1 EXAMINING THE COMMUNITY WORKFORCE HOUSING INNOVATION PILOT (CWHIP) PROGRAM: A CASE STUDY OF WESTSHORE LANDINGS ONE, TAMPA, FL By CHARLES RYAN THOMPSON A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009
2 2009 Charles Ryan Thompson
3 T o my G randmother and late Papa
4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Primarily I want to thank my thesis committee chair, Dr. Kristin Larsen, for her encouragement and sound guidance throughout this process. Dr. Larsens unwavering support and patience far surpassed her responsibilities as a committee chair. I am forever indebted. I also want to thank committee member, Paul Zwick, for asking the hard questions and insuring that my final recommendations were well defended. Supplementing the guidance of Dr. Larsen and Dr. Zwick, Iris Patten played an inst rumental role in helping me find direction and reassuring me that I was making progress. Her motivation and suggestions greatly improved my thesis. Thank you! I would like to make a special thank you to the participants of my interview, Craig Diamond, Nanc y Muller, Jaimie Ross, Doug Buck, Valmarie Turner, Rob Ippolito, and the participant who asked to remain anonymous for taking time from their busy schedules. Their insight contributed to my understanding CWHIP from a variety of perspectives and thus signif icantly strengthened this document Finally I have to thank my friends and family. I thank my parents for always standing by my side and giving me every opportunity I could ever ask for and my brother for always having friends over to watch movies until well after midnight I also thank Nalo McGibbon for allowing me to play twenty questions regarding thesis formatting and encouraging me to continue when I needed it most.
5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................................... 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................................ 8 LIST OF FIGURES .............................................................................................................................. 9 LIST OF ABBREVIATI ONS ............................................................................................................ 10 ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ 12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 14 2 LITERATU RE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 18 Workforce Housing Significance and Definitions ................................................................. 18 Lack of Workforce Housing Programs .............................................................................. 21 Barriers to Workforce Housing ........................................................................................... 22 Im plications of Workforce Housing Shortage ........................................................................... 23 Solutions to Providing Workforce Housing .............................................................................. 25 Land Use Resources ............................................................................................................ 25 Regulatory Ref orm .............................................................................................................. 27 Financial Resources ............................................................................................................. 28 Resource Preservation ......................................................................................................... 31 Resident Assistance ............................................................................................................. 32 Housing Tool kits .................................................................................................................. 32 Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot (CWHIP) ................................................... 35 Legislation for 2006 CWHIP Cycle ................................................................................... 35 Application for 2006 CWHIP Cycle .................................................................................. 36 Scoring Process for 2006 CWHIP Cycle ........................................................................... 37 Legislation for 2007 CWHIP Cycle ................................................................................... 39 3 METHODOLGY ......................................................................................................................... 51 4 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 57 CWHIP Validity .......................................................................................................................... 57 Toolkit Evaluation ....................................................................................................................... 61 Toolkit Comparison ............................................................................................................. 61 What do the workforce housing toolkits include? ...................................................... 61 What are the most recognized tools? .......................................................................... 63 Composite Toolkit ............................................................................................................... 64 How does the C omposite Toolkit compare to the CWHIP RFP? ............................. 64
6 The CWHIP Difference .............................................................................................................. 65 Rubric ................................................................................................................................... 65 Housing need ................................................................................................................ 66 High cost and growth tiers ........................................................................................... 67 Percentage of set asides ............................................................................................... 68 Housing mix ................................................................................................................. 68 Proximity to employm ent ............................................................................................ 69 RFP scoring criteria ...................................................................................................... 70 Land acquisition ........................................................................................................... 70 Financial innovation ..................................................................................................... 72 Regulatory i ncentives ................................................................................................... 73 Contributions ................................................................................................................ 73 Affordability period ..................................................................................................... 74 Zoning district .............................................................................................................. 74 Resident assista nce ....................................................................................................... 76 CWHIP Case Study ..................................................................................................................... 77 Case Study Justification ...................................................................................................... 77 Case Study Demographics .................................................................................................. 78 Westshore Landings One .................................................................................................... 79 Housing Tools within the Westshore Proposal .................................................................. 80 Other Suggested Housing Tools for Westshore Proposal ................................................. 82 How does the Composite Toolkit compare to the case study? .................................. 85 5 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 96 Key Findings ............................................................................................................................... 96 Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 97 Retain CWHIP Leg islation ................................................................................................. 98 Revise CWHIP Application Process ................................................................................ 102 Explore DCAs Role in Facilitating Land Use Innovation ............................................. 103 Opportunities for Future Research ........................................................................................... 105 APPENDIX A LAND USE STRATEGIES ...................................................................................................... 109 B LOCAL FINANCIAL STRATEGIES ..................................................................................... 110 C INFORMED CONSENT LETTER .......................................................................................... 111 D RUBRIC EVALUATION OF 2006 CWHIP APPROVED PROJECTS .............................. 119 E GAP BETWEEN BUYING POWER AND MEDIAN SALES PRICE FOR THE 2006 CWHIP ....................................................................................................................................... 125 F POPULATION GROWTH FOR THE 2006 CWHIP PROGRAM ....................................... 127 G VILLAGE OF QUILLEN HOMEOWNER ASSISTANCE .................................................. 129
7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................. 130 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ........................................................................................................... 135
8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Toolkit Comparison ............................................................................................................... 42 2 2 Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot ( CWHIP ) Request for Proposal (RFP) s c oring s ystem ............................................................................................................. 49 2 3 Affordability p eriod s coring s ystem ..................................................................................... 49 2 4 Set aside s coring s ystem ........................................................................................................ 50 4 1 Composite Toolkit .................................................................................................................. 87 4 2 CWHIP p roject c omparison: a rubric designed expressly for this thesis to compare 2006 CWHIP projects based on development statistics and innovative strategies ............ 88 4 3 Development statistics for 2006 CWHIP a pproved a pplications ........................................ 91
9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4 1 Total rubric s cores for 2006 Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot (CWHIP ) approved a pplications ........................................................................................... 90 4 2 Percentage of c ost burdened owner -o ccupied h ouseholds for the cities of 2006 CWHIP a pproved a pplicatio ns .............................................................................................. 93 4 3 Percentage of c ost b urdened r enter o ccupied h ouseholds for the cities of 2006 CWHIP approved a pplications .............................................................................................. 93 4 4 Percentage of s et aside u nits per t otal d evelopment u nits for 2006 CWHIP a pproved a pplications ............................................................................................................................. 94 4 5 Total n umber of u nits s et aside per 2006 CWHIP a pproved a pplication ........................... 94 4 6 Funding c onstributions as a p ercentage of t otal d evelopment c osts for 2006 CWHIP a pproved a pplications ............................................................................................................ 95
10 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S AMI Area Median Income BEBR Bureau of Economic and Business Research CDBG Community Development Block Grants CHP Center for Housing Policy CRA Community Redevelopment Area CWHIP Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot DCA Department of Community Affairs DDA Difficult Development Area DEED Downtown Economic Enhancement District DLP Deferred Payment Loan DRI Development of Regional Impact EAH Employee Assisted Housing EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPC Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County ESP Essential Services Personnel FHFC Florida Housing Finance Corporation HB House Bill HCBCC Highlands County Board of County Commissioners HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design LHAP Local Housing Assistance Plan NACo National Association of Counties
11 NAHB National Association of Home Builders NAICS North American Industry Classification System NIMBY Not In My Backyard NLP Neighborhood Lending Partners OCHFA Orange County Housing Finance Authority PITI principle, interest, taxes, and insurance PLP Pre development Loan Program RFP Request for Proposal RPD Residentially Planned District SFCDC South Florida Community Development Coalition SHIP State Housing Initiatives Partnership SPG Strategic Planning Group TBCRC Tampa Bay Community Reinvestment Corporation TIF tax increment financing ULI Urban Land Institute WCDC Westshore Community Development Corporation WCWHC Walton County Workforce Housing Corporation
12 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning EXAMINING THE COMMUNITY WORKFORCE HOUSING INNOVATION PILOT (CWHIP) PROGRAM: A CASE STUDY OF WESTSHORE LANDINGS ONE, TAMPA, FL By Charles Ryan Thompson August 2009 Chair: Kristin Larsen Major: Urban and Regional Planning Workforce housing has increasingly entered the forefront of affordable housing policies and programs. With an expanding concept of housing need, workforce housing targets working families that earn between 80 and 140% of Area Median Income (AMI). Traditional federal housing assistance programs focus on lower income hous eholds defined as households that earn 8 0% of AMI or less. This thesis analyzes one of the first workforce housing programs in the country, Floridas Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot (CWHIP) program. The CWHIP program will be evaluated based upon the degree to which the program reaches critical housing goals as outlined in the legislation and implementation documents, as compared to specific principles recognized and advocated in workforce housing toolkits First, documents that set the program criteria (i.e. the legislation, the rule, and the CWHIP Request for Proposal (RFP) ) are reviewed. Then, interviews are conducted to gain insight on the intentions and implementation of state objectives. Next, the 2006 CWHIP RFP and case study are compared to the various workforce housing toolkits. A rubric is then utilized to compare the 2006 CWHIP approved applications to determine common characteristics. Last, an in -depth analysis of one of the 2006 CWHIP approved projects, Westshore Landings One, is performed.
13 Although state and local participan ts have differing viewpoints on the importance of assisting this income group, they agree that CWHIP had a positive impact for the state. One key finding is that t he 2006 CWHIP approved applications mainly consisted of local financial strategies, not land use innovation s both of which were criteria for successful CWHIP proposals The 2006 CWHIP RFP addressed all the major categories incorporated in the workforce housing toolkits, except opposition to affordable housing ( NIMBYism ) and residen t assistance. T he CWHIP program should be retained as a distinct state program because local governments argue that a need still exists for subsidized workforce housing, CWHIP is already established as a distinct housing program in Florida legislation, and the program wa s well received by local governments and developers Research found that the application process should be streamlined, resulting in one loan application process and one underwriter. Further, the Department of Community Affairs should assist local governme nts in identifying innovative land use solutions other than land donations and proximity to employment centers
14 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Workforce housing has increasingly entered the forefront of affordable housing policies and programs. With an expanding concept of housing need, workforce housing targets working families that earn between 80 and 14 0% of Area Median Income (AMI) (FHFC, 2006). Consi stent with federal government guidelines, these households pay no more than 30% of their income on housing costs. These families provide services that contribute to our quality of life such as education, health care, and law enforcement. Unfortunately, many of these individuals receive insufficient financial reward for their hard work. Furthermore, the cost of housing has increased significantly, where workforce wages have seen little increase over the same period. T ypically federal housing assistance progr ams focus on lower income households, defined as households that earn 8 0% of AMI or less. This thesis analyzes one of the first workforce housing programs in the country, Floridas Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot (CWHIP) program. Specifically, it examines the degree to which the program reaches critical housing goals as outlined in the legislation and implementation documents, as compared to specific principles recognized and advocate d in workforce housing toolkits In addition to income limit s and affordability requirements, workforce housing has several distinct characteristics that consistently appear in objectives of coalitions, task force groups, government agencies, and other entities that address the issue. These characteristics include expanding development opportunities, addressing social and regulatory barriers, capitalizing on market activity, leveraging funding resources, preserving and recycling reso urces, and providing resident assistance Most employers and public entities consider workforce housing a necessity to economic development and to sustaining a high quality of life through providing vital services. In fact, the
15 Twin Cities loses out on roughly $128 million in annual consumer spending because it does not provide workforc e housing to meet pent up demand. The lack of workforce housing also causes Twin Cities businesses to lose out on an estimated $137 million in income annually because prospective workers cannot find housing (FHF, 2008). On the other hand, many communities reject workforce housing and see it as a parallel to affordable housing projects of the past. Not In My Backyard (NIMBYism) is a common attitude shared among residents of higher income areas. The term refers to residents disapproval of affordable housing in their communities. This attitude stems from a number of common misconceptions: an increase in crime and congestion, as well as, a reduction in home value due to nearby affordable housing. In 2006, the Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC) began a dministering the new CWHIP program, with an emphasis on providing affordable housing to workforce personnel. That year, House Bill 1363 awarded the program $50 million. For its part, the reviewing agency, the FHFC developed an extensive review process, in addition to vital development mandates, to determine which development projects would receive CWHIP funding. The CWHIP program bridges the gap in federal housing programs, typically capped at 8 0% of AMI and aims to assist workforce personnel in high growth or high cost counties by encouraging innovative land use and financial strategies in order to supply safe, affordable, quality housing. Numerous benefits result from providing workforce housing in high cost and high growth communities. Employers in these communities struggle to find personnel to fill crucial positions. As a result, they seek unique ways, such as Employer -Assisted Housing (EAH), to entice personnel to work for them. Not only are employers finding that assisting workers with housing helps provide a much -needed workforce, the workforce is typically much more productive because of the significant reduction in the cost of housing and transportation, as well as, less time
16 spent commuting to work. Residents, stakeholders, and government officials also see a benefit to workers living in their neighborhoods. Having a large, capable workforce is critical to economic sustainability and often a tool for economic development (Bell, 2002). Furthermore, communities typically realize a reduction in traffic congestion due to workers living in close proximity to their employment. Most importantly, the workers themselves receive benefits from living in the communities they serve. Primarily, they are able to delegate more of their household income to living expenses, including food and medical services. Other benefits include the ability to spend more time with their families and provide a stable environment for their children (Lipman, 2004). To evaluate the CWHIP program, a number of methods will be employed. F irst, the legislation, Rule, and Request for Proposal (RFP) criteria will be reviewed to provide i n formation about the program. Based on this information, interviews will be conducted to determine the impressions of housing leaders within the state. The in terview questions include whether CWHIP met its objectives outlined within the RFP, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the program, and whether the program should be funded in the future, and if so, what changes could be made to better serve working families. Next a rubric analysis will illustrate the statistics and strategies of the 2006 CWHIP approved applications, allowing for an understanding of key elements proposed in the applications. Then various workforce housing toolkits will be compared to the housing tools suggested in the 2006 CWHIP RFP and proposed in the case study Recently, a number of toolkits have been produced to guide communities in their workforce housing efforts Due to the n ature of the housing problem, no one answer, recipe, or formula exists. A number of financial and policy mechanisms are required in order to reduce the cost of housing. The workforce housing toolkits are compiled into a composite toolkit that
17 consists of g eneral categories and includes tools found in the CWHIP RFP. The composite toolkit is then used to determine what tools were suggested in the CWHIP RFP and case study versus the various tools commonly identified both locally and nationally in workforce hou sing toolkits Lastly, an in -depth analysis of one of the 2006 CWHIP approved projects, Westshore Landings One, will be performed. The analysis will include an evaluation of what tools were used on the project, what effect they will have on the development and what other tools in the composite toolkit may have been applied to the case study, either to reduce construction costs or provide assistance to potential residents Chapter 1 has introduced the primary topics of this thesis and provided justification for this research. This document consists of four subsequent chapters. Next, Chapter 2 reviews the pertinent literature relevant to the focus of this research study. Chapter 3 describes a methodological framework in which the findings and analysis are bas ed. Chapter 4 outlines the findings based on the previous chapter, as well as, an analysis of these findings. Finally, Chapter 5 concludes with a synopsis of this analysis in relation to the literature and provides suggestions for future work.
18 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter reviews the literature related to workforce housing in order to give a foundation for the CWHIP program and an evaluation of the programs ability to reach critical housing goals targeting Florida residents earning up to 14 0% of AMI. First, the importance of affordable housing in the United States and more specifically in the State of Florida is examined. Second, general solutions that could lead to an increase in the availability of workfor ce housing are identified. Finally, the CWHIP programs objectives, and the ir differ ences from other state and federal programs, will be discussed. Throughout the chapter, the relation of the program to this literature on workforce housing is examined, wit h particular emphasis on the programs objectives. Workforce Housing Significance and Definitions Housing affordability continues to be a critical concern, especially amongst the lowest income. At last count, at least 13 million families in America pa id more than half their income for housing and more than 4 million of these families worked full time jobs (Lipman, 2007, p. 7). The standard for affordability was established with the Housing and Urban Rural Recovery Act of 1983. The Act determined 30% o f household income would be the standard applicable to all current rental housing assistance programs ( National Low Income Housing Coalition 2006, p. 1). Mortgage lenders, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the National Low Income Ho using Coalition and others have maintained this threshold as the maximum allowable expenditure for rental and ownership housing. Expenditures higher than 3 0% are considered a cost burden (Shimberg, 2006) For homeownership, the 3 0% expenditure includes pri nciple, interest, taxes, and insurance (PITI) (Shimberg, 2006).
