HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/27/1997MINUTES ATTACHED
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
s s Vero- Beach, Florida 32960
'toy' Telephone: (561) 567-8000
�M GA):DE D AGENDA
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORKSHOP
FEBRUARY 27,1997
9:00 A.M.
COMMISSION CHAMBERS
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET, VERO BEACH, FL 329(
(561) 56748000, Ext. 490
I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCAL OVERVIEW
Robert M. Keating, AICP, Director
Indian River County Community Development Department
H. OVERVIEW OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOUSING ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Larola Gamble, Director
Indian River County Housing Authority
III. STATE AND LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
William O'Dell, Research Associate
Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing
IV. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS, STATE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS, LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING
INCENTIVES
Susan Leigh, Executive Director
Florida Housing Finance Agency
V. OVERVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOUSING ASSISTANCE INITIATIVES IN
FLORIDA, STATEWIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES,
BARRIERS, POLICY INCENTIVES, AND IMPACT OF SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ON A
COMMUNITY
Wight Greger, Technical Assistance Project Manager
Florida Housing Coalition
Arthur Fleming, FHC Board Member, Executive Director of the Community Financing
Consortium, Inc.
VI. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
BOOK M PAGE
INDEX TO MINUTES
FEBRUARY 27, 1997
SPECIAL MEETING OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORKSHOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCAL OVERVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
II. OVERVIEW OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOUSING ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
III. STATE/LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT 9 -
IV.
-IV. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS, STATE
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS, LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING
INCENTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
V. OVERVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOUSING ASSISTANCE
INITIATIVES IN FLORIDA, STATEWIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES, BARRIERS, POLICY INCENTIVES, AND
IMPACT OF SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ON A COMMUNITY . . . . . 28
VI. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Thursday, February 27, 1997
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met for a Special Affordable Housing Workshop in County
Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Thursday, February 27, 1997, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Carolyn K.
Eggert, Chairman; John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; and
Caroline D. Ginn. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht was absent. Also
present were Community Development Director Robert M. Keating,
William G. Collins, II, Deputy County Attorney, and Patricia
Ridgely, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order and expressed her
pleasure at the number of people in attendance.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORKSHOP
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 21, 1997:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
D B1.0 HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. keaLng, AICP
Community Development Director
FROM: Sasan Rohan, AICP --5'-W_
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: February 21, 1997
SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORKSHOP
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its workshop meeting on February 27, 1997.
1
February 27, 1997
BOOK 0 -L{,; lyr
At its January 28, 1997 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners reviewed requests for
statements of support from developers of six different Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program
projects. Because of the number of proposed projects, the Board questioned the need for and impact
of so many affordable housing developments. In addition, the Board raised other issues, including
allowable density levels, affordable housing density bonus provisions, local government affordable
housing obligations, aesthetics, and others. While approving statements of support for each of the
six proposed projects, the Board directed staff to schedule a workshop to study affordable housing
related issues. The workshop is scheduled for February 27, 1997.
In setting up the workshop, staff contacted several housing agencies in the state. These included:
the Florida Housing Finance Agency PFA), the Florida Housing Coalition, the Shimberg Center
for Affordable Housing, and the Affordable Housing Study Commission, as well as the Indian River
County Housing Authority. Each of these agencies has agreed to send a representative to the
workshop at no cost to the county.
Among the issues to be addressed at the workshop are:
• Dynamics of the housing market
• Need for affordable housing
Number of units
• Location
• Relationship of affordable housing to subsidized housing
• Need for local programs and regulations to support affordable housing projects
Affordable housing density bonus
Expedited penniitting -
Others -
• Potential benefits and problems associated with affordable housing projects
• Impact of subsidized housing projects on existing non -subsidized market rate
housing projects
• Local, state and federal housing programs
The housing agency representatives attending the workshop will address those and other affordable
housing issues. More importantly, these representatives will provide information on how other local
governments in the state address affordable housing. As with all workshops, the presenters will be
available to address questions raised by the Board or by other workshop attendees.
According to the census, Indian River County is no longer a rural area. 1990 census data indicated
that Vero Beach and the densely populated area around the city constitute an urbanized area. That
urbanization trend is illustrated by past growth and future population projections. The following
table indicates the county's historic population growth as well as future population projections
K
February 27, 1997
M S M
a � �
WSTORIC POPULATION 1930-1990NUTURE POPULATION PROJECTIONS
MIAN RIVER COUNTY
YEAR
POPULATION
NUMERICAL INCREASE
% INCREASE
1930
6,724
1940
8,957
2,233
332
1950
11,872
2,915
32.5
1960
25,309
13,437
1132
1970
35,992
10,683
422
1980
59,896
23,904
66.4
1990
90,208
30,312
50.6
2000
111,300
21,092
23.4
2010
132,600
21,300
19.1
2020
154,200
21,600
16.3
Source: U.S. Deparwent of Commerce, Bureau of the Census
University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research
Indian River County has experienced tremendous growth since 1930. In recent years, the rate of
growth has slowed, however, the county is still growing faster then the state. The county's 1996
population estimate was 102,211. Between 1996 and the year`'2020, the county's population is
projected to increase by 51,989, or 51%.
As growth occurs, various issues need to be addressed. One such issue is affordable housing.
Affordable Housing
Every household incurs expenses for the basic necessities of human existence. These expenditures
are food, clothing and shelter. In relation to this last item, shelter, or housing as it is commonly
referred to, the county is an interested party, as its regulations, policies, and procedures affect the
cost of housing. In securing adequate housing, the payment of some minimum price is expected.
The difficulty is ensuring that housing costs will not force low income households to forego some
of their other basic needs. For that reason, the issue of housing affordability is one which all
communities, including Indian River County, must face.
Indian River County's adopted affordable housing definition is:
"Housing occupied by a household paying housing expenses which do not exceed 30% of
the household's gross income. Monthly housing cost for owner -occupied housing shall
include mortgage principal and interest, taxes, and insurance. Monthly housing cost for
renter -occupied housing shall include contract rent. However, it is not the intent to limit a
household's ability to devote more than 30% of its income for housing. Programs and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan with regard to affordable housing shall be limited to
those households in the very low (less than 50% of median income), low (51-80% of
median) and moderate (81-120% of median) income groups."
Housing Needs
The following table identifies the number and percentage of owner -occupied and renter -occupied
households in Indian River County paying more than 30% of their income for housing. In the higher
income categories, the payment of more than 30% of a household's income for housing is generally
not a problem. Instead, it reflects the household's choice to devote more of its income to housing.
In the lower income categories, however, paying over 30% of household income for housing
indicates an affordability problem.
3y��. Y s
PAGE itis
February 27, 1997 -
BOOP( 1.03 FAGS,te14
HOUSEHOLDS WITH HOUSING AFFORD ABILITY PROBLEM (1989)
OWNER -OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS
HOUSEHOLD
INCOME
ACCEPTABLE
RANGE OF
q OF HOUSEHOLDS
PAYING MORE THAN
CUMULATIVE
TOTAL
% OF TOTAL
HOUSEHOLDS WrrH
INCOME
RANGE OF
PAYING MORE THAN
TOTAL
SPECIFIND
AFFORD ABILITY
3.579
HOUSING COST
30% OF THEM
OWNER
PROBLEM
INCOME FOR
OCCUPIED
HOUSING COST
UNITS 1
Less than 10,000
Less dun $250
988
988
5.22
V
510,000 - 519,000
S250-$500
940
1,928
10.22
Of 1
$20,000 - S34,999
5500 - SB75
947
2,875
15.25
V
535,000 - $49,999
$875 - S1,125
345
3,220
17.08
Over 550,000
More dm S1,125
454
3,674
19.48
1. Total specified owner occupied units 18,848 Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing
As indicated in the above table, 15.25% of owner -occupied households with incomes less than
$35,000 are paying more than 30% of their income for housing costs.
RENTER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS
HOUSEHOLD
ACCEPTABLE
# OF HOUSEHOLDS
CUMULATIVE
% OF TOTAL
HOUSEHOLDS Wl7ii
INCOME
RANGE OF
PAYING MORE THAN
TOTAL
SPECIFIED
AFFORD ABnxrY
3.579
HOUSING COST
30% OF THEIR
RENTER
PROBLEM
INCOME FOR
OCCUPY
HOUSING COST
UNITS 1
Less than 10,000
Less dun 5250
1,326
1,326
14.07
V
S 10,000 - 519,000
$250 - $500
11690
3,016
32.02
Of 1
$20,000 - $34,999
$500-$975
603
3,619
38.42
V
$35,000 - S49,999
$875 - SIAS
91
3,710
39.39
Over $50,000
More duan $1,125
28
3,738
39.68
�fl11HM•
1 UO/1 !`nnmrc n{'Dnw..1-.:..�
...J v_ ._L_
1. Total specified Tenter occupied units 9,418
As indicated in the above table, 38.42% of renter occupied households with incomes less than
$35,000 are paying more than 30% of their income for rent.
The table below identifies the existing and future shortage of affordable housing both for renter
and owner occupied.
