCUPIED RENTAL STOCK BREAKDOWN Wake County, 2015
20% 53% 18%
9%
Multifamily rental NOAH Publicly-subsidized units
Single-family rental NOAH Market-rate rental units
Sources: Center for Housing Policy, American Community Survey PUMS Data, total rental households; HR&A Advisors Note: The publicly-subsidized number does include rental assistance vouchers. In 2015, 4,574 vouchers were issued. Given data limitations, the single-family NOAH estimate includes potential units with vouchers.
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
180 77
The majority of publicly-subsidized housing in Wake is concentrated in Raleigh, and funded by federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits. In absolute terms, Raleigh has the highest number of publicly-subsidized units, with 1,443 public housing units and 5,636 other publicly-subsidized units. Knightdale, Zebulon, and Wendell have the highest shares of publicly-subsidized units, with these units (including public housing) comprising 9-10% of their total housing stock. While publicly-subsidized housing in Wake County draws on different project-based government subsidy programs, such as the HOME Partnership Program, Project-Based Section 8, and belowmarket U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-insured mortgages, the primary subsidy source is the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program.
TOTAL PUBLICLY-SUBSIDIZED UNITS BY JURISDICTION Wake County, NC Publicly subsidized units
As a share (%) of total units
8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0
12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%
181
Source: DHIC Sources: National Housing Preservation Database, Housing Authority of Wake County, Raleigh Housing Authority; HR&A Advisors
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
78
Market pressure, reflected in rising rents and low vacancy rates, has contributed to the loss of thousands of existing affordable rental properties. The affordable housing stock can lose units in a variety of ways. From 2009 to 2015, Wake County experienced the greatest supply losses in units affordable to households making less than $39,000 (<50% AMI). Collectively, 4,900 units affordable to these households were lost from 2009 to 2015, with this net loss indicating a need for preservation. In general, units are lost from the affordable housing supply when they are converted to market-rate units or redeveloped and not replaced. These situations can occur under the following conditions: 1. The owner raises rents to take advantage of strong market demand. 2. The owner chooses to redevelop the property as a market-rate project. 3. The owner either voluntarily chooses to or involuntarily experiences financial hardship that requires them to sell the property to a market-rate developer, who raises rents or pursues redevelopment. 4. The owner does not make necessary capital improvements and the property becomes unusable for affordable housing.
instantly stop being affordable when these restrictions expire, they become much more vulnerable to the loss of affordability. Today, Wake County is losing affordable housing units to both conversion and redevelopment. Forest Hills Apartments in Garner has been converted to market-rate housing, and the project-based subsidy in place at Sir Walter Raleigh Apartments is scheduled to expire in 2020.
TOTAL PUBLICLY-SUBSIDIZED UNITS EXPIRING THROUGH 2022
For NOAH, conversion to market-rate can happen at any time. For publicly-subsidized housing, it should only happen when affordability restrictions expire. While properties do not
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
182 79
In Wake County, the affordability restrictions on a large portion of publicly-subsidized housing will expire in the coming years, putting units at risk for conversion to market-rate. Low-Income Housing Tax Credit projects have a 15-year required affordability period, which is followed by a second 15-year affordability period, called the “extended use period,” that keeps them affordable for a total of 30 years. However, the enforcement mechanisms for the second 15-year affordability period are much weaker than the first 15-year permit, and some properties convert to market-rate before reaching the end of their full 30-year affordability period. Properties owned by for-profit owners who are not active
EXPIRING LIHTC UNITS BY YEAR Wake County
Year 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
affordable housing developers are particularly vulnerable to this. LIHTC properties require new capital investment before the 30year affordability period ends in order to maintain property quality and update critical systems. For this reason, the County should prioritize investments in properties before they reach the end of their 30-year affordability period in order to ensure they remain quality affordable housing.
LIHTC Units Reaching Year 15 380 134 297 159 117 176 174 124 238 264 277 442 413
LIHTC Units Reaching Year 30 75 32 0 142 276 102 388 605 207 228 498 14 471
Total 455 166 297 301 393 278 562 729 445 492 775 456 884
183
Sources: NCHFA, HR&A Advisors. Note: Expiring LIHTC properties are counted both at Year-15 and Year-30. Full list of LIHTC units is included in Appendix.
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
80
Preservation Fund What
Establish a preservation loan fund, in partnership with philanthropic and mission-oriented investors, lending institutions, affordable housing developers, and the municipalities, that is dedicated to the preservation of affordable housing. A preservation fund is a dedicated pool of capital used to acquire or rehabilitate existing naturally occurring and subsidized affordable housing in order to preserve affordability.
Why
Given strong real estate market demand in Wake County, the fund will help prevent the loss of publicly-subsidized and naturally occurring multifamily affordable housing properties by providing low-cost permanent financing to acquire or rehabilitate them. In order to offer below-market rents, property owners need long-term financing that is willing to accept a below-market rate of return while accepting real estate risk. The preservation fund provides lower-cost financing that replaces equity, which typically has the highest required rate of return.
Lead Entity
County in partnership with private lender, ideally with municipalities’ participation
Estimated Impact
$15K-$20K per unit
Population Served
Below 60% AMI for rental, with the ability to adjust rent to meet payments to investors.
Source: DHIC
184
Note: Estimated impact based on existing best practice preservation fund example and tailored to reflect Wake County market dynamics.
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
81
Preservation Fund The below describes a potential structure and operating model for the preservation fund. However, the County should work with potential funding partners and affordable housing developers to determine the most appropriate structure for Wake County.
Recommended Fund Structure Borrowers
• •
Investors
The County, municipalities, philanthropies, anchor institutions, and financial institutions.
Fund Administrator
Experienced affordable housing lender, such as a Community Development Financial Institution or local bank. • The fund administrator would hold all funds and be responsible for underwriting, approving, and monitoring loans using its established procedures. Loans made with County funds would be made within parameters established upfront via a funding agreement with the County and other investors.
Loan Purpose
Acquiring naturally occurring affordable housing or recapitalizing existing subsidized affordable housing to prevent it from being converted to market-rate. Loan products are low-cost mezzanine debt that replaces high-cost equity investments.
Target Properties
The County and its partners will work together to develop specific criteria for properties selected for loans, potentially including but not limited to: • Urgency: At imminent risk of losing their affordability. • Owner profile: Have owners who are willing to work with the County to either preserve the affordability of their properties long-term or transfer it to another entity that will. • Tenant profile: House large numbers of tenants who will be displaced if properties are not preserved, potentially including extremely low-income tenants. • Physical and financial distress levels: Do not have extreme levels of distress. • Geographic location: Located in areas prioritized for preservation because they are experiencing rapid appreciation.
Loan Types
Loans are fast-turnaround, low-cost and take mezzanine position behind traditional 1st mortgages. The affordability restrictions that accompany the loans allow for some flexibility on rent levels to allow for adjustments to cover recapitalization costs.
Existing affordable housing owners that are motivated to maintain the affordability and quality of their units. Nonprofit affordable housing developers interested in acquiring and preserving existing affordable properties if granted funding.
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
82
185
Preservation Fund Transaction Structure The capital stack diagrams below show (1) an example preservation project in Hennepin County, Minnesota and (2) the capital stack used for the Hennepin County Preservation Fund. To establish its Preservation Fund, Wake County will need to establish project-specific capital stock guidelines.
Example Project
Hennepin County Preservation Fund**
Total Units: 72 Developer equity
5% ($340K)
34% ($2.3M)
Preservation fund loan
30% ($7.5M) 20% ($5M)
61% ($4.1M)
Traditional multifamily first mortgage
50% ($12.5M)
COST: $6.8M*
Public funding
Philanthropic funding
Private funding
FUND SIZE: $25M
186
*Based on a Hennepin County preservation project. See associated case study for further details.
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
83
Preservation Fund Range of Options
The preservation fund could target different types of subsidized and naturally affordable properties. It should seek to target naturally occurring affordable housing and subsidized affordable housing that cannot access traditional funding sources such as LIHTC. As with the acquisition fund, there are two basic options to establish the fund: 1. County operates as the sole investor 2. County operates as part of a pool of investors engaged in a multi-investor fund The County should partner with at least one additional investor to launch the preservation fund. Once the fund is established, the County can engage a wider range of investors to expand the scale of the fund. The preservation fund also can run in coordination with the acquisition fund.
Existing Efforts
Wake County and the City of Raleigh have been making efforts to acquire and preserve “expiring use” LIHTC projects wherever possible. However, there is a need for greater ongoing resources to support preservation.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS
• Meet with local affordable housing developers to gather
• Publicize the new loan product(s) to affordable housing
additional input on the scale and terms required for the preservation fund to be successful. • Meet with local banks and CDFIs to gauge their interest and willingness to participate. • Dedicate a portion of funding to support the launch of the Preservation Fund. • Issue a Request for Proposals for a fund administrator and negotiate a funding agreement.
developers and select 1-2 preservation projects in Wake County to demonstrate “proof of concept.” • Monitor deployment of loan funds and adjust loan parameters as needed with fund administrator.
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
187 84
Affordable Housing Preservation Warning System & Annual Report What
Develop and maintain an affordable housing inventory and preservation warning system that tracks both publiclysubsidized and naturally occurring affordable housing. This effort will involve the creation of a central database to track critical data about existing affordable housing properties, such as type, location, current ownership, and subsidy expiration date (as applicable). It also will involve the production of an annual report that tracks affordable housing supply changes in Wake County and factors driving those changes, including preservation activities.
Why
The system will help stakeholders (county staff, elected leadership, affordable housing developers, advocates, and others) accomplish two tasks. First, it will track and quantify the affordable housing supply, including through an annual report. Second, it will guide deployment of public preservation funding and technical assistance and owner outreach to prevent units from converting to market-rate due to expiration of their public subsidy or planned conversion or redevelopment and improve their quality.
Lead Entity
County, but ideally with regional participation to achieve economies of scale
Estimated Impact
$250k to launch and $80k to maintain, the cost varies greatly based on the scope of properties monitored and the reporting produced
Population Served
The warning system will monitor affordable rental properties (<60% AMI)
Source: DHIC
188
Note: Estimated impact based on nationwide examples.
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
85
Affordable Housing Preservation Warning System & Annual Report The below describes a potential structure and operating model for the preservation warning system and annual report.
Recommended Structure & Operations Participants
Ideally, joint effort between local and regional government entities, including the Triangle J Council of Governments, other counties, and other municipalities; affordable housing nonprofits, academic partners, and philanthropic organizations. The organization responsible for developing and maintaining the database and producing the annual report could be an academic institution, funded through philanthropic support and working in partnership with County staff.
Scale
For several reasons, including the regional nature of the housing market, potential economies of scale, and the usefulness of consistent data across the region, a regional system would be optimal. It may be possible to partner with other communities in North Carolina because of similarities in data needed and monitoring processes.
Functions
• • •
Data Sources
Collect and regularly update data from a range of local, state, and federal sources. Share information about at-risk properties with housing staff at the county, municipal, and regional level to guide deployment of public preservation funding and technical assistance. The system lead will not publicly share detailed market conditions information that could be used by private actors to exacerbate housing problems. Produce an annual report summarizing affordable housing supply trends.
There are multiple data sources that could be used to construct the database, including: • National Housing Preservation Database, which includes housing data reported to the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) by local governments • CoStar, which includes multifamily housing properties of 5 or more units • HUD property inspection data • North Carolina Housing Finance Agency Low-Income Housing Tax Credit deal information For projects that receive both local funding and NCHFA funding, Wake County may be able to enter into an agreement with NCHFA to have access to their internal monitoring database, modeled after the current agreement that the City of Charlotte has in place.
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
86
189
Affordable Housing Preservation Warning System & Annual Report Range of Options
Depending on the level of resources available, the system could collect data for a range of affordable property types. The baseline may be to collect data on all subsidized properties. This could be expanded to include all naturally occurring affordable multifamily properties, followed by all naturally occurring affordable single-family properties. Given the challenges associated with tracking “expiring” naturally occurring affordable properties, because it is difficult to determine when these properties will convert due to rents being raised, sale, or redevelopment, it could be useful to identify priority locations (e.g., large concentrations of NOAH that could be at risk).
Existing Efforts
Today, the Triangle J Council of Governments convenes its members to discuss regional housing issues on a semiregular basis. However, there currently is no formal structure in Wake County or the region to share data about, evaluate progress towards, and identify gaps in preservation efforts.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS
• Engage with academic institutions and other entities that
• Launch the warning system and begin sharing information with
could help operate the warning system to define its focus, including housing types and geographic areas to be tracked. • Engage regional stakeholders and philanthropic funders about the potential for collaboration. • Develop a memorandum of understanding between partners formalizing roles and responsibilities.
key stakeholders. • Publish the first annual report on the affordable housing supply in Wake County.
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
190 87
Public Housing Redevelopment What
Work with the Housing Authority of Wake County (HAWC) and Raleigh Housing Authority (RHA) to develop a comprehensive redevelopment plan for all public housing sites to transform them into mixed-income communities or modern affordable housing developments. HAWC and RHA are the two housing authorities operating in Wake, and represent major providers of affordable housing for extremely low-income populations in the County. The RHA operates 22 public housing communities with 1,381 units, and HACW operates six communities with 343 units.
Why
Declining federal funding is impacting both capital and operating resources for PHAs. With aging public housing buildings, redevelopment is the most effective approach to providing quality affordable housing. HAWC is a small organization that covers a broad geographical area, with responsibilities for properties in six municipalities, creating challenges for efficient property management. Much of HAWC’s housing consists of single-level brick and masonry buildings constructed in the mid-1960s that require major capital investments to addressed deferred maintenance. RHA serves a large number of extremely low-income households living in the City of Raleigh.
Lead Entity
County, City of Raleigh, & PHAs working together on redevelopment planning and identifying funding.
Estimated Impact
Varies drastically, $170k-$190k total subsidy per unit, of which local subsidy is $40k-$60k.
Population Served
Below 50% AMI, and majority is below 30% AMI. Source: CAD Communities
191
Note: Estimated impact based on Walnut Terrace and Mariposa District redevelopments and from conversations with Housing Authority staff.
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
88
Public Housing Redevelopment Range of Options
Wake County and local municipalities can work with the public housing authorities to facilitate redevelopment by: • Providing funding and other resources to support redevelopment of existing public housing sites as mixedincome housing where feasible (e.g., generally, larger sites with greater market value). • Providing funding and other resources to enable the consolidation of public housing residents living at sites that are not feasible to redevelop as mixed-income housing (e.g., smaller sites with lower market value) into new or substantially renovated developments. • Assisting with tenant relocation activities. • Considering public housing assets and needs in land use, housing, and transportation planning efforts.
Existing Efforts
The Housing Authority of the County of Wake is planning to undertake a comprehensive strategic planning process for its sites. The Raleigh Housing Authority has completed large-scale redevelopment at several of its sites, including Walnut Terrace, Chavis Heights, and Halifax Court/Capital Park.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS
• Convene County, HAWC, RHA, the City of Raleigh, and
• Engage HAWC and RHA in the creation of long-term
other municipal leadership to discuss potential collaboration on the redevelopment of public housing. • Establish a memorandum of understanding between the County, public housing authorities, and municipalities defining the terms for future collaboration.
redevelopment plans for their public housing portfolios. • Provide funding and other support, such as specialized technical assistance, for public housing redevelopment throughout Wake County. 192
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
89
Extended Affordability Provisions What
Extend the required affordability period for all projects receiving local, state, or federal subsidies administered by Wake County, targeting a 50-year period for all multifamily rental properties. In addition, adopt a “right-of-firstrefusal” policy that applies to all properties receiving local, state, or federal subsidies administered by the County and includes mission-driven for-profit developers. “Right of first refusal” gives the County with the assignable right to purchase a property at the end of its affordability period to preserve the affordability.
Why
In general, required affordability periods apply to affordable projects developed with a public subsidy. Typically, projects must remain affordable for five to 30 years, depending on the subsidy source. Extending the affordability period positions the County to maintain the affordability of subsidized housing. The County will need to devote funding to periodically rehabilitate properties during through their affordability period, as a longer affordability period without funds to maintain the property will result in blighted and low-quality affordable housing.
Lead Entity
County.
Estimated Impact
A greater portion of subsidized affordable properties will retain their affordability.
Population Served
All types of affordable housing.
PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Source: DHIC
193 90
Extended Affordability Provisions Range of Options
The County could seek to impose an affordability period of 50 years for all projects receiving local, state, or federal subsidies administered by the County, enforced by deed restrictions that mandate the unit be occupied by households under 80% AMI. Alternatively, the County could establish a graduated affordability period system, whereby the larger the public subsidy for a project is, the longer its affordability period will be, up to a maximum possible period of 50 years.
Existing Efforts
The County primarily has focused its affordable housing funding efforts on providing gap financing for LIHTC projects, which have built-in 15- to 30-year affordability periods, and preserving properties when it becomes aware that their affordability restrictions are expiring. Currently, the County incorporates “right of first refusal” provisions into its Affordable Housing Development Program for LIHTC and non-LIHTC projects developed with County funds.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS
• Establish the new affordability period. • Update the County’s contracts and related documents.
194 PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
91
Recommendations •
Cross-Cutting
•
New Rental Production
•
Preservation
•
Homeownership
•
Supportive Housing
195
HOMEOWNERSHIP TOOLS | OVERVIEW The recommended homeownership tools seek to assist low- and moderate-income households in becoming homeowners and enable existing homeowners to maintain their homes. Homeownership is currently relatively affordable in Wake County, creating an opportunity to expand access to homeownership, especially for populations that have been traditionally underserved, and position homeowners to benefit from future appreciation before home prices rise.
Land Use | Leveraged Programs| Funding Public Land Disposition Requirements (Discussed under Cross-Cutting Tools) New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing (Discussed under Cross-Cutting Tools) Affordable Mortgage Program Provide funding to a nonprofit partner to offer guarantees for first mortgage loans and provide no-interest second mortgages for eligible low-income homebuyers.
Targeted Homeowner Rehabilitation Streamline and standardize homeowner rehabilitation programs run by the County, municipalities, and housing nonprofits to increase efficiency and improve access.
Housing Counseling Coordinate with municipalities to align existing housing counseling programs across the region to improve efficiency and streamline homeowner and renter connections to existing housing resources in the County.
Shared Equity Homeownership Program (Community Land Trust) Encourage the municipalities to support efforts to pilot the Community Land Trust (CLT) model in neighborhoods that are experiencing significant gentrification pressures by partnering with an existing organization with the capacity to operate a CLT.
HOMEOWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
93
196
Homeownership in Wake County is currently fairly affordable, but this trend is driven by the decline in mortgage rates and limited increases in price. While home values have increased, overall homeownership still is relatively affordable for the majority of the population in Wake County. From 2006 to 2015, the percent of households in Wake County who could afford homeownership, using the median for-sale housing price for the respective year and assuming that households spend no more than 30% of their annual income on mortgage and insurance costs, increased from 53% to 65%. This change was driven by a corresponding decline in interest rates from approximately 7% to 4%.
% OF HOUSEHOLDS WHO CAN AFFORD HOMEOWNERSHIP (Based on Median For-Sale Home Prices) Wake County, 2006-2015 % of households
Mortgage Rate 7% 6%
80% 65% 60%
53%
5% 4%
61%
3%
40%
2%
20%
Mortgage Rate
% of households
100%
1%
0%
0%
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015 197
Sources: Zillow Historical Market Research; Freddie Mac; HR&A Advisors Note: This analysis assumes a standard, fixed-rate, 30 year mortgage.
HOMEOWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
94
Limited price increases for lower cost for-sale housing have helped to preserve the affordability of homeownership in Wake County. From 2010 to 2016, the average value of all homes in Wake County increased by almost 16%. During the same time, the average value of homes in the bottom third by price increased by just 8%. This suggests that price escalation has not had a uniform impact on all owner-occupied homes, with less expensive homes appreciating at a slower rate than higher value homes in the County.
AVERAGE PRICE INCREASE FOR ALL HOMES VS. LOWER-THIRD HOMES Wake County, 2000-2016 All homes, +16% $250,000 $200,000
$209,000
$228,500 $197,500
$161,600
$150,000
$132,700
$122,600
$109,200 $100,000
Lower-third, +8%
$50,000 $0 2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
2014
2016 198
Sources: Zillow Historical Market Research; HR&A Advisors.
HOMEOWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
95
Affordable Mortgage Program What
Provide funding to a nonprofit partner to offer guarantees for first mortgage loans and provide no-interest second mortgages for eligible low-income homebuyers. The public funding provided by the County would leverage private mortgage financing and “revolve” to new homeowners over time as existing owners repay their second mortgages and guarantees expire.
Why
The program will expand access to homeownership for low- and moderate-income households by reducing the cost through lower interest rates and the elimination of mortgage insurance. Access also will be expanded through increased underwriting flexibility. By dedicating a limited amount of public funding, the County will be able to leverage a relatively large amount of mortgage financing and serve a significant number of households.
Lead Entity
County, with nonprofit partner administering the mortgage program and partnership with at least one first-mortgage lender
Estimated Impact
$15k-$40k per unit, exclusive of financial guarantees, which can be established on a per loan or portfolio basis
Population Served
At or below 80% AMI for homeownership Source: Wake County
Note: The low estimate is based on a $200K home that would be affordable to a 60% AMI household with favorable financing terms, while the high end is based on a $145K home affordable to a 40% AMI household with less favorable financing. Both scenarios assume a 30% housing cost burden.
HOMEOWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
96
199
Affordable Mortgage Program The below describes a potential structure and operating model for the Affordable Mortgage Program.
Recommended Structure & Operations Borrowers
Individuals who might not qualify for mortgages from traditional private-sector lenders due to downpayment and credit score requirements.
Program Administrator
A nonprofit partner with experience providing homeownership counseling and the ability to access low-cost mortgage financing.
Program Administrator Functions
• •
• • Loan Provisions
• • •
Identify and negotiate agreements with private-market, first-mortgage lenders for below-market interest rates, flexible underwriting criteria, and the type and amount of guarantees required. Recruit participants from the County and municipalities’ joint Housing Counseling Program and conduct application review and intake into the program. Inspect properties selected by homeowners to ensure that they meet quality standards and are appropriate for purchase. Service the loans and provide ongoing support for homeowners, including foreclosure prevention. Loan forgiveness: To encourage homeownership, the County could choose to forgive the secondary mortgage if the homeowner remains in the home for a designated period of time. Forgiving the loan would eliminate the ability to “revolve” funding across multiple households over time. Total loan cost: Loans could be structured so that homebuyers pay no more than 30% of their income on mortgage payments and do not pay mortgage insurance. Use of resale restrictions vs. subsidy recapture: The County should evaluate the use of resale restrictions vs. pure subsidy recapture for the homeownership units that it assists. With resale restrictions, affordable homeownership units must be sold to a household earning below a specified income threshold. With subsidy recapture, the County only must be compensated at the time of sale for the subsidy that it originally provided. Subsidy recapture supports wealth-building for individual homeowners, but potentially at cost to the long-term maintenance of affordability in communities; re-sale restrictions involve the inverse trade-off. We recommend the use of resale restrictions.
HOMEOWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
97
200
Affordable Mortgage Program Transaction Structure The affordable mortgage program will leverage the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency’s (NCHFA) existing downpayment program, as well as traditional first-mortgage loans, to maximize the impact of public funding. While the specific mix of funding sources will vary from purchase to purchase, sources will always involve (1) a homebuyer downpayment, (2) a second mortgage from the NCHFA or the Affordable Mortgage Program, and (3) a first mortgage guaranteed through the Affordable Mortgage Program.
Example Home Purchase Homeowner downpayment
3% ($4K)
34% ($44K)
Second mortgage
63% ($82K)
First mortgage
The NCHFA will provide second loans, up to $45K. When state financing is not available or insufficient, the Affordable Mortgage Program will contribute.
The private market will provide the primary mortgage to qualifying homeowners. Wake County, or the selected fund administrator, will provide a guarantee for the first mortgage to enable a lower interest rate and more flexible underwriting criteria. Interest Rate: Below-market rate (2%)
TOTAL COST: $130K*
201
*Housing cost based on 2016 Zillow Research data on homes falling into the bottom third of home values within a given region.
HOMEOWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
98
Affordable Mortgage Program Range of Options
Wake County could choose to partner with an experienced nonprofit to administer the program. The County will need to engage with its nonprofit partner to determine the maximum level of subsidy that it wants to provide for each household and the affordability restrictions that will apply to the program.
Existing Efforts
There are several existing affordable mortgage programs in Wake County that could be combined or coordinated with this effort. • City of Raleigh’s Homebuyer Program: The City of Raleigh offers low-interest second mortgages of up to $20k for income-eligible first-time homebuyers purchasing homes in Raleigh. • North Carolina Housing Finance Agency’s Home Advantage Mortgage Program: NCHFA offers low-interest, fixedrate mortgages and downpayment assistance of up to 5% of the total loan amount for first-time and move-up homebuyers. The downpayment assistance is forgiven at 20% per year after 10 years’ residence in the home. • Habitat for Humanity of Wake County’s Mortgage Program: Habitat offers third mortgages on top of 2%, 30year private-sector first mortgages and 0%, deferred-payment NCHFA second mortgages. In addition, Habitat offers financial guarantees for first mortgages, wherein it commits to make mortgage payments on behalf of the buyer or pay the loan off if payments become 60 days delinquent.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS • Issue a Request for Proposals to select a nonprofit
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS • Track and evaluate program outcomes.
organization to administer the program. • Work with the selected nonprofit organization to establish program policies and administrative procedures. • Conduct private-market lender outreach and establish partnerships with banks to provide below-market first mortgage loans.
HOMEOWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
202 99
Targeted Homeowner Rehabilitation Program What
Streamline and standardize existing homeowner rehabilitation programs run by Wake County, the municipalities, and local housing nonprofits to improve efficiency and increase access for homeowners. In addition, pursue targeted outreach in areas prioritized for preservation activities to better align programs with preservation efforts.
Why
There are multiple homeowner rehabilitation and repair programs operating in the County. Operating multiple programs makes it more difficult for households to access the appropriate program for them and increases the administrative staff required. Streamlining and standardizing program operations would help to address these two challenges. The rehabilitation programs can be used to support the preservation of naturally occurring affordable single-family housing if they are targeted to neighborhoods where rapid price appreciation is occurring. To date, programs in Wake County have not been aligned specifically with preservation priorities, with the exception of the City of Raleigh’s Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area Homeowner Rehab Program.
Lead Entity
County and municipalities, as both have programs that could be coordinated
Estimated Impact
$5K-$50K per home
Population Served
At or below 80% AMI homeownership Source: Wake County
203 Note: Estimated impact based on review of existing Wake County rehab programs.
HOMEOWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
100
Targeted Homeowner Rehabilitation Program The below describes a potential structure and operating model for the Homeowner Rehabilitation Program.
Recommended Structure & Operations Borrowers
Income-eligible homeowners, ideally in areas prioritized for preservation.
Program Administrators
County, municipalities, and housing nonprofits effectively operating as a coordinated rehabilitation network with qualified private contractors performing the construction work. The County, municipalities, and housing nonprofits will work to coordinate, streamline, and standardize the following functions across programs: • Intake, homeowner qualification, and referral processes, such that qualification for one program is largely transferrable to other programs and homeowners are referred across programs as needed. • Prioritization criteria, including urgency of need, location within areas targeted for preservation, and rehabilitation feasibility. • Rehabilitation requirements, such as cap on assisted homes’ total value after rehabilitation and postrehabilitation minimum standards. • Outreach to prospective program participants.
Loan Types
• Funds can be provided as grants or low-cost loans. • For loans greater than $10k, the County should consider recording liens, so that the homeowner can receive the benefit of the improvements, but the County can recapture its subsidy as needed when the property is transferred.
Program Functions
• Review applications. • Perform house inspection to determine the extent of necessary housing repairs and replacements, develop a scope of work and cost estimate, and bid out project to contractors. • Establish rehabilitation agreements with homeowners and contractors and provide funding. • Confirm successful completion of improvements and close out agreements upon receipt of payment.
HOMEOWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
101
204
Targeted Homeowner Rehabilitation Program Range of Options
In addition to streamlining and standardizing program requirements, Wake County and the municipalities can better align homeownership rehabilitation efforts with areas prioritized for preservation by conducting targeted outreach and adjusting program requirements to drive rehabilitation there. Adjusted program requirements could include higher total project caps and more favorable loan terms.
Existing Efforts
Wake County, municipalities, and housing nonprofits currently run multiple rehabilitation programs: • Wake County Emergency Rehabilitation Grants: For emergency repairs (heating, well/septic, roof, and electrical hazards) to address health and safety issues for homeowners at or below 50% AMI. • Wake County Elderly & Disabled Homeowner Grants: For accessibility retrofits for elderly and disabled households at or below 40% AMI. • Raleigh Limited Home Repair Loans: For emergency repairs to address health and safety issues for homeowners at or below 50% AMI (up to $7.5k, 0% interest rate, forgiven after 5 years of owner occupancy). • Raleigh Homeowner Rehabilitation Grants & Loans: For homeowners at or below 50% AMI, forgivable loans (up to $45k, 0% interest rate, forgiven after 15 years) or deferred loans (up to $35k, 0% interest rate, repaid at transfer of ownership or non-occupancy). For homeowners at or below 80% AMI, amortizing loans (up to available equity, 0-3% interest rate, maximum term of 20 years). • Cary Housing Rehabilitation Program: Loans for rehabilitation for homeowners at or below 80% AMI (up to $50k, forgiven over 5-10 year period depending on loan amount). • Rebuilding Together Grants: For emergency repairs for homeowners at or below 65% AMI. • Resources for Seniors: For accessibility/mobility and health and safety retrofits for elderly households.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS • Establish a working group of key staff from each
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS • Implement changes to program operations.
rehabilitation program to identify opportunities to streamline and standardize operations, manage referrals, and coordinate outreach. • Coordinate with the Affordable Housing Preservation Warning System to identify priority locations for preservation. HOMEOWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
205 102
Housing Counseling What
Enhance coordination among the County and the municipalities to support the most effective housing counseling programs for potential homeowners and renters. In particular, the County and the municipalities can work together to accomplish three tasks: 1. 2. 3.
Identify a vetted group of housing counseling providers. Establish a common set of metrics to measure effectiveness across programs. Connect graduates to County and municipal housing programs (e.g., downpayment assistance through the Affordable Mortgage Program, referrals to subsidized rental units).
Why
Housing counseling programs prepare low-income households to become successful homeowners and renters through one-on-one or group sessions covering topics such as the home purchasing and loan qualification processes (for potential homeowners) and tenant rights and responsibilities (for renters). While the County and municipalities currently support a range of housing counseling organizations, enhanced coordination could strengthen program effectiveness and data tracking.
Lead Entity
County & municipalities
Estimated Impact
$300-$350 per participant
Population Served
Primarily households earning less than 80% AMI 206
Source: Shutterstock
Note: Estimated impact based on review of national housing counseling programs.
HOMEOWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
103
Housing Counseling Range of Options
The County and municipalities can work together to identify a vetted group of housing counseling providers to provide support to residents. The providers’ performance should be measured using a standardized set of priority metrics, considering both outputs and outcomes. Output metrics could include the number of courses offered, participants, and graduates. Outcome metrics could include increased homeownership rates, decreased debt burdens, improved credit scores, and increased saving rates among participants.
Existing Efforts
Currently, there are a range of housing counseling programs available in Wake County. • Wake County offers the Ready to Rent housing readiness program, a 4-day workshop targeted to both renters with negative credit, criminal, or rental histories and first-time renters. • The City of Raleigh requires Homebuyer Program participants to receive counseling from DHIC’s Homeownership Center. • Other entities that offer housing counseling include Triangle Family Services, Passage Home, Resources for Seniors, and Habitat for Humanity.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS • • •
Establish a countywide working group that includes all jurisdictions funding housing counseling programs. Develop draft metrics to measure program effectiveness, and gather feedback from housing counseling organizations to finalize them. Coordinate funding awards among jurisdictions.
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS •
Collect data to monitor programs’ performance against metrics.
207 HOMEOWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
104
Shared Equity Housing Program What
Support efforts by municipalities to pilot the Community Land Trust (CLT) model in neighborhoods that are experiencing significant appreciation that could lead to the displacement of lower-income residents. A CLT is a structure under which a community-based organization, such as a local housing nonprofit or community development corporation, makes an upfront investment of funds to “buy” the affordability of homes in perpetuity for low- to moderate-income households. CLTs operate under a shared-equity model whereby the community-based organization can create permanently affordable housing and low- to moderate-income residents can build equity.
Why
As Wake County continues to add new residents, more desirable neighborhoods will become less affordable. CLTs preserve homes’ affordability over the long term, while also providing low- to moderate-income residents with access to homeownership’s benefits, including wealth creation. Generally, CLTs do this by retaining ownership of the underlying land under a 99-year ground lease, while selling the associated housing to homeowners, who then are able to receive a specific amount of appreciation (enforced through resale restrictions) on top of their principal equity when the property is sold. In Wake County, municipalities are best-suited to take the lead in supporting the establishment of CLTs because these entities typically focus their efforts on specific neighborhoods.
Lead Entity
Municipalities, with philanthropic and nonprofit partners
Estimated Impact
$40K-65K per home
Population Served
At or below 80% AMI homeownership 208
Source: Wake County Note: Estimated impact based on review of national shared equity programs.
HOMEOWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
105
Shared Equity Housing Program Range of Options
The municipalities can partner with an existing community-based organization that has the capacity to operate a CLT or they could establish a new entity. Both approaches will require a significant investment of resources to build the organization’s capacity and purchase a portfolio of properties for the CLT. Building on an existing organization’s capacity is generally less expensive than creating one from the ground-up.
Existing Efforts
Where there is no CLT precedent in Wake County, other communities in North Carolina have or are in the process of establishing CLTs, including the following: • West Side Community Land Trust, Charlotte: Residents incorporated a nonprofit in 2016 to serve as the agent for a CLT to preserve affordable homeownership options in the West Side neighborhood. • Community Home Trust, Chapel Hill & Carrboro: CHT, which was established in 1999 and formerly known as the Orange Community Housing and Land Trust, controls 255 affordable homes, some of which were built by private developers under inclusionary commitments. • Durham Community Land Trustees, Durham: DCLT, established in 1987, focuses on preserving affordable homeownership options in the West End, Burch Avenue, and Lyon Park neighborhoods, and controls over 200 homes.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS
• The municipalities should take the lead in defining
neighborhoods that could be well-suited for a CLT. These neighborhoods are likely to have a base of existing low- to moderate-income homeowners and be experiencing rapid price appreciation. 209 Source: Community Home Trust, Chapel Hill & Carrboro; Durham Network of Care; Creative Loafing, Charlotte, “Residents get proactive in fight against gentrification.”
HOMEOWNERSHIP RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
106
Recommended Tools •
Cross-Cutting
•
New Rental Production
•
Preservation
•
Homeownership
•
Supportive Housing
210
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING TOOLS | OVERVIEW The supportive housing tools are intended to increase the quantity and improve the quality of permanent supportive housing in Wake County. To this end, they seek to overcome major barriers to successful permanent supportive housing in Wake County, including strengthening the service wrap-around and expanding production resources. Wake County needs an comprehensive, integrated system for supportive housing that provides a full spectrum of wrap-around services for some of its most vulnerable residents. The success of the County’s supportive housing system is dependent on close collaboration between housing and service providers.
Land Use | Leveraged Programs| Funding Public Land Disposition Requirements (Discussed under Cross-Cutting Tools) New Local Funding Sources for Affordable Housing (Discussed under Cross-Cutting Tools) Changes to North Carolina’s Qualified Allocation Plan (Discussed under Cross-Cutting Tools) “Familiar Faces” Permanent Supportive Housing Pilot Project Develop a high-quality permanent supportive housing project focused on high-need, high-cost clients that can serve as a model for future development and inform a cost-benefits case for providing PSH in Wake County.
Permanent Supportive Housing Service Roadmap Develop a service roadmap that surveys current service infrastructure and funding and outlines a path for integrating available resources to provide the most comprehensive, integrated support services possible over the long term.
Provider & Funder Capacity-Building Build a common understanding of and shared commitment to quality PSH in the County through technical assistance and training for existing and new PSH housing and service providers, funders, and County staff.
Enhanced Housing Placement & Coordination Improve the County’s system for assessing and placing populations into housing. Given limited resources, use data analysis to ensure that PSH units go to the highest-need, highest-barrier populations. 211 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
108
Wake County faces an intensifying need for permanent supportive housing that can keep its most vulnerable residents stably housed. In Wake County, the population that needs permanent supportive housing are residents who require ongoing, voluntary supportive services to remain stably housing and live independently. This population includes multiple subgroups, including, but not limited, to: • Chronically homeless people • People with mental illness • People with intellectual and development disabilities • People with substance use disorders • People with HIV/AIDs or other chronic physical conditions
use disorders experience significant difficulties in accessing and maintaining housing. For Wake County residents with unmet needs for permanent supportive housing, their housing and overall distress may be manifested in two ways: • They become homeless, and • They become frequent users of emergency or crisis services. For example, hospital emergency departments and jails are receiving people who need safe housing integrated with treatment. Both of these outcomes result in significant individual and social costs, reinforcing the need to pursue a “Housing First” approach. Providing housing immediately to people who are homeless, along with voluntary supportive services, can reduce hospital emergency, psychiatric hospital, police, jail, and court costs.