19 Housing demand is considered the amount of housing, rental or homeownership, desired within a given community at a given time ( Florida International University Metropolitan Center 2006). New commercial, retail and other service -oriented development increase housing demand. Most urbanized areas within the United States have a severe deficit of affordable housing where jobs are located. In fact, when combined with transportation costs, the number of families that spend half their income on housing and transportation increases from 8.3 to 44.3% (Lipman, 2005). In order for these working families to afford to live, housing must be supplied within close proximity to work and at an affordable price. In Florida, and around the country, disparity between household income and housing costs has increased drastically. The median existing home price increased by 77 % between 2002 and 2005 while median family income increased 1.4% over the same period ( Florida Housing Partnership 2006, p. 2). This affordability gap has limited workers ability to secure housing within the communities they serve. In addition, a large mismatch exists between the demand for workforce housing and the supply of such housing. Furthermore, a study of the geography of housing affordability routinely shows small urban centers and distant fringe suburbs are the only locations many service personnel can afford to live, while many of the jobs that require their services are located in suburban areas ( Crowe, D., Ledford, D., Emrath, P., Eisenberg, & E. Liu, Y. 2004). With rising home prices and minimal increases in household wages, the gap between what a moderate income household can afford to spend on housing and the median price of a house are increasing. A nationwide affordability problem exists, particularly in high cost metropolitan areas ( National Low Income Housing Coalition 2006). Furthermore, families earning minimum wage have trouble finding workforce housing in every count y across the United States. Although
20 the problem exists in urban, suburban and rural areas alike, 90% of counties expressed a concern for affordable housing shortages (Lipman, 2004). Furthermore, among median income households, the crisis is worsening (Del aney, 2005). In addition, an annual housing report from the Center for Housing Policy (CHP) provides an insightful look at those families most likely to be plagued with chronic critical housing needs (Lipman, 2005). Workforce personnel are often forced to live far from the municipalities they serve. Within the 25 largest metro areas in the United States, teachers, nurses, firefighters, and police officers can only afford to live in small pockets within the urban core or in outer fringe suburbs due to the h igh demand for housing in the suburbs surrounding major cities ( Crowe, D., Ledford, D., Emrath, P., Eisenberg, & E. Liu, Y., 2004). Coupled with the large affordability gap, the demand for workforce housing far exceeds the supply. According to the Shimber g Center for Affordable Housing at the University of Florida, Orange County needed 13,537 units of workforce housing in 2006 for households earning between 80 and 120% of the AMI (Shimberg, 2006). The need for workforce housing in Orange County is only exp ected to increase in the years to come. Orange County is not alone in the housing deficit. In 2005, Palm Beach County appointed the Strategic Planning Group (SPG) to conduct an affordable housing study. The group concluded that there was a demand for 151, 005 workforce ownership housing and 44,499 workforce rental units (SPG, 2005, p. E 1). Lipman (2004) reported over 90% of survey respondents (from the nations largest and fastest growing counties) claim the supply of low to moderate -income housing units available for occupancy by working families in their county is very low or somewhat low. Moreover, 85% of survey respondents reported a majority of new construction geared toward middle to upper income households (Lipman, 2004).
21 The most recent housi ng assistan ce program in the state of Florida, CWHIP specifically identifies Essential Services Personnel (ESP)1Lack of Workforce Housing Programs as a target group. Yet, counties and local municipalities must establish their own determination of essential services, resulting in a variety of ESP definitions. Some local governments do not specify ESP beyond the household income limits while others list all occupations such that any service job qualifies as an ESP. In contrast, a few counties have been very explicit in the occupations considered essential to their communities, following sectors or codes as defined within the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), published by the U.S. Department of Labor. Existing federal housing assistance programs, particularly those provided by HUD, target individuals with the greatest need. These are typically extremely low income families, those who earn less than 3 0% of AMI and low -income households who earn less than 6 0% of AMI. However, moderate inco me households, those that earn between 80 to 140% of AMI, are considered by HUD standards to earn too much to qualify for housing subsidies. Often, these working families do not earn enough to be able to afford a home or an apartment ( Harkness, J. M., Ph.D ., Newman, S. J., Ph.D., & Lipman, B. J., 2002). The Urban Land Institute uses 50 or 6 0% of median family income as the bottom cutoff for workforce housing, in order to serve working families slipping through federal housing policy gaps (Sullivan, 2004). I n the State of Florida, the primary housing program, the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) ,2 1 A subgroup within workforce housing, ESP are defined by occupations determined to be essential to community quality of life, such as nurses, teachers, fire fighters and police officers. 2 The SHIP program provides funds to local governments as an incentive to create partners hips that produce and preserve affordable homeownership and multifamily housing. The program was designed to serve very low, low, and moderate income families ( University Partnership for Community & Economic Development 2006, p. 87). targets households with incomes up to 12 0% of AMI However, the majority of this funding must assist
22 very low and low -income households, and so this program still does not meet the workforce housing needs within the state. Without housing policies to help slightly higher income households, working families will never be able to afford housing in the communities where they serve. The CWHIP program recognizes the lack of workforce housing programs for individuals within this income bracket and focuses on serving their needs. Barriers to Workforce Housing Other causes for the shortage of workforce housing are social and regulatory barriers. These bar riers limit the supply of workforce housing by raising the cost of housing. The most difficult barriers to overcome within most communities are social barriers, which block the development of new workforce housing construction in the communities needing se rvice. The NIMBY attitudes are the most uncompromising obstacle to supplying workforce housing where it is needed, binding the hands of elected officials, who might otherwise encourage workforce housing developments (Lipman, 2004). NIMBYism reflects the p erception among existing residents that additional housing for low to moderate -income people in their neighborhoods will hurt their property values or quality of life by increasing such problems as traffic congestion, crime and crowding of public school f acilities (Lipman, 2004, p. 6). The National Association of Counties (NACo) conducted field surveys of counties across the nation, which concluded that more than one in five (22 %) [of the counties surveyed] reported that NIMBYism is the primary obstacle they face, with urban or partly urban counties most likely to indicate this as the main problem [to the supply of workforce housing] (Lipman, 2004, p.6). Unfortunately, the CWHIP program does not specifically address NIMBYism; however, by emphasizing work force personnel, many of the traditional stereotypes associated with lower incomes do not emerge. This emphasis has proven effective because many nontraditional housing partners, primarily in
23 the private sector, have gained interest in affordable housing because of the program (D. Buck, personal communication, February 16, 2009). Regulatory barriers are defined as government policies, statutes or ordinances that excessively increase the cost of construction without making significant improvements to public health or safety ( Engel, D., Applegate, A. B., & Mills, K., 2007). These excessive regulations limit the supply of affordable workforce housing and can increase the cost of housing from 10 to 35% or even prevent the construction of affordable housing alt ogether (Engel, 2007). State and local regulations are among the principal culprits behind the nations persistent affordability problems ( Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2007, p. 28). Extensive regulations in the form of limitin g the amount of available land for workforce housing development, density caps for new development, impact fees, and large -lot subdivision requirements, increase housing production costs. These regulations may serve other public policy objectives, such as improving the quality of the units or the aesthetic character of the neighborhood; however, they can contribute significantly to the cost of housing ( Engel, D., Applegate, A. B., & Mills, K. 2007; Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University 2007; Sullivan, 2004; Feldman, 2002). In fact, CWHIP calls for municipalities to eli minate any regulations that do not contribute to the safety, health and wellbeing of the programs target residents (FHFC, 20). Implications of Workforce Housing Shortage The lack of workfo rce housing has le d to a number of negative consequences for working families and the communities they serve. Many of these families must make difficult financial decisions when housing costs consume a large portion of their income. However, a shortage of workforce housing not only affects families directly in need, but employers and communities also suffer.
24 Working families must make difficult financial decisions when housing costs consume a large portion of their income. Many of these fami lies are forced out of the housing markets in the communities they serve, causing a number of negative impacts. These adjustments or tradeoffs typically consist of longer commutes to work and households spending more than 50% of income on housing and tra nsportation (Lipman, 2005). Less frequent, however more severe, tradeoffs include living in inadequate housing or reducing expenditures on health care and other essentials. Yet, c ompared to families in more affordable housing, families that pay more than half of household expenditures for housing reduce expenditures for other essentials such as food, clothing, and healthcare. But by far, the biggest tradeoff is for transportation (Lipma n, 2005, p.7). Approximately 44% of working families spend more than 50% of household income on the combination of housing and transportation (Lipman, 2005). Some secondary impacts that occur because workforce personnel endure long commute times include increased traffic congestion, disincentives to work in specific communi ties, decreased work productivity, less time spent with family, and an unhealthy, disconnected environment for children (Sullivan, 2004). Inadequate living conditions represent a less desirable tradeoff than increased transportation commutes. These condit ions consist of doublingup the number of households within a housing unit or occupying dilapidated structures. Only a small percentage of residents live under these conditions, and they mainly reside in large urban areas ( Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2007, p.27). While households living in crowded housing units may realize reductions in housing expenses, these living conditions contribute to additional expenses. Some of the additional expenses include increased health costs attributed to greater
25 risk of illness and communicable diseases, as well as, mental complications such as stress and reduced patience resulting from living in cramped conditions (Lipman, 2005). Working families are not the only ones that suffer from the shortage of affordable hous ing in high cost and high growth areas. Employers have a hard time recruiting and maintaining sufficient workforce personnel. Furthermore, businesses are having trouble meeting the salary demands of employees with high living costs. In this way, workforce housing shortages stifle economic development because existing businesses have limited growth potential and prospective businesses decide to locate in more reasonably priced communities. Therefore, community residents and stakeholders forgo consumer spendi ng, property taxes and other financial gains (Bell, 2002). Solutions to Providing Workforce Housing The variety of barriers to workforce housing, from extensive development restrictions to complicated and expensive development review processes require a m yriad of solutions. Reducing regulatory barriers are the primary source of solutions; however, land use, financial, preservation based, and resident assistance -based strategies prove effective as well. Every sector of housing, including public, non -profit, and for profit agencies, has found strategies to reduce the cost of housing. Land Use Resources Housing tools that expand development opportunities often consist of leveraging available land for the development of affordable housing. Local governments con tribute by providing publicly owned land at a reduced or no cost, increasing access to land available for affordable housing development, establishing affordable housing programs, and making necessary improvements to land ( Orange County Workforce Housing T ask Force 2007; Haughey 2007; Lubell, 2007; SFCDC, 2008). Some municipalities leverage land, including underutilized
26 publicly owned land, abandoned or tax -delinquent properties, and brownfields ( Haughey, 2007; Lubell, 2007; SFCDC, 2008). Affordable housi ng programs help with property disposition and or acquisition by developers ( Haughey, 2007). Development organizations, such as local or regional housing authorities, assist with inventorying available land and working with local jurisdictions to provide p ublicly owned land for affordable housing ( Haughey 2007). Local municipalities also have resources, such as public works departments, that enable them to improve land and infrastructure as an incentive to affordable housing develop ers (Lubell, 2007 ; SFCDC 2008). Municipalities can target locations with the highest need for affordable housing through zoning ordinances that establish overlay districts or incorporate affordable housing in existing districts ( Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force 2007; Haughey 2007; SFCDC, 2008). Affordable housing districts use specific zoning exceptions that focus on increasing density and reducing design standards within a targeted area to allow cost savings ( The Washington Area Housing Partnership, 2005, p. 7). In addition, local governments can incorporate affordable housing provisions within other overlay districts, where new development within a district must provide a certain percentage of affordable housing units (Lubell, 2007). Some municipalities and develo pers address affordable housing from a holistic standpoint utilizing master plans for large -scale sites and neighborhood development ( Haughey, 2007). When higher densities are required to make developments financially feasible, transfer of development rig hts and severable use rights provide developers with more options ( Haughey, 2007). L ocal governments can also encourag e specific patterns for new developments, such as transit -oriented development and mixed use/ mixed -income developments. These development
27 patterns create opportunities for diversity in housing type and access to employment and public transportation ( Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force 2007; SFCDC, 2008). Regulatory Reform One of the first reports to identify regulatory barriers as a major cause for the high cost of housing was Not In My Backyard: Removing Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing, produced by HUD. Unfortunately, not much has changed in the 15 years since the report exposed the problem of regulatory barrier s. The most recent update to this report, entitled Why Not In Our Communities? Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing examined the ongoing impacts of regulatory barriers to affordability and state and local efforts to remove regulatory barriers and outlined HUDs e xtensive commitment to efforts targeting the removal of these barriers. At HUDs first workforce housing conference in 2007, Roy A. Bernardi, HUD Deputy Secretary, addressed more than one hundred state and local officials issuing HUDs National Call to A ction against local and state barriers to affordable housing. He stated, "HUD is calling on local communities to join us as we identify and remove these man-made barriers that prevent teachers, police officers, firefighters and others from living in commu nities of their choice" (HUD, 2007, p. 1). Bernardis Call to Action reflects ongoing concerns about the cost of development. Floridas CWHIP program identifies the reduction of regulatory barriers as a critical factor in increasing the supply of workfor ce housing. As the name implies, the CWHIP program identifies innovative strategies to reduce the cost of producing housing in order to increase the supply of workforce housing. A ffordable housing -friendly zoning codes can reduce the cost of housing by inc luding density bonuses, accessory dwelling units, and reduced parking and setback requirements (Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force 2007; Haughey, 2007; Lubell, 2007; SFCDC, 2008). Some municipalities have adopted performance -based zoning codes, where desired
28 density and environmental outcomes are the focus ( Haughey 2007). In addition, the reduc tion of building code requirements, such as eliminating the application of fire codes for commercial building s to residential buildings, contribute s to th e development and rehabilitation of affordable housing ( Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force 2007; Haughey 2007). Local governments can also reduce the time and expense of development reviews. For instance, adopting an expedited review and permitting process ( Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force 2007; Haughey 2007; Lubell, 2007; SFCDC, 2008). Expedited review processes have included pre -designed and pre -permitted plans, forgoing planning board reviews for affordable housing projects, limiting the time municipalities have to review affordable housing projects to 30 days, and prioritizing the review of affordable housing projects ( Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force 2007; Haughey 2007; Lubell, 2007; SFCDC, 2008). Effective ways for local municipalities to reduce the cost of development include revised impact fee structures, development fee waiver or reimbursement, and property insura nce relief ( Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force 2007; Haughey 2007; Lubell, 2007; SFCDC, 2008). Financial Resources In addition to regulation and land use strategies, state and local governments have employed various financial strategies to reduce the cost of housing production, typically through capitalizing on market activity or other mech anisms to generate capital. Financial strategies give developers incentives where affordable housing construction would otherwise not be profitable (Haughey, 2007). For example, tax increment financing (TIF) funds development projects using the future tax gains municipalities expect the development to generate ( Haughey 2007; Lubell, 2007). Tax abatements function in a similar manner in that the taxes associated with a development are reduced or waived for a specified period ( Haughey 2007; Lubell, 2007; SFCDC, 2008).