SHORTAGE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING
1995 ANn 2(M
INCOME CATEGORY
1995
2000
OWNER UNITS RENTER UNITS
OWNER UNITS
RENTER UNITS
VLI• Only
4,470 1,202
3,544
823
VLI and LI 1
4,209 1,227
3.579
7%
.,.....w. Luaawua C MUSHIg ASSGSURCut Kapon, Unversay oI rionaa, 5nunoorg::cm Ibr Anordabic dousing
In a growing areas, even balanced growth will result in affordable housing needs. Because every
community creates a need for workers, many of whom are not well paid, there is a corresponding
need for affordable housing. While the need for affordable housing continually increases in a
growing area, local government regulations often increase the cost of housing and limit the
ability of the private sector to meet overall housing needs.
4
February 27, 1997
Local governments cause housing costs to increase through various regulations that they impose
upon development. These include density, building heights, environmental requirements, impact
fees and others. Although these regulations are necessary to maintain the community's quality of
life or to ensure that infrastructure costs are paid by those creating demand, the result is that a
disproportionate cost is assessed to lower cost development such as housing units in the
affordable range.
Comprehensive Plan Requirements
Under Florida's comprehensive planning requirements (Sec. 163, F.S. and Ch. 9J-5, F.A.C.), all
communities are required, as part of their comprehensive plans, to address the issue of housing
affordability. Following is a brief summary of these requirements:
• The purpose of the housing element is to provide guidance to local governments
to develop appropriate plans and policies to meet identified or projected deficits in
the supply of housing for very low, low, and moderate income households. (Sec.
9J-5.010, F.A.C.)
• The housing element must contain an inventor+ including the affordable housing
needs assessment (Sec. 9J -5.010(1)(c), F.A.C.)
•
The housing element analysis must include the housing needs of current and
anticipated firture residents, including an affordable housing needs assessment.
(Sec. 9J -5.010(2)(b), F.A.C.)
• The housing element shall contain an objective for creation and/or preservation of
affordable housing for all current and anticipated future residents. (Sec. 9J -
5.010(3)(b)1., F.A.C.)
• The housing element shall contain the following policies
Specific programs and actions to streamline the permitting process and
minimize costs and delays of housing, especially affordable housing (Sec.
9J -5.010(3)(c) 2., F.A.C.)
Establishment of principles and criteria guiding the location of housing for
very low, low, and moderate income households (Sec. 9J -5.010(3)(c) 5.,
F.A.C.)
The utilization of job twining, job creation and economic solutions to
address a portion of affordable housing concerns (Sec. 9J -5.010(3)(c) 8.,
F.A.C.)
Confirming current arrangements with other local governments concerning
affordable housing (Sec. 9J -5.010(3)(c) 10., F.A.C.)
Designating within the county sufficient sites at sufficient densities to
accommodate the need for affordable housing (Sec. 9J -5.010(3)(b) 3.,
F.A.C.) and (Sec. 9J -5.010(3)(c) I I., F.A.C.)
Also, section 420.9076, F.S. has specific requirements regarding the provision of affordable
housing within the county.
Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
The county's comprehensive plan has specific objectives and policies related to the provision of
affordable housing. These objectives and policies are summarized below.
5
February 27, 1997 600W PAGE �F;
E00K 10-J FADE TIJ
Objective 1, to reduce housing costs and to ensure that affordable housing is
available to the very low, low, and moderate income households
Policy 1.1, to review all county codes, regulations, ordinances, and policies to
determine their impact on housing development costs
Policy 1.2, to encourage infill development
Policy 1.5, to identify federal, state, and other sources of funding earmarked for
low and moderate income housing.
Policy 1.7, to encourage the stabilization and redevelopment of older
neighborhoods
Policy 2.2, to designate land with sufficient density to facilitate a wide variety of
housing development
Policy 2.5, to provide an affordable housing density bonus through planned
development process
Objective 4, to provide direct affordable housing assistance to qualified applicants
or assist them to secure funding
Policy 4.3, to provide a mechanism for the amortization of impact fees for new
affordable housing projects
Policy 4.4, to establish a housing trust fund
Policy 4.5, to request that the state impose a surtax on documentary stamps for
local housing assistance
Policy 4.6, to enter into interlocal agreements with other jurisdictions desiring to
participate in the housing trust fiord
• Land Development Regulations
The county's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) affecting affordable housing are as
follows:
Regulations providing up to a 20% affordable housing density bonus for
development projects.
Regulations allowing for small lot subdivisions with reduced setbacks, lot
size, and lot width requirements. -
Regulations allowing for accessory single-family dwelling units in all
agricultural and residential zoning districts.
Regulations allowing multi -family dwelling units in conjunction with
commercial development, such as apartments over commercial buildings.
Regulations allowing zero lot line subdivisions.
Transfer of density provisions allowing density to be transferred from
wetland properties to upland properties.
Future Land Use Map
The county's future land use map allows higher residential densities along major roadways and near
recreational facilities, community service centers, employment centers, shopping areas, personal
service areas, and healthcare facilities. Within the unincorporated area, 10 units per acre is the
highest residential density allowed. Two areas have the 10 unit per acre designation; these are the
area east of U.S. #1 from Oslo Road to 17th Street and the Gifford area. The second densest
designation allowed by the land use map is M-1, up to 8 units per acre. M-1 areas are located east
of U.S. #1 from the hospital commercial node north to 57th Street and along S.R. 60 from 58th
Avenue to 100th Avenue.
These areas are appropriate for multi -family residential development. Because of their location near
commercial activity centers, those areas provide for reduced automobile travel, easy access to
employment centers, easy access to other services, and compatibility with the adjacent uses. These
areas also serve as potential firture transit corridors.
C
February 27, 1997
r � �
Consistent with the intent of the comprehensive plan, recent affordable housing projects have located
in the M-1 and M-2 areas. It is anticipated that future affordable housing developments will also
locate in these areas.
Local, State and Federal Programs
Even though there are many state and federal housing programs, Indian River County participates
in only a limited number of them. Of nine state programs, Indian River County participates only in
the State Housing Initiatives Partnerships (SHIP) Program and the Low Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) Program. The Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) Program is a competitive
program, whereby applicants in Indian River County must compete with applicants within 37 small
Florida counties (list of counties is attached). Due to limited funding, only a few projects can
actually be approved for participation in LIHTC program. For the 1997 fimding cycle, there is
$18,000,000 available; 60% of it is allocated for large counties; 30% for median counties, and only
10% ($1,800,000) for all 37 small counties including Indian River County. Following is a summary
of housing units provided/assisted through various governmental programs.
STATE HOUSING PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
0 OF UNITS
*SHIP
175
*URIC [ I.R. APTS (180), KYLES RUN (200), GIFFORD
GROVES (60)]
440
TOTAL
616
%ofTotal 1995 Housing Units
1.15%
FEDERAL HOUSING PROGRAMS
PROGRAMS
# OF UNITS
'SECTION 8 CERT F1CATES AND VOUCHERS (WAITING
LIST 222)
347
'FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
200
'SECTION 202 (PART OF SECTION 8)
go
TOTAL
643
% of Total 1995 Housing Units
120%
GRAND TOTAL
1259 (2.35% of total housing units)
As indicated in the above analysis, Indian River County, like every county in the state, has residents
with housing affordability problems. As the county continues to grow, these problems will increase.
As required by state law, the county must address the issue of housing affordability.
►i_I_►� I ► I 1 _ 71 .
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners review all information provided at the
workshop and provide direction to staff.
I. INTRODUCTION AND LOCAL OVERVIEW
Robert M. Keating, Community Development Director; advised of
the format and introduced representatives who had come to make
presentations from the perspective of their various agencies.
Director Keating expanded on the population charts and other
7
February 27, 1997 BOOK 'AGk f 4
BOOK 1_0J PAGE 73
information in the memorandum and commented on the growth of the
county. He reviewed the definition of affordable housing and
emphasized that affordable housing does not necessarily mean
subsidized housing. He identified the areas on a map of the county
showing where future multi -family affordable housing developments
are likely to occur. (see memorandum for description of these
areas.)
Director Keating advised that resident profiles had been
requested from the developers of the most recent affordable housing
complexes. He reviewed the following chart from Indian River
Apartments and pointed out that the numbers indicate there are not
a lot of unemployed people taking advantage of subsidized housing
living in the complex.
INDIAN RIVER APARTMENTS
RESIDENT PROFILE
Resident Occupation by Major
Administrative/Professional
47
Retail Trade
31
Services
61
Medical Services
10
ManufacturinglConstruction
.21
Teachers/Students
26
Retired
18
Other (including agricultural and
16
unemployed)
Minor -Child
104
II. OVERVIEW OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
Larcla Gamble, Director of Indian River County Housing
Authority, reminded the Board that federal housing subsidies have
been reduced under the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
She explained the two types of subsidies: tenant -based (HUD -
Section 8) and project -based (Farmers Home Administration) and
related how the reduced HUD funds have affected both. She
explained the Kemp & Cisneros program and how affordable housing
relates to the program.
Ms. Gamble stressed that "subsidy" and "affordable" do not
equate to squalor and ghetto. She pointed out that most of the
8
February 27, 1997
people who need subsidy are hard working earning $5 to $7 per hour
and cannot afford monthly rent of $500 in addition to other
necessary living expenses. The program is to help these people and
more affordable housing is needed in Indian River County.
Ms. Gamble emphasized that any multi -family housing requires
intense management.
At the conclusion of Ms. Gamble's presentation, Commissioner
Ginn asked if the need in Indian River County was based on any
specifics, and Ms. Gamble advised that studies have been done but
she did not have the results with her. The studies were done with
respect to Disney Resort and the two new malls. Ms. Gamble advised
that many of the workers for these three projects live in another
county because they cannot afford to live in this county.