Residents may fall into more than one subgroup, likely compounding their challenges in remaining stably housed. For example, people with co-occurring mental illness and substance
4,726*
91
8%
Homeless persons over a one-year period, 2016 Homeless Assessment Report
Chronically homeless persons with a disability, 2016 Point-in-Time Count
Seriously mentally ill homeless persons, 2016 Point-in-Time Count
Source: The 2016 Annual Homeless Assessment Report count reflects the McKinney-Vento homelessness definition, which describes people who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence, including people who are “doubled up” and sharing with family and friends and in hotels, motels, trailer parks, and camping grounds, as well as on the streets and in emergency shelters. The Point-in-Time Count includes those who are on the streets or in emergency shelters as of the night that the count is done.
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
109
212
“Familiar Faces” Permanent Supportive Housing Pilot Program What
Develop a high-quality permanent supportive housing (PSH) project focused on high-need, high-cost clients that can serve as a model for future development and inform a cost-benefits case for providing PSH in Wake County. Leveraging data analysis undertaken to date, the pilot project can be targeted to “familiar faces,” or frequent users of crisis services in Wake County. The County has existing funds set aside for the project.
Why
The development of the pilot project can help Wake County test and improve current systems for housing and service delivery and achieve multiple goals: • Engage experienced housing and service providers committed to creating quality PSH. • Strengthen relationships with current PSH funders (e.g., the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency) and establish relationships with new funders (e.g., local healthcare providers) to increase PSH production. • Collect data to build the cost-benefits case for PSH provision.
Lead Entity
County, working in close coordination with selected housing and service providers
Estimated Impact
$6M of dedicated County funds, equivalent to 40-80 units
Population Served
Below 30% AMI renters with multiple barriers to housing Source: Wake County
Notes: If County funds are the only source of subsidy, approximately 40 units ($150K per unit). If County funds are leveraged with 9% LIHTC, assuming a project of 2 to 3 buildings with 65 to 80 units each, up to about 1/3 of which would be PSH units. Assuming no other subsides are involved, the County would have to put in around $75K per PSH unit, which translates into 80 units.
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
110
213
“Familiar Faces” Permanent Supportive Housing Pilot Program Range of Options
The County can take the lead on the project development process, but will want to work closely with housing and service providers who bring a track record of success.
Existing Efforts
•
•
The County previously has partnered with developers to create permanent supportive housing projects, including working with DHIC to create Lennox Chase (36 one-bedroom units) in 2003, Wake County’s first affordable housing development specifically for individuals who were formerly homeless. CASA and Passage Home also have worked to provide permanent supportive housing in the County. The County has been working with SAS to identify and assess service usage and costs among “familiar faces,” or frequent users of crisis systems in Wake County.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS
MEDIUM-TO-LONGER TERM STEPS
• Develop project concept, identify site, and create funding
• Based on RFP outcomes, establish housing and service provider
plan for construction and ongoing operations (property management and supportive services provision). • Develop housing screening and application process. • Issue housing and service provider RFPs.
agreements. • Collect data on cost savings associated with stably housing tenants to support cost-benefits case for PSH expansion.
214 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
111
Permanent Supportive Housing Service Roadmap What
Develop a service roadmap for permanent supportive housing in Wake County by surveying current supportive services infrastructure and funding there and outlining a path for integrating available resources to provide the most comprehensive, integrated supportive services possible over the long term. Service roadmap development should include two major components: • Identifying service gaps that must be addressed to significantly increase permanent supportive housing production in Wake County. • Identifying sustainable current and future funding sources, including the potential for increased utilization of Medicaid reimbursement to provide services such as wrap-around care coordination.
Why
Currently, efforts to create quality PSH in Wake County are hindered by a lack of clarity about how to deliver quality supportive services tied to housing within the existing provider and resource framework. To be motivated to provide PSH, developers must feel confident that tenants will be able to receive the full wrap-around of supportive services that they need to stably maintain housing. However, the County continues to experience challenges with service gaps for PSH populations. For example, it has limited resources for people with co-occurring mental illness and substance use disorders.
Lead Entity
County, in coordination with Alliance Behavioral Healthcare and the State of North Carolina
Estimated Impact
Improvement in the quality of services provided, no direct change in units produced
Population Served
Below 30% AMI renters with multiple barriers to housing
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Source: DHIC
215 112
Permanent Supportive Housing Service Roadmap The Corporation for Supportive Housing identifies three types of supportive services relevant to PSH tenants: • Pre-tenancy services, which help prepare tenants to enter housing and include tenant engagement and housing search, application, and move-in assistance. • Tenancy-sustaining services, which help tenants remain in housing and include tenant rights and responsibilities education, landlord relationship management, eviction prevention, crisis intervention, and subsidy program compliance. • Primary services, which help meet tenants’ needs beyond housing and include behavioral healthcare, education, employment, and community services. In Wake County, there are a range of entities engaged in providing supportive services, including the below: • Wake County Human Services: The County provides a range of supportive services through the Housing Division, Division of Public Health, Adult Services Division, Child Welfare Division, Veteran Services, and McKinney Team. • Raleigh/Wake Partnership to End and Prevent Homelessness: The Partnership serves as the NC-507 Continuum of Care for Raleigh/Wake County and is the umbrella organization for all homeless facilities and services. • Alliance Behavioral Healthcare: Alliance serves as the local managed care organization, and operates prepaid health plans for services delivery to Medicaid recipients and uninsured individuals with mental illness, substance use disorders, and intellectual and developmental disabilities. Depending on federal and state policy decisions, there may be the capacity to increase utilization of Medicaid reimbursement to cover many supportive housing services, including case management, service coordination and rehabilitative services.
216 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
113
Permanent Supportive Housing Service Roadmap Range of Options
The County should build on its existing efforts through the Supportive Housing Working Group (described below) to develop the service roadmap, including the following: • Inventorying and classifying all supportive services into the three identified groups (pre-tenancy, tenancysustaining, and primary), considering services directly offered by the County and other providers. • Identifying short- and long-term funding sources available to support them.
Existing Efforts
• •
The Raleigh/Wake County Continuum of Care (Partnership to End and Prevent Homelessness) has established a new funding partnership with Wake County and the City of Raleigh to implement a Housing First approach and address service gaps. The County has launched a Supportive Housing Working Group as a separate, but coordinated, effort with the Affordable Housing Plan to improve the amount and quality of permanent supportive housing in Wake County.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS • Complete inventory of all existing supportive services and
funding available for them. • Develop a service roadmap for the County, potentially with external technical assistance.
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS • Pursue supportive services funding to fill gaps, including
supporting efforts to modify the State’s Medicaid plan.
217 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
114
Provider and Funder Capacity-Building What
Provide technical assistance and training to existing and new permanent supportive housing (PSH) developers, property managers, supportive service providers, and funders to build a common understanding of and shared commitment to quality PSH in Wake County.
Why
To build an integrated system to support the delivery of quality PSH in Wake County, it is important to educate the developers, property managers, supportive service providers, and funders who will be involved in delivering this housing about best practices. The technical assistance and training to be provided should include the following: • The essential principles of the “Housing First” and “Harm Reduction” approaches to guide PSH delivery. • The characteristics of quality PSH, as defined by the Corporation for Supportive Housing’s Dimensions of Quality. • Strategies for improving housing and service provider coordination, including the establishment of minimum service agreements to ensure that tenants receive the services they need to stay stably housed. • Funding sources available for supportive services.
Lead Entity
County
Estimated Impact
Improvement to the quality of services, no direct change in units produced
Population Served
Below 30% AMI renters with multiple barriers to housing
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Source: US Airforce
218 115
Provider and Funder Capacity-Building Range of Options
Wake County is planning to collaborate with the Corporation for Supportive Housing to provide training initially, although it should build capacity internally among County staff. While the County should offer training on an ongoing basis, training intensity and volume may decrease after an initial system-building phase.
Existing Efforts
County staff currently are working with the Corporation for Supportive Housing to develop a curriculum and training plan for housing and service providers.
County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS • Develop a curriculum and training plan for housing and
service providers. • Conduct an initial round of training, ideally tied to the production of the pilot PSH project.
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS • Build internal capacity among County staff to deliver training
and technical assistance.
219 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
116
Enhanced Housing Placement and Coordination System What
Improve the County’s system for assessing and placing its most vulnerable populations into housing through the following actions: • Expand data sharing and analysis to proactively identify high-need populations and conduct “in-reach” to systems with which high-need populations frequently interact. • Streamline the housing search assistance process and perform ongoing monitoring to confirm that residents are appropriately matched with housing according to their needs and preferences. • For publicly-subsidized housing, adjust screening criteria to remove factors that automatically “screen out” the most vulnerable residents, and consider establishing preferences for public housing units and rental assistance (vouchers) that prioritize high-need populations.
Why
Given limited resources and strong ongoing need for affordable housing in Wake County, the County and its partners must establish the most effective possible system to place at-risk residents in the housing most appropriate to them. To implement an enhanced housing placement system, the County will need to expand coordination with a range of partners, including the corrections, healthcare, and social services systems, Alliance Behavioral Healthcare, the Housing Authority of the County of Wake and the Raleigh Housing Authority; the local Continuum of Care; and over 15 service agencies involved in coordinating housing and supportive services.
Lead Entity
County, in coordination with a range of other partners (described above)
Estimated Impact
Improvement to the quality of services, no direct change in units produced
Population Served
Below 30% AMI renters with multiple barriers to housing
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Source: Wake County
220 117
Enhanced Housing Placement and Coordination System Expand Data Sharing & Analysis to Proactively Identify High-Need Populations
Conduct Effective “In-Reach” To Systems With Which High-Need Populations Interact
What & Why Given that high-need populations tend to be frequent users of crisis services, the County should establish a framework for ongoing data-sharing across crisis service providers, including homeless services providers, corrections, hospital emergency departments, and emergency mental health service providers, in order to effectively identify high-need populations. The County and its partners should work together to determine the exact threshold criteria that they will use to identify high-need populations.
What & Why
Existing Efforts • In 2017, the County undertook a “familiar faces” analysis with SAS that represents an important foundation for this effort. • Alliance Behavioral Healthcare plans to work with the Corporation for Supportive Housing to launch the Frequent Users System Engagement (FUSE) initiative as a pilot in Wake County to engage super-high users of crisis services and place them in supportive housing.
The County should expand “in reach” to systems that are serving high-need individuals in order to connect with these individuals before they exit the systems and potentially become homeless. For example, the County could require comprehensive discharge planning and follow-up case management for at-risk individuals exiting jails and prisons, foster care, mental health facilities, and hospitals to prevent them from going to the streets, shelters, and other unstable housing options. To enable this, the County will need to overcome staffing and funding constraints for follow-up case management.
Existing Efforts • Mental health discharge planning: Currently, mental health institutions notify Alliance Behavioral Healthcare when individuals are discharged, so that Alliance’s Care Coordination team can refer them to the Wake County Housing Division and private agencies for housing assistance. • Emergency healthcare discharge planning: In 2015, WakeMed Hospital launched efforts to create a discharge outreach team of social workers to assist emergency department high utilizers who are uninsured. • Foster care discharge planning: The Hope Center at Pullen, a nonprofit organization, helps provide ad hoc discharge planning for youth and young adults being discharged from foster care. • Ex-offender discharge planning: Passage Home provides ad hoc housing search assistance for ex-offenders. 221
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
118
Enhanced Housing Placement and Coordination System Streamline the Housing Search Assistance Process Through the Multiservice Center and Other Platforms What & Why The County should work to streamline the housing search process so that residents can understand and access all affordable housing options available to them. The County should coordinate with other property owners and others to provide centralized, up-to-date information on the affordable housing stock, including eligibility criteria and application procedures. Residents should be able to access this information via the proposed Multiservice Center and other locations that already serve high-need populations, as well as through a centralized online housing search portal. In addition, the County should define a clear set of housing pathways for general low-income and special needs populations, extending from initial engagement (e.g., system “in reach,” street outreach, 24/7 crisis response at the Multiservice Center, or presentation at Wake County shelters or community agencies), to emergency housing, to transitional housing, to permanent housing. The County should communicate these pathways to residents and housing and service providers.
Perform Ongoing Monitoring to Confirm That Residents Are Appropriately Matched With Housing What & Why The County should perform ongoing monitoring to confirm that residents are appropriately matched with housing based on their needs and able to move as these needs change, including expanding transitional counseling to help individuals move towards more independent housing options. The County should explore opportunities to expand monitoring in conjunction with other agencies and to locate case management services onsite wherever possible.
Existing Efforts •
Alliance Behavioral Health plans to launch the Frequent Users System Engagement (FUSE) initiative as a pilot in Wake County to engage super-high users of crisis services and place them in supportive housing.
Existing Efforts •
•
The County is working with the City of Raleigh and the Continuum of Care to launch the Multiservice Center to provide intake and coordinated assessment, housing assistance, and other services for homeless individuals, as well as 24/7 housing crisis response. Alliance Behavioral Healthcare is evaluating options to improve housing placement assistance for the populations it serves.
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
222 119
Enhanced Housing Placement and Coordination System For Publicly-Subsidized Housing, Adjust Screening Criteria to Remove Factors That Automatically “Screen Out” High-Need Populations
Establish Select Preferences for Public Housing Units and Vouchers That Prioritize High-Need Populations
What & Why
What & Why
The County should work with publicly-subsidized housing providers to adjust tenant screening criteria to remove factors that automatically “screen out” the most vulnerable residents to help high-need individuals better access units, including permanent supportive housing. These factors may include negative credit histories or criminal histories. publicly-subsidized housing, including the public housing units and vouchers controlled by HAWC and RHA and the transitional and permanent supportive housing operated by DHIC, Passage Home, and CASA, are critical to meeting the housing needs of extremely low-income populations.
In particular, the County should work with the Public Housing Authorities to establish a limited set of voucher and unit allocation preferences that prioritize high-need populations, considering how the changes will interact with existing waiting lists. Preferences could include: • Homeless individuals or families, especially those who have been homeless for more than 90 days and are engaged with service providers • Individuals who are being discharged from institutions (e.g., jails, hospital emergency departments) and are engaged with service providers To enable populations requiring supportive services to be stably housed, the PHAs can explore enhanced partnerships with service providers, including potentially providing on-site space for them.
For example, the PHAs could establish discretionary policies (via appeals processes) that enable them to work with individuals with criminal histories who are engaged with service providers, rather than universally prohibiting them.
Existing Efforts Existing Efforts • CASA does not perform credit or rental history checks for individuals applying for its supportive housing units.
• RHA currently has limited preferences in place for its Section 8 vouchers and public housing units. RHA has voucher preferences for elderly, disabled, Wake County residents, and working families. RHA uses a preferences points system for its public housing units that includes the four previous groups, plus two others: the homeless and elderly raising minor children. • HAWC does not have preferences for its vouchers or units.
223 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
120
Enhanced Housing Placement and Coordination System County Action Steps
NEAR-TERM STEPS
MEDIUM- TO LONGER-TERM STEPS
Expand Data-Sharing & Analysis to Proactively Identify High-Need Populations and Conduct Effective “In-Reach” To Systems With Which High-Need Populations Interact • Develop data-sharing framework and establish formal data-
sharing agreements with crisis service providers. • Determine exact threshold criteria that the County and its partners will use to identify high-need populations.
Streamline the Housing Search Assistance Process and Perform Ongoing Monitoring to Confirm That Residents Are Appropriately Matched With Housing • Expand transitional counseling. • Develop a centralized online housing search portal that
includes information on the full affordable housing stock, including available rental and homeownership units, eligibility requirements, and application procedures, as well as guidance on how to obtain in-person assistance.
For Publicly-Subsidized Housing, Adjust Screening Criteria to Remove Factors That Automatically “Screen Out” HighNeed Populations and Establish Select Preferences for Public Housing Units and Vouchers • Identify potential revisions to screening criteria that may be
automatically “screening out” high-need populations. • Work with the Public Housing Authorities to determine select preferences to add in order to prioritize high-need populations. 224 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
121
Executive Summary Wake County’s Affordable Housing Need Recommendations
Implementation Roadmap Appendix
225
IMPLEMENTATION OVERVIEW The Affordable Housing Plan has proposed an ambitious set of recommended tools. To implement the tools, Wake County must take into account six critical implementation considerations, summarized below.
1. Sizing Impacts & Required Funding
The County will need to identify its requested budget allocation, based on its desired level of impacts and the funding required to achieve them. The County needs to pursue a budget allocation as it also seeks to develop longer-term funding sources.
2. Refining Policy
Refine the County’s existing income and location targeting policies.
3. Strengthening Internal & Partner Capacity
Internal
• Add necessary staff capacity (new FTEs) to ensure successful Plan implementation. • Revise Housing Division budget to reflect expanded scale of activities (to be phased in over 3 years).
Partner
• Strengthen coordination between the County and municipalities, recognizing that the Plan will be most successful if implemented jointly by both entities. • Establish partnerships with nonprofits, lenders, and other partners necessary to support the implementation of specific recommended tools.
4. Building Community Support
• Conduct an affordable housing public education campaign tied to the Plan’s release that explains what the current Wake County affordable housing need is and how the recommended tools will help address it. • Encourage Steering Committee members to support efforts to build a countywide housing coalition, committed to increasing both overall housing production and affordable housing production.
5. Guiding & Tracking Implementation
• Pursue a continued role for the Affordable Housing Steering Committee in overseeing and guiding Plan implementation, including identifying emerging issues. • Produce an annual report that tracks the state of Wake County’s housing and helps to evaluate the County and municipalities’ progress towards meeting their goals.
6. Launching Priority Programs
The County will need to select priority affordable housing recommended tools and organize them into related workstreams to design and launch the tools over a 24-month period.
IMPLEMENTATION | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
123
226
SIZING IMPACTS & REQUIRED FUNDING The recommended tools can be grouped into three strategy categories, which produce different types and levels of impact based on the resources provided. Leveraged programs produce direct impacts on the affordable housing supply, which generally can be scaled up (e.g., certain number of units produced for each dollar invested). Additional public resources, or incremental public funding made available for affordable housing from various sources, represent a policy choice that drive the leveraged programs’ direct impacts. Land use policies have indirect impacts on the affordable housing supply.