29 Housing trust funds can be extremely effective in providing funds for affordable housing development ( Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force 2007; Haughey, 2007; Lubell, 2007). In 1992, the Florida Legislature passed the Sadowski Act, which established a housing trust fund by increasing the documentary stamp tax paid on the transfer of deeds (Connerly, 2004). The Florida Housing Trust Fund has provided funding for a significant portion of state and local affordable housing programs ( Florida Supportive Housing Coalition 2007). Local governments have also used development activity as a catalyst for affordable housing production, such as inclusionary zoning and housing linkage programs. Inclusionary zoning is a t ool gaining momentum in some parts of the country, primarily in high cost area s such as Maryland, Virginia, California and Massachusetts (Lubell, 2007). Unlike special zoning districts that target geographic areas, inclusionary zoning requires larger new d evelopment to include a percentage of affordable housing within the development, regardless of the development location ( Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force 2007; Haughey 2007; Lubell, 2007; SFCDC, 2008). Usually, incentives such as density bonuses are provided to the developer to mitigate the impacts of requiring low income units. The goal of this requirement is to disperse affordable units. Incorporating affordable housing in otherwise market rate develop ments has a number of benefits, such as reducing the concentration of poverty, encouraging a diversity of housing types in developments, and limiting NIMBYism attitudes typically associated with affordable housing only projects ( Orange County Workforce Hou sing Task Force 2007; Haughey, 2007; Lubell, 2007; SFCDC, 2008). Housing linkage programs connect nonresidential development to affordable housing need, arguing that new businesses generate jobs thus creating an increase in housing demand ( Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force 2007; Haughey, 2007; SFCDC, 2008).
30 Not only are municipalities able to capitalize on housing market activity, they can also use a number of tools to generate capital. One way is through low income housing tax credits, as esta blished in the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (Lubell, 2007). Tax credits provide a dollar -for dollar reduction in a tax payers federal income tax ( Haughey 2007; Lubell, 2007). Expanding the use of the 4 % low income housing tax credits to target higher incomes, up to 14 0% of AMI, would allow the tax credits to apply to workforce housing production, and not focus on low income families as it has traditionally (J. Ross, personal communication, February 14, 2009). Another financial mechanism that aids developers is the provision of pre -development and acquisition financing ( Haughey, 2007; SFCDC, 2008). Developers face numerous costs early in the development project (R. Ippolito, personal communication, February 11, 2009). Yet, many housing programs provide funding i n the later stages of the development process (D. Buck, personal communication, February 16, 2009). Aiding developers in the early stages to identify suitable sites and acquire land is a large benefit to developers (D. Buck, personal communication, Februar y 16, 2009). Local governments can also aid developers by supporting housing bond issues ( Haughey 2007; Lubell, 2007). These funds are available from state and local governments that issue bonds to raise funds for desired activities. They typically work most efficiently when leveraging tax credits from the federal government or when supporting state and local housing programs that do not qualify for federal funds (Lubell, 2007). Public -private partnerships are joint ventures between public sector entitie s and private industry ( National Association of Home Builders 2004). According to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) National Vice President Marsha Elliott, these partnerships provide creative solutions to housing affordability at the local level ( National Association of Home
31 Builders 2004). We see again and again that meaningful action on workforce housing comes through dynamic partnerships involving private and public sector entities ( National Association of Home Builders 2004, p. 16). Public -private partnerships allow entities to coordinate skills and resources in unique ways in order to contribute to housing projects and offer an opportunity for partnerships to cater to the needs of the development ( Haughey 2006). A final way local g overnments can generate capital is by leveraging an employers commitment to affordable housing. E mployers rely on their employee s ability to afford housing on their own. Further employers are not likely to provide housing for employees without a commitment from local government or nonprofit organizations (Lubell, 2007). These organizations often provide services for the design, construction and management of housing, typically areas where employers are not well versed. Resource Preservation Preserving and recycling resources can significantly aid working families in need of affordable housing. An increasing number of affordable rental homes are deteriorating or being destroyed because tenants do not have the resources to pay for routine maintenance ( Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force 2007; Lubell, 2007; SFCDC, 2008). Rehabilitating existing housing stock is far cheaper than developing new affordable housing, primarily because of rising land costs (Lubell, 2007). In addition, recycling downpayment assistance creates a renewable funding source for new homeowners (Lubell, 2007). By requiring families to repay downpayment assistance rather than providing forgivable loans or grants, the assistance is passed on to new families hoping to own a home. Local governments can maximize results from dollars spent, particularly useful given the scarcity of public funds (Lubell, 2007). Preserving existing affordable housing stock also e xtends to maintaining the long term affordability of subsidized housing. Mortgage and rent controls, deed restrictions and limited
32 equity housing cooperatives all serve to keep housing affordable ( Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force 2007; Haughey 2007). However, the most commonly used tool to maintain long -term affordability is community land trusts ( Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force 2007; Haughey, 2007). Community land trusts are typically non-profit entities that hold ownership of land occupied by affordable housing ( Haughey 2007). Because they control ownership of the land, homeowners are limited to the potential profits available from the sale of their home and are required to sell to other qualifying families ( Haughey 2007). In addi tion, initial housing costs are reduced because the homeowners do not purchase the land beneath their home ( Haughey 2007). Resident Assistance Direct financial assistance and counseling allows working families to become successful homeowners and renters (V. Turner, personal communication, February 17, 2009). By expanding homeownership education and counseling, working families receive guidance in the home buying process and aid in improving credit, which improves their access to private -market mortgage ca pital (Lubell, 2007). Additional resources that directly aid homeowners are down payment assistance, foreclosure prevention, lien clearance assistance, and specialized mortgages, such as energy efficient mortgages and location efficient mortgages (V. Turne r, personal communication, February 17, 2009; Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force 2007; Lubell, 2007; SFCDC, 2008). Housing Toolkits In an effort to consolidate solutions for workforce housing production, federal, state, and local municipalities, n onprofit research organizations, and private industry leaders have created toolkits to provide valuable resource s to state and local governments interested in confronting the shortage of affordable housing for working families (Table 2 1) The toolkits a re typically
33 presented as report documents; however, some organizations have provided the resource on their website s as well Although the toolkits have the same general purpose, providing tools to reduce barriers to affordable housing, they do vary concer ning target population and strategy focus. For instance, some toolkits focus exclusively on workforce housing, while others consider a wide range of income groups, as well as, special needs groups. Additionally, some toolkits focus exclusively on one parti cular affordable housing barrier, such as NIMBYism. Most toolkits categori ze the various tools to ease access to specific strategies. Some of these categories include expanding development opportunities, reducing government regulations, capitalizing on mar ket activity, leveraging funding resources preserving and recycling resources, helping residents succeed through homeownership education and financial assistance, and maintaining longterm affordability. The Center for Housing Policy (CHP), a national no n -profit organization, created a toolkit entitled Increasing the Availability of Affordable Homes: An Analysis of High -Impact State and Local Solutions The focus of their toolkit is to provide strategies state and local municipalities can use to reduce the cost of housing for working families, primarily families that are not otherwise served by existing federal housing programs (Lubell, 2007). The toolkit provides an extensive analysis of the tools, often providing case studies as examples, and evaluates the tools based on five criteria: cost -effectiveness, magnitude of potential impact, replicability, flexibility, and ease of implementation (Lubell, 2007). The toolkit concludes by demonstrating how to develop a comprehensive strategic housing plan, ackn owledging that no one tool can resolve the numerous barriers to workforce housing (Lubell, 2007). Further, to assist state and local governments, The CHP posts the toolkit on their website, www.h ousingpolicy.org/ where they have consolidated the tools into six categories: expand
34 development opportunities, reduce red tape, capitalize on market activity, generate capital, preserve and recycle resources, and help residents succeed A publication fro m the Urban Land Institute (ULI), a national private land use research organization, entitled Developing Housing for the Workforce: A Toolkit provides tools targeting workers such as teachers, firefighters, retail managers, and nurses that cannot find hous ing within the communities they serve ( Haughey, 2007). The toolkit describes the workforce housing epidemic, highlights examples of financially feasible, for -profit developments, as well as, public and private programs that target workforce housing develop ment ( Haughey 2007). Since the toolkits are intended to help evaluate a Florida workforce housing program, two regional agencies, one public and one non-profit, were selected to identify tools effective within the state. The Orange County Workforce Housi ng Task Force outlined a n umber of housing strategies in their publication entitled Workforce Housing for Orange Countys Working Families. Orange Countys interest in encouraging workforce housing is being fueled by the recognition that an economically d iverse population is important to the regions economic vitality and quality of life ( Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force 2007). To prepare the document, s eparate c ommittees were formed to address regulatory and financial barriers that inhibit wor kforce housing development. The toolkit identifies the challenges to workforce housing, evaluates the demand for workforce housing, and recommends strategies to overcome financial and regulatory barriers. In addition, the task force provided a toolkit on their county website which has a much broader focus than the published version. T he purpose of the Central Florida Workforce Housing Toolkit is to provide information on a wide range of housing strategies, including the effectiveness of these strategies in various situations ( Orange County Government, Florida
35 2007, p. 1 ). The toolkit includes numerous links to housing strategies and to other housing resources throughout the country. Although the focus of the toolkit is low -to -moderate income families, s enior and special needs housing is also addressed. A regional private entity, the South Florida Community Development Coalition, created the South Florida Affordable Housing Initiative to respond to the high cost of housing for low to -moderate wage workers which was becoming a major factor in business relocation decisions in S outh Florida (SFCDC, 2008). T he purpose of the initiative is to dramatically increas e the production of affordable workforce housing by encouraging local governments to adopt as many of the measures as is practical to eliminate the barriers currently inhibiting developers (SFCDC, 2008). The South Florida Affordable Housing Initiative consolidated these measures on their website in the Outline of Ideas for Increasing Production. A nu mber of other toolkits exist that focus on lower income groups or specific housing strategies One such example is comes from the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency called Addressing Community Opposition to Affordable Housing D evelopment: A Fair Housing T oolkit. As the name implies, the focus of the toolkit is to provide developers with hands on tools to deal with public hearings, building community support, using the media, working with officials, and if needed moving to legal action (Pratt et al., 2004, p. 1). T he document serves as a vital resource for affordable housing developers experiencing community opposition. Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot (CWHIP) Legislation for 2006 CWHIP Cycle In 2006, the Florida Legislature passed Hous e Bill (HB) 1363 to address some of the affordable housing issues currently faced by the State, specifically the extreme gap between what working families earn and the high cost of housing. The HB 1363 dedicated $50 million, funded
36 through the Sadowski Act ,3A pplication for 2006 CWHIP Cycle to a new pilot program, CWHIP. Administered by FHFC, CWHIP provides funding, in the form of forgivable loans on a competitive basis through a Request for Proposal (RFP) process (FHFC, 2006). The program encourages local governments and developers to create innovative strategies, rather than relying on traditional funding sources, to expand the tools available to reduce the cost of housing (FHFC, 2007) The program requires public -private partnerships, to generate interest from nontraditional sources for the finance, construction and management of workforce housing. In addition, the partnerships require state and local governments to coordinate efforts with private sector interests (FHFC, 2007). The CWHIP program is different from other state and federal programs because it provides funding for higher income groups. Many working families have two wage earners, which typically disqualifies them from many traditional affordable housing programs that cap eligibility at 8 0% of AMI or below (FHFC, 2007). By se rving households with incomes up to 140% of AMI, 150% of AMI in the Florida Keys, CWHIP aims to bridge the gap between what a median income household can pay for housing and the cost of a median priced home (FHFC, 2007). The CWHIP program also requires pub lic private partnerships, where local governments and businesses combine resources to reduce the cost of housing production (FHFC, 2007). During the RFP design phase, FHFC held a series of workshops that solicited feedback from community residents, affordable housing developers, and public agencies to determine the logistics of the application process, such as funding goals, innovative strategies, set aside levels, affordability periods, and loan terms (FHFC, 2007) In addition, the Division of Community Planning at the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) provided a framework for determining 3 Originally adop ted in 1992, t he Sadowski Act established the Florida housing trust fund generated by a tencent increase to the state documentary stamp tax on home sales. The trust fund supports CWHIP, among other programs.
37 innovative land use strategies. The resulting RFP provided a series of threshold items4Scoring Process for 2006 CWHIP Cycle for development proposals, including public -private partnerships, development cost pro forma, set aside minimums, and infrastructure availability, among others. The legislation required FHFC to identify high cost and high growth counties, the locations where the target population was in mos t need. To meet this obligation, FHFC created a three tier ranking system for both high cost and high growth counties in the state. County property appraiser data provided the basis to assess high cost counties, measured by the difference between AMI and m edian single -family home sales prices (FHFC, 2006). The Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) provided data to measure high growth counties based on the percentage increase of population (FHFC, 2006). In addition to points encouraging developers to incorporate innovative land use and funding strategies, this ranking system provided the basis for determining which applications would receive funding. In theory, developers would work with local governments and nontraditional affordable housing resou rces to leverage development costs. The CWHIP RFP outlined a point system (Table 2 2 ) to evaluate applications to determine which ones stood out from the rest. Items that were awarded points include project description and detailed plan (20 points), applicant experience (10 points), innovative land use strategies (35 points), innovative local financial strategies (35 points), other innovative strategies (20 points) contributions in excess of 15% of Total Development Costs (35 points), affordability period (30 points), and set asides (30 points) (FHFC, 2006). 4 A threshold item is a mandatory requirement of the RFP. Failure to meet any requirement in the RFP designated as a Threshold Item shall result in rejection (no further action) of a Response (FHFC, 2006, p. 6).
38 The project description and detailed plan include the specific amount of CWHIP funding requested for the project; project specifications incl uding loca tion, number and type of units; target group(s) ; tenure; new construction and/ or rehabilitation ; and inclusion of Acc essory Dwelling Units5 and/ or Lease Purchase6The CWHIP RFP requires applicants to provide c ontributions u nits (FHFC, 2006). The plan should also include whether the project provides services to the tenants and/or homeowners, whether the services are provided onor off -site, and any costs that will be required of the tenants and/or homeowners to receive services (FHFC, 2006). The CWHIP RFP provides a list of examples applicants could use for land use and financial strategies ( Appendix A and Appendix B). The applicant must to provide information about the strategies they intend to employ, including the title of the strategy, how the strategy will benefit the project and documentation of how the strategy will be implemented (FHFC, 2006). The applicant is also asked to provide evidence of whether the local government comprehensive plan, land development regulations, other regulatory guidelines or programs require or create incentives for the strategies listed in the Applicants response (FHFC, 2006, p. 10). In fact the applicant must receive certification from the jurisdiction if the strategy is created because of the application (FHFC, 2006). 7 5 An Accessory Dwelling Unit is a secondary living unit that has a separate kitchen, b athroom, and sleeping area, which exists either within the same structure or on the same lot as the primary dwelling unit (FHFC, 2006, p. 2). 6 A Lease Purchase is where the primary purpose is the eventual purchase of the housing by the occupant within 36 months from initial execution of a lease agreement or within 36 months of the applicable fiscal year, whichever comes first (FHFC, 2006, p. 4). 7 Contributions are land, cash or other valuable consideration contributed to the project (FHFC, 2006). for a minimum of 15 % of the total development cost, the total cost of residential construction or rehabilitation incurred by the project (FHFC, 2006). Applicants that provide evidence of contributions in excess of 15%
39 receive an additional po int for every percent of cont ributions above the required 15% for a maximum of 35 points (FHFC, 2006). Applicants must commit to maintain affordable8Legislation for 2007 CWHIP Cycle rental and homeownership units for a minimum of 20 years (Table 2 3) (FHFC, 2006). For applications that maintain affordable rental units for 50 years, 30 points are awarded (FHFC, 2006). Applications that maintain affordable homeownership units for 30 years receive 15 points (FHFC, 2006). For the CWHIP loan to be forgiven, applicants must maintain affordable rental units for 50 years and affordable homeownership for 30 years (FHFC, 2006). Applicants that maintain affordable homeownership units in perpetuity receive an additional 30 points. However, proposals that consist of both rental and homeownership units could only receive a maximum of 30 points, regardless of the affordability period (FHFC, 2006). The CWHIP RFP requires applications to have at least 5 0% of total development units set aside for workforce housing and 3 0 % set aside for essential service personnel (Table 2 4 ) (FHFC, 2006). The RFP awarded 15 additional points to applications that set aside 65% for workforce housing and 4 0% for essential service personnel, and an additional 30 points if the proposal set asi de 8 0% for workforce housing and 5 0% for essential service personnel (FHFC, 2006). In 2007, the Florida Legislature continued to fund the CWHIP program through HB 1375. The goals of the CWHIP program remained the same, to p rovide affordable workforce housing, either for rent or for -sale, for ESP affected by the high cost of housing. The focus of public private partnerships and using local and state resources to leverage funds and seek innovative 8 Units are determined affordable if they meet workforce housing criteria, not to exceed 30% of household income for families earning between 80 and 140% of AMI.