Chairman Eggert thought the biggest misunderstanding in
people's minds is the difference between visions of the old lipublic
housing projects" and what is now being done with subsidized
housing developments.
Ms. Gamble invited the Board to take a tour of some of the
subsidized housing developments.
Commissioner Ginn commented that she has been a mentor to some
of the people who live in the projects and was familiar with them.
III. STATE/LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT
William O'Dell, Research Associate, Shimberg Center for
Affordable Housing, advised that Shimberg is under contract with
the Department of Community Affairs to produce an affordable
housing needs assessment methodology and reports designed for use
by cities and counties that are used for updating Housing Elements
in their Evaluation and Appraisal Reports (EARS).
Mr. O'Dell presented the following data using the EIMO and
pointed out interesting or note -worthy comparisons.
Indian River Co. Household Estimates & Projections 1990 - 2010
Indian River Co. Household Estimates & Projections 1990 - 2010
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Owner Households
28,561
31,537
34,823
37,357
39,691
Renter Households
9,496
10,380
11,514
12,486
13,294
All Households
38,057
41,917
46,337
49,843
52,985
Elderly Households (65+)
15,333
18,100
19,615
19,652
19,226
Indian River Co. Household Estimates & Projections 1990 - 2010
as a Percent of Total Households
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
Owner Households
75.0%
75.2%
75.2%
74.9%
74.9%
Renter Households
25.0%
24.8%
24.8%
25.1%
25.1%
Elderly Households (65+)
40.3%
43.2%
42.3%
39.4%
36.3%
9
February 27, 1997
BOOK IWO FAuL
50,000
50,000
40,000
0
x 90,000
0
z
20,000
10,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
H
0
m 6,000
rn
0
= 5,000
0
a)
E 4,000
z
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
0
SOON PAGE@
Indian River Co. Household Estimates & Projections 1880 - 2010
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
■ Owner Households ■ RWft H0USdWWS 13M Households ■ Elderly HauslnWs (W)
Indian River Co. Householders by Age $ Tenure in 1990
15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+
Age Range
10
February 27, 1997
® Owner
■ Renter
O All
M
Householders by Age & Tenure in 1990
Age
Householders - Number
Percent of Total by Category
Ranges
Owner
Renter
All
Owner
Renter
All
15-24
264
903
1,167
0.9%
9.5%
3.1%
25-34
2,504
2,776
5,280
8.8%
29.2%
13.9%
35-44
3,846
1,943
5,789
13.5%
20.5%
15.2%
45-54
3,403
1,027
4,430
11.9%
10.8%
11.6%
55-64
5,234
824
6,058
18.3%
8.7%
15.9%
65-74
8,340
945
9,285
29.2%
10.0%
24.4%
75+
4.970
1.078
6.048
17.4%
11.4%
15.9%
Total
28,561
9,496
38,057
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
65-74
24%
65-74
12%
Householders by Age in 1990
15-24
75+ 3%
I— 9rlu
75+
23%
55-64
16%
45-54
12%
Householders by Age in 2010
15-24
4%
25-34
,dillg= 9001h, 13%
55-64
16%
45-54
18%
35-44
15%
35-44
14%
February 27, 1997 F�
0
Indian River Co. Households by Income 1990
Households by Tenure
12
February 27, 1997
gee--� r -c
1 P�CaE 1 P�
Income Range
Owner
Renter
Owner
Renter
< $10,000
3,162
1,682
10.9%
18.4%
$10,000 -19999
5,191
2,329
17.9%
25A%
$20,000 - 34999
7,677
2,844
26.5%
31.0%
$35,000 - 49999
5,323
1,266
18.4%
13.8%
> $50,000
7.602
1.039
26.3%
11.3%
TOTAL
28,955
9,160
100.0%
100.0%
Elderly Households (65+)
Income Range
Owner
Renter
Owner
Renter
< $10,000
2,189
708
16.1%
36.1%
$10,000 -19999
3,094
460
22.7%
23.4%
$20,000 - 34999
3,607
417
26.5%
21.2%
$35,000 - 49999
2,020
155
14.8%
7.9%
> $50,000
2.717
223
19.9%
11.4%
TOTAL
13,627
1,963
100.0%
100.04%
All Households
Income Range
< $10,000
4,844
12.7%
$10,000- 19999
7,520
19.7%
$20,000 - 34999
10,521
27.6%
$35,000 - 49999
6,589
17.3%
> $50,000
8.641
22.7%
TOTAL
38,115
100.0%
1990 PERSONS PER ROOM - Occupied Housing Units
1.01
or more
Share of
Share of Occ. Units
Florida
Persons per Room Occupied Units
Indexed to the State (FL=1)
Brevard
3,969
2.5%
0.42
Indian River
1,016
2.7%
0.46
Martin
1,315
3.1%
0.53
St. Lucie
2,624
4.5%
0.78
FLORIDA
297,557
5.8%
1.00
12
February 27, 1997
gee--� r -c
1 P�CaE 1 P�
1990 HOUSE HEATING FUEL - Occupied Housing Units
No Fuel
Florida
Used
Brevard
1,231
Indian River
456
Martin
490
St. Lucie
495
FLORIDA
75,112
Share of
Share of Occ. Units
Occupied Units
Indexed to the State (FL=1)
0.8%
0.52
1.2%
0.82
1.1%
0.78
0.9%
0.58
1.5%
1.00
1990 KITCHEN FACILITIES - All Housing Units
13
February 27, 1997
BOOK 1-1.00 F1AGE IU
A
Lacking Complete
Share of
Share Indexed to
Florida
Facilities
Units
the State (FL=1)
Brevard
513
0.3%
0.51
Indian River
230
0.5%
0.90
Martin
161
0.3%
0.55
St. Lucie
235
0.3%
0.59
FLORIDA
33,155
0.5%
1.00
1990 PLUMBING FACILITIES - All Housing Units
Lacking Complete
Share of
Share Indexed to
Florida
Facilities
Units
the State (FL=1)
Brevard
386
0.2%
0.45
Indian River
206
0.4%
0.95
Martin
234
0.4%
0.94
St Lucie
253
0.3%
0.75
FLORIDA
27,957
0.5%
1.00
13
February 27, 1997
BOOK 1-1.00 F1AGE IU
A
PF -
Housing Condition Summary -1999
occupied housing units w ibitlng one or more of the following characterMcs:
lacking complete plumbing or kitchen facilities, 1.01+ persons per room, no healing fuel
February 27, 1997
a
14
a
MOO NO Y� /e�
PAGE off .�,
Subsiandard
Total Occ.
Substandard as a
Florida
Occupied Units
Units
% of Total Occ.
Alachua
3,764
71,258
5.3%
Baker
396
5,554
7.1%
Bay
1,647
48,938
3.4%
Bradford
355
7,193
4.9%
Brevard
4,857
161,365
3.0%
Broward
39,258
528,442
7.4%
Chun
233
3,793
6.1%
Charlotte
1,345
48,433
2.8%
crus
1,003
40,573
25%
Clay
1,290
36,683
3.5%
Collier
3,985
61,703
6.5%
Columbia
1,081
15,611
6.9%
Dade
148,141
692,355
21.4%
De Soto
682
8,222
8.3%
Dbde
256
3,916
6.8%
Doral
13,363
257,245
52%
Escambia
4,273
98,608
4.3%
Fiogler
324
11,880
Z7%
Franklin
299
3,628
82%
Gadsden
1,654
13,405
123%
Gilchrist
232
3,284
7.1%
Glades
255
2885
8.8%
Gulf
195
4,324
4.5%
Hamilton
356
3,488
102%
Hardee
635
6,391
9.9%
Hendry
1,138
8,402
13.5%
Hernando
1,295
42.300
3.1%
Highlands
1.454
29,544
4.9%
Hillsborough
17,559
324,872
5.4%
Holmes
350
SAW
6.0%
Indian River
1,499
38,067
3.90/6
Jackson
719
14,465
5.0%
Jefferson
432
3,982
10.8%
Lafayette
90
1,721
52%
Labe
2,208
63,616
3.5%
Lee
5,459
140,124
39%
Leon
3,470
74,828
4.6%
Levy
623
10,079
62%
Liberty
109
1,706
6.4% . -
Madison
524
5,522
9.5%
Manatee
3,685
911060
4.0%
Marion
3.611
78,177
4.6%
Martin
1,782
43,022
4.1%
Monroe
9.227
33.583
27.5%
Nassau
781
16,192
4.8%
Okaloosa
1,623
53.313
3.0%
Okeechobee
980
10,214
9.6%
Orange
14,202
254,852
5.6%
Osceola
2,300
39,150
59%
Palm Beach
21.694
365,558
5.9%
Pasco
3,188
121,674
Z6%
Pinellas
11,137
380.635
2.9%
Pops
8,146
155,969
52%
Putnam
1,516
25,070
6.0%
SL Johns
1.441
33,426
4.3%
St. Lucie
3,072
58,174
5.3%
Santa Rosa
1,046
29,900
3.5%
Sarasota
2,958
125,493
Z4%
Seminole
3,395
107,657
32%
Sunder
716
12.119
59%
Suwannee
613
10.034
&1%
Taylor
532
6,401
8.3%
Union
284
2,658
10.7%
Vokasta
4,621
153.416
3.0%
Wakulla
458
5,210
8.8%
Walton
463
11,294
4.1%
Washington
6,443
6.8%
FLORIDA
370.739
5,134,869
72%
February 27, 1997
a
14
a
MOO NO Y� /e�
PAGE off .�,
OWNER COST DISTRIBUTED BY COST TO INCOME
OWNI - TAB Stab ir.xls
226197
NUMBER
YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT
5
FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED HOUSING (as of 9/30195)
MONTHLY OWNER COSTS - SPECIFIED OWNER -OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS*
-- - __ ..