Leveraged Programs
Additional Public Resources
Land Use
County & Municipal Land Use Policy Affordable Housing Incentive Overlay Accessory Dwelling Units
IMPLEMENTATION | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Additional Local Funding
Units Produced***
$5M
200-350
$10M
300-600
$20M
600-1,100
***Actual unit production will vary based on the specifics of the projects funded, including the income levels served, additional subsidy leveraged, construction costs, unit types, and other factors. Public land is included here, as it will serve as a non-cash subsidy.
Additional Local Funding
Units Produced
No direct cost
Increased overall production, which will: • Slow the growth of housing costs • Increase the number of NOAH units preserved or created
No direct cost, unless addl. incentives needed to close gap
Affordable units could account for 1020% of units produced
No direct cost
~500 units (top end)
227 124
REFINING POLICIES Wake County should implement the recommended tools, especially the leveraged programs, guided by revised income and location targeting policies that prioritize the income levels of households to be served and the locations where new affordable housing will be produced. Wake County should target the subsidy that it provides for affordable housing to the income levels with the greatest need, which are households at or below 50% of AMI or $39,000 for a family of four. More than three-quarters of households at 50% AMI spend more than half their income on housing. This leaves them with insufficient income for other essentials, such as food, clothing, healthcare, transportation, and education. Targeting low-income households will require the County to dedicate more subsidy to each affordable housing unit. For example, the affordable rent for a family of four at 60% AMI is approximately $1,150, compared to $960 for the same family at 50% AMI. This $190 drop in rent reduces the amount
of debt the affordable housing development can support by approximately $30,000. The County will need to provide additional subsidy to close this gap and create deeper levels of affordability. The need for deeper affordability extends to units that serve households with incomes below 30% AMI, including permanent supportive housing units that provide residents with supportive services. By dedicating a portion of the funding from its affordable housing program to these units, the County can help meet this need. For units serving households below 30% AMI, the County will have to dedicate significantly greater subsidy per unit than is necessary for units at 50% AMI.
Recommended Income Targeting Policies (1) The County should prioritize public funding to serve households with the greatest need: renter households below 50% AMI and homeowner households below 80% AMI.*
The County should adjust income targets within its programs to reflect these policies. Most programs already target this income level.
(2) The County should incentivize the creation of units for renters below 30% AMI and supportive housing as part of all affordable rental programs.*
All programs serving renters should include a requirement to create units for renters below 30% AMI and supportive housing. This requirement should be at the program level and not the project level.
These recommended policies will still allow Wake County to fund affordable housing projects that do not meet its 50% and 30% AMI goals, but priority will be given to projects that meet these goals. IMPLEMENTATION | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
125
228
REFINING POLICIES In the past, the County has focused its location targeting policies on equitably distributing affordable housing throughout Wake County. The County generally has sought to fund projects within municipalities containing less than the countywide percentage of subsidized housing (4.2%), with these communities including Apex, Cary, Holly Springs, Rolesville, and Morrisville in 2016. However, the County recently has started to incorporate other factors into the selection criteria for its rental production loan program, including proximity to existing and planned public transportation corridors, schools, and other services, such as grocery stores, pharmacies, healthcare, and community facilities. Moving forward, in regard to location targeting, Wake County should seek to strike a balance between two objectives: (1) cost-effectively using its resources to produce and preserve the largest possible number of housing units and (2) creating units in areas that expand access to opportunity for residents, but may be higher-cost. While there are many factors that contribute to high-opportunity areas, the following factors are generally recognized as important: 1. Proximity to transit, so that residents have the capacity to easily travel to jobs and essential services elsewhere 2. Proximity to essential services, so that residents can meet their basic needs near where they live 3. Location in mixed-income neighborhoods that do not represent areas of concentrated poverty, because these areas may be experiencing economic and social distress associated with persistent disinvestment. Recognizing that its housing market in is rapidly changing, Wake County has the opportunity to balance these objectives by prioritizing housing production and preservation in areas that are just starting to appreciate. It will cost less to produce new units in in these locations than in already high-cost areas, and maintenance of affordability and avoidance of resident displacement are likely to become increasingly pressing issues as they continue to appreciate. Locations near planned future transit stations fall into this category.
Recommended Location Targeting Policies (1) The County should prioritize investments in affordable housing that produce and preserve units in high-opportunity areas and support poverty de-concentration, while also pursuing necessary upgrades to existing housing stock and infrastructure in distressed neighborhoods.
The County and municipalities should develop a Project Location Scorecard to guide the location of affordable housing investments (see next page).
(2) To the extent possible, the County should tie investments in transit and other infrastructure to affordable housing production and preservation efforts and encourage municipalities to do the same.
The County should map affordable housing developments against existing and planned transit and infrastructure investments and prioritize investments that will support existing or planned affordable housing.
IMPLEMENTATION | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
229 126
REFINING POLICIES The proposed Project Location Scorecard should include both minimum thresholds that determine whether or not an investment will be made and prioritization factors that determine the relative attractiveness of a project compared to other projects. The factors in the Location Targeting Scorecard should be cross-referenced with the selection criteria in the Qualified Allocation Plan.
Project Location Scorecard Quantitative prioritization factors Development can be achieved below a maximum per-unit cost threshold
To support cost-effective use of County funds, establish maximum per-unit costs not to be exceeded, but tie these amounts to the income levels served. In addition, take into consideration higher development costs in high-opportunity areas by either establishing maximum cost thresholds based on development costs in the highopportunity areas or setting different maximum costs for high- and lower-opportunity areas.
Located in census tract that does not represent area of concentrated poverty
To directly support poverty de-concentration and reduce segregation, prioritize the location of net new affordable housing outside areas where the household poverty rate exceeds 30%.
Qualitative prioritization factors Located in municipality with belowaverage share of publicly-subsidized affordable housing
To indirectly support location of affordable housing in high-opportunity areas and poverty de-concentration, continue Wake County’s current preference for locating affordable housing in jurisdictions with shares of affordable housing lower than that of the countywide average.
Located within a half-mile of current or planned future high-frequency bus and light rail corridors
To support access to opportunity for residents, prioritize affordable housing located along current or future high-frequency transit corridors. The County should coordinate closely with the entities responsible for implementing the Wake County Transit Plan to site housing near planned future service.
Located in with a half- or quarter-mile of essential services (grocery stores, pharmacies, healthcare, and schools)
To help residents access essential services, prioritize affordable housing located in close proximity (ideally, walking distance) to them. Essential services prioritized in County funding applications should be cross-walked with those prioritized under the QAP to ensure maximum coordination for LIHTC projects seeking County gap financing. The 2017 QAP prioritizes groceries, pharmacies, shopping centers, other services, healthcare, public facilities, public schools, senior centers, and retail as amenities, and requires that they be located within one mile driving distance for maximum points. To support poverty de-concentration, prioritize affordable housing located alongside market-rate units. 230
Located within a mixed-income project
IMPLEMENTATION | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
127
STRENGTHENING CAPACITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION Given the Affordable Housing Plan’s scale and scope, to implement the overall Plan and specific high-priority recommended tools, the County will need to expand its capacity internally and among partners. Partners can help supplement internal capacity through additional staff, financial resources,
technical expertise, and program administration assistance.
Internal Capacity
Partner Capacity
•
•
Strengthen coordination between the County and municipalities, recognizing that the Plan will be most successful if implemented jointly by all entities.
•
Establish partnerships with local financial institutions, nonprofits, and other partners necessary to support the implementation of specific recommended tools.
Increase overall staffing levels and add select specialized expertise, with options including: • New Wake County Housing Division staff • New staff in other divisions that complement Housing • Contractors (for short or extended duration)
The County must consider capacity under two time horizons: launch and operations.
Launch
Operations
Some programs will require significant efforts to launch, but then relatively modest staff time to operate. IMPLEMENTATION | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
231 128
BUILDING COMMUNITY SUPPORT For the Wake County Affordable Housing Plan to be successfully implemented, it requires support from a diverse coalition of community stakeholders within the County and municipalities. These stakeholders include local residents; County and municipal elected officials and staff; developers, landlords, property managers, and apartment associations; nonprofit service providers; housing advocates; employers and business organizations; and major institutions.
Conduct an affordable housing public education campaign tied to the Plan’s release, in partnership with other community organizations.
COMMUNITY EDUCATION
Building on the information contained within the Plan, the campaign should explain both what the current affordable housing need is in Wake County and how the recommended tools will help address it. By educating Wake County residents about what affordable housing is, whom it serves, and what benefits it provides to individual households and the broader community, Wake County can establish a common framework for action and increase residents’ willingness to contribute to solutions, including increased local funding. Following the Plan’s release, the County should develop a follow-up outreach strategy based on educational needs identified through the first campaign.
Encourage Steering Committee members to support efforts to build a countywide housing coalition, with stakeholders committed to both overall housing production and affordable housing that keeps pace with population growth.
COALITION DEVELOPMENT
Coalition members could work together to attend public meetings to show their support for adding more overall housing and affordable housing in Wake County and overcome negative community perceptions about higher-density multifamily rental development and affordable housing specifically. They also could educate peers to support the implementation of the recommended tools. The County could encourage Steering Committee members who are interested in contributing to this coalition to connect with other affordable housing advocates in Wake County and formalize a coalition. There is an opportunity for multiple groups to coalesce around implementation of the Plan’s recommended tools, building on top of other coordination efforts to date.
IMPLEMENTATION | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
129
232
GUIDING & TRACKING PLAN IMPLEMENTATION Successful Plan implementation also requires systems to track and monitor progress toward Plan objectives, as well as identify and overcome barriers. The Steering Committee has the opportunity to play an important role in this process, and the County should also consider issuing an annual report to track progress.
Pursue a continued role for the Affordable Housing Steering Committee in overseeing and guiding Plan implementation.
CONTINUED STEERING COMMITTEE ROLE
The Steering Committee, appointed by the Board of Commissioners, represents a broad crosssection of stakeholders engaged in affordable housing issues in Wake County. For this reason, the group is well-positioned to guide the Plan’s implementation, including providing regular feedback on emerging issues that could affect the recommended tools’ effectiveness. To enable the Steering Committee to continue, whether in its current format or integrated with other existing housing working groups, the County should define a process for soliciting volunteer participation from existing members and enabling new appointments; identify the timeframe for involvement (e.g., regular meetings every three months); and charge the group with clear, specific responsibilities.
Produce an annual report that tracks the state of Wake County’s housing market, and evaluates the County and municipalities’ progress towards meeting their goals.
ANNUAL HOUSING REPORT
The report should include data on housing supply, demand, and affordability in Wake County. The County can streamline report production by coordinating it with other relevant reporting efforts: • The data analysis that is being conducted as part of the Affordable Housing Preservation Early Warning System. • The annual reporting processes that the County is already required to do, such as the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports that track outcomes from housing activities undertaken with federal funds. • The annual Point-in-Time Count done by Wake County. 233
IMPLEMENTATION | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
130
GUIDING & TRACKING PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The Annual Housing Report should summarize the state of the housing market in Wake County, including demand and supply indicators and affordability metrics.
Housing Plan. This data can help the County and municipalities evaluate progress towards meeting their goals and prioritize gaps to be addressed moving forward.
It also should provide information on outputs and outcomes associated with activities undertaken under the Affordable
Recommended Plan Metrics Output Metrics Number of new publicly-subsidized affordable units constructed*
Share of new publicly-subsidized units for extremely low-income and highly vulnerable households Existing publicly-subsidized affordable units preserved, counting properties with project-based rental assistance separately. Households served under each program and the cost per unit served. • Affordable Mortgage Program • Homeowner Rehabilitation Program • Housing Counseling Program
Target Increase production at least proportionate to additional funding (e.g., 25% increase in funding = 25% increase in units). Increase share of total units produced. Prevent overall loss of publicly-subsidized units. Expanded scale of programs.
Outcome Metrics Change in the supply of naturally occurring affordable rental housing.
Target Slow the loss of NOAH housing.
Portion of low-income residents that are housing cost- and extremely housing cost-burdened
Reduce portion of lowincome residents in Wake County that are unable to find affordable housing. End long-term homelessness. Maintain homeownership and increase it among low-income households.
Homeless individuals, families and veterans Homeownership rate
Eviction rate
Reduce the number of evictions occurring annually in Wake County. 234
* All measures of housing units should include a breakout of AMI served at 30%, 50%, and 80%, as well as the bedroom count. IMPLEMENTATION | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
131
LAUNCHING PRIORITY TOOLS & PROGRAMS The Affordable Housing Plan recommends the creation or significant revision of over 20 programs, regulations, or policies. This represents a drastic expansion and reorganization of the County’s housing efforts. To be successful, the County should focus on priority projects, organized into three workstreams, and phase their implementation over at least 24 months. A. Building County and municipal partnerships for public land disposition, land use policy reform, and new funding sources. B. Developing different types of affordable rental funds and the tools to target them. C. Implementing tools that have the primary focus of serving highly-vulnerable populations.
IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE
Work Stream
Month
6
3 A. County & Municipal Partnerships
9
12
15
18
21
24
Public Land Disposition Land Use Policy Reform New Local Funding Sources Enhanced County Rental
B. Funds & Targeting
Preservation Warning System Acquisition Fund Preservation Fund
C. Supportive Housing IMPLEMENTATION | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Familiar Faces Pilot 235
PSH Provider Capacity Building 132
Executive Summary Wake County’s Affordable Housing Need Recommendations
Implementation Roadmap Appendix • Previous Plans Reviewed • Case Studies • Glossary
236
PREVIOUS PLANS REVIEWED To guide the development of goals for the Affordable Housing Plan, we reviewed other relevant plans.
Wake County
City of Raleigh
Other Local Jurisdictions
• WC Annual Housing Action Plan, 2016-2017 • WC 5-Year Consolidated Housing Plan, 2015-2020 • WC Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report, 2015 • WC Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice, 2015 • WC Ending Homelessness, 10-Year Action Plan • WC Transit Plan, 2015
• Raleigh Annual Action Plan, 2016-2017 • Raleigh Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area Plan, 2016-2017 • Raleigh Affordable Housing Improvement Plan, 2016-2020 • Raleigh Comprehensive Plan, Housing Section, 2009 • Raleigh Affordable Housing Task Force Final Report, 2009
• Cary Community Plan/Imagine Cary, 2016 • Cary Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan, 20102014 • Cary 2020 Affordable Housing Plan, 2010 • Fuquay-Varina 2035 Community Vision, 2016 • Garner Comprehensive Plan, 2006 • Knightdale 2027 Comprehensive Plan, 2011 • Morrisville Land Use Plan, 2009-2035 • Rolesville Community Plan, 2007 • Vision Holly Springs • Wake Forest Community Plan, 2009 • Wendell Comprehensive Plan, 2007 • Zebulon Comprehensive Plan, 2008
Other Entities • Alliance Behavioral Healthcare Regional Housing Plan, 2015 • Alliance Behavioral Healthcare Residential System Assessment, 2015 • North Carolina Housing Finance Agency Qualified Allocation Plan, 2017
237 APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
134
Program Components
Overview and Key Actors
Tysons Corner Voluntary Inclusionary Program Fairfax County, VA
CASE STUDY Zoning Incentives
In 2010, Fairfax County revised its long-term Comprehensive Plan to support the transformation of Tysons Corner, a sprawling commercial center, into a mixed-use, walkable community including affordable housing. As part of this effort, the County amended its Zoning Ordinance to create a voluntary inclusionary policy to incentivize affordable housing in designated areas around Tysons’ four metro stations. To receive density bonuses, residential developers must reserve 20% of units for households earning 60-120% of AMI. Non-residential developers can contribute to an affordable housing trust fund to receive additional density. Fairfax County Board, which authorized the policy; County staff, who implemented and monitor the policy; and residential and commercial developers, who advised on financial feasibility. • Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The County revised its Comprehensive Plan to guide the growth of Tysons Corner. • Zoning Ordinance Amendment: The County amended its Zoning Ordinance to establish the Planned Tysons Corner Urban District (PTC), which allows greater density in exchange for affordable or workforce units or payments. For residential development to receive the bonus, 20% of new units must be set aside as affordable or workforce housing. For nonresidential development to receive the bonus, a one-time contribution of $3 PSF or an annual contribution of $0.25 PSF for 16 years must be made to a trust fund. Projects within .25 miles of new Metro stations receive a 20% density bonus. Projects within 0.25 to 0.50 of stations receive a FAR of 2.0 to 2.5. • Affordability Requirements: Of total affordable units, 2% must be for HHs at no more than 60% AMI; 3%, for HHs at no more than 70% AMI; 5%, for HHs at no more than 80% AMI; 5%, for HHs at no more than 100% AMI; and 5%, for HHs at no more than 120% of AMI. • Policy Guidelines: The County established additional policy guidelines for affordable and workforce housing provision, including target income mix, size, and number of bedrooms.
Source: Tysons Partnerships
Target Population: Low- to moderateincome renters. Funding: No public funding provided. Land use policy is used to produce affordable or workforce units or generate payments. Scale: Neighborhood-level. Impacts: From 2010 to June 2016, 356 affordable and workforce units have been produced and $2.9M collected for the Tysons Housing Trust Fund.
238 Fairfax County, “Tysons 2015-2016 Progress Report on the Implementation of the Comprehensive Plan.”
APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
135
Overview and Key Actors
ADU Expansion Program Santa Cruz, CA
CASE STUDY Expanded Accessory Dwelling Units
In 2003, in response to high housing costs and limited developable land, the City of Santa Cruz adopted an ADU ordinance and development program, which it has subsequently refined. The program provides homeowners with technical assistance and access to capital to develop ADUs. The City published an instructional manual on ADU planning, design, and permitting. The also has partnered with a local credit union to establish a loan program, through which homeowners who commit to keeping their ADUs affordable to renters below 80% AMI for 15 years can apply for up to $100k in loans. In addition, the City offers development fee reductions to homeowners who target lower-income renters. City of Santa Cruz, as the program operator; California Pollution Control Financing Authority, as a funder; the private Santa Cruz Community Credit Union, as a source of mortgage loans; and local architects, as technical experts.