40 land use and financial strate gies was also still a priority of the CWHIP program. FHFC would still oversee the administration of the program including developing the loan application and establishing the application review process. The DCA continued to oversee the land use strategies as well. Naturally, there were a few differences between the 2006 and the 2007 cycles. The first major change was an increase in funding, which the Florida Legislature increased to $62.4 million. The FHFC made changes to the application process. A lthough the loan application still functioned on a competitive basis, the CWHIP candidates no longer applied through an RFP and small cures9Working class Americans face many obstacles trying to obtain affordable housing in the communities they serve. The services these personnel provide are essential to a high quality of life for all Americans. Many working families ea rn too much to qualify for federal housing subsidies and are still unable to afford housing without making significant sacrifices. The could be made prior to submitting applications Another change in the 2007 cycle was a lower contribution threshold, only requiring 10% of the total development cost or $2 million, whichever is less. E ligibility criteria for home ownership applications also changed, where the sales price of a unit could not exceed 9 0% of the median sales price in the county where the project is being proposed, as opposed to the 8 0% limit i n the 2006 cycle Changes to the scoring process were made as well, including an increase in available points for land use and local financial strategies, from 35 to 40 points. T he last major change to the 2007 CWHIP application was the addition of a threshold item, evidence of green building practices through Energy Star certification, Florida Green Building Coalition certification, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED ) certification. 9 Rule 6758.003, F.A.C., subsection (4) outlines the procedure for small cures, minor corrections in the form of additional Documents, revised pages and other materials, made to an application after FHFCs initial review.
41 CWHIP program attempts to fill this void in housing assistance programs by targeting funds for moderate income households The program also encourages housing strategies outlined in much of the landmark research reports on workforce housing (Lipman, 2004, 2005; Haughey, 2005 and 2007; Lubell, 2007). For instance, public -private partnerships are a requirement for proposals a nd innovative land use and local financial incentives are strongly rewarded in the evaluation process. The next chapter describes the methodology for evaluating the CWHIP program based on the degree to which the program reaches critical housing goals.
42 Table 2 1 Toolkit Comparison Expand Development Opportunities Increasing the Availability of Affordable Homes (CHP) Developing Housing for the Workforce: A Toolkit (ULI) Workforce Housing for Orange Countys Working Families (Orange County) Outline of Ideas for Increasing Production (SFCDC) Use Public Land Make Publicly Owned Land Available for Affordable Housing x x x Reuse Land Finding Good Sites x x Assist Developers to Acquire Vacant Lots x x Land Surveys, Inventories, and Information x x Property Disposition or Acquisition Programs x Abandoned or Tax delinquent Properties x x Brownfield Development x Utilize Development Organizations Development Authorities x Land Banking x x Target Development Locations Affordable Housing Districts x x x Incorporate Holistic Approach Master Planning Large Sites x Adopt a Holistic Approach to Neighborhood Development x
43 Table 2 1 Continued Address Regulatory Barriers Increasing the Availability of Affordable Homes (CHP) Developing Housing for the Workforce: A Toolkit (ULI) Workforce Housing for Orange Countys Working Families (Orange County) Outline of Ideas for Increasing Production (SFCDC) Change Zoning Codes Expand the Supply of Homes Through Rezoning x x Ensure Zoning Policies Support a Diversity of Housing Types x x Affordable Zoning Options (Density Bonus/Accessory Dwelling Units/Parking) x x x Development (Performance) Standards x Revisions to Building Codes x x Adopt "Rehab Codes" to Facilitate Rehabilitation of Older Homes x x Alternative Housing Construction Techniques x Expedite Permitting and Review Adopt Expedited Permitting and Review Policies x x x x Pre Designed and Pre Permitted Plans x
44 Table 2 1 Continued Address Regulatory Barriers (continued) Increasing the Availability of Affordable Homes (CHP) Developing Housing for the Workforce: A Toolkit (ULI) Workforce Housing for Orange Countys Working Families (Orange County) Outline of Ideas for Increasing Production (SFCDC) Reduce Development Fees Revise Impact and Permitting Fee Structures x x x Water and Sewer Infrastructure as Local Obligations x Waiver or Reimbursement of Development Fees x End Double Underwriting 10 of Home Purchase Loans Made by Local Governments x Property Insurance Relief x Pay Government Fees After Completion of Construction x Utilize Transfer of Development Rights Transfer of Development Rights x Severable Use Rights x Development Patterns Transit Oriented Development x x Mixed Use, Mixed Income Development x 10 Double underwriting refers to local governments underwriting loans offered to low income homebuyers, which is already done through the private sector lender (SFCDC, 2008).
45 Table 2 1 Continued Capitalize on Market Activity Increasing the Availability of Affordable Homes (CHP) Developing Housing for the Workforce: A Toolkit (ULI) Workforce Housing for Orange Countys Working Families (Orange County) Outline of Ideas for Increasing Production (SFCDC) Tax Increment Financing Utilize Tax Increment Financing to Fund Affordable Homes x x Tax Abatement or Waiver Stimulate Construction or Rehabilitation Through Tax Abatements x x Use Sales Tax Exemption to Lower Cost x Tax Base Sharing x Increase Homestead Exemption on Property Tax x Housing Trust Funds Create or Expand Dedicated Housing Trust Funds x x x Inclusionary Zoning Establish Inclusionary Zoning Requirements or Incentives x x x x State and Regional Inclusionary Housing Programs x State Appeals Board x Local Inclusionary Housing Programs x Use Cross Subsidies to Support Mixed Income Communities x Linkage Programs Housing Linkage Programs x x x Replacement Housing Ordinance x
46 Table 2 1 Continued Leverage Funding Sources Increasing the Availability of Affordable Homes (CHP) Developing Housing for the Workforce: A Toolkit (ULI) Workforce Housing for Orange Countys Working Families (Orange County) Outline of Ideas for Increasing Production (SFCDC) Low Income Housing Tax Credits Expand the Use of the 4 % Low Income Housing Tax Credit x x Pre Development Financing Provide Pre Development and Acquisition Financing x x Leverage Funds Support Housing Bond Issues x x Use Housing Finance Agency Reserves for Affordable Housing x Sell SHIP/Surtax Loans on a Secondary Market x Better Align Subsidy Programs x Better Use of Section 8 for New Rental Construction x Section 8 Home Ownership x Employer Assisted Housing Leverage Employers' Commitment to Affordable Homes for Workers x x x x Public Private Partnerships Financing Partnerships/Lending Consortia x Promote a New Model for Joint Venture Development of Single Family Home Ownership Units x Other Financial Mechanisms Affordable Housing from Existing Condo Units x Convert Existing Rental Buildings x Ease Burden on Small Condo Associations in Affordable Developments x
47 Table 2 1 Continued Preserve Resources and Maintain Affordability Increasing the Availability of Affordable Homes (CHP) Developing Housing for the Workforce: A Toolkit (ULI) Workforce Housing for Orange Countys Working Families (Orange County) Outline of Ideas for Increasing Production (SFCDC) Preserve Resources Preserve Affordable Rental Homes (Rehabilitation) x x x Recycle Down Payment Assistance x Use Shared Equity Mechanisms to Preserve Homeownership Subsidies x Demand side Programs x Adaptive Reuse x Infill Housing Development x x Maintain Affordability For Sale Homes: Mortgage Controls x Extended Family Mortgages x Deed Restrictions x x Limited Equity Housing Cooperatives x x Community Land Trusts x x x Rental Housing: Rent Control x Renew Expiring Federal Subsidies x x
48 Table 2 1 Continued Assist Residents and Address Social Barriers Increasing the Availability of Affordable Homes (CHP) Developing Housing for the Workforce: A Toolkit (ULI) Workforce Housing for Orange Countys Working Families (Orange County) Outline of Ideas for Increasing Production (SFCDC) Assist Residents Expand Homeownership Education and Counseling x x x Prevent Foreclosures and Help Affected Renters and Owners x Lien Clearance Assistance x Reduce Household Energy Costs x Fannie Mae Mortgage Solutions x Energy Efficient Mortgages x Location Efficient Mortgages x Down Payment Assistance x Lease To Own Option Address Social Barriers Prevent NIMBYism x Sources: Lubell, 2007; Haughey, 2007 ; Glasser, 2007; SFCDC, 2008.
49 Table 2 2 Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot ( CWHIP ) Request for Proposal (RFP) s coring s ystem RFP Section Item Reference Maximum Points A. Contact Information Sheet 0 points B. Project Description and Detailed Plan 20 points C. Public Private Partnership Threshold Item D. Applicant Experience 10 points E.1. Innovation Land Use Strategies 35 points E.2. Innovation Local Financial Strategies 35 points E.3. Other Innovative Strategies 20 points F.1. Development Cost Pro Forma Threshold Item F.2.a. Contribution Evidence of 15% Threshold Item F.2.b. Contribution in Excess of 15% 35 points G.1. Affordability Period 30 points G.1. Affordability Period Minimums Threshold Item H. Set -Asides 30 points H. Set Asides Minimums Threshold Item I. Site Control Threshold Item J. Infrastructure Availability Threshold Item K. Demand and Need Threshold Item L. Certification Statement Threshold Item Total Points Available 215 points Source: FHFC, 2006. Table 2 3 Affordability p eriod s coring s ystem Rental (years) Homeownership (years) Points 20 20 Threshold Item 50 30 15 points in perpetuity 30 points Source: FHFC, 2006.
50 Table 2 4 Set aside s coring s ystem Workforce Housing (percentage of total development units ) Essential Services Personnel (percentage of total development units) Points 50 30 Threshold Item 65 40 15 points 80 50 30 points Note: Essential Services Personnel (ESP) is a subgroup of Workforce Housing that focuses on specific occupations to be determined by local governments. Therefore, the percentage of total development units set aside for Workforce Housing and ESP may total more than 100% Source: FHFC, 2006.
51 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLGY This chapter describes the methodology used to eva luate the CWHIP program based on the degree to which the program reaches critical housing goals as outlined in the legislation and implementation documents. First, the CWHIP legislation and Rule were reviewed to gain an understanding of the program. Then, interviews were conducted to gain greater insight on the intentions and implementation of state objectives. Next recommended land use and local financial strategies suggested in the 2006 CWHIP RFP and case study were compared to those in the various toolkits that address workforce housing. Then, a rubric was used to compare the 2006 CWHIP approved applications to each other in order to determine common characteristics associated with those that were awarded funding. Last, an in -depth analysis of one of the 2006 CWHIP approved projects wa s performed. Interviewees include d key members of state, regional, and local entities involved in housing administration or development. Initial contact wa s performed by telephone, email, or in person, where participants were briefed on the purpose of the study, the format of the interview, and their rights as a study participant. Subsequently, they re ceive d the Informed Consent Letter (Appendix C), which requires participant signatures if they agree to participate in the interview process. After receipt of the signed Informed Consent L etter, the investigator arranged to conduct the interview at the convenience of the participant and within the manner of their choosing, primarily on the telephone. Participants were asked a series of open -ended questions regarding their background as a housing leader or advocate, their involvement in the CWHIP program, and their impression of the success of the program. These questions addressed the degree to which the program reaches critical housing goals as outlined in the legislation and implementation documents, as compared
52 to spec ific principles recognized in workforce housing toolkits or case study examples undertaken throughout the United States. Most of the participants have extensive experience in affordable or workforce housing in Florida, with 20 or more years of affordable housing experience within the State of Florida. At the state level, they included the Policy Director for the FHFC ; the Chief of State Planning for DCA ; the Affordable Housing Director for 1000 Friends of Florida, who is also President of the Florida Housing Coalition ; and the Governmental Affairs Director for the Florida Home Builders Association. The Director of Hillsborough Countys Affordable Housing Office represented the local government p erspective. A dditionally affordable housing developers, such as the Executive Director of Westshore Alliance, the nonprofit developer for Westshore Landings One in Tampa, Florida, and the Vice President of Project Development for Cornerstone Group, the fifth largest developer in the State of Florida that specializes in affordable housing, participated in the interview process. Next, land use and local financial strategies suggested in the 2006 CWHIP RFP and the case study project were compared to the identified toolkits to evaluate their capacity to encourage innovat ive land use, local financ e and other innovative strategies. The f our identified toolkits focus ed on workforce housing were selected due to the ir variety of tools their geographic scope, institutional pers pective, and the private, non profit, and public sector roles The selected workforce housing toolkits were compiled into a table called the Toolkit Comparison that list s all the tools highlighted within the four toolkits (Table 2 1) An x withi n a toolkits column indicates that the tool was identified in that kit. The Toolkit Comparison table also illustrates the tools most widely advocated by the various agencies that designed them Similar to the workforce housing toolkits used in the comparison, the table wa s organized into major categories : expanding development opportunities, reducing regulatory barriers,
53 capitalizing on market activity, leveraging funding sources, preserving resources, maintaining affordability, assisting residents, and addressing social barriers. Based on thi s information, a composite toolkit was generated consist ing of the major categories identified in the Toolkit Comparison table The Composite Toolkit table also includes housing strategies suggested within the CWHIP RFP and case study project. A s in the To olkit Comparison table an x indicates which tools were identified in the workforce housing toolkits, the CWHIP RFP, and the case study Westshore Landings One The Composite Toolkit table serves as a means to identify how the CWHIP RFP and the case stud y project compare to other strategies used across the state and nationally T he CWHIP applications were then evaluated to determine what housing tools, such as funding and land use strategies, and development statistics were provided. A rubric was used as the basis to compare the 2006 CWHIP approved projects to one another. D eveloped for the purpose of this thesis, the rubric assisted in understand ing the strengths and weaknesses between the 2006 CWHIP approved projects. Furthermore, a comparison b etween the 2006 CWHIP approved applications provide d evidence of how the CWHIP program was implemented based on its original objectives. The rubric consists of development statistics and strategies outlined in project applications. Development statistics include: workforce housing need; high cost and high growth tiers ; percentage of set aside units ; housing mix; proximity of housing in relation to employment. Innovative d evelopment strategies include: land acquisition; local financial strategies ;
54 regula tory incentives ; affordability period; zoning overlay district s; resident assistance. A point system, ranging from one to three, determine d the degree to which the applications met certain criteria regarding development statistics and strategies. The cri teri a base line, a ranking of two, wa s generally associated with threshold requirements, or the minimum acceptable value for applications. For instance, if an application provided evidence of contributions (i.e. land donation s or other services or resource s contributed to the project ) of 15% the application recei ve d a ranking of two because this percentage reflects the threshold requirement Development statistics or strategies considered to benefit the CWHIP target population received higher rankings. For example, if the application provided evidence of contributions greater than 15% then the application receive d a ranking of three. After each application wa s evaluated based on the rubric, the applications total points w ere weighed against the rest of the applications. The last step in the methodology consists of an in -depth analysis of one of the 2006 CWHIP approved projects, Westshore Landings One. The case study method was chosen to identify how the Westshore Landings One project implemented land use, financial, and other strategies found in the CWHIP RFP and workforce housing toolkits to reduce the cost of housing. The case study method was preferred over other traditional forms of research strategies such as experiment, survey, archival analysis, and history since it allows for examination of how various housing strategies were employed by one of the 2006 CWHIP approved applications (Yin, 2002) The case study research strategy accommodates both direct observation of cu rrent events and interviews with the participants (Yin, 2002). Westshore Landings One was chosen because the researcher gained familiarity with the Westshore Business District, including the