246
Coat -to -Income Retia Feflsmere
Share by Decade
Orchid
Sebastian
Vero Beach
Unincorporated
Total
Number of Households
Public
before
Florida
1980's
1970's
1960's 1950's 1940's
1940
Brevard
42.4%
21.2%
23.3% 9.8%
1.7%
1.5%
Indian River
44.3%
29.2%
12.0% 9.0%
2.9%
2.7%
Martin
43.1%
35.9%
11.4% 6.0%
1.4%
2.2%
St. Lucie
49.7%
27.7%
10.5% 7.6%
2.2%
2.3%
FLORIDA
35.0%
29.3%
16.3% 11.7%
4.0%
3.7%
OWNER COST DISTRIBUTED BY COST TO INCOME
OWNI - TAB Stab ir.xls
226197
NUMBER
AND PERCENT OF SPECIFIED OWNER -OCCUPIED HOUSINGUNITS*
PAYING 30% OR MORE OF THEIR INCOME FOR OWNER COSTS
huffan River Co
5
FEDERALLY SUBSIDIZED HOUSING (as of 9/30195)
MONTHLY OWNER COSTS - SPECIFIED OWNER -OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS*
-- - __ ..
246
Coat -to -Income Retia Feflsmere
Indian River Shores
Orchid
Sebastian
Vero Beach
Unincorporated
Total
Number of Households
Public
9
14
0
132
As a % of
711
1,036
Vero Beach Unincorporated
35%+
20
Housing Section 8
Section 8
332
Est. 1995
1995 Est.
Florida
202 207/223
221
232
236 515 514/516 Units
New
CedJVou.
Total
Households
Households
Brevard
286
0
484
0
182 0 0 1,581
142
797
3,472
181,818
1.9%
Indian River
80
0
0
0
0 165 200 0
0
347
792
42,757
1.9%
Martin
99
0
0
0
0 32 60 70
0
50
311
48,049
0.6%
St. Lucie
0
0
0
0
0 0 0 850
60
732
1,842
67,829
2.4%
FLORIDA
11,642
5,298
17,042
2,129
11,679 15,268 3,742 45,749
4,514
64,925
181,986
5,640,875
3.2%
OWNER COST DISTRIBUTED BY COST TO INCOME
228!97
OWNI - TAB Stab ir.rds
OWNER COST DISTRIBUTED BY COST TO INCOME
OWNI - TAB Stab ir.xls
226197
NUMBER
AND PERCENT OF SPECIFIED OWNER -OCCUPIED HOUSINGUNITS*
PAYING 30% OR MORE OF THEIR INCOME FOR OWNER COSTS
huffan River Co
5
0
MONTHLY OWNER COSTS - SPECIFIED OWNER -OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS*
-- - __ ..
246
Coat -to -Income Retia Feflsmere
Indian River Shores
Orchid
Sebastian
Vero Beach
Unincorporated
Total
Number of Households
30-34%
9
14
0
132
170
711
1,036
Vero Beach Unincorporated
35%+
20
105
0
332
509
1,672
2,638
$10,000-19999
Not Computed
0
14
0
26
36
138
214
Total Households
22.9%
219
560
0
2,958
3,438
11,671
18,646
Percent of Households (excl.
30-34%
4.1%
2.6%
0.0%
4.5%
5.0%
6.2%
5.60/0
Not Computed)
35%+
9.1%
1920/0
0.0%
11.3%
15.0%
14.5%
14.20/a
Total
1320A
21.896
0.00/0
15.896
20.0%
20.7%
19.7%
OWNER COST DISTRIBUTED BY COST TO INCOME
OWNI - TAB Stab ir.xls
226197
RENTAL COST DISTRIBUTED BY RENT TO INCOME
RNTI - TAB Stab Iritis
PAYING 30% OR MORE OF THEIR INCOME FOR GROSS RENT
__. _... .,..o
PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS PAYING 30% OR MORE OF THEIR INCOME FOR
23
59
5
0
MONTHLY OWNER COSTS - SPECIFIED OWNER -OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS*
-- - __ ..
246
..,u,wu, Taira
418
Not Computed
BY LEVELS OF INCOME IN 1989
37
7
0
186
1,102
1,584
Indian River County
205
115
Income
Fellsmere
Indian River Shores Orchid Sebastian
Vero Beach Unincorporated
:ant of Households (excl.
County Total
< $10,000
23.5%
100.0% 0.0% 61.3%
77.5%
54.9%
60.3%
$10,000-19999
30.9%
70.6% 0.0% 21.5%
30.0%
35.9%
31.7%
$20,000 - 34999
3.4%
65.4% 0.0% 13.6%
14.5%
22.9%
19.7%
$35,000 - 49999
0.0%
26.4% 0.0% 4.0%
12.1%
9.8%
9.3%
> $50,000
10.50/0
14.8% 0.00/0 1.9%
8.5%
8.00/0
82%
RENTAL COST DISTRIBUTED BY RENT TO INCOME
RNTI - TAB Stab Iritis
PAYING 30% OR MORE OF THEIR INCOME FOR GROSS RENT
__. _... .,..o
15
February 27, 1997
226/97
BOOK -1FAGS "4
wt
0-#W
35%+
23
59
5
0
-
78
-- - __ ..
246
..,u,wu, Taira
418
Not Computed
14
37
7
0
186
1,102
1,584
d Households
205
115
0
55
156
326
:ant of Households (excl.
30-34%
12.0/0
4.6%
0
783
3,124
5,181
Computed)
35%+
30.9%
34.3%
0.0%
0.0%
10.7%
°
8.11%
8.6%
Total
42.9%
38.9%
0.0°A
25.5%
38.3°A
37.1%
is tet
32.6%
,.
15
February 27, 1997
226/97
BOOK -1FAGS "4
BOOK 1-001 PAGE 7 4 .
Indian River County Cost Burden Table - number of households
paying 30% or more of income towards housing costs
RENTAL COST DISTRIBUTED BY RENT TO INCOME
Renter Households
RNTI - TAB Stab_Ir.)ds
226/97
PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLDS PAYING 30% OR MORE OF THEIR INCOME FOR GROSS RENT
1995
2000
2005
BY LEVELS OF INCOME IN 1989
1990
1995
2000
2005
SPECIFIED RENTER -OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS"
< $10,000
1,907
2,174
2,497
Indian River County
3,050
1,554
1,821
Income
< $10,000
Fellsmere Indian Rtver Shores Orchid Sebastian Vero Beach Unincorporated
2,477
County T
$10,000 -19999
92.5% 100.0% 0.0% 81.8%
66.1%
89.8%
95.1%
92.
$20,000 - 34999
100.0% 0.0% 100.0%
6.8%
73.0%
71.6%
73.
$35,000 - 49999
52.4% 0.0% 31.2%
0.0%
16.4%
21.6%
21.
> $50,000
28.6% 0.0% 0.0%
0.0% 0.0%
2.0%
11.1%
7.
852
0.0% 0.0%
82%
1.0%
2.