Program Components
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel
ADU Ordinance: The City’s ADU ordinance regulates the development of ADUs. The City revised the ordinance in 2003, 2014 and 2017 to facilitate ADU development and simplify the permitting process. ADU Manual and Plan Book: The manual provides guidance on planning, designing, and obtaining permits for ADUs. The plan book contains ADU prototype concepts designed by local architects. Technical Assistance Grant: The City will pay up to $100/hour for a limited amount of time so that individual homeowners can commission an architect to resolve specific ADU design issues. Loans: In partnership with the City, the Santa Cruz Community Credit Union offers lowinterest loans (4.5% interest) of up to $100,000 to homeowners who commit to keeping their ADUs affordable to renters below 80% AMI for 15 years. Development Fee Reductions: The City offers progressive fee reductions for homeowners constructing ADUs that target low-income renters. The typical fee for a one-bedroom, 500 SF ADU is around $9,000. The City will reduce fees by approximately two-thirds for units targeting renters below 60% and fully for units targeting renters below 50% AMI.
Target Population: Low- to moderateincome renters. While there are no specific income requirements for general ADUS, the loan program is only available for ADUs rented to households below 80% AMI and the development fee reductions for ADUs rented to households below 60% AMI. Funding: The City provides development loans up of $100k through the local credit union. The City also offers progressive development fee reductions that can be worth $6k-9k in value. Scale: Citywide. Impacts: 40-50 permits for ADUs filed annually. 239
City of Santa Cruz, “Accessory Dwelling Units Loan Program.” http://www.cityofsantacruz.com/Home/ShowDocument?id=3700
APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
136
Overview and Key Actors
ADU Expansion Program Portland, OR
CASE STUDY Expanded Accessory Dwelling Units
Portland was an early adopter of ADUs, passing its first ADU ordinance in 1998. In 2010, following declining development during the Great Recession, the City Council exempted ADUs from all Systems Development Charges (SDCs). This led to a significant increase in ADU production, and annual permits issued for ADUs are now roughly equivalent to those issued for single-family homes. There are no specific affordability requirements or incentives for ADUs, but they have successfully increased Portland’s supply of naturally occurring affordable housing.
City of Portland, as the program operator; Development Services Center, as the development reviewer; local developers and architects, as technical experts; and AccessoryDwellings.org, as the local nonprofit partner.
Program Components
Source: Portland Tribune
• Ordinance: The City’s ADU ordinance regulates the development of ADUs. • ADU Program Guide: The guide explains minimum site requirements; zoning, design, and construction standards; and the development review and permitting process. • Systems Development Charges (SDC) Waiver: The waiver exempts ADUs from SDCs, which are standard impact fees assessed on new development for use of City storm and sanitary sewer systems, parks and recreation facilities, water, and street systems. • Home Tour: AccessoryDwellings.org organizes the event, which allows interested individuals to take a tour of Portland’s ADUs and learn more about its ADU program, as a program education and marketing tool.
Target Population: Low- to moderateincome renters. There are no specific income requirements for general ADUs. Funding: An ADU permit costs $5k. The waived SDC fees are roughly $15-17k per unit. ADU construction costs approximately $160k in Portland on average. Scale: Citywide. Impacts: Cumulatively, Portland has issued 2,200 ADU permits, the largest number in the United States. The number of permits issued has increased dramatically from 27 ADU permits in 2009 to 615 permits in 2016. 240
Portland Bureau of Development Services. “Program Guide: Accessory Dwelling Units.” https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bds/index.cfm?a=68689
APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
137
Overview and Key Actors
District Land for Affordable Housing Amendment Act Washington, DC
CASE STUDY Public Land Disposition Requirements
In 2014, the District of Columbia passed the Disposition of District Land for Affordable Housing Amendment Act, which requires all new multifamily residential projects developed on City-owned surplus land include at least 20% affordable housing. The requirement is increased to 30% in areas with transit access. The Act allows the District to dispose of land for below market value, so that developers can use the cost savings to subsidize affordable housing units, and also allows the District to provide additional subsidies to ensure that affordability requirements are met. District of Columbia, as the program operator; and local developers, who acquire and build housing on surplus land.
Program Components
Source: US Airforce
• Land Transfer at Below Market Value: The City transfers land at below appraised market value to help subsidize the affordable units. • Provision of Additional Subsidy: The City also can provide additional subsidy, whether in the form of grants or loans or in-kind contributions such as infrastructure, to enable developers to meet affordability requirements. • Affordability Requirements: For the 20% (or 30% near transit) of units required to be affordable, for rental units, all units must be affordable for households below 50% AMI and 25% must be affordable for households below 30% AMI; for ownership units, all units must be affordable for households below 80% AMI and 50% must be affordable for households below 50% AMI. The required share of affordable units increases from 20% to 30% in areas with transit access (within 0.5-mile of a Metrorail station or 0.25mile of a streetcar line or Priority Corridor Network Metrobus Route). • Mayoral Waiver Capacity: The affordability requirements can be waived or reduced under specific conditions, such as the subsidy provided by the difference between the appraised market value and the free or discounted value at which the developer receives the land is insufficient to support the required affordable housing. The waiver system is designed to respond to differences in development economics across the city.
Target Population: 30-50% AMI for renters and 50-80% AMI for homebuyers Funding: Leverages the City’s existing assets, with no direct impact on public budget if no additional subsidy is required to ensure affordability. However, requires the City to forgo the income it otherwise would have received for property sale. Scale: Citywide with priority for areas with transit access.
ULI. “Public Land and Affordable Housing”: http://washington.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/56/2015/02/ULI_PublicLandReport_Final020215.pdf; CSG. “Public Land for Public Good”: http://www.smartergrowth.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/pl4pg-final.pdf; Inclusive Communities Toolkit. “Prioritizing Publicly-owned Land for Affordable Housing ”
APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
138
241
Overview and Key Actors
Seattle Rental Housing Loan Program Seattle, WA
CASE STUDY Rental Housing Loan Program
In 2014, Seattle’s Office of Housing (OH) launched the Rental Housing Loan Program to support the production and preservation of affordable multifamily rental housing. The program is funded through local and federal sources, and provides long-term (50-year minimum), low-interest, deferred-payment loans with renewal options to qualified developers. The program prioritizes projects that target the lowest income levels and leverage non-city funds. OH collaborates with the State Housing Trust Fund, King County, and private lenders, investors, and equity syndicators to maximize the capital distributed. Seattle’s OH, as the program operator and funding administrator; Credit Committee, as technical experts appointed by the OH director to advise on financial feasibility; and affordable housing developers, as loan recipients.
Program Components
Source: Seattle Housing Department
• Notice of Funds Available: The NOFA, published annually, establishes the application process and requirements, funding sources available, and project evaluation criteria. Location evaluation criteria are aligned with Seattle’s development siting policy. • Washington State Combined Funder Application for Affordable Housing: The standard application is required for competitive loan program funds. • Covenant: The covenant is a property contract that requires units receiving program funds to be used as low-income housing for the stated loan term. The contract may be released wholly or partially at property sale. • Compliance and Performance Evaluation: The OH conducts an annual review of all projects that receive funds. It evaluates a range of factors, such as occupancy, physical conditions, financial conditions, and community relations, and shares its findings with the property owner via an annual performance letter. • Income requirement: For HOME and CDBG funds, 50% of funds must be used for households below 30% AMI and 50% of funds must be used for HHs below 50% AMI. For levy funds, 60% of funds must be used for HHs below 30% AMI, up to 10% of funds can be used for HHs 60-80% AMI, and the balance must be used for HHs 30-60% AMI.
Target Population: Priority is given to homeless individuals, seniors and people with disabilities, low-wage working families and individuals. Funding from various sources is subject to different income requirements. Funding: Funding comes the 2009 Seattle Housing Levy, earnings and repayments from earlier housing levies, federal funds, land use incentive funds, special mitigation funds, Office of Economic Development equity funds, and other city or grant funds made available through the NOFA. Scale: Citywide. Impact: In 2016, $47M was awarded to projects that produced 610 units. 242
City of Seattle Office of Housing. “Housing Funding Policies.” https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/Housing/HousingDevelopers/ProjectFunding/OH_FundingPolicies_2014.pdf
APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
139
Program Components
Overview and Key Actors
Denver Transit-Oriented Development Fund Denver, CO
CASE STUDY Acquisition Fund
The Denver region is undertaking one of the United States’ largest public transit expansions. Early in this process, affordable housing advocates recognized that strong interest in development around transit would contribute to rising land costs and rents, placing substantial economic pressure on low-income communities. The Fund was created to allow affordable housing developers to acquire and hold properties near transit for either affordable housing preservation or future development. Through flexible financing terms and a streamlined underwriting process, the Fund allows borrowers to react quickly to opportunities in a competitive market. Enterprise Community Partners as the fund administrator. Investors include the City of Denver, Colorado Division of Housing, Colorado Housing and Finance Authority, Colorado Trust, Denver Foundation, Enterprise Community Loan Fund, FirstBank, Ford Foundation, Gates Family Foundation, MacArthur Foundation, Mercy Loan Fund, Mile High Community Loan Fund, Piton Foundation, Rose Community Foundation, US Bank, and Wells Fargo.
• Loan Products: The Fund offers loans for the following purposes: 1) preservation or development of multifamily affordable rental housing projects (for-sale projects also are sometimes considered); 2) preservation or development of mixed-use projects that include both housing and community facility or nonprofit space; 3) acquisition of vacant or underutilized land for future affordable housing or mixed-use projects. • Loan Structure: Loan amounts of up to $5M; terms of up to 5 years; and loan-to-value ratios of up to 90%, based on the lesser of the appraised value or purchase price. Interest rates are fixed, and expected to be between 3.7% and 4.1% (based on term and geographic location). • Development Parameters: Acquisitions must be located in the Denver metro area and either within 0.5-mile of an existing or future fixed rail station or within 0.25-mile of a high-frequency bus corridor.
Source: Urban Land Conservancy
Target Population: Low-income residents of the seven-county Denver metro area. Renters earning no more than 60% AMI and homeowners earning no more than 95% AMI. Funding: The Fund was initially capitalized at $13.5M and subsequently expanded to $24M. Scale: Regional. Impact: As of May 2016, the Fund had provided nearly $20 million for the creation or preservation of more than 1,100 affordable units and 100,000 square feet of community space at 13 transit-accessible properties across the region.
Enterprise Community Partners. “Denver Regional TOD Fund.” http://www.enterprisecommunity.org/financing-and-development/community-loan-fund/denver-regional-todfund.
APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
140
243
Overview and Key Actors
Greater Minnesota Housing Fund Hennepin County, MN
CASE STUDY Preservation Fund
The Greater Minnesota Housing Fund (GMHF), Hennepin County, and other local partners established the $25M NOAH Impact Fund in response to the loss of naturally occurring affordable housing through demolition, redevelopment, and rent increases throughout the seven-county Minneapolis, MN region. The Fund, launched in 2017, provides equity to nonprofit and mission-oriented for-profit developers in the region to support acquisition of unsubsidized, older rental apartments in exchange for offering affordable rents to lowincome households (below 80% AMI) for 15 years. The Fund’s investors have established a goal to preserve 10-20% of for-sale buildings annually. The Greater Minnesota Housing Fund, as the Fund manager; Hennepin County and the McKnight Foundation, as initial Fund investors; private financial institutions, as fund investors; and local developers, as Fund users.
Program Components
Source: Greater Minnesota Housing Fund
• Equity Provision: The Fund provides 90% of the equity required for property acquisition, with the developer providing the remaining 10% of equity. GMHF estimates this investment covers 25-30% of project costs for the Hennepin County market. • Ownership Structure: The Fund uses an ownership structure similar to the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, with the Fund co-owning the property for about 10 years, typically until the first mortgage amortizes. GMHF provides active asset management for properties receiving financing through the Fund. • Return on Investment: To generate a competitive ROI to elicit participation from private financial institutions, the Fund pursues high-capacity developers. • Investment Criteria: The Fund prioritizes property investments in areas that provide “social benefit” (e.g., those with access to public transportation, employment, highperforming K-12 schools, higher education institutions, community services, and healthoriented amenities). The Fund also prioritizes investments that qualify as CRA affordable housing investments or endowment-funded Mission or Program Related Investments.
Target Population: Serves low-income families, individuals, and seniors (renters). Funding: The Fund was seeded through $25M in public, philanthropic, and private funding. About 50% of the Fund’s capital comes from private financial institutions. Scale: Regional. Impact: As a pilot project, the Fund assisted Real Estate Equities to acquire, rehab, and preserve an unsubsidized 72unit building in New Brighton, MN. The Fund provided $2.3M in equity as part of the $6.8M project. 244
Greater Minnesota Housing Fund. Direct Communication; http://noahimpactfund.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Brochure-GMHF-NOAH-Impact-Fund_031517.pdf
APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
141
Program Components
Overview and Key Actors
Mariposa Public Housing Redevelopment Denver, CO
CASE STUDY Public Housing Redevelopment
In 2006, the Denver Housing Authority (DHA) initiated the transformation of 270-unit South Lincoln Park Homes into the mixed-income, transit-oriented Mariposa District. The 15.1-acre site’s redevelopment emerged from multiple local planning efforts, including DHA’s strategic plan for public housing redevelopment and the City of Denver’s transit-oriented development framework. Based on extensive public input, DHA prioritized the creation of open space, bicycle and pedestrian access, and energy-efficient features within the district. The redevelopment, to be completed in nine phases over seven years, will produce 800 units in total, with about 400 affordable (including public housing) and 400 market-rate. DHA, as the property manager and master developer; U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Environmental Protection Agency, as funders and technical experts; the City of Denver, Colorado Housing Financing Agency, and Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, as funders; and local property management companies.
• Redevelopment Planning Process: DHA led a redevelopment planning process for the site that involved extensive resident input, including 140+ community meetings and group interviews, as well as door-to-door interviews, to gather design and phasing feedback. • One-to-One Replacement of Public Housing Units: To address resident concerns about displacement, DHA committed to one-to-one replacement of public housing units. • Property Acquisition: DHA acquired an adjacent 2.4-acre, City-owned site by Denver’s 10th and Osage light rail station to enable it to construct Phase 1 without relocating any existing residents. • Ownership Structure: DHA has retained ownership of all land, while a partnership of DHA and the various tax credit investors own the buildings • Design Objectives: DHA used several tools, including LEED-Neighborhood Development and the Healthy Development Measurement Tool, to integrate public health and energy efficiency considerations into site and project design.
Source: HUD
Target Population: Serves low-income renters, with a focus on very low- and extremely low-income households. Phase 1 public housing units targeted seniors and disabled residents. Funding: Mix of federal, state, local, and private capital. Average cost per unit across all phases is about $188k per unit. Scale: District-scale. Impact: Phases 1-3 have resulted in ~300 upgraded public housing, affordable, and market-rate units and new commercial and nonprofit space. The next phases will generate ~500 additional units and commercial space. 245
U.S. Housing and Urban Development. “Denver’s Mariposa District: Supporting Healthy, Mixed-Income Living.” www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr_edge_inpractice_022414.html Confluence Denver. “Rethinking Public Housing: Mariposa and the Transformation of La Alma/Lincoln Park.” http://www.confluence-denver.com/features/mariposa_061213.aspx
APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
142
Program Components
Overview and Key Actors
Data Clearinghouse Chicago, IL
CASE STUDY Affordable Housing Preservation Warning System
The Institute of Housing Studies (IHS) at DePaul University runs the Data Clearinghouse, which tracks the supply of publicly-subsidized and naturally occurring affordable rental housing and other housing market indicators within the Chicago metropolitan are. The Preservation Compact, a multi-sector collaboration created to prevent the further loss of Cook County’s affordable rental housing, launched the program. IHS refers at-risk properties to the Interagency Coordination Council (ICC), which includes representatives from U.S. Housing and Urban Development, Illinois Housing Finance Authority, and Chicago Department of Housing, charged with finding solutions for at risk-properties. IHS, which runs the database; The Preservation Compact, which provides strategic direction; the ICC, which identifies solutions for at-risk properties; and staff at local and state agencies, who deploy preservation resources. The Preservation Compact was originally started by the Urban Land Institute’s Chicago chapter and The MacArthur Foundation, but is currently an initiative of the Community Investment Corporation.
Source: The Preservation Compact
• Data Collection: IHS primarily uses local data, including County assessing data, supplemented with federal sources, such as U.S. Census/American Community Survey demographic data, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act lending data, and U.S. Postal Service vacancy data. It uses four key indicators to benchmark and track market conditions: 1) change in price from 2000 to today; 2) market peak; 3) market recovery; and 4) yearover-year change in price. • Data Dissemination: IHS works proactively to educate local stakeholders about market conditions and at-risk properties. It disseminates much of its data through The Preservation Compact. • Annual State of Rental Housing in Cook County Report: IHS also issues an annual report that summarizes changes in rental housing supply and demand relative to previous years and their impact on access to affordable rental housing for Cook County’s lowestincome households. • Technical Assistance: IHS provides technical assistance with data analysis to various local organizations and agencies.
Target Population: Tracks subsidized rental properties and naturally occurring affordable rental properties. Income levels vary by property and subsidy type. Funding: IHS provides ongoing financial support from philanthropic contributions, project funding from individual organizations, and in-kind support from DePaul. IHS estimates its largest costs are associated with from data purchases, data warehouse management, and staff. Scale: Tracks property-level data for the entire metropolitan Chicago area. Impact: Much of IHS’ current work focuses on 2-4 unit rental properties. 246
Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul University. “About Us.” www.housingstudies.org/data/about-data-clearinghouse. MacArthur Foundation. “The Preservation Compact: An Rental Housing Action Plan for Cook County.” www.macfound.org/media/article_pdfs/ACTION_PLAN_REPORT_51807.PDF.
APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
143
Program Components
Overview and Key Actors
Habitat for Humanity Affordable Mortgage Program Wake County, NC
CASE STUDY Affordable Mortgage Program
To expand the number of low-income households that it assists in accessing homeownership, Wake Habitat for Humanity, a nonprofit organization, has partnered with private lenders to layer traditional private 30-year first mortgages with 0%-interest, deferred-payment second mortgages from the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency, and, in limited cases, third mortgages with similar terms from Wake Habitat. The second and third mortgages cover the difference between the price of the home and the mortgage that the household can afford. Wake Habitat also provides private lenders with a financial guarantee to induce them to lend to low-income households that otherwise would not meet their underwriting standards. Wake Habitat, who is the program administrator and third mortgage lender; local banks, who are the first mortgage lender; NCHFA, who is the second mortgage lender; and local sponsors and community volunteers, who provide construction support.