55 disparity between housing and employment, and local efforts to su pport workforce housing in the area, and established contacts through previous coursework with those directly involved in the project. T o perform an in -depth analysis of the case study, the tools proposed in the Westshore Landings One application were identified followed by an explanation of how the tools will benefit the development project. The tools identified in the case study proposal were then cross refe renced with tools found in the C omposite T oolkit. Cross referencing the tools will identify other tools that could have benefited the development proposal and future proposals that seek to use this program The tools not found in the case study were assessed to determine if their application to the case study is appropriate After the absent tools we re identified recommendations as to what other tools could have been proposed within the case study application were made. As discussed in this chapter, various methods w ere employed to evaluate the C WHIP program. The initial step wa s to examine the CWHIP RFP to determine if it is consistent with st ate legislation. The next step wa s to utilize information obtained through interviews to determine the impressions of housing leaders within the state Next, comparison of various toolkits found both nationally and within the State of Florida provided a means to understand CWHIPs strengths and weaknesses, resulting in a Composite T oolkit. The Composite Toolkit was then used to compare what tools were utilized in the workforce housing toolkits, the 2006 CWHIP RFP and the case study. Then, a rubric, developed from a nalysis of the interview responses identif ied application statistics and strategies and clarif ied elements outlined in the 2006 CWHIP approved applications. The final step of the evaluation process in volve d an in depth analysis of one of the 2006 CWHIP approved projects Westshore Landings One The next
56 chapter implement s the se methods and include s an overall analysis of the CWHIP program based on the interviews, Composite Toolkit rubric, and case study
57 CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND ANALYSI S This chapter discusses the findings and analysis based on implementing the methodology used t o evaluate the CWHIP program The first section discusses the findings from i nterviews conducted with housing leaders in the state to determine the validity of the program. The second section assesses various workforce housing toolkits found at the national and state level. A composite toolkit is created based on the major categori es found in the workforce housing toolkits providing a foundation for evaluating the CWHIP RFP and case study. The third section involves a more in-depth examination of the differences between the CWHIP applications and the RFP A rubric designed to illus trate the strengths and weaknesses of how each CWHIP application provides innovative strategies and meets RFP thresholds serve s as the bas i s for this evaluation. The last section is an in -depth analysis of one of the CWHIP applications. The case study provide s an evaluation of the various land use, financial, and other tools used in the development proposal. CWHIP Validity Most of the interview participants for this project were involved in the development or implementation of the CWHIP program in one way or another. T he Chief of State Planning for the DCA, Craig Diamond, was responsible for setting roughly a dozen land -use oriented criteria for the CWHIP RFP, specifically re fining the criteria and approaches that inform ed the application review process In addition, he supervised staff responsible for reviewing application s. T he Policy Director for the FHFC Nancy Muller, was involved with writing the legislation and administ ering the program The Affordable Housing Director for 1000 Friends of Florida Jaimie Ross, reviewed the draft legislation and spoke with prime sponsors, including Representative Mike Davis. The Director of Governmental Affairs for the Florida Home
58 Build ers Association Doug Buck, was intimately involved with the development of and advocacy for the CWHIP program The Director of Hillsborough Countys Affordable Housing Office Valmarie Turner, collaborated with Florida Home Partnership, the developer of o ne of the 2007 CWHIP approved application s. The Vice President of Project Development for Cornerstone Group Rob Ippolito participated in the development and implementation of CWHIP through rule workshops. Lastly, an anonymous employee of Westshore Allian ce was the only interviewee that did not participate in the development and implementation of CWHIP ; instead, provided insight on the case study While FHFC drafted the RFP and administered the program as required by the legislation, they were not in favor of CWHIP. State level interviewees yielded comments reflecting the commonly held opinion that, due to either principle or timing households earning up to 14 0% of AMI should not receive housing assist ance. Muller stated, Workforce housing should not be funded in 95% of the state ; only in extremely high cost areas such as the Florida Keys (N. Muller, personal communication, February 9, 2009). Ross felt that a national recession was not an appropriate time to implement a program that served families earning up to 14 0% of AMI ( J. Ross, personal communication, February 14, 2009). The state level public sector interviewees felt the program was a response to a perceived crisis during the housing boom a t ime when housing prices nearly doubled ov er the six year period from 2002 to 2007 ( Governors Affordable Housing Study Commission et al., 2007). The program was a response to a crisis versus thinking through how other programs could be utilized in the crisis. There was no determination if the crisis was going to be long -term (N. Muller, personal communication, February 9, 2009). By the time the C WHIP recipients were selected the housing market had changed With lower h o me prices and a rash of foreclosed
59 homes higher income households no longer need assistance (J. Ross, personal communication, February 14, 2009). Further, s tate level interviewe es within the public sector felt that other programs, such as the SHIP program, could have adjusted its criteria to meet the needs of the higher income workforce, up to 14 0% of Area Median Income. The participants felt that adjusting the criteria for an e xisting program made more se n s e than creating a new program that required a new application process. New programs typically take a few iterations to get the application process right ( D. Buck, personal communication, February 16, 2009). Ross believed that a t the time the CWHIP progr am was being proposed the Florida L egislature di d not favor the SHIP program (J. Ross, personal communication, February 14, 2009). According to Buck legislators were not willing to put more money into SHIP because local governments were not doing their part to reduce excessive housing regulations, a require ment of SHIP (D. Buck, personal communication, February 16, 2009) Typically [local governments] ignore the law. For many years, I watched impact fees, exactions, and regula tions increase and local governments didnt care that it added costs (D. Buck, personal communication, February 16, 2009). Knowing that SHIP was not going to receive more funding, and understanding the considerable need for affordable housing during the h eight of the real estate boom, turning away state funding associated with this new program was not an option. Th erefore, FHFC wrote the RFP to ensure the approach was as rational as possible ( N. Muller, personal communication, February 9, 2009). In additio n, Buck (2009) felt working outside the SHIP program was almost necessary, due to lack of political support However, once the strategies outlined in the CWHIP program, namely public -pri vate partnerships, were proven
60 e ffe ctive, the strategies could be incl uded in ano ther program s framework ( D. Buck, personal communication, February 16, 2009). A consensus within the public sector at the state level was that with the burst of the housing bubble home prices fell to within reach of this higher income group and the need for the program no longer existed (J. Ross, personal communication, February 14, 2009; N. Muller, personal communication, February 9, 2009; D. Buck, personal communication, February 16, 2009). Conversely, interviewees at the local level, thos e who have a more intimate relationship with working families in need of housing, argue that home prices have not fallen within reach, that more money for this program is needed ( V. Turner, personal communication, February 17, 2009; R. Ippolito, personal c ommunication, February 11, 2009; Anonymous personal communication, February 9, 2009). In addition, local level interviewees hoped successful CWHIP projects could have provided a model for other workforce developments throughout the state. However, local level participants still found fault with the programs structure One of the biggest program weaknesses identified at the local level was the extensive application process. Typically, state and local governments are involved through financing and oversig ht Although their participation is often necessary to develop affordable housing projects their lack of coordination, such as separate loan qualifications and application processes becomes a hindrance to implementing the pro gram For instance, one of the CWHIP applicants Westshore Community Development Corporation (WCDC), worked with FHFC for CWHIP funds and a Pre -development Loan Program (PLP) Hillsborough County for EPA Revolving Loan Fund and Grant monies, and the City of Tampa for SHIP funds Each agency has a different loan application format and a separate underwriting process. Streamlining the application process
61 would allow smaller, less sophisticated for and non -profit developers to seek CWHIP funding, which is currently daunting due to the extensive legal fees for the loan documents and underwriting. In fact, r egulation fees for the WCDC project increased housing costs by $20,000 to $30,000 per unit ( Anonymous personal communication, February 9, 2009). Despite their concerns about the program s income target, structure and implementation, interviewees, including state housing officials found the program encouraged high level partnerships with school boards, hospitals, fire departments and chambers of commerce. In addition, it got a l ot of businesses and developers interested in affordable housing because they felt better about helping the working class teachers and nurses Anytime you get more people interested in affordable housing, its a good thing (V. Turner, personal communica tion, February 17, 2009). Toolkit Evaluation Toolkit Comparison Four toolkits were selected because of their focus on workforce housing strategies. The workforce housing toolkits include numerous tools, such as land use, regulatory, financial, and other m echanisms, that reduce the cost of housing or assist working families. The following section describes the various tools offered in the workforce housing toolkits and highlights the tools that are acknowledged most frequently. In addition, a C omposite T ool kit is created based on the major categories indicated in the Toolkit Comparison table (Table 2 -1 ). The Composite Toolkit is used to evaluate the strategies suggested in the CWHIP RFP and the case study (Table 4 1) What do the workforce housing toolkits include? The workforce housing toolkits vary in focus as to the strategies and tools each one suggests; however, each toolkit typically identifies at least one strategy within the various major
62 categories outlined in the Composite Toolkit. The CHP toolkit, Increasing the Availability of Affordable Homes consistently covers the various categories of housing tools; however, the toolkit does not focus on any one category. The CHP toolkit suggests a number of financial strategies that are not found in the othe r toolkits. These include providing cross -subsidies to support mixedincome communities, using housing finance agency reserves for affordable housing, recycling downpayment assistance, and employing shared equity mechanisms to preserve homeownership subsidies. The CHP toolkit also had a number of unique resident assistance strategies, such as preventing foreclosure and helping affected renters and owners, and reducing household energy costs. Developing Housing for the Workforce: A Toolkit published by the ULI, is the most comprehensive in identifying tools to expand development opportunities, change zoning codes, and maintain long term affordability. Within this toolkit, at least ten different tools are identified for expanding development opportunities, p roviding numerous methods to reuse land for workforce housing. The toolkit recommends creating organizations to assist in inventorying available land and utilizing affordable housing districts. The ULI toolkit is the only one to suggest incorporating workf orce housing into these master planned sites. For addressing regulatory barriers, the toolkit primarily focuses on changing zoning codes, providing far more strategies than any other toolkit. The ULI toolkit has a number of strategies to capitalize on mark et activity, outlining several inclusionary zoning tools. This toolkit offers the most strategies for maintaining long term affordability, such as mortgage control and rent control, deed restrictions and community land trusts. The only category the toolkit did not cover was assisting residents.
63 Tools found within the Workforce Housing for Orange Countys Working Families cover a broad spectrum, focusing on preserving resources, maintaining affordability, and assisting residents through education, counseling and financial assistance. The toolkit does not include many suggestions for generating capital; in fact, the only tool in this category is encouraging employer assisted housing. In addition, the toolkit only suggest s two tools for expanding development opportunities; making publicly owned land available for affordable housing and utilizing affordable housing districts. The Orange County toolkit is the only one that suggests alternative housing construction techniques to reduce housing costs, mixed use/mi xed income developments, adaptive reuse, and preventing NIMBYism. The South Florida Affordable Housing Initiatives toolkit, Outline of Ideas for Increasing Production, addresses every major category of strategies, except maintaining long -term affordability for homeowner and rental units. The South Florida toolkit is the only one to suggest adopting a holistic approach to neighborhood development, several strategies to r educe development fees, and pre -designed and pre permitted plans. The toolkit is also the only one to suggest utilizing severable use rights, several tax abatement or waiver strategies, several fund leveraging strategies, promoting a new model for joint ve nture development of single family home ownership units, converting existing condominium units and existing rental units for affordable housing, and providing lien clearance assistance. What are the most recognized tools? Only two tools are recognized in all four of the workforce housing toolkits, adopting expedited permitting and review policies and establishing inclusionary zoning requirements. Nine tools or strategies are recognized 75 % of the workforce housing toolkits. These include: making publicly owned land available for affordable housing ; utilizin g affordable housing districts;
64 providing aff ordable housing zoning options; revising impac t and permitting fee structures; creating or expanding dedicated housing trust funds; empl oying housing linkag e programs; create community land trusts; encoura ging employer assisted housing; pres erving affordable rental homes; expanding homeownership education and counseling. Composite Toolkit How does the Composite Toolkit compare to the CWHIP RFP? The CWHIP RFP provides a number of strategies for applicants to employ within their proposals ( Appendix A and Appendix B for a complete list of strategies in the CWHIP RFP), primarily regulatory and financial strategies; however, preservation based, resident assistancebased, and land use tools are outlined as well. The CWHIP RFP identifies eleven different strategies for a ddressing regulatory barriers including affordable zoning options, expediting review processes, consolidating permit applications, revising impact fee structures, transferring development rights, and utilizing transit -oriented development and mixed use/mi xed -income developments. The CWHIP RFP includes four tools for capitalizing on market activity and leveraging funding sources which are tax increment financing, housing linkage programs, local land bank incentives, and locally derived revenues. Involvemen t of local banking/financial institutions and locally derived revenues are not suggested in the workforce housing toolkits as outlined in the Composite Toolkit (Table 4 1 ). The only two capital generating tools in the CWHIP RFP are employer assisted housin g and public -private partnerships; however, public private partnership s are mandate d by the RFP rather than suggest ed The preservation -based tools suggested in the RFP are preserving affordable rental homes through rehabilitation, and mortgage and rent co ntrols. The RFP only identifies one resident assistance -based tool, lease -to own option, which is not addressed in the other four toolkits. The CWHIP RFP did not address
65 NIMBY issues, which is not much of a surprise since only one of the four toolkits addr esses NIMBYism. The CWHIP Difference When compared to other state and federal housing assistance programs, CWHIP does not function as a substitute for these programs because it targets a higher income group than any other state and federal program. Therefo re, critics cannot say the CWHIP program contributed to housing that could have otherwise been funded though another source The only program that does target some households within the income limits of the CWHIP program is SHIP, serving households up to 1 2 0% o f AMI. In fiscal year 20052006 SHIP funds were estimated at $193 million and were distributed among all 67 counties and 51 C DBG eligible cities guaranteeing at least $350,000 per county ( Governors Affordable Housing Study Commission 2007). However, local governments are required to dedicate at least 6 0% of the funds to very low (up to 5 0% of AMI) or low (up to 8 0% of AMI) income households, income limits well below the CWHIP target population. Between fiscal year 2004 and 2005, slightly over 4 5% of SHIP funds served very low income households, slightly over 40% of funds served low income households and just over 1 0% of SHIP funds served moderate -income households ( Governors Affordable Housing Study Commission 2007) .1Rubric A rubric was cr eated for evaluating the 2006 CWHIP approved applications (Table 4.2) The rubric wa s divided into two categories, development statistics and development strategies. Development statistics include housing need, cost tier, growth tier, percentage of set asi des, 1 The percentage of SHIP funds allocated to very low, low, and moderate income households does not add up to 100% because up to five % of SHIP funds can be dedicated to administrative expenses ( University Partnership for Community & Economic Development 2006).