Indian River County Cost Burden Table - number of households
paying 30% or more of income towards housing costs
100%
90%
80%
V 70%
0
r
H 60%
O
2
0 50%
0
CD
G 40%
m
2
a 30%
20%
10%
0%
Indian River County - Percentage of Households Paying More than 30% of Income
Towards Housing Costs by Income Category in 1990
< $10,000 $10,000 -19999 $20,000 - 34999 $35,000 -49999 > $50,000
Income Range
16
February 27, 1997
®Owner
■Renter
Owner Households
Renter Households
Income Range
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
1990
1995
2000
2005
2010
< $10,000
1,907
2,174
2,497
2,781
3,050
1,554
1,821
2,078
2,302
2,477
$10,000 -19999
1,646
1,833
2,072
2,311
2,562
1,716
1,961
2,156
2,327
2,496
$20,000 - 34999
1,512
1,666
1,851
2,035
2,246
597
677
737
794
852
$35,000-49999
495
545
608
671
741
92
106
116
124
131
> $50,000
623
697
787
872
956
29
34
38
42
44
TOTAL
6,183
6,915
7,815
8,670
9,555
3,988
4,599
5,125
5,589
6,000
100%
90%
80%
V 70%
0
r
H 60%
O
2
0 50%
0
CD
G 40%
m
2
a 30%
20%
10%
0%
Indian River County - Percentage of Households Paying More than 30% of Income
Towards Housing Costs by Income Category in 1990
< $10,000 $10,000 -19999 $20,000 - 34999 $35,000 -49999 > $50,000
Income Range
16
February 27, 1997
®Owner
■Renter
2,000
1,800
1,600
H 1,400
'o
0
= 1,200
d
N
7
O
= 1,000
0
a 800
E
Z 600
400
- 200
0
Indian River County - Number of Households Paying More than 30% of Income Towards
Housing Costs by Income Category In 1990
< $10,000 $10,000 -19999 $20,000 - 34999 $35,000 - 49999 ".$50,006*
Income Range
Regional & State Cost Burden Table - percentage of households
paying 30% or more of income towards housing costs
Owner Households -1990
Renter Households -1990
Income Range
Indian River
Brevard
Martin
St. Lucie
Florida
Indian River
Brevard
MarBn
St. Lucie
< $10,000
60.3%
67.6%
58.8%
62.5%
62.4%
92.4%
88.0%
93.9%
88.7%
$10,000 -19999
31.7%
43.3%
33.0%
41.6%
39.9%
73.7%
72.4%
72.2%
77.0%
$20,000 - 34999
19.7%
25.8%
27.7%
24.1%
26.6%
21.0%
17.3%
24.6%
24.0%
$35,000 -49999
9.3%
10.5%
14.9%
8.0%
11.9%
7.3%
2.2%
4.7%
2.6%
> $50,000
8.2%
4.8%
6.4%
2.6%
5.7%
2.8%
0.5%
0.0%
0.0%
17
®Owner
■Renter
Florida
86.9%
70.6%
22.0%
4.7%
1.2%
February 27, 1997 � - ,-j
B9�ll(Ud
100%
90%
80%
BOOK 1-00 FACE Its
Region & State - Percentage of OWNER Households Paying More than 30% of Income
Towards Housing Costs by Income Category in 1990
p 50%
0
a►
d
40%
00, 30%
20%
10%
0%
100%
90%
80%
fl 70%
< $10,000 $10,000 -19999 $20,000 - 34999 $35,000 -49999 > $50,000
Income Range
® Indian River
■ Brevard
0 Martin
i3 St. Lucie
■ Florida
Region & State - Percentage of RENTER Households Paying More than 30% of Income
Towards Housing Costs by Income Category in 1990
. 50%
m
rn
40%
m
a 30%
20%
10%
0%
< $10,000 $10,000 -19999 $20,000 - 34999 $35,000 - 49999 > $50,000
Income Range
18
February 27, 1997
M Indian River
■ Brevard
❑ Martin
a St. Lucie
■ Florida
rI
IV. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING
REQUIREMENTS. STATE AFFORDABLEHOUSING PROGRAMS,
LOCAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES
Susan Leigh, Executive Director, Florida Housing Finance
Agency, presented a FHFA folder of information to the Board members
and others. (CLERK'S NOTE: This booklet, which includes a 1995-96
annual report, has been placed in the backup file of the meeting.)
Ms. Leigh then reviewed the following in an informative and
comprehensive narrative.
Florida Housing Finance Agency
227 forth I3ronough St., Suite 5000
Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1329
(904) 488-4197
AGENCY PHILOSOPHY:
• The Agency does not build housing, our private sector partners do.
The FHFA programs are based upon the principal that the private sector is the primary producer of affordable housing. with
state and local incentives leveraged as loans, whenever possible, to encourage public/private partnerships. To ensure that
state monies are spent ort housing instead of administration, local governments should be rewarded for providing
incentives and financial assistance for the production of affordable housing, particularly mixed income projects.
POLICY FORMULATION:
• The unique Board structure accomplishes its statutory obligations through private sector input, a critical component
of public/private partnerships.
A nine (9) member Board comprised of eight (8) representatives from various designated housing -related industries is
appointed to four-year terms by the Governor and is subject to confirmation by the Florida Senate. The ninth position
is reserved for the Secretary of the Department of Community Affairs. who serves as an ex -officio, voting member of
the Board.
PRIVATIZATION:
• The Florida Housing Finance Agency IS the model public/ private partnership citizens are demanding from their
government.
The Agency, since its creation in 1980. has stressed the maximization of production and the minimization of overhead.
With hundreds of partners. FHFA receives input from individuals and organizations representing housing advocates.
developers, bankers, investors, attorneys, the real estate industry, construction. labor, and the elderly. As a result. the
Agency generates income to pay for its efforts without general revenue.
FLEXIBLE TOOLS - A MUST FOR SUCCESS:
• To cause private sector developers to carry out state and federal initiatives, products must be readily, adaptable to rapidly
changing market conditions.
es
Developers will dedicate significant resources to affordable housing only if they are assured that appropriate financial
assistance will be provided by their public sector partners and made available when and where needed. Fluctuating
interest rates, sunsetting federal and state programs, and finite resources/subsidies necessitate an on-going re-evalua-
tion of program structures to ensure the continual existence of these public/privatc partnerships.
ACCOUNTABILITY
• The Agency employs a "Big 6" accounting firm to audit vearly activities. State audits, monthly financial reports and public
meetings, and a detailed annual report to the Governor are also provided as documentation of the Agency's progress and
proceedings. 12
FHFA programs are structured to be financially self-sufficient. Therefore, maximum effort is placed on ensuring the cost
effectiveness of projects for all panics involved. The nine member Board reviews and approves all Agency activities on
a monthly basis and contracts for all services, including banking and legal. high arc awarded through competitive bids
using the states Request for Proposals (RFP) process. which
THE BOTTOM LINE: BENEFITS TO FLORIDIANS
- Private sector partners infuse private sector monies to leverage state funds.
- Privatization of Agency resources eliminates need for general revenue for FIiFA administration.
- Flexibility maximizes responsiveness to diverse communities.
- Permanence of FHFA alloys private sector to make long-term commitment of resources to affordable housing
- Svncrcy created by private sector partnerships creates new and improved "+yaws of doing business."
Provides important stimulus to the state economy.
19
February 27, 1997
BOOK J 'J ma"Vii
I
r
BOOK 1.00 FAGS. 740
Program
Inception Year
Num ber ofUniti
Produced
Multifamily Mortgage Revenue .
1980
35,000
—Bonds
Single Family Mortgage. Revenue
-1980
25000
.Bonds.
tow income Housing Tax Credit
7
-1997
40.000,
-.State Apartment Incentive Loan
.1989.
11,359
-,Home Owners Assistance
1988
3.000
Do -.-.m PaYrnint Assistance'
re-develpment Lon p-rogram
1992
3x76-
State Housing Initiatives
13,000
.Partmerships
HOME Investment Partnership
1992
5,000
Florida Affordable Housing
:1992
1.000Guarantee
Program
HLID'Risk Sbarirfa.prOPram
:-,P
'
1-992.
3.000
State mel
-1993
1.500HurricaneRecover3rand
'o
Rebuilding,:i
wre larpied sperificaltii-to Dod, Counn-for Hu'ricaneAn&ew dev=aaan
..Florida'S Guarantee Program.was created by the.
enactment of the 'William E. Sad '.,ski Affordable Housing
�-A6-ta:M,j the o%N
Void ofmortgage credit enhancement -for-both -single family and multifamily affordable bousing
transactions, -The Act '
ct now authorizes the issuance Of up to $200 million in revenue bonds 10 capitalize the fund.
'FloiiC12'Wastselected -to b
e-aparticipant in the. HUD Multifamily Risk-Sharina:Pilot Program allowin-the
Agency W'.use-- its- 0�In-'analysis: criteria 'to. evaluate . affordable' housing transactions
insurind P : * * ; 'ih * . ,ns actions for FHA mortgagge - loan
c-A-Unev's success, HUD has a,%N,�Tded FHFAmultiple- allocations a ons of risk -sharing units.
20
February 27, 1997
I
'C"
7�
U—N!