• Financing Package: Wake Habitat structures the total financing package, with first, second, and third mortgages, so the household spends no more than 30% of their income on mortgage payments. When serving the lower end of the income spectrum (~25% AMI), Habitat sometimes needs to layer a third mortgage. Homes typically are sold for $115-$120k, below the cost of construction. • Below-Market Initial Home Sale Prices & First Right of Refusal Upon Resale: Wake Habitat sells the houses that it builds for below-market prices, leveraging “sweat equity” from future homeowners and community volunteers. When a household leaves a home, Wake Habitat gets first right of refusal to purchase the house at market-rate. • Extensive Homeowner Preparation: Wake Habitat requires potential homeowners to complete a rigorous application and preparation process, including credit history review, personal interviews and home visits, and financial counseling. • Ongoing Homeowner Education: Wake Habitat provides ongoing education and support to homeowners throughout the mortgage lifetime.
Source: News & Observer
Target Population: First-time homeowners from 25-60% AMI. Wake Habitat reviews credit history, cell phone, utility, and rent payments, but not credit score, to select participants. Funding: Private lender provides 2%interest first mortgage, guaranteed by Wake Habitat. NCFHA provides 0%interest, deferred-payment loan of up to $45k per household (up to $1.2M annual cap). Program participants contribute closing costs ($1,700) and monthly mortgage payments. Habitat receives additional funding from government grants and private contributions. Scale: Countywide. Impact: 60-70 loans annually. 247
Wake County Habitat for Humanity. http://www.habitatwake.org/. Direct communication, Wake Habitat, Rachel Zeitler (Advocacy & Societal Impact Manager) and Jane Beaman (Vice President of Finance).
APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
144
Overview and Key Actors
Brighton Center Financial Counseling Newport, KY
CASE STUDY Comprehensive Housing Counseling
The Brighton Center is a nonprofit organization that creates opportunities for individuals and families to achieve self‐sufficiency. After recognizing that its homeownership classes were not sufficient on their own to prepare some individuals and families for successful homeownership because they required a broad range of financial knowledge, the Center launched comprehensive financial education classes, which include one-on-one personal budgeting and credit counseling sessions and group workshops on financial decision-making. Brighton Center (nonprofit program operator); local lending institutions and realtors (referrals); other community nonprofits (cross‐referrals to programming to meet the full continuum of clients’ needs).
Program Components
Source: Brighton Center
• Comprehensive Assessment Process: Upon intake, the Center conducts a comprehensive assessment that considers the individual or family’s entire financial situation, beyond the need that initially brought them in, to provide appropriate programming and referrals. • Pre- and Post-Purchase Homeownership Counseling: The Center provides one‐on‐one and group counseling on achieving and maintaining homeownership, including on topics such as foreclosure prevention and reverse mortgages. • Provision of Emergency and Credit-Building Loans: The Center offers lending resources for households facing emergencies or seeking to build credit, including a saving incentive for those who complete the program and pay their loan in full. • Cross‐Referrals: The Center receives referrals from local lending institutions and realtors, and makes referrals to other local government and nonprofit programs to meet their clients’ full needs. • Outcome Tracking: The Center measures program outcomes through post‐workshop surveys and counseling follow‐up to guide program design.
Target Population: Low‐income households with no or poor credit history. Funding: $575,000 ‐ $625,000 annually ($320-$350 per household served). Scale: Regional. Impact: 60-70 loans annually.
248 Brighton Center: Direct Communication. https://www.brightoncenter.com/programs/financial_services/financial%E2%80%90education%E2%80%90and%E2%80%90coaching
APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
145
Program Components
Overview and Key Actors
Austin Community Land Trust Austin, TX
CASE STUDY Community Land Trust
In 2013, in response to significant displacement of existing residents due to gentrification pressures, the City of Austin, Austin Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), and Frameworks Community Development Corporation launched a Community Land Trust (CLT). Through the program, homebuyers purchase housing units developed by AHFC and enter into a 99-year agreement to lease the land. The program started by developing single-family homes in East Austin, but the City is considering dedicating additional resources and expanding the program to other neighborhoods and housing types. City of Austin, who is the program operator and housing counseling provider; AHFC, who is the land owner and developer; Frameworks Community Development Corporation, who serves as the real estate listing agent and housing counseling provider; private lenders, who provide mortgages.
• Required Homebuyer Education: Homebuyers must be graduates of a housing counseling class provided by the City of Austin or Frameworks Community Development Corporation. • Ground Lease: Homebuyers purchase only the house and enter into a 99-year ground lease with the CLT for use of the land. • Income Eligibility Resale Restrictions: CLT homeowners can sell their home directly to an income-qualified buyer, sell their home to the CLT, or give the home to children or other qualified heirs. • Shared Equity to Balance Homeowner Wealth-Building and Long-Term Affordability Preservation: CLT homeowners who sell their homes get back their equity (e.g., the money that they personally contributed to the downpayment); the mortgage principal that they have already paid off; and a portion of the home’s appreciation (annual 2% fixed-rate growth over the initial sales price).
Source: HousingWorks Austin
Target Population: Households earning 80% AMI or less who either have not owned a home in the past 3 years or been displaced or divorced, and are able to get a mortgage through an approved CLT lender. Funding: The average subsidy per household is $40k for land costs. The CLT homeowner contributes a minimum of $1k for the home’s downpayment and closing costs and pays all property taxes. Scale: East Austin and other neighborhoods that are experiencing gentrification. Impact: As of August 2015, the CLT had sold 8 homes in their first target neighborhood in East Austin.
City of Austin, Neighborhood Housing & Community Development. “Community Land Trust.” http://www.austintexas.gov/department/community-land-trust.
APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
146
249
GLOSSARY
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs): ADUs are additional living quarters located on single-family lots that are independent of the primary dwelling unit and provide basic requirements for sleeping, cooking, and sanitation. Due to their smaller size and lower development costs, ADUs tend to be a source of naturally occurring affordable housing, thus helping to increase the full affordable housing supply without the expenditure of public subsidy. They also provide other benefits, discussed in the ADU recommendation. Area Median Income (AMI): AMI represents the midpoint in the distribution of household incomes within a specific geographic region. HUD publishes annual AMI levels for regions, adjusted for family size. The HUD-provided AMI is used to determine applicants’ eligibility for both federally and locally funded housing programs where participation is dependent on income levels. Category 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI 100% AMI
1-Person $16,600 $27,600 $44,150 $55,160
2015 Raleigh MSA Income Limits 2-Person 3-Person 4-Person 5-Person $18,950 $21,300 $24,250 $28,410 $31,550 $35,500 $39,400 $42,600 $50,450 $56,750 $63,050 $68,100 $63,040 $70,920 $78,800 $85,104
6-Person $32,570 $45,750 $73,150 $91,408
7-Person $36,730 $48,900 $78,200 $96,924
8-Person $40,890 $52,050 $83,250 $104,016
Community Development Financial Institution (CDFIs): CDFIs are financial institutions, certified by the U.S. Treasury Department, to provide credit and financial services to underserved people and communities. They encompass a range of nonprofit and for-profit entities, such as community development banks, community development credit unions, community development loan funds, community development venture capital funds, and microenterprise loan funds. Cost-Burdened: Under a standard set by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, a household is considered costburdened when it spends 30% or more of its income on gross housing costs, whether for renter or ownership housing. Extremely Cost-Burdened: A household is considered extremely cost-burdened households when it spends 50% or more of its income on housing costs, often leaving the household with very little money to cover other costs of daily living. Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ): ETJs are areas that lie just outside municipalities’ corporate limits where future municipal development is expected to reach. Depending on the relevant municipality’s size, they can extend 1 to 3 miles beyond corporate limits. Areas within ETJs are subject to the municipality’s development regulations. APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
147
250
Floor Area Ratio (FAR): The relationship between a building’s total amount of usable floor area and the total area of the lot on which the building stands. This ratio is determined by dividing the total, or gross, floor area of the building by the gross area of the lot. HOME Investment Partnership (HOME): The HOME program, authorized by the federal government in 1990, gives federal block grants to participating local jurisdictions, which then use the funds to provide affordable rental and homeownership housing to lowand moderate-income families. When HOME funds are used to support rental housing, at least 90% of the units must be occupied by households with incomes at or below 60% of AMI, with the remaining 10% capable of being occupied by households with incomes at or below 80% of AMI. In rental properties with five or more HOME units, 20% of the units must be set aside for households with incomes at or below 50% of AMI. Depending on the amount of HOME subsidy provided per unit, the HOME program places affordability restrictions of 5 to 20 years on units. HUD-Insured Properties: HUD’s Federal Housing Administration (FHA) provides mortgage subsidies to private owners of multifamily housing to reduce development costs. In return, HUD requires assisted properties to agree to low-income “use restrictions,” which restrict occupancy to households under specific income limits and cap rent levels. Properties that fall under this category include Section 221(d)(3) BMIR, Section 236, and other non-subsidized HUD insured properties. Increment Financing: Increment financing is a financing mechanism wherein a government uses anticipated future increases in tax revenues from private development activity to finance present-day improvements, such as new or improved infrastructure, that will benefit that development. In North Carolina, there are two primary types of increment financing, traditional TIF and synthetic TIF, with synthetic TIF being more commonly used. With traditional TIF, the debt used to finance the infrastructure is secured by and repaid from the development’s incremental property tax revenues. With synthetic TIF, the debt is secured by either the asset itself (e.g., the improvements being financed) or the local government’s full faith and credit (general taxing power), not the incremental tax revenues; however, the tax revenues can be used to pay the debt service and principal of the improvements. Increment financing can be used to capture value from new development to create or preserve affordable housing in areas experiencing significant new growth.
251 APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
148
Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC): The Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program is a federal program that provides a dollarfor-dollar tax credit to support the development of affordable rental housing. The LIHTC program distributes federal income tax credits to developers through states’ individual Housing Finance Agencies (HFA), which determine which projects receive tax credits under their federal allocation. There are two general types of credits that can be awarded, 9% credits and 4% credits. 9% credits are higher-value credits that cover a greater percentage of projects’ development costs (generally 70% to 80%), and are awarded on a competitive basis. 4% credits are lower-value credits that cover a lower percentage of projects’ development costs (generally 30% to 40%), and are generally awarded to any projects that meet specific programmatic requirements and are financially feasible. 4% credits are usually paired with tax-exempt bond financing to make up the difference.
Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing (NOAH): Naturally occurring affordable housing is housing that is priced by market forces at levels that are affordable to low-income residents. Housing is traditionally considered affordable if total housing costs (rent or mortgage, plus utilities) represent no more than 30% of the occupying household’s income. NOAH housing often makes up a significant portion of a jurisdiction’s affordable housing stock, in addition to publicly-subsidized housing. “Not in My Backyard” (NIMBY): NIMBY is a term used to describe residents’ opposition to new development, including denser multifamily housing and affordable housing, in their neighborhood or community. Opposing residents can sometimes block development, reduce the size of proposed projects, or slow the development process. North Carolina Housing Finance Agency (NCHFA): NCHFA is a state agency that helps finance affordable housing by operating or administering a range of programs, including the sale of tax-exempt bonds, LIHTC, HOME, and North Carolina’s Housing Trust Fund. Project-Based Section 8 Vouchers: The Project-Based Section 8 voucher program, as it is now known, was established in 1974. Under this program, HUD enters into Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contracts with private owners to provide affordable housing to lowincome tenants. Under the contracts, tenants pay 30% of their adjusted monthly income for rent and utilities, and HUD pays the owner the difference between the tenants’ payment and the agreed-upon contract rent. New residents of Project-Based Section 8 units must have incomes of at or below 80% of AMI, and 40% must have incomes at or below 30% of AMI. Public Housing: Public housing is a type of affordable housing that has been traditionally owned by a local government agency, generally a designated public housing authority. HUD provides federal aid to these agencies to operate housing for residents, who pay rents that they can afford. In the United States today, there are approximately 1.2 million households living in public housing units, managed by 3,300 housing authorities (HUD Public Housing Program Office).
APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
149
252
Qualified Allocation Plan (QAP): Per federal requirements, the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency (NCHFA) develops an annual QAP to competitively allocate federal Low Income Housing Tax Credits to affordable housing projects across the state. The QAP includes geographic distribution and income limit requirements. The NCHFA can only allocate credits in conformance with the QAP. Section 202 (Direct Loans): The Section 202 Program was authorized by the federal government in 1959. While the program has evolved over the years, it has either provided direct loans or capital advances from the federal government for low-income senior housing development. From 1959 to 1990, the program provided below market-rate direct loans, generally at 3% interest for up to 50 years, to nonprofit organizations. In addition, from 1974 to 1990, loans were further subsidized by Project-Based Section 8 contracts. In 1990, funding shifted from below market-rate direct loans to capital advances. Section 202 and 811 (Project Rental Assistance): The Section 202 (Supportive Housing for the Elderly) Program provides capital and operating funding to nonprofit organizations that develop and operate housing for very low-income seniors, while the Section 811 (Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities) Program provides funding to entities that develop and operate housing for low-income people with significant and long-term disabilities. Both programs provide project rental assistance contracts (PRAC), which subsidize developments’ operating expenses. Residents pay 30% of their adjusted income towards rent, and the PRAC makes up the difference between rental income and operating expenses. Section 515 (Direct Loans): The USDA Rural Development Housing and Community Facilities Programs Office began making subsidized mortgage loans through the Section 515 (Rural Rental Housing Loan) Program in 1963. This program provides mortgages at 1% interest to nonprofit and for-profit developers to build multifamily rental housing that is affordable to low- and moderateincome households in rural areas. Loan terms are 30 years, with principal amortized over 50 years. Tenants pay basic rent or 30% of their adjusted income, whichever is greater.
Special Assessment Districts (SAD): In a SAD, a local government provides a specific public benefit to a group of properties and imposes a special assessment (extra tax) on them to pay the costs of providing the benefit. In North Carolina, local governments can create two types of SADs, traditional and critical infrastructure, but only critical infrastructure SADs currently include affordable housing provision as an allowable purpose for which a special assessment may be charged.
253 APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
150
Supportive Housing: Supportive housing is affordable housing that also includes support services intended to help tenants stay stably housed and build necessary life skills. Supportive housing can be designed to be either permanent or temporary for residents, with temporary housing targeted towards individuals who may be able to transition to traditional housing without support services over time. Supportive housing has proven to be a successful tool to house populations that may be difficult to serve with traditional housing, such as chronically homeless adults. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD): HUD is the federal agency charged with overseeing affordable housing and community development programs, including programs promoting homeownership, providing low-income rental housing assistance, enforcing fair housing laws, addressing homelessness, and providing aid for distressed neighborhoods. Value Capture: Value capture approaches seek to capture some of the benefits that private entities realize due to public investments, such as infrastructure investments that make an area more attractive for development, to fund those or other investments. Year 15 Properties: Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects have a 15-year required affordability period, which is followed by a second 15-year affordability period, called the “extended use period,” that keeps them affordable for a total of 30 years. However, the enforcement mechanisms for the second 15-year affordability period are much weaker than the first 15-year period, such that some properties convert to market-rate before reaching the end of their full 30-year affordability period. Zoning: Zoning is a planning tool deployed by local governments that regulates a building’s use, size, and shape, as well as other factors, such as parking, signage, accessory structures, and landscaping.
254 APPENDIX | HR&A Advisors, Inc.
151
TOWN COUNCIL ITEM INFORMATION SUMMARY Item Title:
Airport Overlay District Revisions
Item Type:
Presentation
Discussion Date:
Saturday, February 24, 2018
Related Documents:
Unified Development Ordinance Table of Principal Uses
Item Summary:
The Town of Morrisville has two Airport Overlay Districts. Each district has a distinct boundary that was developed using RDU’s Noise Contour Map (65 DNL noise contour), and additional development regulations are applicable in these Districts. The intent of this presentation is to better understand the purpose of airport overlay districts, how the overlay districts affect development in the Town, and to evaluate potential changes to current regulations.
Action Requested:
Evaluate options provided for each discussion area, and provided staff specific direction on each discussion area. Staff will answer questions throughout the presentation.
255 100 Town Hall Drive | Morrisville, NC 27560 | P: 919.463.6200 | F: 919.481.2907 | to wnofmorrisville.org
Airport Overlay District Revisions 2018 Town Council Retreat 256
Overview • Airport-Related Regulations • Unified Development Ordinance • Potential Ordinance Revisions
257
Airport-Related Regulations Overview
258
What is the purpose? • Promote most appropriate land use • Ensure the safety and welfare of the community • Ensure development is compatible with the airport
Year 2012
Year 2017259
Who establishes regulations? • Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) – Establish standard noise methodologies – Identify land uses normally compatible with airport noise – Regulate structure height – Restricts electronic interference
• Local Jurisdictions (counties & cities) – Establish overlay boundaries – Establish permitted principal uses – Develop airportrelated standards (e.g., sound mitigation, lighting, electronic interference) Morrisville Regulates Principal Uses and Sets Zoning Overlay Boundaries
260
Who establishes noise contours? • Raleigh-Durham Airport Authority – Location of runway – Airplane technology
261
Unified Development Ordinance Current Regulations
262
What is regulated? • Storage of hazardous materials • Principal uses (AO-A only) • Structure height • Outdoor lighting • Electronic interferences • Sound mitigation • Avigation easements
Established by Morrisville using FAA guidance 263
Where are regulations applicable? • Airport Overlay-A District – West of NC 54
• Airport Overlay-B – East of NC 54 Overlay Inset
Airport Overlay-A Airport Overlay-B Town of Morrisville Parcel Lines
264
Potential Revisions to Unified Development Ordinance and/or Zoning Map
265
Discussion Area #1 Airport Overlay-B (AO-B) District
266
Airport Overlay-B: Overview Consideration Points • TOD in AO-B District (see ) • No use restrictions in the AO-B • High redevelopment potential • Additional rules may inhibit development • People find varying rules harder to understand
267
Airport Overlay-B: Revision Options • Option 1 – Remove non-FAA required regulations from UDO
• Option 2 – Remove avigation easement requirement – Remove sound mitigation
• Option 3 – No change 268
Discussion Area #2 McCrimmon Extension Area
269
McCrimmon Extension Area: Overview Consideration Points • Currently zoned Industrial Management • Largest undeveloped area in Morrisville • High development potential • Subarea study location in the Land Use Plan update 270
McCrimmon Extension Area: Revision Options • Option 1 – Include all uses in Land Use Plan subarea plan study
• Option 2 – Include some uses in Land Use Plan subarea plan study • No industrial uses • Limited residential uses (multifamily) • Limited educational uses (high school)
• Option 3 – Include some uses in Land Use Plan subarea plan study • Limited industrial uses • Limited residential uses (multifamily) • Limited educational uses • (high school)
• Option 4 – No change: Study only currently permitted uses
271
Discussion Area #3 Wake Tech Area
272
Wake Tech Area: Overview Consideration Points • Currently vacant and single family homes • Currently zoned Corridor Commercial & Office Institutional • High redevelopment potential • Subarea study location in the Land Use Plan update • Phase of TOD 273
Wake Tech Area: Revision Options • Option 1 – Include all uses in Land Use Plan subarea plan study
• Option 2 – Include some uses in Land Use Plan subarea plan study • No industrial uses • Limited residential uses (multi-family) • No educational uses
• Option 3 – No change: Study only currently permitted uses 274
Discussion Area #4 Old Outlet Mall
275
Old Outlet Mall: Overview Consideration Points • Currently zoned Regional Activity Center • High redevelopment potential • Directly under flight path
276
Old Outlet Mall: Revision Options • Option 1 – Permit multifamily
• Option 2 – Permit multifamily, only if part of MUPD application
• Option 3 – Create new mixed use zoning district for developments in the AO-B District
• Option 4 – No change
277
Questions
278
Article 4: Use Standards Section 4.2. Principal Uses 4.2.4. Principal Use Table
also include multiple principal uses, none of which is necessarily customarily incidental or subordinate to another principal use (e.g., a place of worship combined with a school, a gas station combined with a convenience store, restaurant, or automotive repair use, or a flex building housing retail, industrial service, and warehousing tenants). A development with multiple principal uses shall include only those principal uses designated in the use tables as allowed in the applicable zoning district, and each principal use shall be subject to any use-specific standards applicable to the use.