66 housing mix, and proximity to employment. Development strategies include RFP scoring criteria, land acquisition, financial innovation, regulatory incentives, contributions, affordability period, zoning district and, resident assistance. The rubric scores the categories, where applicable, based on whether the applications meet the RFP thresholds. A score of one indicates the application did not meet the threshold. A score of two indicates the application met the threshold. A score of three indicates the application exceeded the RFP threshold Results of the 2006 CWHIP approved applications demonstrate how each application met thresholds for each category ( Figure 4 1 Table 4 3, and Appendix D) The scoring for individual applications are summarized to illustrate how the applications compare to one another. The average score for the 2006 CWHIP approved applications is 36 out of a possible 42 points. Merry Place at Pleasant City in Palm Beach County is the highest scoring application with 40 points. Ridge view Subdivision and The Villas at Kenilworth in Highlands County i s the lowest scoring application with a score of 32 points Housing need Housing need is based on the percentage of cost burdened and severely cost burdened (cost burdened) moderate -inco me households compared to the state. A s of 2005, 3. 5% of owner occupied households in Florida spen t at least 3 0% of income on housing (Figure 4 2 and Figure 4 3 for complete data on the number of cost burdened, moderate income households ). Two of the 2006 CWHIP approved developments Homes of West Augustine and Village of Quillen, were located in cities with higher percentages of cost burdened households than the state. The City of West Augustine in St. Johns County has the highest percentage (3.7%) of owne r occupied households that are cost burdened. The next highest percentage (3.6%) of cost burdened owner occupied households is the Indiantown a rea of Martin County, the location of the Village of Quillen CWHIP project. These figures could be misrepresented because data for West Augustine
67 and the Indiantown a rea include the entire unincorporated area within their respective counties, meaning cost burdened owner occupied households may be disproportionately located in rural areas ( V. Turner, personal communic ation, February 17, 2009). T he City of Delray Beach in Palm Beach County, the location of the Midtown Delray CWHIP project, has the highest percentage (3.4%) of cost burdened households for which city level data is available just below the percentage of cost burdened households for the state. In Florida 0.8 % of moderate income households spend at least 30% of household income on rent. Six of the 2006 CWHIP proposals were located in cities with high er percentages than the state. Among the project communit ies, t he highest percentage of cost burdened renter occupied households is in the City of Orlando in Orange County, the location of the Verde CWHIP project, with 2. 0% cost burdened households and 0.1 % severely cost burdened households The city with the se cond highest percentage of cost burdened renter occupied, moderate income households is in the City of Delray Beach with 1.1 % of cost burdened households and 0.1% severely cost burdened households. High c ost and g rowth tier s The CWHIP RFP has established a three -tier system for determining whether an application is located in a high cost or high growth county ( Appendix E and Appendix F ) Three of the four approved 2006 projects within the high cost category were in Tier 1 for high cost counties. Boulevard of the Ar ts Residences in Sarasota County ranked in Tier 2 for high cost counties, yet was still awarded funding within the high cost category (FHFC, 2007) T wo of the three approved 2006 projects within the high growth catego ry ranked in Tier 1 for high growth counties. Verde in Orange County did not rank within Tier 1 for high growth, yet was still awarded funding (FHFC, 2007)
68 Percentage of set -asides The percentage of set aside units is based on the number of units set asi de for workforce housing and ESP. All of the 2006 CWHIP approved projects received the maximum score for set asides, committing to dedicate at least 8 0% of the developments total units to w orkforce h ousing and at least 5 0% of the developments total units to ESP ( Figure 4 4 and Figure 4 5 ). All b ut two projects, The Preserve and Ridgeview Subdivision and The Villas a t Kenilworth set aside 10 0% of units for workforce housing. Furthermore, three of the approved projects, Boulevard of the Arts Residences, Midtown Delray, and Hatton Street Houses, set aside 100% of their developments total units for both workforce and ESP. Housing mix All of the 2006 approved CWHIP projects offer some variation in housing mix, e ither providing a mixture of housing sizes ,2 type s ,3Although the exact mixture of household income for the projects will not be known until the units are occupied all of the 2006 approved CWHIP applications provide a range of income targets for potential residents. The CWHIP RFP specifie s that workforce housing is intended for households earning between 80 to 14 0% of AMI. However, the projects income targets vary significantly even below 80% of AMI Only one project Village of Quillen, specifies the or income target s All of the projects provide a mixture of housing sizes; however, only t wo projects provide a mixture of housing type s within their development proposals. Merry Place at Pleasant City i n Palm Beach County propose s to develop single -family homes, townhomes, and condominiums (Robinson, 2006) In addition, four of the single -family homes will have accessory dwelling units. Midtown Delray propose s to develop single -family homes and townhomes (Bender, 2006a ). 2 Housing Size is defined by the square footage of a residential unit. 3 Housing Type s include single family detached, townhouse, apartment, or condominium.
69 income target for future residents will be between 80 to 140% of AMI (Bender, 2006b ). Two projects target households with income up to 14 0% of AMI; however, this does not mean the projects will not accept households earning below 8 0% of AMI One such project is Wolf Creek Village which wil l target households earning between 60 to 140% of AMI (Blue, 2006) Three of the 2006 approved projects cap household income limits below that prescribed in the CWHIP RFP with Hatton Street Houses being the lowest, target ing households earning between 80 t o 100% of AMI (Guilfoil, 2006b ). The Westshore Landings One project located in Hillsborough County does not specify income limits for prospective households; however, a provision of the PLP requires that households earning no more than 8 0% of AMI occupy 100% of the units (University Partnership for Community & Economic Development, 2006). Mixed income developments are desirable for affordable housing because they provide housing choice for a variety of households. Proximity to employment Proximity to employment relates to the distance between the project and employment intended for the project s target residents. Over one third of the 2006 CWHIP approved projects were proposed to develop workforce housing within mixed use developments. Midtown Delray proposed to develop a 20,000 square foot medical facility on-site. The Village of Quillen proposed to include 150,000 square feet of commercial space and a new school within their development (Bender, 2006b ). In addition, Village of Quillen pla ns to utilize employer assisted housing programs, such as a local school boards Employee Assistance Home Ownership Program, to encourage teachers and other workers to live near employment (Bender, 2006b ). Wolf Creek Village located in Walton County, proposes to include two new s chools within the development (Blue, 2006) Mixed use developments locate housing in close proximity to potential employment, a benefit to workers, employers, and the at large community by providing
70 a happier workforce and cutting down on traffic congestion. All of the other projects were located in close proximity to employment and/or transit. Four such developments, Boulevard of the Arts Residences Hatton Street Houses, Westshore Landings One, and Verde, were located in infill si tes (Guilfoil, 2006a; Guilfoil, 2006b; Rotella, 2006; DeMarco. 2006). RFP s coring c riteria The CWHIP RFP clearly stated that applications that do not meet designated threshold criteria will not be considered for CWHIP funding (FHFC, 2006) A ll approved applications met the necessary thresholds and scored additional points as outlined in the RFP (Table 2 2) which is evident within the rubric analysis ( Appendix D ). All 11 approved applications took advantage of the full 30 points awarded to projects that set aside at least 8 0% of the developments total units for workforce housing and at least 5 0% of the total units for ESP. T hree applications Village of Quillen, Merry Place at Pleasant City and Midtown Delray have scored significantly above the other CWHIP applications (Table 4 3 ). Each project proposes to set aside 10 0% of their units for workforce housing and at least 5 0% for ESP, secure contributions for 4 0 to 5 0% of total development costs and maintain affordability in perpetuity. In addition, all three developments were the highest scoring in the CWHIP Average Overall Score and the rubric analysis. Due to the competitive nature of the CWHIP RFP, scoring additional points in their applications is the only way applicants would be sel ected by FHFC. Land a cquisition Land acq uisition refers to the method by which the application intends to secure land. Over 80% of the 2006 CWHIP approved projects received land donations for their development proposal s Land donations are secured throug h a number of sources, but are typically given from surplus lands owned by local governments One unique way a county received surplus land is illustrated in the Homes of West Augustine project where 20 acres w ere deeded to St. Johns
71 County from a bankrupt cy sale (Crawford, 2006). In addition, Osceola County School Board donat ed excess property for The Preserve (Wolf, 2006). Regional Utilities, a nonprofit utility company sponsored by Walton County, initiated the concept for the Wolf Creek Village project. Working with the Walton County Board of Commissioners, Regional Utilities agreed to transfer surplus land to the Walton County Workforce Housing Corporation (WCWHC) in exchange for costs and expenses only ( Blue, 2006). Since Regional Utilities purchased t he land prior to the development boom, Wolf Creek Village will benefit from a considerable discount on the property, paying Regional Utilities the equivalent of only $3,200 per unit at the time of sale ( Blue, 2006). Land donations are a fundamental part of many of these projects and a great way to make use of under utilized property, often in urbanized areas where development already exists and the demand, and subsequently price, for property is high. However, local governments, county school boards, and government affiliated agencies were not the only source of land for the 2006 CWHIP approved projects. For instance, the developer for Village of Quillen and the Village at Quillen DRI, Indiantown Holdings, LLC, plans to contribute approximately 10 acres to a c ommunity l and t rust within the Village of Quillen project (Bender, 2006b ). Indiantown Holdings, LLC was motivated to donate the land in exchange for Martin Countys commitment to expedite the review and permitting of the entire DRI, which will provide s ubstantial cost savings and serve as a catalyst to build an additional 400 affordable units ( Bender, 2006b ). Similarly, Midtown Delray, LLC commits to contribute approximately 2 acres to the Delray Beach Community Land Trust under a similar agreement with Palm Beach County (Bender, 2006a ).
72 Financial innovation Financial innovation is based on the sources of funding for the applications. Ninety percent of the CWHIP approved projects employed truly innovative funding strategies as part of their proposal In these cases, funding mechanisms were crea ted for the purpose of the CWH IP RFP or from non -traditional sources Most of the non-traditional funding sources were either local banks or school boards. The Village of Quillen has collaborated with the schoo l board to provide outreach and educational materials to prospective employees. In addition, the Village of Quillen will receive favorable lending from a local banking consortium, provided to projects in Martin County that utilize SHIP funds ( Bender, 2006b ). The School Board of Palm Beach County has offered to provide $500,000 for down payment assistance for the Merry Place at Pleasant City project. Delray Beach Renaissance Program, a local banking consortium, will provide a number of services to Midtown De lray project, including favorable lending policies, assistance with credit clearing, mandatory training for homebuyer s and loan processing ( Bender, 2006a ). The Joint Public -Private Workforce Housing R esource Center, funded by the Walton County Chamber of Commerce, Walton County, the City of DeFuniak Springs, and the City of Freeport, will provide administrative and technical assistance and help educate and assist the public with obtaining information and qualifications for the Wolf Creek Village project ( Blue, 2006). T he St. Johns County Tree Bank Fund plans to donate funding to install trees required in the Land Development Code, an approximate benefit of $240,000 to the Homes of West Augustine project (Crawford, 2006 ). Fu rthermore Homes of West Augustine intends to implement the Florida Yards Program, a landscape design developed by the University of Florida, and other resources to establish low maintenance landscaping and educate homeowners ( Crawford, 2006 ).
73 Regulatory incentives The r egulatory incent ives section of the rubric measures whether the application benefitted from local governments creating new incentives because of the CWHIP RFP. Over one third of the 2006 CWHIP approved projects had regulatory incentives created in response to the CWHIP RF P. The Preserve is a prime example of having regulatory incentives result from CWHIP. Prior to the RFP, the City of St. Cloud did not provide incentives in the comprehensive plan, land development regulations, or other regulatory guidelines for workforce p ersonnel ( Wolf, 2006). Within 30 days of the city receiving a proposal from the developer, St. Cloud Preserve, LLC, seven regulatory strategies were formed to benefit the project ; including a $1 million grant from the Osceola County B oard of C ounty Commissioners, waived impact fees and a land lease from the school board, and expedited reviews and re zoning from the city ( Wolf, 2006). Ridgeview S ubdivision and The Villas at Kenilworth benefited from two new initiatives in response to the RFP, impact f ee waivers and land assembly made possible by the Highlands County Board of County Commissioners (HCBCC) (Phillippi, 2006) In response to the Wolf Creek Village applications, Walton County is focusing on affordable housing policies during the evaluation a nd appraisal of their comprehensive plan ( Blue, 2006). These projects illustrate how the CWHIP program encouraged local governments to provide regulatory incentives for workforce housing development s Contributions The CWHIP RFP requires that at least 1 5% of the total development costs are provided through contributions. A ll of the 2006 CWHIP approved projects anticipate securing contributions for at least 1 5% of the total development costs (Figure 4 6 ). Contributions provided within the development proposals were from a number of sources; however, the most common sources were land donations and tax credits. Two of the projects, Ridgeview Subdivision and the
74 Villas a t Kenilworth an d Westshore Landings One proposed the lowest amount of contributions, slightly over 15 percent. In contrast, Verde committed to secure over 70% in contributions the most significant portion of which is in the form of tax credits from Orange County (DeMarco, 2006) Of the remainin g projects, f our committed to secure between 20 to 3 0% of total development costs and the remaining four projects proposed between 40 to 50% in contributions. Affordability p eriod Affordability period refers to the period applications intend to maintain p roposed units affordable. Of the nine proposals that had homeownership units in their development, all except two committed to keeping the units affordable in perpetuity. A number of mechanisms were proposed to secure affordability for this extensive lengt h of time, most commonly community land trusts and deed restrictions. The other two proposals that included homeownership units, Wolf Cre ek Village and Homes of West Augustine, committed to keeping the units affordable for 30 years, the minimum period to q ualify for CWHIP loan forgiveness (Blue, 2006; Crawford, 2006) The two applicants without ownership units The Preserve and Verde, committed to maintain affordability of the rental units for 50 years, the minimum period to qua lify for CWHIP loan forgivene ss and the longest period recognized by the RFP scoring system (Wolf, 2006; DeMarco, 2006) Zoning d istrict The z oning district section of the rubric demonstrates whether the application is located in an overlay district that applies special zoning requirements. Four of the winning CWHIP applications were proposed to be located in more than one special zoning district, typically
75 Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs )4 or Community Redevelopment Areas ( CRAs ).5Verde in Orange County certainly receives the most financial incentives through special planning overlay districts. Verde is located in the Downtown Central Business District and the Orlando CRA, which provides at least $3,500,000 in TIF funds and impact fee reductions. The impact fee reductions will save the project an estimated $300,000 (DeMarco, 2006) Verde is located in a part of the CRA designated a Downtown Economic Enhancement District (DEED) because the property for the developmen t is located on a brownfield site. The DEED will offer refunds of sales tax on construction materials, saving an estimated $400,000 (DeMarco, 2006) In addition, the Orange County Housing Finance Authority (OCHFA) will allocate tax exempt bonds, providing access to the 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits. Because Verde is located in a Difficult Development Area (DDA), the qualified cost basis of the affordable units will be Village of Quillen will be located in the Village at Quillen DRI and a CRA in the Indiantown area of Martin County, which focuses infill development in the Indiantown area to prevent sprawl and encourages smart growth principles guided by the new urbanism (Bender, 2006b ). Smart growth and new urbanism principles include mixed use/mixe d income developments with walk able streets Merry Place at Pleasant City is proposed to be located within the West Pa lm Beach Community R edevelopment Agency and a Residentially Planned District (RPD) (Robinson, 2006) The RPD includes a mixed income community and unique design guidelines that specif y lot sizes, setback distances, alley widths and parking calculations ( Robinson, 2006). 4 A DRI is any development which, because of its character, magnitude, or location, would have a substantial effect upon the health, safety, or welfare of citizens of more than one co unty ( Environmental Land and Water Management Act, Fla Stat. 380.06 (1), 1972). 5 A CRA is a designated geographic area established by a municipality to focus redevelopment activities such as reducing blight and encouraging public and private investment.
76 adjusted upward 30 percent, increasing the available tax credits (DeMarco, 2006) Over all, t he tax credit contributions for this project will total $11,988,653 (DeMarco, 2006) Resident a ssistance The r esident assistance section of the rubric identifies applications that implemented housing strategies to assist potential residents within th eir development. Nearly 7 5% of the 2006 CWHIP approved projects plan to provide homeowners or tenants with support ranging from outreach and education to financial assistance The type and extent of assistance the projects propose varies from project to pr oject. The most extensive resident assistance i s offered by the Village of Quillen project ( Appendix E ) providing 13 different services to future residents at no cost One unique program available to future Village of Quillen residents, the ICHEK program, offers youth and senior employment, education, empowerment and social activities ( Bender, 2006 a ). The Village of Quillen also offers a lease -purchase option for applicant s who may not currently be able to qualify for homebuyer financing ( Bender, 2006a p 6). The Ridgeview Subdivision and the Villas at Kenilworth project offers the second most services for tenants and homeowners, which mostly consis ts of financial training. The rubric outlines the development statistics and development strategies provided in each of the 2006 CWHIP approved applications. Clearly, some applications excelled in certain categories more than others did and a few developments, such as Village of Quillen, Merry Place at Pleasant City, and Midtown Delray, generally scored higher than the rest of the 2006 CWHIP approved applications. The most considerable finding from the rubric analysis is the variation in land use, financial, and other strategies, where each application utilized local resources to lower development costs. The fol lowing section focuses on a single development, Westshore Landings One, to illustrate how various strategies work together to meet CWHIP requirements and the needs of working families.