n
State Apartment Incentive Loan Program (SAIL)
Project Information
KEY: _ ^
N • Now
R -RchdAbsom
F • Fam1y
E • 84 ty
'1 • Nomdm SRO (Skye Room Oaayawyl
'2- PAmulm FamWa
Farm-Famwvaka
W.Vary lav twee
DtlDOiu me
Closed - Dale of Loan Closing
Completed - Date of last disbursement au0rorizaticn
Credit Urnderw wing - Date of Invitation into credit underwriting
1
1
1
Set -Aside ent
Evc
TOW
Avenge Cost
Per Unit
Bedroorni
SAIL
irafil
Anticipated
Status
of
Project
SAIL
Per UnIUSAIL
As of June 30,1996
Unit
Set -Aside
on-
"Place In
or
Protect
Develooer
TV"
unitscounty
t
o
Dat
Indian River
Grace's Landing
Beth Carpenter
W
WE
70
$4.410,000
$475,000
$63,000
':::>: ';_:::"
1 BR 56
100% @ 60%
No
Dec 97
Commitment
01/14/97
Sebastian
58,786
28R 14
Elderly
Letter
f97s440
Issued
Kyle's Run
Paula Ryan
VII
NT
200
$11,570,000
$1,550,000
557,6150
1 BR 30
20% @ 40%
No
Dee 96
Closed
02/29196
Sebastian V r
$7,750
2 OR 110
60% @ 60%
Completed
11!04/96
s
30R 60
Famov
Sandy Pines
Jackie McPhillips
VI
N -F
45
$4,225,927
5602,842
$93,909
40R $324-558
40R 45100%
No
Nov. 94
Closed
03109M
Sebastian
$13,396
Completed
08/10/95
awsaNs
sunset
Thomas Flynn
VIII
WE
36
$1,922,268
$315,000
$53,396
:;
1 OR 30
40% @ 60%
No
July 96
Board Meeting
12/13/96
Gilford
$8.750
2 BR 6
50%@W%
12/13196. closing
Elderly
date ezlended
09684t4
to 04/14/97
KEY: _ ^
N • Now
R -RchdAbsom
F • Fam1y
E • 84 ty
'1 • Nomdm SRO (Skye Room Oaayawyl
'2- PAmulm FamWa
Farm-Famwvaka
W.Vary lav twee
DtlDOiu me
Closed - Dale of Loan Closing
Completed - Date of last disbursement au0rorizaticn
Credit Urnderw wing - Date of Invitation into credit underwriting
1
1
1
ROOK 100 PAGE f4. i
Bond Closings for Calendar Year 1996 as of Sept. 30, 1996
Bond Type # of Units # of Transactions Total Dollar Amount
Multifamily 4,137 l8 $172,485,000
Single Family 1,800 (estimated) 2 $101,575,000
Notes: In addition, three (3) remarketings were accomplished. Also. there are currently only two employees dedicated to both the
multifamily and single family programs
Estimated Funding Sources for 1997
Program Source of Funds Amount
HOME HUD S 18.898.000
HOME Match State Appropriation from
Documentary Stamps' $ 2,000,000
' State Apartment Incentive
State Appropriation from
Loan Program (SAIL)
Documentary Stamps' $26.600.000
Documentary Stamps'
SAIL Trust Fund2 $5.000.000
Florida Affordable Housing
State Appropriation from
Guarantee Program
Documentary Stamps' 52.000.000
State Appropriation from
Bonding Authority $200,000,000
Predevelopment Loan
State Appropriation from
Program (PLP)
Documentary Stamps'
$2.000,000
PLP Trust Fund2
-0-
0 -Homeownership
Homeownership Assistance
State Appropriation from
Program (HAP)
Documentary Stamps'
$4.000,000
HAP Trust Fund
5550.000
State Housing Initiative
State Appropriation from
Partnership Program (SHIP)
Documentary Stamps'
588,331.488
LIHTC
Dept. of Treasury
Federal Tax Credits3
518,000.000
Tax Exempt Bonds
S159.375.000
Multifamily Mortgage
Federal Tax Code New Issue
To be decided
Revenue Bonds
Revenue Bonds Refundings
To be decided
Single Family Mortgage
Federal Tax Code New Issue
To be decided
Revenue Bonds
Revenue Bonds Refundings
To be decided
Total All Programs
$526.754.488
1) The amount offunding available for programs funded by Documentary Stamp Tar proceeds are conditioned upon actual collec-
[ions.
2) The amount of funding mailable for programs funded from !rust funds are conditioned upon receipt of loan
repayments.
3) 1995 base per capita allocation and national pool allocation.
01/97
22
February 27, 1997
1
1
1
"CC
FLORIDA HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program
J
Highlights of Indian River County SHIP Program
Mr
Annual Allocation
Local Housing Assistance Program
Fiscal Year
Total
The county SHIP Program is administered by the Indian River
County Community Development Dept., Sasan Rohani, AICD,
1992-93
$250,000
Chief of Long Range Planning.
1993-94
250,000
The 1994-95 through 1996-97 Housing Assistance Program
1994-95
250,000
includes the following strategies:
1995-96
565,773
Home Ownership Programs
1. Impact Fee Grants with Construction
N
1996-97•
632,136
2. Housing Rehabilitation
Total
$1,947,909
3. Downpayment Assistance with Construction
Accomplishments
Rental Programs
1. Impact Fee Grants and Loans
Units Produced or Assisted
2• Rehabilitation
Fiscal Year
Very Low
Low Moderate Total The county's current Housing Assistance Plan expires on June 30,
1992-93
13
17
1997. In order for the county to be eligible to receive funds in
11 41
Fiscal Year 1997-98 they must submit a new Housing Assistance
1993-94
12
18
7 37 Plan by May 2; 1997.
1994-95
11
13
6 30
1995-96•
21
33
4 58
aa*
1996-97•
23
36
5 64
Total
80
117
33 230
Projected
rn
'o
-
1
1
1
�4
BOCK PAGE I'�
STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS
ADMINISTRATION OF
Chapter 420, Part VII, F.S.
PROGRAM
Rule Chapter 91-37, F.A.C.
FUNDS AVAILABLE
In fiscal year 1996-97, $86.5 million is appropriated. Funds are
allocated on a population -based formula. The minimum allocation
is $250,000 and the largest allocation is $5 million. Funds are
disbursed monthly to eligible communities as documentary stamp
revenues are deposited into the Local Government Housing Trust
Fund. Total actual disbursements are dependent upon
documentary stamp collections.
ENTITLEMENT
SHIP channels revenues directly to Florida's 67 counties and 43
TO COUNTIES AND CITIES
cities that are eligible for federal Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) moneys as an entitlement community.
REQUIREMENTS
A local government must:
FOR PARTICIPATION
1. Establish a Local Housing Assistance Program by ordinance.
2. Submit and recieve approval of a Local Housing
Assistance Plan.
3. Submit a Local Housing Incentive Plan within 12 months
after adopting the ordinance.
4. Submit by November 15 of each year, a report of the local
government's affordable housing programs and
accomplishments.
TARGETING OF FUNDS
1. Minimum of 65% of funds must be spent on eligible
homeownership activities.
2. Minimum of 75% of funds must be spent on eligible
construction activities.
3. 5% of SHIP funds may be used for administrative expenses.
If a local government makes a finding of need by resolution
a local government may use up to 10%.
SET-ASIDE OF UNITS
1. At least 30% of the units produced must serve
very -low-income households (up to 50% of median income).
2. At least 30% of the units produced must serve low-income
households (51% to 80% of median income).
3. The remaining units may serve moderate -income
households (81 % to 120% of median income) or any
combination of very -low, low, and moderate.
ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
SHIP funds assist households with very -love, low and moderate
incomes. Nonprofit or for-profit agencies may apply on behalf of
the targeted population. Application is made directly to the
appropriate local government.
24
February 27, 1997
I—_ J
STATE HOUSING INITIATIVES PARTNERSHIP (SHIP) PROGRAM
SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS
AFFORDABILITY
Local governments must assure that monthly rents or monthly
mortgage payments, including taxes and insurance, do not exceed
30% of the area median income limits, unless the first mortgage
lender is satisfied that the household can afford mortgage
payments in excess of the 30% benchmark.
ELIGIBLE HOUSING
SHIP funds assist only housing that is designed to meet the
standards of Chapter 553, F.S. SHIP funds may not be used to
assist mobile homes or manufactured housing; however,
manufactured buildings with the Department of Community
Affairs insignia are permitted.
MAXIMUM PURCHASE
Must not exceed 90% of the Median Area Purchase Price as
PRICE OR VALUE
established by the U.S. Department of Treasury.
ELIGIBLE ACTIVITIES
The SHIP program provides flexibility for a local government to
design affordable housing strategies in response to local needs
based, in part, on the local government comprehensive plan.
FORMS OF ASSISTANCE
Local governments provide assistance in the form of grants,
deferred payment loans, or direct loans. The terms are locally
established. Local governments must provide for recapture of
funds in event of default. Recycling of funds is encouraged.
MATCH REQUIREMENT
No match is required for SHIP; however, public/private leveraging
is strongly encouraged.
25
February 27, 1997 BOOK �FhG
DOCK .1 Z) FAGS ►� �
SUMMARY OF THE
STATE APARTMENT INCENTIVE LOAN (SAIL) PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATION OF
Rule 9I-48, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 420.5087.
PROGRAM
Florida Statutes.
ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS
Any person or public entity, public or private, for-profit or not-for-
profit, proposing to build or rehabilitate affordable rental housing.
HOW TO APPLY
Submit Combined Cycle Application for SAIL/HOME/LIHTC.
FUNDS AVAILABLE
Anticipated preliminary amount of 518,525,000 in fiscal year
1997-98. "
TARGETING OF FUNDS
SAIL Program generally has one funding cycle a year and is open for
a minimum of 60 days. Each year funds are offered to applicants in
the following categories: family, elderly and commercial fishing and
farm workers in the large-, medium-, and small -sized counties.
TYPE OF
CONSTRUCTION
New construction, substantial rehabilitation or combination of
acquisition and substantial rehabilitation.
MAA'I11IUM REQUEST
the SAIL loan cannot exceed 25% of the total
Fmost,
project
e not-for-profit and public sponsors and sponsors
occupancy of a minimum of 80% of qualified
ishing workers and farmworkers may be eligible to
mit, as specified in Rule 91-48, F.A.C.
TERMS OF THE LOAN
SAIL loans are secured by low-interest second mortgages and in
some cases first mortgages. The loans are typically for IS years, but
can be extended under some circumstances. SAIL loans are non -
amortized with the following interest rates:
(a) Three percent interest on loans to projects that maintain an 80%
occupancy of residents qualifying as commercial fishing workers or
farmworker over the life of the loan. Payment of the three'pereent
loan shall be based upon the actual project cash flow and may be
deferred as set forth in Rule 91-48, F.A.C.
(b) Nine percent simple interest with a mandatory
payment of the
three percent base and the remaining six percent based upon the
actual project cash flow and may be deferred as set forth in Rule 9I-
48, F.A.C.
4INIMUM SET-ASIDE
MQUIREMENT
20% of the units at 50% of the area or state median income, adjusted
for family size; however, projects using Low Income Housing Tax
Credits may use a minimum set-aside requirement of 40% of the
units at 60% of area median income.
?INIIVIUM TERM OF
15 years, but sponsors usually commit to 50 years.
ET -ASIDE
ITHER
SAIL Loan Program can be used in conjunction with other state and
federal programs.