C. Principal Use Table
Table 4.2.4: Principal Use Table P = Permitted as exempt from Site Plan Approval or with Minor Site Plan Approval by Town staff P* = Permitted with Major Site Plan Approval by Town Council (unless qualifying for Minor Site Plan Approval in accordance with Section 2.5.7.A.5) S = Allowed as a Special Use C = Allowed as an additional use in the parallel Conditional Zoning District A = Allowed subject to a PD Plan/Agreement Blank Cell = Prohibited (except Overlay Districts) X = Prohibited (Overlay Districts only)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P
P
P
P
P P
P P
TCCO
P
RNP CC
P P
RT
P
TCR
P
MS TCC
P
HCV
P
TOD
P
RAC
P
CAC
P
BAC
P P
NAC
P P
FO
MUPD AO-A A
P
AO-B
IM P
HDR
A A A A A
MDR
P P P P P
LDR
P
VLDR
OI
Use Type
PGO
Use Category
UseSpecific Standard
Overlay Districts
Base/Conditional Districts
Animal Related Uses
Agricultural Uses
Agricultural and Animal Related Uses Community Garden Farm, Small Farm, Large Forestry Garden Center Greenhouse/ Nursery Kennel, Indoor Kennel, Outdoor Stables Veterinary Clinic/Hospital
P
P
4.2.5.B.1.a 4.2.5.B.1.b 4.2.5.B.1.c
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P P
A A A
4.2.5.B.2.a 4.2.5.B.2.b
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
4.2.5.B.2.c
P
Household Living Uses
Residential Uses Bungalow Court Dwelling, Duplex Dwelling, Live/Work Dwelling, Manufactured Home Dwelling, ≤50 du Multi>50 du family Dwelling, SingleFamily Attached Dwelling, SingleFamily Detached Family Care Home Pocket Neighborhood
P
4.2.5.C.1.a
P* P* P* P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
P
C
C
P
A
X
A
X
4.2.5.C.1.b
X
4.2.5.C.1.c
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
C
P
A
X
P* P* P* P* P*
P
P* P*
C
C
P*
A
X
P* P* P* P* P* P*
C
C
P* P*
P*
A
X
P * P* P* P* P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
C
C
P* P* P*
A
X
P
P
P
A
X
P
P
P
4.2.5.C.1.d
4.2.5.C.1.e 4.2.5.C.1.f
279 Morrisville, NC Unified Development Ordinance
June 23, 2017 Page 4-3
Article 4: Use Standards Section 4.2. Principal Uses 4.2.4. Principal Use Table
Table 4.2.4: Principal Use Table P = Permitted as exempt from Site Plan Approval or with Minor Site Plan Approval by Town staff P* = Permitted with Major Site Plan Approval by Town Council (unless qualifying for Minor Site Plan Approval in accordance with Section 2.5.7.A.5) S = Allowed as a Special Use C = Allowed as an additional use in the parallel Conditional Zoning District A = Allowed subject to a PD Plan/Agreement Blank Cell = Prohibited (except Overlay Districts) X = Prohibited (Overlay Districts only)
P
P
P
P
P
P
TCCO
P
FO
S
AO-B
S
MUPD AO-A
S
IM
P
OI
TOD
P
RNP CC
RAC
P
RT
CAC
P
TCR
BAC
P
MS TCC
NAC
P
HCV
HDR
MDR
LDR
Group Living Uses
Congregate Living Facility Continuing Care Retirement Community Dormitory Rooming House
VLDR
Use Type
PGO
Use Category
UseSpecific Standard
Overlay Districts
Base/Conditional Districts
P
P
A
X
4.2.5.C.2.a
P
P
A
X
4.2.5.C.2.b
P P
P
A A
X
P
P
P
A
X
P
P
P
A
P P P P
P P P P
P P P
A A A A
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
A
X
P
Community and Government Service Uses
Institutional Uses Club or Lodge College or University Community Center Cultural Facility Day Care Center Emergency Services Government Services, Administrative Government Maintenance, Storage, or Distribution Facility Place of Worship, Community Place of Worship, Neighborhood Public Park or Recreation Facility School, Elementary School, Middle School, High School, Business or Vocational Sports Academy
P
P
P
Health Care Uses
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P P P P
P P P P
P P P P
P
P P
P C
C
P
P P P P
P P
P P
P P P P
C
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P* P* P*
P
P
P P P P
P* P*
P*
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
X
4.2.5.D.1.b
P
C
C
P
P
P
A
X
4.2.5.D.1.c
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P* P* P* P* P* P*
P P P
P P P
P P P
P P P
P P P
P P P
P P P
C C C
C C C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
C
P
P * P
P
P
P
P
A A A P
P
A
P
P
A
P
P
P
A
X
P
P
A
X
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P P
X X X
P
P
P
4.2.5.D.1.a
C
P
P
X X
C
P * P* P* P*
Hospital Nursing Home Office, Medical/ Dental Office Park, Medical/ Dental Urgent Care Facility Wellness Center
P
P P P
P
P
4.2.5.D.2.a
280 June 23, 2017 Page 4-4
Morrisville, NC Unified Development Ordinance
Article 4: Use Standards Section 4.2. Principal Uses 4.2.4. Principal Use Table
Table 4.2.4: Principal Use Table P = Permitted as exempt from Site Plan Approval or with Minor Site Plan Approval by Town staff P* = Permitted with Major Site Plan Approval by Town Council (unless qualifying for Minor Site Plan Approval in accordance with Section 2.5.7.A.5) S = Allowed as a Special Use C = Allowed as an additional use in the parallel Conditional Zoning District A = Allowed subject to a PD Plan/Agreement Blank Cell = Prohibited (except Overlay Districts) X = Prohibited (Overlay Districts only)
Telecommunication Uses
C
C
P
P
TCCO
FO
AO-B
MUPD AO-A
RNP CC
RT
P
TCR
C P
MS TCC
C P
HCV
TOD
P
RAC
P
CAC
HDR
MDR
LDR C
C P
IM
C
P
OI
C
BAC
Bus Station Central Utility Plant Heliport Office, Utility Park and Ride Terminal Parking Deck or Lot (as a principal use) Railroad Yard Solar Energy Collection System (as a principal use) Transit Station Utility Facility, Major Utility Facility, Minor Antenna collocation or combination on existing tower Broadcasting Station Broadcast Studio Concealed attached antenna Non-concealed attached antenna (private utility easement) Non-concealed dual-function tower (private utility easement) Concealed towers (town-owned property) Non-concealed towers (townowned property) Concealed towers (private property) Non-concealed towers (private property) DAS Node
VLDR
PGO
Use Type
NAC
Transportation and Utility Uses
Use Category
UseSpecific Standard
Overlay Districts
Base/Conditional Districts
C P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C P S P
C
C
P
C
C
C
P
A
P
P
C
P
P
P
A
4.2.5.D.3.b
P
A
4.2.5.D.3.c
C
C
C
C
C P
C
C
C
A A
4.2.5.D.3.a
A
S
P
P
S
P
P
P
P
S
S
S
S
S
S
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
S
P
P
S
P
P
P
A
S
S
S
S
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
S
P
P
P
P
A
4.2.5.D.4.b
P
P
P
P
P
A
4.2.5.D.4.c
P
P
P
A
4.2.5.D.4.d
P
P
P
A
4.2.5.D.4.e
S
S
S
S
A
4.2.5.D.4.e
P*
P*
P*
P*
A
4.2.5.D.4.e
S
S
S
S
A
4.2.5.D.4.e
P
P
P
A
4.2.5.D.4.f
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
S
P
P
P
P
P
P
S
S
S
S
S
S
P*
P*
P*
P*
P*
P*
S
S
S
S
S
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
S
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
S
S
S
P
P
P
P
S
P
S
P
S
P
4.2.5.D.4.a
281 Morrisville, NC Unified Development Ordinance
June 23, 2017 Page 4-5
Article 4: Use Standards Section 4.2. Principal Uses 4.2.4. Principal Use Table
Table 4.2.4: Principal Use Table P = Permitted as exempt from Site Plan Approval or with Minor Site Plan Approval by Town staff P* = Permitted with Major Site Plan Approval by Town Council (unless qualifying for Minor Site Plan Approval in accordance with Section 2.5.7.A.5) S = Allowed as a Special Use C = Allowed as an additional use in the parallel Conditional Zoning District A = Allowed subject to a PD Plan/Agreement Blank Cell = Prohibited (except Overlay Districts) X = Prohibited (Overlay Districts only)
4.2.5.D.4.g 4.2.5.E.1.a
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
TCCO
MUPD AO-A A
P
FO
IM P
P
AO-B
OI P
RNP CC P
RT
P
TCR
P
MS TCC
BAC
P
HCV
NAC
P
TOD
HDR
P
RAC
MDR
P
CAC
LDR
DAS Wired Hub
VLDR
Use Type
PGO
Use Category
UseSpecific Standard
Overlay Districts
Base/Conditional Districts
Retail Sales and Service Uses
Funeral Related Uses
Entertainment Uses
Recreation Uses
Office Uses
Eating and Drinking Establishment Uses
Commercial Uses Restaurant Specialty Eating or Drinking Establishment Bar or Lounge
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Office Building
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
A
Office Park Country Club Golf Course Private Recreation Facility, Indoor Private Recreation Facility, Outdoor Sports Training Facility, Indoor Sports Training Facility, Outdoor Adult Establishment Banquet Hall Private Entertainment Facility, Indoor Private Entertainment Facility, Outdoor Funeral Home Cemetery Crematorium Stonecutting/ Monument Sales Convenience Store Farmers’ Market < 3,000 sf 3,000 to < 20,000 sf Retail 20,000 to Store < 50,000 sf 50,000 to < 75,000 sf ≥ 75,000 sf
P
P P
P P
P P
P
A
P P P
P
A A P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
C
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
A
P
P
A
P
P
P
S P
A
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
A
P P
P P
P
P P P
A A A
P
A
4.2.5.E.3.a
4.2.5.E.3.b
4.2.5.E.3.c 4.2.5.E.4.a
P
P
S P P
S P P
P P P
P P
P P
P P
P P P
P P P
P P P
A A A
P
P
P
P
P
C
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
C
C
C
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
A
P* P*
P*
P
A
4.2.5.E.6.a
282 June 23, 2017 Page 4-6
Morrisville, NC Unified Development Ordinance
Article 4: Use Standards Section 4.2. Principal Uses 4.2.4. Principal Use Table
Table 4.2.4: Principal Use Table P = Permitted as exempt from Site Plan Approval or with Minor Site Plan Approval by Town staff P* = Permitted with Major Site Plan Approval by Town Council (unless qualifying for Minor Site Plan Approval in accordance with Section 2.5.7.A.5) S = Allowed as a Special Use C = Allowed as an additional use in the parallel Conditional Zoning District A = Allowed subject to a PD Plan/Agreement Blank Cell = Prohibited (except Overlay Districts) X = Prohibited (Overlay Districts only)
IM
MUPD AO-A
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P*
P
A
P
P
A
P
A
4.2.5.E.7.a
P
P
A
4.2.5.E.7.b
P
P
A
4.2.5.E.7.c
P
P
A
4.2.5.E.7.d
P
A
4.2.5.E.7.e
P
A
4.2.5.E.7.f
P
A
4.2.5.E.7.g
P
A
4.2.5.E.7.h
P
A
4.2.5.E.7.i
P
A
4.2.5.E.7.j
A
4.2.5.E.8.a
P* P* P
P
P
P
S
P
P
P
P
S
P
P
P
P
P*
Bed and Breakfast Hotel/Motel
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P C
P
P P
P
P
TCCO
OI
P
FO
MS TCC
P
AO-B
HCV
P
RNP CC
TOD
P
RT
RAC
P
TCR
CAC
HDR
BAC
Service Establishment Service Establishment, Personal Shopping Center, Major Shopping Center, Neighborhood Automobile Repair, Major Automobile Repair, Minor Automobile Sales or Rental Automobile Service Station Car Wash/ Detailing Recreational Vehicle Sales, Rental, or Service Taxi or Limousine Service Tire Capping and Retreading Vehicle Fleet Storage Vehicular Towing Service
MDR
LDR
VLDR
PGO
Use Type
NAC
Visitor Accommodation Uses
Vehicle/ Equipment Sales and Service Uses
Retail Sales and Service Uses
Use Category
UseSpecific Standard
Overlay Districts
Base/Conditional Districts
4.2.5.E.6.b
A
Industrial and Service Uses
Industrial Uses ConstructionRelated Activities Flex Space, Major Flex Space, Minor Industrial Park Industrial Equipment Sales and Rental Mini-Storage
Morrisville, NC Unified Development Ordinance
P P
C
P
P
4.2.5.F.1.a
P P P P
4.2.5.F.1.b
P
4.2.5.F.1.c
283
June 23, 2017 Page 4-7
Article 4: Use Standards Section 4.2. Principal Uses 4.2.4. Principal Use Table
Table 4.2.4: Principal Use Table P = Permitted as exempt from Site Plan Approval or with Minor Site Plan Approval by Town staff P* = Permitted with Major Site Plan Approval by Town Council (unless qualifying for Minor Site Plan Approval in accordance with Section 2.5.7.A.5) S = Allowed as a Special Use C = Allowed as an additional use in the parallel Conditional Zoning District A = Allowed subject to a PD Plan/Agreement Blank Cell = Prohibited (except Overlay Districts) X = Prohibited (Overlay Districts only)
Extraction and Landfill Uses
Manufacturing Uses
Industrial and Service Uses
Motor Freight Terminal, Small Motor Freight Terminal, Large Outdoor Equipment Performance Testing Facility Research Laboratory Tank Farm Warehousing/ Distribution Wholesale Food Preparation Wholesale Establishment Brewery Industrial Assembly, Light Industrial Assembly, Heavy Manufacturing, Custom Manufacturing, Light Manufacturing, Medium Manufacturing, Heavy Micro-Brewery Micro-Winery Winery Composting Facility Extraction of Earth Products Hydraulic Fracturing Junkyard or Recycling Facility Landfill, Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill, Municipal Solid Waste
TCCO
FO
AO-B
MUPD AO-A
IM
OI
RNP CC
RT
TCR
MS TCC
HCV
TOD
RAC
CAC
BAC
NAC
HDR
MDR
LDR
VLDR
Use Type
PGO
Use Category
UseSpecific Standard
Overlay Districts
Base/Conditional Districts
P S P P
P
4.2.5.F.1.d
P S
X
P P
P
P
4.2.5.F.1.e
P P
P
P
P
P
P P P
P* P*
P
P
P
4.2.5.F.2.a
P P P
P P
P P
P P
P P
P P P
P P P
P P P
S
4.2.5.F.2.a
P P P S
4.2.5.F.3.a
S
4.2.5.F.3.b
S
4.2.5.F.3.c
S
4.2.5.F.3.d
S
4.2.5.F.3.e
S
X
4.2.5.F.3.f
284 June 23, 2017 Page 4-8
Morrisville, NC Unified Development Ordinance
Article 4: Use Standards Section 4.2. Principal Uses 4.2.5. Principal Use-Specific Standards
Table 4.2.4: Principal Use Table P = Permitted as exempt from Site Plan Approval or with Minor Site Plan Approval by Town staff P* = Permitted with Major Site Plan Approval by Town Council (unless qualifying for Minor Site Plan Approval in accordance with Section 2.5.7.A.5) S = Allowed as a Special Use C = Allowed as an additional use in the parallel Conditional Zoning District A = Allowed subject to a PD Plan/Agreement Blank Cell = Prohibited (except Overlay Districts) X = Prohibited (Overlay Districts only)
S
TCCO
FO
AO-B
MUPD AO-A
IM
OI
RNP CC
RT
TCR
MS TCC
HCV
TOD
RAC
CAC
BAC
NAC
HDR
MDR
LDR
Extraction and Landfill Uses
Landfill, Land Clearing and Inert Debris
VLDR
Use Type
PGO
Use Category
UseSpecific Standard
Overlay Districts
Base/Conditional Districts
4.2.5.F.3.g
(Ord. No. 2014-016, 06/24/2014; Ord. No. 2014-022, 06/24/2014; Ord. No. 2014-051, 11/10/2014; Ord. No. 2015-002, 04/29/2015, Ord. No. 2015-083, 01/26/2016; Ord. No. 2016-001, 05/10/2016)
4.2.5.
Principal Use-Specific Standards
A. General Standards for a specific principal use shall apply to the particular individual principal use regardless of the zoning district in which it is located or the review procedure by which it is approved, unless otherwise specified in this Ordinance. This section sets forth and consolidates the standards for all principal uses for which a reference to this section is provided in the “Use-Specific Standards” column of the principal use table in Section 4.2.4.C, Principal Use Table, and in the same order as they are listed in the table. These standards may be modified by other applicable standards or requirements in this Ordinance.
B. Standards for Specific Agricultural and Animal Related Uses Agricultural Uses a. Community Garden (1) Overhead lighting is prohibited. (2) Accessory buildings shall be limited to sheds for the storage of tools, greenhouses, and seasonal farm stands. The combined area of all buildings and other structures shall not exceed 15 percent of the area of the parcel. (3) Areas used for communal composting shall be limited to ten percent of the area of the parcel. (4) Perimeter fences, including trellises, are allowed in community gardens, subject to the standards in Section 5.14, Fences and Walls. (5) The community garden shall have an established set of operating rules addressing the governance structure of the garden, hours of operation, assignment of garden plots, and maintenance and security requirements and responsibilities.