77 CWHIP Case Study Case Study Justification Hillsborough County, the home of the Westshore Business District, has assembled a task force on affordable housing in order to address the dire need to provide affordable housing within the county. The mission of the Affordable Housing Task Force (Task Force) is to identify regulato ry barriers to affordable housing and identify ways to provide affordable housing in an efficient and effective manner (Hillsborough, 2009). In response to a challenge by the Hillsborough County Board of County Commissioners in 2005, the Task Force produce d a report outlining principles and recommendations aimed at reducing regulatory barriers, as well as highlighting policies and programs that could be implemented within the county ( University Partnership for Community & Economic Development 2006). The Ta sk Force hopes that the report will serve as a catalyst to resolve the lack of affordable housing within the county. The Westshore Alliance, a non -profit business -based, membership organization is the acting voice of the 100,000 employees within the distr ict. Over 400 companies, large and small, guide the Alliance in accomplishing their mission, improving the quality of life, such as ensuring a safe and clean environment, increasing the affordable housing stock, creating an efficient transportation system, and contributing to a vibrant local economy and quality educational system within the district (Westshore, 2008). Some of the improvements the Alliance has m ade within the district include: promoting multi -mod al transportation improvements; marketing the district as a vibrant business, resi dential, and tourist community; partnering with the Tampa Police Department to create the first cr ime awareness program in Tampa; working with Hillsborough County to provide a school available to all employees children within the district; establishing landscaping and public art beautification projects (Westshore, 2008).
78 The disparity between the number of individuals working in the Westshore Business District and the amount of housing available in the district is immense, approximately 100,000 employees to 4 000 residential units (Westshore, 2008). Many of the employees provide the services required by the 34 hotels, 2 upscale shopping malls, the Tampa International Airport and the 200 plus restaurants in Westshore, not high paying corporate jobs. To meet housing needs, this workforce must commute from other counties, such as Pasco County or Pinellas County, where housing options are available ( Anonymous personal communication, February 9, 2009). The la ck of workforce housing has contributed to traffic congestion, one of the m ost significant problems identified by Wests hore Alliance members (Westshore, 2008). Adding residential [units to the Westshore Business District] cuts down those commute trips on the highway (Anonymous personal communication, February 9, 2009). Case Study Demographics Hillsborough County experienced a 13.3 % increase in population (from 997,570 to 1,130,212 permanent residents) between 2000 and 2005, a 1 % higher increase than the state (Shimberg, 2006). The median sales price for a single -family home in 2006 was $237,000 in Hillsborough County, requiring an annual income of $67,675 to afford that home (Shimberg, 2006). In the Tampa -St Petersburg Clearwater Metropolitan Sta tistical Area, AMI increased almost 1 0% from 2000 to 2006, while the median sales price for a single -family home rose over 118% in the same period (Shimberg, 2006). The AMI in the City of Tampa was $54,400 in 2006, with 23,609 households earning between 80 to 12 0% of AMI (Shimberg, 2006, FHC, 2006). The 2006 median sales price for a single -family home in Tampa was $229,100, slightly lower than the county median sales price (FHC, 2006). The annual income needed to afford a median priced home in 2006 was $77, 560 in the City of Tampa, where 22 758 moderate -income households
79 were cost burdened, which represents 26% of all moderate income households in Tampa (Shimberg, 2006, FHC, 2006). In that city an entry level police officer woul d have to pay 46.92% of his/her wage on mortgage expenses, and an entry-level firefi ghter would have to spend 71.21% of his/her wage on mortgage expenses (Shimberg, 2006). Westshore Landings One In total, Westshore Landings One will construct 57 manufactured townhomes on 3.7 acr es. Most of them will be 3 bedroom units with 1,550 square feet of living space and a garage (Gedalius, 2007). Through the CWHIP program, $4 million will be awarded from the state. Each unit will be available for purchase at $100,000, less than half of the median home sales price in the Tampa area (Gedalius, 2007). The proposed site is within the Westshore Areawide DRI. The Westshore DRI, established in 1988, was the first area -wide DRI6 6 A geographic area, rather than a particular development, determines an Areawide DRI. in the State of Florida (Rotella, 2006). The DRI consists of 1,450 acr es located in the Westshore Business District of Tampa, F lorida (TBRPC, 2007). Since the Tampa City Council granted the original Development Order, five amendments have been made, resulting in an extension of the two-phase build -out dates and increased mul tifamily units (TBRPC, 2007). To date, development within the DRI consists of 2,015,049 square feet of office space, 1,396,110 square feet of retail, 1,523 hotel rooms, 163,511 square feet of industrial, and 814 multi -family residenti al units (TBRPC, 2007). At build -out the DRI will consist of 10,373,338 square feet of office space, 1,488,000 square feet of retail space, 3,435 hotel rooms, 200,000 square feet of industrial space and 4,000 multi -family residential units (TBRPC, 2007). The build out date for both phases of development is December 2010 (TBRPC, 2007).
80 Housing Tools within the Westshore Proposal The Westshore Alliance create d the WCDC, a not for profit 501(c)(3) corporation to implement community development strategies, primarily for workforce housing, in the Westshore Business District (Westshore, 2008). The WCDC administer s the development and management of the Westshore Landings One project (Rotella, 2006). Other than WCDCs efforts, there are no intentions of building additional workforce housing with in the district (Westshore, 2008). In accordance with the CWHIP RFP, WCDC and Hillsborough County entered a public private partnership. Hillsborough County donated the Westshore Landings One site valued at $1,766,970 or 16.15% of the total development costs, to WCDC Community Land Trust (Rotella, 2006). The community land trust will issue a 99 year lease to homebuyers and retain the land, as long as the housing remains affordable (Rotella, 2006) Since the land is tax-exempt, homebuye rs will only pay property taxes on the value of the structure (Gedalius, 2007) If the original owner chooses to sell, a resale formula, established by the community land trust, will limit profits in order for the house to remain affordable to future buyer s (Gedalius, 2007) The Westshore project is the first in Hillsborough County to incorporate the community land trust concept (Gedalius, 2007). On November 8, 2007, t he City of Tampa designated the proposed site a Brownfield Area, in accordance with the S tate of Florida Brownfield Program, Florida Statutes 376.80 (EPC, 2008). The site formerly served as a solid waste landfill and then a county jail (EPC, 2008). The Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County (EPC) executed a Brownfield Site Rehabilitation Agreement (BSRA) which was processed once the property was transferred from the county to WCDC (EPC, 2008). The WCDC will also receive EPA Revolving Loan Fund and Grant monies through Hillsborough County (EPC, 2008). In total $725,000 will be
81 provided by the county to cleanup the brownfield site, $525,000 of which will have to be repaid after the housing units have been sold (Community News, 2008). The City of Tampa will provide $1 million in the form of a low interest construction loan, a financial incentive for infill development (Rotella, 2006). The deferred payment loan is a portion of the citys SHIP allocation and will carry 0% interest for 30 years (FHDC, 2008). A portion of the SHIP funds will be used for infrastructure improvements for Westshore Landings One (FHDC, 2008). The WCDC has requested the loan be forgiven; however, the credit underwriting report for the project is not able to verify whether the City of Tampa has agreed to this condition (FHDC, 2008). The WCD C also applied f or a PLP loan for $500,000 from FHFC. The PLP offers below market interest rate financing for predevelopment activities by local governments, housing authorities and other nonprofit groups (Flowers, 2007, p. 10 ). The PLP can be applied to professional and development fees, property evaluation and land costs (Flowers, 2007). For homeownership developments to qualify for this loan, 100% of the units must be set aside for households earning no more than 8 0% of AMI ( University Partnership for Community & Economic Development 2006) The WCDC modified their CWHIP application to extend the number of units set aside for workforce housing from 80 to 100% of the total development units (FHDC, 2008) One of the innovative r egulatory strategies that will benefit the proposed project is an expedited permitting process. Under the expedited process, the building, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing permits for Westshore Landings One will be reviewed and permitted within 3 5 day s (Rotella, 2006). The expedited permitting process was established through the City of Tampas SHIP Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP). Also included in the LHAP is an
82 ongoing review process, a strategy not provided in the toolkits or CWHIP RFP, which reviews existing and proposed policies, procedures, ordinances, regulations and plan provisions that may have a significant impact on the cost of housing (Rotella, 2006, p. 14). Local banking/financial institutions will also be involved in the development of Westshore Landings One. Neighborhood Lending Partners (NLP), formerly the Tampa Bay Community Reinvestment Corporation (TBCRC), is a partnership between Tampa Bay Banks and Thrifts, local governments and the affordable housing community (Rotella, 2006) The partnership was created to promote affordable housing development through loan assistance, in the Tampa Bay Region, and has since changed its name to avoid geographic limitations (Rotella, 2006). The involvement of NLP will include construction and permanent financing for the proposed project. Other Suggested Housing Tools for Westshore Proposal Although the Westshore Landings One project was selected as one of the approved projects in the 2006 cycle, the application could have been improved if a nu mber of other strategies were employed either through further reductions in development costs and/or increased contributions or resident financial and educational assistance First, the percentage of contributions was significantly low compared to other 2006 CWHIP approved applications (Table 4 3 and Figure 4 6) Second, local governments did little to assist WCDC in respect to financial contributions and regulatory reform. Lastly, the development proposal offers very few strategies for assisting potentia l residents T he Westshore Landings One application did not provide much in the way of contributions, only securing one and a half percentage points above the threshold. The application provides some financial sources that could have been included in the l ist of contributions. For instance, the brownfields credit for $200,000 that will not have to be repaid financial benefits from the $909,159 in deferred developer fees, and development cost savings
83 resulting from an expedited permitting process T hese exa mples were included in other 2006 approved applications contribution calculations Hillsborough County and the City of Tampa could have provided more assistance to the Westshore Landings One project by providing financial incentives for the project For example, the City of Orlando proposed to provide tax increment financing and impact fee or permitting refunds to benefit the Verde project Impact fees for the Westshore Landings One project will cost $500,000. All except two of the approved projects prov ided waivers for impact fees. Three projects receiving utility fee waivers and four projects receiving grants for infrastructure improvements or reservations for infrastructure capacity provide further evidence of 2006 approved projects receiving financial assistance from municipalities The case study proposal will employ expedited permitting policies as the only regulation strategies for the development. Although Hillsborough County and the City of Tampa provided some financial incentives for the project such as land donations, low interest rate construction loans and expedited permitting, these local governments could have provided more incentives through regulatory reform. One opportunity would be to consolidate the permitting application and establis h pre -designed and pre -permitted plans. A second option would be to impose time limits on local government review periods and revise impact and permitting fee structures. Hillsborough County is attempting to remove regulatory barriers and implement innova tive programs and policies to help facilitate affordable housing options in the county. Attainable Housing for Hillsborough Countys Growing Economy a report produced by t he countys Affordable Housing T ask Force, recommends addressing many of the shortcomings of the W estshore Landings O ne proposal. The report was published in October 2006, the same time the CWHIP RFP was opened (FHFC, 2008). Although there are a number of efforts already
84 underway based on the report recommendations a number of the strategies will take at least a year to implement ( University Partnership for Community & Economic Development 2006). For example, the report recommends to retain a consultant(s) to review and evaluate development regulations and building codes to ident ify areas where conflicting regulations may exist within the Countys codes; however, the final recommendations for code revisions were not projected to be complete until mid 2007 ( University Partnership for Community & Economic Development 2006, p. 56). In fact, t hese recommendations a s outlined in a draft copy of the Local Housing Incentive Strategies: Final Report were not finalized until December 2008 (The Planning Authority LLC, The Center for Governmental Services at Rutgers University, Building T echnology Inc., Planning/Communications, Daniel Mandelker, and Arianne Aughey 2008). Although the City of Tampa and Hillsborough County both offer down payment assistance programs, t he Westshore Landings One proposal did not specifically include any resident assistance. W hen compared to the strategies employed by other applica n t s and suggested within the workforce housing toolkits, much more could have be en done to assist potential homeowners. For instance, the Village of Quillen proposes to provide outreach and education for homeowners, resale counseling regarding the community land trust, and assistance in creating a neighborhood association. Westshore Landings One could employ all of these services, which would further insure the success of future residents. The WCDC could have coordinated with local employers, t he City of Tampa or Hillsborough County to provide homeowner assistance. The City of Tampa offers a Deferred Payment Loan (DPL) which, based on income qualifications, provides down payment and closing cost assistance. A DPL is a second mortgage with 0 % interest. In addition, the DPL requires no monthly payment as long as the homebuyer does not default, at which time the loan
85 is due (HCD, 2008). A number of circumstances constitute a default including transfer of title, the residence no longer being a primary homestead property, or failure to pay property taxes (HCD, 2008). Income qualifications are limited to no more than 120% of AMI (HCD, 2008). Westshore Landings One may not qualify for the DPL because the CWHIP loan already functions as the second mortgage (FHDC, 2008). However, Hillsborough County Housing Finance Authority and Hill sborough County offer other source s of down payment assistance The Down Payment Assistance Program provides an 80/20 loan at below -market rates as well as a 30 year deferred loan ( University Partnership for Community & Economic Development 2006). The program offers additional assistance to state certified teachers, nurses, firefighters, and law enforce ment officers ( University Partnership for Community & Economic Development 2006). How does the Composite Toolkit compare to the case study? Westshore Landings One utilizes a number of strategies listed in the CWHIP RFP and workforce housing toolkits. The case study proposed to employ three strategies for expanding development opportunities, which include making publicly owned land available for affordable housing, reusing brownfield land, and utilizing a community re development authority, WCDC. Westshore Landings One received an expedited permit and review process and low interest rate construction loans from the City of Tampa (Rotella, 2006). The developer proposed only one strategy local bank incenti ves to capitalize on market activity and only one strategy a public -private partnership to generate capital. The case study incorporated two of the preservation based strategies, the property is an infill site and a community land trust which will m aintain long -term affordability. According to the Westshore Landings One application, there are no proposals to address resident assistance or NIMBYism.
86 The Westshore Landings O ne project will benefit from an expedited permitting process and will utilize several low interest loans, such as the State of Florida Brownfield Program, the PLP loan, and SHIP funds; however, the City of Tampa and Hillsborough County could have done more to provide financial assistance to the development and WCDC cou ld have offered assistance for prospective homeowners. The Hillsborough County Affordable Housing Task Force report indicates that affordable and workforce housing developments will benefit in the future from revised development regulations including impa ct fee waivers, and building codes to help facilitate affordable housing construction by reducing development costs
87 Table 4 1 Composite Toolkit Category Increasing the Availability of Affordable Homes Developing Housing for the Workforce: A Toolkit Wor kforce Housing for Orange Countys Working Families Outline Ideas for Increasing Production CWHIP RFP Suggested Strategies Westshore Landings One Expand Development Opportunities x x x x x x Address Regulatory Barriers x x x x x x Capitalize on Market Activity x x x x x x Leverage Funding Sources x x x x x x Preserve Resources x x x x x x Maintain Affordability x x x x x Assist Residents x x x x Address Social Barriers x
88 Table 4 2 CWHIP project c omparison: a rubric designed expressly for this thesis to compare 2006 CWHIP projects based on development statistics and innovative strategies Development Statistics Did Not Meet threshold Requirements (1) Met Threshold Requirements (2) Exceeded Threshold Requirement s (3) Housing Need Development is located in a city with 0 % cost burdened households Percent of cost burdened households is greater than zero, but lower than the state Percent of cost burdened households is higher than the state Cost Tier 7 Ranked within Tier 3 Ranked within Tier 2 Ranked within Tier 1 Growth Tier 8 Ranked within Tier 3 Ranked within Tier 2 Ranked within Tier 1 Percentage of Set asides Met minimum set aside requirement [set aside 50% of the units for Workforce Housing (140% of AMI or below) and set aside 30% of the units for Essential Services Personnel (occupations specified by relevant municipality)] Met mid level award [set aside 65% of the units for Workforce Housing (140% of AMI or below) and set aside 40% of the units for Essent ial Services Personnel (occupations specified by relevant municipality)] Met or exceeded maximum award [set aside 80% of the units for Workforce Housing (140% of AMI or below) and set aside 50% of the units for Essential Services Personnel (occupations sp ecified by relevant municipality)] Housing Mix Only one housing type (multi -family or single family units) available in one size (number of beds/bath) Single family or multi family residential units available in a mix of unit sizes Multiple housing types and/or sizes in a variety of income ranges Proximity to Employment Residents located beyond walking distance to employment or public transportation Residents located within walking distance to employment or public transportation Residents located within or adjacent to employment 7 Cost tiers were determined by FHFC to rank counties in Florida with the most significant difference between the amount a household can afford to pay for a single family home and the median sales price of a home in that county. Tier 3 is the lowest tier for high cost counties and refers to counties that rank below the state average. 8 Growth tiers were determined by FHFC to rank counties in Florida with the highest increase in population. Tier 3 is the lowest tier for high growth counties and refers to counties that rank below the state average.