26
Februar 27, 1997
SUMMARY OF THE
LOW-INCOME RENTAL HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTC) PROGRAM
!ADMINISTRATION Rule 91-48, Florida Administrative Code, and Section 420.5099,
SOF PROGRAM J Florida Statutes.
ELIGIBLE Any person or public entity, public or private, for-profit or not -for -
APPLICANTS I profit, proposing to build or rehabilitate affordable rental housing
OW TO APPLY I Submit Combined Cycle Application for SAIL/HOME/LIHTC.
IFUNDS AVAILABLE I Anticipated allocation authority of $18,000,000 in cycle year 1997.
TARGETING OF i The LIHTC Program has one application cycle per year, open for
CREDITS a minimum of 60 days. Each year credits are allocated to applicants
in the following categories: projects in large, medium and small -sized
counties. In addition, projects with funding from Rural Development
and projects electing to set-aside units for elderly residents or large
families, in rural areas or urban in -fill areas will be targeted during
the 1997 application cycle.
(TYPE OF
CONSTRUCTION
New construction, substantial rehabilitation or combination of
acquisition and substantial rehabilitation.
IMAXIMUM REQUEST-
For the 1997 application cycle, requests will be limited to no more than:
Total Tax Credits
to be Issued
- Large County: $1,500,000 ($1,950,000 if in DDA or QCT)
Briarwood at
Vero Beach
- Medium County: $1,200,000 ($1,560,000 if in DDA or QCT)
45
- Small County: $750,000 ($975,000 if in DDA or QCT)
$710,241.10
In addition, all projects will be limited to a request that equals no more
Sandy Pines
than $5,850 ($7,605 if in DDA or QCT) in tax credits per unit to be
i
i produced.
MINIMUM SET-ASIDE
iREQUIREMENT
20% of the units at 50% of the area median income, adjusted for
family size; or alternatively, 40% of the units at 60% of the area
61
median income, adjusted for family size.
i
MINIMUM TERM OF
SET-ASIDE
30 years, with an option to convert to market rent after the 15th year
! of compliance. Most
Indian River
Apartments
applicants commit to waive the option to convert
and to set-aside low-income units for 50
180
i years.
OTHER
; Low -Income Rental Housing Tax Credits can be used in conjunction
! with other state and federal programs.
INDIAN RIVER TA3' REDIT SUMMARY
February 26, 1997
-: ;zct Name
Year
Allocated
Units
Annual Tax
Credits Issued
Total Tax Credits
to be Issued
Project Cost
Briarwood at
Vero Beach
1989
45
$71,024.11
$710,241.10
$1,961.093
Sandy Pines
1993
45
$452,461.75
$4,524,617.50E$4.384.467
Gifford Groves
1993
61
$544,517.23
$5,445,172.30,117,814
Indian River
Apartments
1994
180
$1,181,929.00
$11,819.290.00
$11,449,653
Total
331
$2,249,932.09
$22,499,320.9
522,913,027
Note: The 1993 projects were single family dwellings.
27
February 27, 1997 0 0 K %E' 1 t*
BOOR
Director Keating advised the Board that the Sadowski Act
program is more familiarly known by them as the SHIP program. We
have been working with Ms. Leigh's agency extensively the last four
years on this program. They manage it for us and give technical
assistance. The SHIP program takes people out of rental and into
home ownership. He explained that we are required to use 65% of
the funding ($1/2 million annually) for home -ownership; 75% of that
for new construction or rehabilitation; also the County is required
to allocate 30% to very low incomes and 30% to low incomes. He
felt it was a very good program and the County has a good
relationship with the lenders, many of which were represented
today.
V. OVERVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT HOUSING ASSISTANCE
INITIATIVES IN FLORIDA, STATEWIDE AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ISSUES. OPPORTUNYIM, BARRIERS, POLICY
INCENTIVES, AND IMPACT OF SUBSIDIZED HOUSING ON A
CONDIUNITY
Arthur Fleming, Florida Housing Coalition Board Member, the
Governor's Affordable Housing Study Commission Board Member,
described the workings and membership of the Coalition. He advised
he actually is employed as Executive Director of the Community
Financing Consortium, Inc., a 17 -member bank consortium which acts
as lenders for affordable housing programs. He --.recounted the
growing numbers of these consortiums.
Mr. Fleming spoke of the traditional role of lending
institutions and contrasted it with lending from the private sector
and how the lenders of affordable housing developments become
stakeholders in the community and the state of Florida. He
described the Board's role as a "quasi -banker" and a regulatory
agency in the new process.
Mr. Fleming narrated a presentation of the following four
rehabilitation and new construction projects which have been
accomplished through affordable housing programs elsewhere in
Florida.
28
February 27, 1997
CASE STUDY: MIXED -USE
CQUISITIONIREHABILITATIO
HARRIS MUSIC BUILDING APARTMENTS
LOCATION: Downtown West Palm Beach, Florida
HISTORY: Originally built in 1907 as the Palm Beach Mercantile Company
1. Building
NEW MIXED-USE: Re -developed into a six story, 41,250 sq.ft. building
Residential: thirty-eight (38) one -bedroom apartments
Retail: 5,000 sq.ft. of ground level retail. A bookstore will occupy the
ground level space.
RENT STRUCTURE: 100% of the units affordable to persons earning 60%
or below 9f Palm Beach County median income. Each unit $429Jmonth
COST STRUCTURE
Acqusition
500,000
Rehabilitation
1,281,300
Development do Soft Cost
342,985
Legal; Impact Fees; Appraisals;
SOURCE
Accounting; Architectural; Taxes;
DESCRIPTION
Insutance; Loan Foes; Marketing;
Community Financing
Start-up; Reserves; Engineering
387,169
TOTAL 2.511,454
TOTAL 2,511,454
9% 1520yr.
3% 15yr.
5% 15yr.
DEVELOPER
Harris Housing Limited Partnership (General Partner is Boston Capital Properties, Inc.)
February 27, 1997
'FINANCING
STRUCTURE
(Closed February 1994)
SOURCE
niE
DESCRIPTION
AM0[il!rT
Community Financing
Consortium, Inc.
LOAN
1st MORTGAGE
665,000
City WPB
(section 108)
LOAN
2nd MORTGAGE
495,000
WPB(DDA
LOAN
3rd MORTGAGE
200,000
WPBIDDA
RETAIL
50,000
GRANT
WPBIDDA
GRANT
50,000
Boston Capital
EQUITY
SALE OF TAX
Part ne t, Inc.
INVESTMENT
CREDIT
1,051,454
TOTAL 2,511,454
9% 1520yr.
3% 15yr.
5% 15yr.
DEVELOPER
Harris Housing Limited Partnership (General Partner is Boston Capital Properties, Inc.)
February 27, 1997
BOOK _wry "J Qt Jul,
CASE STUDY: NEW CONSTRUCTION
ELDERLY MARKET
THE GROVES OF DELRAY
LOCATION: Delray Beach, Florida — 142 acre site
IMPROVEMENTS: 158 Apartment homes. 86 one -bedroom (639 sq.ft.)
72 two-bedroom, two bath apartments (900 sq.ft.)
Amenitites include: swimming pool; whirlpool spa; car care center,
shuffleboard courts; 5,550 square foot recreation/office building with full
kitchen and fitness center, laundry building.
Senior -related amenities include: Emergency medical call button system
connected to a nearby hospital. Free hot meal each weekday in the
clubhouse. An activities director and free transportation for shopping,
hospital and medical visits.
RENT STRUCTU_RE: 100% of the units affordable to persons earning 60%
of Palm Beach County median income. One -bedroom unit $464. per
month and two-bedroom unit $550. per month. Leased solely
to households with at least one person age 55 years and above.
Now'...
W�a
_ l'
COST
DMIRCREMoN
�'R
Building Construction
1RF'
4,280,000
Site Improvements
1,434,000
Hard Cost Contingency
200,000
Land
948,000
Soft Costs
1,658,000
Personal property
110,000
ImpactFees; Water/Sewer
582,000
TOTAL 9,212,000
February 27, 1997
FINANCING STRUC JItE
(Closed April 1994)
SOURC 3=
DMIRCREMoN
AMSLIIl!lT
Community Financing
IN�RF�T RATE
Consortium, Inc. LOAN
Florida Housing
Ist MORTGAGE
3,300,000 85% 15/20yr.
Finance Agency LOAN
Palm Beach County LOAN
2nd MORTGAGE
3rd MORTGAGE
1,502,000 3% 15yr.
TtansAmcica EQUITY
SALE OF TAX
400,000 3% 15yr.
4,009,998
INVESTMENT
CREDIT
ON
TOTAL 9,212,000
DEVELOPER
Florida Affordable Housing ,Inc. and Epoch Properties, Inc.
121
w
N
RESTORING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS
CASE STUDY
BEFORE
ITEM
LAND SALE
CONSTRUCTION COST
LOT ASSIGNMENT FEE
CLOSING COST
COST STRUCTURE
AFTER
gfwi-t�'
OST
$15,000
$46,900
$500
80
TOTAL $65,361.80
1
1
FINANCING STRUCTURE
L
'
SOURCE
CONSORTIUM FOR AFFORDABLE
TYPE
I ST MORTGAGE
ELMS
$43,100
HOME FINANCING, INC. BANK
FLORIDA HOME PROGRAM
2ND MORTGAGE
$16,600
3
PALM BEACH COUNTY HTF
GRANT
$5,000
_
HOMEBUYER
W
DONPAYMENT/TOTAL
$661.80
`
OUT OF POCKET
TOTAL $65,361.80
DEVELOPER PROJECTLAKE WORM INC.