285 Morrisville, NC Unified Development Ordinance
June 23, 2017 Page 4-9
TOWN COUNCIL ITEM INFORMATION SUMMARY Item Title:
Development Topic Discussion – Transportation-Related Topics
Item Type:
Town Council Retreat Presentation
Discussion Date:
February 25, 2018
Related Documents:
Town Council Retreat Presentation – Transportation Topics
Item Summary: Public Transportation The presentation will provide Council an update on Wake Transit Plan implementation, and well as guide Council through a discussion of how the Town can expedite transit service in Town. The update includes an overview of the FY2019 Wake Transit Work Plan and a status report of the studies that are currently underway to inform parts of the Wake Transit Plan. Staff has also provided an overview of existing and planned transit service in Town (funded by Wake Transit), and information about how the Town can pursue additional opportunities for transit. Staff is asking Council to provide some guidance and direction on transit for preparation of the FY2019 budget. Development Requirements – Transportation Infrastructure Staff is providing a brief overview of the current requirements in the UDO and adopted 2009 Transportation Plan for transportation infrastructure required to be provided by new development, and leading Council through a policy discussion for development on state-maintained roads where there is a committed NCDOT-funded improvement project. Specifically, staff is asking Council to consider a change in policy for new development in these areas to accept Payment-in-Lieu (PIL) of construction without additional justification. Other Transportation Priorities Staff will provide Council an update on the status of NC 54 improvement projects in the NCDOT Prioritization process, and provide options for Council to evaluate to influence the score and ultimate programming of these projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Staff will also provide an update on the Town’s Sidewalk Construction Program and how staff is working to move the Program forward. Council may ask questions at any time during the presentation
Action Requested:
Council Discussion – No Action Requested
286 100 Town Hall Drive | Morrisville, NC 27560 | P: 919.463.6200 | F: 919.481.2907 | to wnofmorrisville.org
Transportation Topics Town Council Retreat February 25, 2018
287
Presentation Agenda • Public Transportation in Morrisville
• Development Requirements for Transportation Infrastructure • Other Transportation Priorities • Council Discussion & Questions 288
Presentation Overview • Informational Items – Receive updates on Wake Transit Plan Implementation – Receive update on status of NC 54 in NCDOT STIP (10-year funding plan) development process – Receive update on status of Sidewalk Construction Program
• Discussion Items – Additional opportunities for transit in Morrisville • Provide direction to staff for FY19 Budget
– Infrastructure requirements for new development • Provide policy direction to staff – potential UDO Amendment(s)
289
Public Transportation in Morrisville
290
Wake Transit Plan Update Draft FY 2018-2019 Wake Transit Work Plan
291
Transit Plan Four Big Moves
292
Transit Improvements Over the next 10 years, transit improvements will include:
Expanding bus service.
Creating bus rapid transit lines.
Building a 37-mile commuter rail transit system. 293
Proposed FY19 Wake Transit Budget This is the second year of a 10-year plan
Revenues Half-cent local option sales tax Vehicle rental tax
Expenditures
$86.7 million $4.1 million
$7 county vehicle registration tax
$6 million
$3 increase to regional vehicle registration tax
$2.6 million
Total local Other (federal, state,
48%
$99.4 million $16.8 million
fares and debt proceeds)
Total
41%
$116.3 million
1% 1% 3% 2%
4%
Bus Operations/Purchases/Infrastructure Transit Plan and Tax District Administration Debt Service Bus Rapid Transit
294
New FY19 Wake Transit Initiative Free Fare for Youth • The Wake Transit Plan FY 2019 Work Plan includes a Fare-Free Youth Program to make transit more accessible to riders 18 and younger who need to get to school, jobs, museums and other places to encourage them to become lifelong transit riders.
295
FY19 Bus Service Expansion •
•
Realign the Worthdale and Apollo Heights routes by starting four new routes along Poole, Barwell, Rock Quarry, Martin Luther King Jr. and Sunnybrook roads to add much needed service to schools, shopping and a community center in Southeast Raleigh. Realign the Rex Hospital route by starting four routes along Blue Ridge and Edwards Mill roads to serve the NC Museum of Art, the NC Fairgrounds and the PNC Arena.
•
•
Create a new route serving Cary’s largest employment corridor, Weston Parkway, and Park West Village in Morrisville.
Add more than 3,600 trips for the ondemand service that allows customers who are elderly or disabled to get where they need to go.
•
Increase frequency on the express route between Durham and Raleigh (DRX) and the express route between Chapel Hill and Raleigh (CRX).
•
Add service hours to Route 100, which serves RaleighDurham International Airport, and Route 300, which runs between Cary and Raleigh.
•
Add operating hours at the Regional Transit Information Center, 919-485-RIDE (7433). 296
Additional FY19 Investments • Buy additional and replacement buses for GoRaleigh and for GoTriangle to support additional bus service in the years ahead. • Improve 55 bus stops.
• Add more park-and-ride lots and improve existing ones. • Design the Raleigh Union Station Bus Facility.
• Build a regional operations and maintenance facility in Cary. • Develop a strategy for new transit technology to enhance the customer experience
297
Longer-term investments Nearly $47 million (41%) of transit-dedicated revenue collected in the next fiscal year will go toward future transit projects including the planning, design and construction of: Bus Rapid Transit Dedicated bus lanes on roads in four of the busiest corridors so bus operators can bypass traffic and keep their routes on schedule. The plan calls for adding approximately 20 miles of bus rapid transit lanes, priority treatment at traffic signals and faster boarding and easier access for passengers to get on and off the bus. Commuter Rail Transit 37 miles of rail service from Garner to Downtown Raleigh, N.C. State University, Cary, Morrisville and the Research Triangle Park continuing to Durham. Will use existing railroad tracks to provide comfortable passenger service that allows riders to relax or work on their way to key destinations. In addition to the reserve funds, $4.7 million will be invested in required studies and planning to advance the larger bus rapid transit and commuter rail projects in 2018 and 2019.
298
FY19 Work plan approval timeline Jan.
23
March
12
April
2018
May/June 2018
By June
30 July 20182019
Draft FY19 Work Plan released to the public. Public comment period opens. Public comment period closes.
TPAC incorporates feedback and prepares Recommended Work Plan to forward to the CAMPO and GoTriangle boards for consideration. CAMPO public hearing during regularly scheduled board meeting. GoTriangle public hearing during regularly scheduled board meeting.
CAMPO and GoTriangle boards vote on FY19 Work Plan. GoTriangle board votes on Wake operating and capital ordinances. Upon approval, agencies provide new and expanded routes and services. Studies continue for long-term investments.
299
Wake Transit Plan Update Ongoing Studies & Plans Spring 2018 Public Engagement 300
Ongoing Studies & Plans • Public Engagement Policy – Outlines principles, processes and requirements for public engagement – Anticipated completion in July 2018
• Staffing Model & Expectations Plan – Outlines staffing for administration of Transit Plan – Anticipated completion in February 2018
• Community Funding Area Program Management Plan – Outlines how Community Area Funding Program will operate and how funds will be distributed – Anticipated completion Summer 2018
• Wake Transit Bus Plan – Outlines Local, Commuter and Express Bus Services element of Wake Transit Plan – Anticipated completion in September 2018
• Transit Corridors Major Investment Study – Outlines Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Commuter Rail Transit (CRT) elements of Wake Transit Plan – Anticipated completion Fall 2018
• Transit Customer Service Surveys – Outlines what and how feedback will be collected from existing 301 and future transit customers – Annual Surveys
Public Engagement-Spring 2018 Purpose and Goals of Engagement: • Continue to educate the public about the Wake Transit Plan – Includes the Wake Transit Bus Plan and the Major Investment Study
• Gather feedback on draft Wake Transit Bus Plan – Proposed service improvements and phasing of bus network
• Gather feedback on Major Investment Study – Potential BRT alignments, station areas, corridors
Public Engagement Strategies: • • • • •
Community Meetings Presentations at Neighborhood meetings Pop-up events at major transit center and community events Wake Transit Plan Public Engagement Bus Promotional video and online materials
Important to encourage Morrisville Residents to participate – feedback will be used to determine transit implementation 302 timeline!
Public Transportation Service Existing Transit Service Future Wake Transit Plan-Funded Service 303
Existing Transit Service: GoTriangle • Route 300 provides service to Perimeter Park and the Outlet Mall area – Monday-Friday, AM (6:309:15) and PM (3:30-7:15) Peak Periods
• Route 100 provides service to the Outlet Mall area 7 days a week – Monday-Friday, 6:30am10:30pm – Saturday, 7:30am-10:30pm – Sunday, 7:30am-6:30pm
304
Bus Stop Amenities • Existing bus stops in Perimeter Park have signage and concrete pads between the sidewalk and curb-and-gutter • Existing bus stops near the Outlet Mall have signage only • Other typical bus stop amenities include bus shelters, benches and trashcans – These amenities require additional maintenance and cleaning • Trashcans must be emptied regularly
• Considerations for additional amenities: – Shelters require additional space – installed outside of rights-ofway in dedicated easements – Existing bus stops in Town are in road rights-of-way and may be moved with additional Wake Transit service – Perimeter Park stops were reviewed for shelters at time of pad construction • Agency and Town staff determined construction was not feasible – Existing grades 305 – Potential for moving stops
Existing Transit Service: Wake TRACS • Wake TRACS provides demand-response service to parts of Wake County • In Morrisville, most service is limited to certain populations based on funding source: – Medicaid – Grants funding service for employment
• Limited general public service provided • Wake Transit increased funding, allowing Wake TRACS to provide additional general public service
• Wake TRACS provided ridership information: – 29 Unique Clients utilizing TRACS residing in Morrisville in FY17 – 25 Unique Clients utilizing TRACS residing in Morrisville in 1st half of FY18 – 642 trips in FY17 • 102 general public trips
– 209 trips in 1st half of FY18 • 20 general public trips
– Most Popular Destinations: • Cary • Raleigh
306
Proposed Wake Transit Network
307
Proposed Wake Transit Service in Town • Commuter Rail Service – Stop at McCrimmon TOD area
• 30 Minute Bus Service – Serving major destinations in Town • Perimeter Park • Wake Tech campus • McCrimmon TOD/Commuter Rail station • Park West Village
– Service provider and stop locations unknown at this time
308
Public Transportation Opportunities Additional Opportunities
309
Community Funding Area Program • Wake Transit Plan designates the 10 Wake County municipalities that do not operate transit and RTP as Community Funding Areas (CFAs) – Community Funding Areas are eligible for Wake Transit funding to provide additional transit service in their jurisdictions • The funding will be available as matching funds – up to 50% of the cost of service can be funded by Wake Transit
– The Community Funding Area Program Management Plan (expected to be completed Fall 2018) will provide guidance and rules for how funding will be distributed
310
Wake Transit CFA Assumptions • Wake Transit Plan includes cost and type of service assumptions in financial mode for CFAs – Based financial model on Wake Forest downtown circulator • Service span of 14 hours per day • Monday-Friday • 60-minute frequency
– Estimated Cost = $285,000 per year
311
Partnership with GoCary • GoCary currently operates fixed route and paratransit service throughout Cary • GoCary is proposing a new Wake Transit-funded route in FY19 Work Plan serving Park West Village and Weston Parkway • GoCary is best-situated to provide local transit service in Morrisville beyond what is funded by Wake Transit – GoCary = $80/Revenue Hour for Fixed-Route – GoTriangle = $122/Revenue Hour for Fixed-Route
• Estimated start-up time for new route: 12-18 months – Dependent on service and need for additional infrastructure – Develop Agreement for cost-share and governance – Develop detailed route planning and stop designation
312
Considerations • Transit service can be provided several ways: – – – –
Shuttle Service Demand-Response Service Circulator Service Ride-Share Service
• Important considerations in determining type and location of service: – – – –
Ridership Expectations Cost Recovery Populations served Primary Origin points • Neighborhoods
– Popular Destinations • Shopping Centers • Town Parks & Facilities • Major Employment Centers
• Timeline for starting transit service dependent on: – Type of service – Need to purchase vehicles – Need for infrastructure construction • Sidewalk Connections • Bus Stops – Pads – Shelters – Signage
– Service Design – Route and Stop Location – Funding Source • CFA Program • Town Funds
313
Other Considerations • Federal law requires any area with fixed-route service must provide paratransit (demand-response) service and ADA Accessibility for stops – ADA accessibility requires sidewalk connections and ADA-compliant pads
• Transit Service Considerations: – – – – – – –
Type of Service to offer Operator of Service Town Existing Transit Agency Fare Structure Service Area Connections to existing/future transit service
• Transit Planning Study needed: – Determine what areas of Town should be served – Provide guidance on what type(s) of transit service is best suited for Morrisville – Provide preliminary routing and stop information – Provide cost estimates for service – Include Public Engagement efforts
• Options for funding transit planning: – CFA Program – Town funds
314
Transit Implementation • Timeline for transit implementation by Wake Transit – determined by Wake Bus Plan and Major Investment Study – Likely 3-5 years before major bus service and 7-8 years before Commuter Rail in Town – 2018 Public Engagement will provide important feedback for Wake Bus Plan
• Options for Early Implementation – Fund Morrisville Transit Planning Study • Provide insight and data into potential ridership and need
– Work with transit agencies to fund transit in advance of Wake Transit service – Encourage transit-friendly development • Provide transit infrastructure where feasible • Allow targeted areas of density to increase transit propensity – Transit Oriented Development area – McCrimmon Parkway Extension area
315
Development Requirements for Transportation Infrastructure
316
Existing Requirements Transportation Plan & Unified Development Ordinance Funded Transportation Projects 317
Transportation Infrastructure Requirements Unified Development Ordinance: – Frontage Improvements matching Transportation Plan • Sidewalks, road widening, bike lanes
– Intersection Improvements based on Transportation Impact Analysis • Traffic signals, turn lanes, road re-striping
Transportation Plan: – Most roads are recommended for widening in Transportation Plan – All roads are recommended to have curb, gutter and sidewalk or multi-use path – Some roads have recommendation for bike lanes
318
Funded Transportation Projects • The Town and NCDOT have several road projects funded over the next 7 years: McCrimmon Parkway Extension: 2017-2019 Morrisville-Carpenter Road Widening: 2018-2019 Louis Stephens Road: 2018-2019 NC 54 Widening: 2020-2022 McCrimmon Parkway Widening & Grade Separation: 20202023 – NC 147 Extension: 2022-2023 – Aviation Parkway Widening: 2022-2025 – – – – –
• Two sidewalk projects are currently funded by NCDOT: – Airport Boulevard Sidewalk: 2019-2020 – Church Street Sidewalk: 2021-2022
319
Policy Discussion
320
Current and Proposed Policy • Current Policy for implementing UDO requirements: – Development is required to either construct frontage improvements or request a Payment-in-Lieu of construction – Policy has been to require construction if feasible – Staff or Council decide if Payment-in-Lieu will be accepted – Payment-in-Lieu of Construction required to be 150% of Engineer’s Cost Estimate of Construction
• Proposed Policy for implementing UDO requirements: – If development is located on road included in list of funded transportation projects, Town will require Payment-in-Lieu instead of construction – This will allow Town to accumulate funds to contribute to NCDOTfunded road projects for betterments 321
Proposed Policy - Considerations Pros • Allows Town to build up fund for betterments on NCDOT road projects • Avoids multiple periods of construction in one location • Gives developers clear direction
Cons • At 150%, PIL may increase development cost • If NCDOT project is not constructed, Town loses opportunity for frontage improvements • Developers would still have to install road improvements required by TIA or NCDOT driveway permit
Options • Set Policy to require PIL instead of construction on roads with committed NCDOT projects – Reduce 150% requirement for PIL requires UDO amendment
• Continue to require construction, only accepting PIL on case-bycase basis
322
Other Transportation Priorities NC 54 Sidewalk Construction Program 323
NC 54 Improvements Status Update
324
NC 54 Update • CAMPO submitted several NC 54 projects into the NCDOT SPOT prioritization process: – Widening NC 54 from Perimeter Park Drive to Weston Parkway – Aviation Parkway Grade Separation/Intersection Improvement – Airport Boulevard Grade Separation and Extension
• Likely at least one of these projects will receive enough points to be programmed into STIP – Most likely programmed into Developmental Program (FY2025FY2029)
• All NC 54 projects will compete with other submitted Regional Tier projects in our Region – Including (but not limited to) US 401 (Garner and Fuquay Varina), NC 42 (Clayton), NC 98 (North Raleigh), NC 55 Bypass (Holly Springs)
325
Town Influence • Options to influence SPOT scoring and programming of projects – Ensure information is correct in SPOT database – Work with CAMPO to allocate maximum Local Priority Points to project after quantitative score released – Dedicate local funds to project • At time of submittal into SPOT process • At time of Local Priority Point allocation
• Options for dedicating local funds to project – Provide direct funding to NCDOT • Reduce NCDOT cost of project • Improve score to compete with other regional projects • May require $10-$20 million depending on competition
– Partner with NCDOT to fund and manage engineering & design for project • Estimated to be 10-15% of approximately $80 million project cost
326
Sidewalk Construction Program Status Update
327
Background • Council adopted the Sidewalk Program Development Policy on July 28, 2015 – Policy outlined factors and scoring methodology to provide a quantitative ranking of sidewalk construction projects
• Town staff provided a list of identified sidewalk projects to Council in February 2016 Work Session • Following Work Session, staff committee met to review project list and develop a construction program based on project scores • Staff provided an update in September 2016 Work Session – Top-ranked projects needed engineering and permitting prior to construction – Church Street CDBG sidewalk project had been bid – needed additional Town funding – Three other sidewalk projects going to bid – expected to also need additional funds 328 – Council consensus to hold Sidewalk Construction Program until other sidewalk project construction complete
Current Status • All but one sidewalk project has completed construction – NC 54 sidewalk is still under design – expect construction Spring 2018 – Church Street CDBG sidewalk project came in under budget • Wake County returning approx. $11,000
• Next Steps – Staff will reconvene to review sidewalk construction program from 2016 • Confirm or change projects based on changing conditions • Develop RFP for Engineering/Design work • Begin Engineering/Design of top-ranked projects in Spring 2018 – using FY18 budgeted funds • Construction in FY19 dependent on available funds
329
Council Discussion & Questions
330