CONTRACTOR: R -WALLS, INC. REALTOR: JONI K TATE REALTY, INC
AREA.• LAKE WORM
1
1
Z;
Li
N
,1
RESTORING OUR NEIGHBORHOODS
CASE STUDY
BEFORE
ITEM
PROPERTY CONTRACT
REHABILITATION COST
CLOSING COST
SOURCE
CONSORTIUM FOR AFFORDABLE
HOME FINANCING, INC. BANK
FLORIDA HOME PROGRAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY HTF
HOMEBUYER
I - l
COST STRUCTURE
FINANCING STRUCTURE II
TYPE
1ST MORTGAGE
2ND MORTGAGE
GRANT
DOWNPAYMENT/TOTAL
OUT OF POCKET
COST
$50,000
$8,724
$2,844.16
TOTAL $61,568.16
91i1►17.y
$10,000
$5,000
TOTAL $61,568.16
I DEVELOPER CENTRO CAMPESINO, INC. CO—DEVELOPER: NOAH DEVELOPMENT CORPERATION
f I
CONTRACTOR: CENTRO CAMPESINO, INC. AREA: BELLE GLADE
cw
CD
� a
n,
Mr. Fleming emphasized the amenities, high quality in design
and construction, and financing structure. He stressed that
lenders will make sure their investment remains a valuable
property. Generally the loan terms are 30 years. He advised that
the same philosophy of quality structures was present whether the
properties were single or multi -family and new construction or
rehabilitation.
Mr. Fleming also addressed economic development and business
development perspectives and stated that economic development
cannot be separated from housing.
Wight Greger, Technical Assistance Project Manager, Florida
Housing Coalition, assured the Board that they were not alone in
this process; most all of the counties in Florida have gone or will
go through this process. She remarked that they are asking all the
right questions and addressing the same types of issues that other
counties have and stressed that huge resources are available to
them. She explained that there is a new way to do business through
effective partnership and the Board is a member of the partnership
with an increased pool of stakeholders.
Ms. Greger cautioned the Board not to let the process scare
them, as there are many professionals and agencies available to
show them examples of developments. She offered to take them on a
field trip into other communities doing the same thing.
VI. DISCUSSION OF ISSUES
Chairman Eggert asked Mr. O'Dell if, in developing the
figures, consideration is given on the rate of deterioration of the
buildings. For example, buildings in Indian River County are
relatively young as compared to buildings in the older areas of the
country. Mr. O'Dell replied that factor had not yet been taken
into consideration, but that other factors, such as the condition
of the house, were taken into consideration.
Chairman Eggert thought that one of the biggest concerns of
the public is transfer of density and density bonuses and how it is
affecting affordable housing in general.
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins pointed out that these
policies are set out in our LDR's and included wetland protection
goals. The Board cannot rescind the regulations on a case-by-case
or project -by -project basis. They have to allow each applicant to
avail themselves of the provisions of the laws. The Board would
have to amend the Comprehensive Plan and make a decision not to
protect the wetlands or not to provide incentives for reducing the
cost of housing.
33
February 27, 1997
BOOK J FSG
BOOK
Chairman Eggert asked if you can take a transfer of densities
with affordable housing to demand more landscaping, either in a
regular density bonus or transfer of wetlands.
Attorney Collins thought if there are compatibility issues,
and you want to have an enhanced or enlarged buffer between a
project that has a density bonus and one beside it that does not,
you can do it through the LDR's. However, you must be aware that
as you increase the buffers, you condense the units within the
remaining building envelope and you may run into the pressures of
the height limits or other regulations.
Director Keating thought, with respect to River Park Place,
that because we require density bonus and density transfer
allowances to go through the Planned Development process, we have
a lot more control there and we have the ability to get some of
those things. He thought it might be helpful for some of the
speakers to speak about density impacts on other projects in other
local governments.
Ms. Leigh advised the original intent was to have local
government provide about 10% of the equity in some way. It could
be provided in any way that would quantify to reduce the actual
cost per unit. She recalled several of the original ideas to
provide this 10% equity.
In response to Commissioner Ginn's question, Director Keating
advised that a density bonus is not required or necessary, but when
considered as part of the whole and under some of the programs, an_
incentive such as a density bonus can be given',or some other
incentive must be given.
Mr. Fleming pointed out that balancing the quality of life
issue with the need for creating financial affordability is
important. He spoke on the competing environmental issues,
increasing densities in areas, decisions on protecting the
environment, and concerns for payment of infrastructure. He
introduced Jodi Glass, as the "architect of density bonus program"
who was in the audience.
Jodi Glass, now working with the Richmond Group, the developer
of Kyle's Run, formerly with the Palm Beach County Planning
Division, who has also worked with the Commission on Affordable
Housing, explained the creation of the density bonus program in
Palm Beach County and pointed out the benefits to both the county
and the developer. She agreed the density bonus program is scary,
but that it is a very valuable tool when used correctly because it
does not attack the dollars in the county's budget. She stressed
there are reams of information in Palm Beach County and many
34
February 27, 1997
a s
developments have been built using the density bonus. She
concurred that the management issue is very important and submitted
there are ways for the government to be in control. She emphasized
that the "goal" is important as they can use particular incentives
depending on the particular goal.
Mr. Fleming commented regarding tying landscape to increased
density bonuses, and in Palm Beach County the planners went
exaction crazy. He believed there is a delicate balance and that
all the world's problems cannot be solved in one apartment complex.
Commissioner Tippin thanked the representatives for coming and
observed that Indian River County is probably one of the "late
bloomers" in affordable housing developments because it had been
the goal for many years to keep the county "low density/green
space". Now, however, low density/green space is being construed
as "urban sprawl". He felt that housing cannot be separated from
economic development because he sees workers going south every day,
taking their pay checks with them to another county. He would like
to see those dollars spent in Indian River County.
Commissioner Ginn appreciated the presentations, felt they
were enlightening and educational. She commented that some prior
population growth projections have been incorrect and wondered how
the figures are determined.
Mr. O'Dell advised that projections are based on extrapolation
of historical trends. He explained that they utilize the Bureau of
Economic and Business Research County Level projects as a
beginning.
Commissioner Ginn pointed out that the County is not giving
income tax credits as well as density bonuses. Now, developers
appear before the Value Adjustment Board requesting reduction in ad
valorem taxes. She wondered how much do you have to give a
developer; she felt income tax credits should be sufficient.
Ms. Leigh explained in detail the complicated process and
pointed out that rents are lower than market rate and, therefore,
restrict the development's cash flow.
Commissioner Ginn commented on the Affordable Housing
Commission report in the backup, the public's fears of
deterioration of an area, and NIMBY -ism (not -in -my -backyard). She
was not sure our need for additional affordable housing is as great
as has been stated, cited newspaper advertising, and felt that a
market analysis was necessary. She questioned how the programs are
addressing the needs in the state and wondered what would happen 15
years down the road when Indian River Apartments and Kyle's Run are
no longer affordable.
35
February 27, 1997 bw 1 U ��� � ��
BOOKPAGE '16
Ms. Leigh pointed out that the two properties Commissioner
Ginn mentioned are restricted for 30-50 years to remain as their
agreement states.
Commissioner Ginn could not agree with the recommendation to
have a state appeal system for projects denied at the local level,
as she believes strongly in home rule. The citizens in Vero Beach
have a resistance to density.
Ms. Leigh thought that one of the best tools was to create
your system (laws et cetera) and work with developers you are
comfortable with. The important point is to meet the needs of the
community.
Mr. Fleming reported that the Study Commission on Affordable
Housing, of which he is a member, had at the top of their agenda
this year to look at the issue of whether or not there is a concern
for values, property and/or social. They are looking at it on a
state-wide basis. The entire focus and intent of the Study
Commission is to come up with ideas, some extreme, others quite
moderate, which need to be discussed by the Study Commission. He
stated there is an effort to schedule meetings throughout the state
to solicit testimony and suggested perhaps they could come to
solicit testimony here in Indian River County from anyone having
points -of -view on the issue of NIMBY -ism. He thought that what
often happens is that decisions are not necessarily based on
reality, but may be based on emotion and perspective.
Chairman Eggert asked that Indian River County be kept in mind
in the scheduling.
Ms. Gamble pointed out that availability of housing in the
newspaper does not always provide all things that may be necessary
for the family needing housing.
Commissioner Adams felt that affordability is a matter of
perspective and she felt there was not question as to the "need"
for affordable housing in Indian River County. She thought the
problem was the interpretation and stigma of affordable housing
versus the old public housing. She felt it was necessary to
provide affordable housing in the county and having all social
strata live in our community.
Chairman Eggert thought it would be terrific to have a public
hearing on NIMBY -ism and requested that Mr. Fleming schedule one
here in Indian River County. She thought we would learn a lot from
it.
36
February 27, 1997
Ms. Leigh appreciated the opportunity to come here, and
commended the Board as the first community to ask her to come to
address this important issue.
Chairman Eggert thanked all the presenters.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:20 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. rton, Clerk
Minutes approved on 3-19-/7
CarolloK. Eg , Chairman
37 BOOK 16
February 27, 1997