89 Table 4 2. Continued Development Strategies Did Not Meet threshold Requirements (1) Met Threshold Requirements (2) Exceeded Threshold Requirements (3) RFP Scoring Criteria Proposal did not meet minimum threshold requirements Proposal met minimum threshold requirements Proposal exceeded minimum threshold requirements Land Acquisition Developer acquired land at market rate Lands acquired at a subsidized rate from a municipality or nontraditional source Lands donated by municipality or nontraditional source Financial No financial mechanisms were utilized for development Used traditional funding sources for development Used non traditional funding sources or mechanisms established as a result of the application Regulatory No regulatory incentives were used for development Used existing regulatory incentives Regulatory incentives were created as a result of the application Contributions Contributions under 1 5% of total development cost Contributions at 15% of total development cost Contributions above 15% of total development cost Affordability Period Met minimum requirement [20 years for Rental and Homeownership] Met forgivable loan requirement [50 years for Rental units, 30 years for Homeownership] Exceeded forgivable loan requirements [Homeownership kept affordable in perpetuity] Zoning District Not within a zoning overlay district Within a CRA, DRI or other zoning overlay district Within several zoning overlay districts or district created specifically for the development Resident Assistance No resident assistance are provided One form of resident assistance is provided, such as down payment assistance or on -site amenities are provided Multiple forms of resident assistance are provided Subtotal Total Source: FHFC, 2006; Author, 2009.
90 Figure 4 1 Total rubric s cores for 2006 Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot (CWHIP ) approved a pplications
91 Table 4 3 Development s tatistics for 2006 CWHIP a pproved a pplications 2006 CWHIP Approved Application Tenure Total Units Percentage of Total Units Set aside for Workforce Percentage of Total Units Set aside for ESP Affordability Period (years) Cost Tier Growth Tier High Cost Village of Quillen Ownership 50 100 50 99 1 3 Merry Place at Pleasant City Ownership 114 100 50 99 1 2 Wolf Creek Village Ownership 242 100 50 30 1 1 Boulevard of the Arts Residences Ownership 28 100 100 99 2 2 High Growth The Preserve Rental 120 80 50 50 3 1 Homes of West Augustine Ownership 111 100 50 30 2 1 Verde Rental 97 100 50 50 2 2 Innovation Ridgeview Subdivision and The Villas at Kenilworth Ownership 100 80 50 99 3 3 Westshore Landings One Ownership 57 100 50 99 3 2 Midtown Delray Ownership 32 100 100 99 1 2 Hatton Street Houses Ownership 40 100 100 99 2 2 AVERAGE 90 95 64 78 2 2
92 Table 4 3. Continued 2006 CWHIP Approved Application Contri butions (%) Total Development Costs ($) CWHIP Funding ($) CWHIP Funding per Set aside Unit ($) Average Innovation Score Average Overall Score Rubric Score High Cost Village of Quillen 38.1 15,400,000 5,000,000 100,000 63.43 169.71 39 Merry Place at Pleasant City 50.25 24,295,034 5,000,000 43,860 66.14 164.00 40 Wolf Creek Village 33 29,300,000 5,000,000 20,661 64.57 138.29 35 Boulevard of the Arts Residences 29.7 8,277,000 2,560,000 91,429 60.57 156.14 36 High Growth The Preserve 19.1 15,400,000 5,000,000 52,083 52.43 141.57 37 Homes of West Augustine 37.03 18,400,000 5,000,000 45,045 56.29 132.43 35 Verde 71 26,500,000 5,000,000 51,546 34.14 151.57 35 Innovation Ridgeview Subdivision and The Villas at Kenilworth 15.1 16,800,000 5,000,000 62,500 51.86 137.86 32 Westshore Landings One 16.15 10,900,000 4,000,000 86,957 49.00 133.14 34 Midtown Delray 39.1 12,800,000 5,000,000 156,250 57.29 163.71 39 Hatton Street Houses 26.8 10,400,000 2,440,000 61,000 57.00 148.00 35 AVERAGE 34 17,133,821 4,454,545 70,121 56 149 36 Source: FHFC, 2006; Author, 2009.
93 Figure 4 2 Percentage of c ost b urdened o wner -o ccupied h ouseholds for the cities of 2006 CWHIP approved a pplications Figure 4 3 Percentage of c ost b urdened r enter -o ccupied h ouseholds for the cities of 2006 CWHIP a pproved a pplications
94 Figure 4 4 P ercentage of s et aside u nits per t otal d evelopment units for 2006 CWHIP approved a pplication s Figure 4 5 Total number of u nits s et aside per 2006 CWHIP a pproved a pplication
95 Figure 4 6 Funding constributions as a percentage of t otal development c osts for 2006 CWHIP approved a pplications
96 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSION Key Findings In this chapter, a nalyses of the key findings are highlighted to provide a context for the recommendations The interviewees offer significant insight into the importance of workforce h ousing and CWHIPs ability to fund housing for working families in Florida The interviews indicated a disconnect between housing leaders at the state level and those at the local level. Local level participants expressed concern for the complicated and ex pensive application process for the CWHIP program. Although state and local level participants have differing viewpoints on the importance of assi sting workforce housing, they agree that CWHIP had positive impact s for the state. The large disconnect between state and local leaders is concerning. The state level interviewees commonly felt there was no longer a need to subsidize moderate income families, especially households that earn as much as 14 0% of AMI. Muller, Ross, and Buck (2009) have a number of reasons for feeling CWHIP will not have a future, at least in the short term. First, the state currently ranks second in the nation for the number of foreclosures. Buck (2009) feels the excess housing stock needs to be absorbed prior to investing in new housing stock. Muller and Ross (2009) agree; however, their main point is that home prices have dropped considerably since the bust of the housing market. In fact, housing prices have come dow n steadily throughout the state. Still local level housing leaders testify that homes are still un affordable even for families that earn up to 14 0% of AMI. A major concern for local level interviewees is the complexity and expense of the application process for loans The CWHIP program requir es applicants to seek alternative funding to use with CWHIP dollars. In fact, the CWHIP funding cannot exceed 5 0% of the total
97 development costs. In addition, applicants are required to secure contributions for at least 1 5% of the total development costs, and are rewarded for every additional percentage point of contributions above the 15% threshold. Because numerous stakeholders are involved due to the various loans required to meet the CWHIP mandate and scoring process each agency, typically state and lo cal governments, has their own application and underwriting procedure. Small for profit and non-profit developers typically do not have the financial and legal resources to meet the application and underwriting requirements. State and local housing leaders do not agree as to whether moderate -income families need state assistance; however, they do agree that the CWHIP program has resulted in a number of positive outcomes including bringing together critical players, such as sc hool boards and chambers of commerce, which have not been significantly involved in affordable housing previously. The program also challenged local governments and developers to find innovative strategies that would reduce the cost of housing production. Some of the 2006 approved applications showed that they were serious about providing affordable workforce housing in their communities. For instance, The Preserve, Ridgeview Subdivision and the V illas at Kenilworth, and Wolf Creek Village benefited from th eir local governments adopt ing new regulations in response to the CWHIP RFP to improve the developers ability to provide workforce housing. Recommendations Based on the key findings outlined above, a few recommendations regarding the CWHIP program, and workforce housing in general, are outlined. The CWHIP program should be retained in Florida legislation because of the continued perceived need for affordable housing at the local level Legislators determine funding allocations on an annual basis, and the program was well received by local governments and developers. The CWHIP application process should be streamlined, where various government entities consolidate loan applications and
98 underwriting into a single process to allow small nonand for -profit developers to compete for funding. The DCA should take the lead in assisting local governments to identify innovative land use strategies beyond land contributi ons and proximity to employment centers. Retain CWHIP Legislation T he re are a number of reasons why the CWHIP program should be retained as a distinct state housing program First, local housing leaders still perceive a need for subsidized workforce housing in the State of Florida. Second, the program already exists in legislation and Florida Legislators determine funding allocations for state housing program s on a yearly basis Third, CWHIP was well received by local governments and the development community. In order to more effectively argue for retaining the program s tate and local housing leaders must determine the need for workforce housing in Florida. The issue is complex because workforce housing covers a wide range of household income Furt her, data used to determine housing needs is based on M etropolitan S ervice A reas (MSAs). T he degree of housing need s can var y drastically throughout an MSA In addition, housing costs can fluctuate geographically and temporally due to market influences. The difference between the housing needs of a family earning 80% of AMI and a family earning 140% of AMI is significant. In the City of Tampa, a household earning 8 0% of AMI ($43,520) would be able to afford a $152,154 single -family home which is almost $80,000 less than the actual median priced single -family home (Shimberg, 2006) A household earning 8 0% of AMI would have to spend almost 40% of its annual household income to afford a median priced single -family home, where a household earning 14 0% of AMI ($76,160) would only have to spend approximately 22 % of annual household income to be able to afford the same home. Further, there is over a $100,000 difference between what a household earning 80% of AMI can afford versus a household ear ning 14 0% of AMI
99 Data used to determine housing need is based on MSAs, a geographic area too large to accurately depict housing needs. An MSA typically includes numerous cities and crosses county boundaries, when housing needs can vary s ignificantly depending on where a family lives. For instance, RealtyTrac, which is the foreclosure data source for the Wall Street Journals Real Estate Journal, U.S. Treasury Department and many others, states that the median estimated value for a single family home in Tampa is $136,031 (RealtyTrac, 2009). However, according to Real tyTrac (2009) the median estimated value for a single family home for the Westshore Landings One zip code (33607) is $105,739 (RealtyTrac, 2009). In addition, the median estimated value for a single family home for zip codes adjacent to Westshore Landings One ranges from $102,697 to $276,537, in zip codes 33604 and 33606 respectively (RealtyTrac, 2009). Recent drastic changes in the housing market also make it difficult to determine the need to assist moderate income households. Since 2006, the household i ncome required to afford a median priced single -family home has decreased over $50,000 (Altos Research, 2009). Florida has seen a significant increase in home foreclosures,1 1 Florida currently ranks second in the nation for the number of households facing foreclosure (Chaney, 2008). which is the primary reason for the fall in single -family home prices (Chaney, 2008). According to the most current data from the Shimberg Center for Housing Studies (2006), a household in Tampa would have to earn 12 5% of AMI in order to afford a median priced single -family home. However, Altos Research (2009), the only source for real time real estate market profiles in the nation, states the Tampa single family median sales price is $186,225. In which case, a household in Tampa earning the AMI ($54,400 in 2006) would be able to afford a median priced single -family home under current housing market conditions.
100 A second reason why the CWHIP program should be retained is that it will allow Florida Legislat ors to adjust the amount of funding the program receives to reflect fluctuations in the housing market. Ross and Muller (2009) feel crea ting a new program to serve an immediate need does not make good policy. N ow that the program has been established, it could serve as a useful tool in the future without demanding more from existing housing assistance programs. Because CWHIP has gone throu gh two iterations FHFC has had the opportunity to work out the majority of problems which is natural for any new government program (D. Buck, personal communication, February 16, 2009) State and local governments affected by tight budget cuts are facing tough decisions regarding how to allocate the limited funds they have ( Ross, personal communication, February 14, 2009). Understanding the difference between household incomes and the cost of housing is crucial for meeting the needs of working families. Eventually the housing market will stabilize and home prices will closely represent their true value. However, w orking families will still need some level of assistance when the housing market settles By retaining the CWHIP program state housing leaders can be more responsive to the housing needs of working families as the market dictates. One concern regarding the CWHIP program is that financial and other resources might be diverted from housing programs, such as SHIP, which focus on lower income households to subsidi z e a program that focuses on moderate income households (Jenkins, 2007). The case study, Westshore Landings One, has pledged to set aside 100% of the units for households earning up to 8 0% of AMI, as required by the PLP (Rotella, 2006). Alth ough data is not available to determine the extent to which resources have been diverted from lower income households, some 2006 CWHIP approved projects are serving lower income households exclusively.
101 Finally, a third reason to keep the CWHIP program is t he program is viewed as a success. Both t he development community and local governments consider the CWHIP program success ful in terms of provid ing incentive s fo r public -private partnerships and seeking innovative strategies for housing Floridas working families. T he CWHIP program has served as a mechanism for leveraging other resources by allowing county money to be used on projects that would not otherwise qualify for funding (V. Turner, personal communication, February 17, 2009) The program has also encouraged new resources, such as school boards and chambers of commerce, to participate in lowering the cost of housing for working families ( R. Ippolito, personal communication, February 11, 2009; J. Ross, personal communicat ion, February 14, 2009). T he CWHIP program put a face on affordable housing by focusing on the working class, essential services personnel in particular, which helped facilitate involvement from the private sector (R. Ippolito, personal communication, Febr uary 11, 2009; J. Ross, personal communication, February 14, 2009). The developer of Westshore Landings One feels the construction lender would not have been involved without CWHIP, SHIP and Hillsborough County ( Anonymous personal communication, February 9, 2009). Although the CWHIP program has limitations, such as a complicated and expensive application process, having CWHIP funds available for local housing leaders is a tremendous benefit Admittedly, the current housing market is changing on a daily bas is. More homes are going into foreclosure than ever before. To complicate matters, workforce housing aims to assist a wide income bracket and the data used for determining housing need is based on MSAs, a geographic area too large to accurately depict hous ing needs. Currently, the FHFC and the Florida Legislature do not see a need to fund any housing programs that encourage new development, especially at a time with high vacancy rates and foreclosures. Still, a shortage of
102 workforce housing stock persists i n some parts of the state (R. Ippolito, personal communication, February 11, 2009). In order for Florida Legislators to assist working families, state and local housing leaders must establish a common understanding of workforce housing needs Retaining the CWHIP program as a distinct housing assistance program will allow legislators to respond to changing needs for moderate income families without establishing a new program that is unfamiliar to local governments and developers Another alternative would be to adjust the income qualifications of existing housing assistance programs, such as SHIP; however, this solution does not insure additional funding would be allocated to assist the higher income group. Retaining the CWHIP program would eliminate stretching funding allocated to existing housing programs that assist lower income families. Revise CWHIP Application Process One major concern for local level housing leaders was the complex and expensive application process for the CWHIP loan ( V. Turner, personal communication, February 17, 2009; R. Ippolito, personal communication, February 11, 2009; J. Ross, personal communication, February 14, 2009). In 2006 and 2007, t he CWHIP application was a competitive process in which the developers of the propos ed projects were required to work directly with multiple levels of government, state agencies, and housing authorities in order to secure supplemental loans. Each organization ha d a separate set of standards and process for fil ing applications in addition to separate underwriters ( Anonymous personal communication, February 9, 2009) Small local developers, such as WCDC, could not afford to pay the legal fees for the loan documents and underwriting without pro-bono work from law firm s ( Anonymous personal communication, February 9, 2009) P roducing affordable housing units is a major challenge, requiring significant staff and resources to meet the requirement s of multiple loan applications ( Anonymous personal communication, February 9, 2009; R. Ippolito, p ersonal
103 communication, February 11, 2009). O ne set of loan documents and underwriter, at either the state or local level, would significantly reduce the cost of legal work for the CWHIP application and increase opportunities for local grassroots or non -pr ofit organizations to compete for funding (Anonymous personal communication, February 9, 2009; V. Turner, personal communication, February 17, 2009). One possible solution would be to utilize the SHIP program as an administrator of loan applications and underwriting. The Governors Affordable Housing Study Commission (Commission) looked into a similar issue in 2007 when attempting to streamline income verification for affordable housing projects that combine SHIP funds with private mortgage loans and m ortgages financed by the sale of tax exempt bonds (Governors Affordable Housing Study Commission, 2007, p. 25). The SHIP administrators find the Section 8 verification process more accurately determines whether a household can afford a mortgage by allowi ng administrators to report more specific income sources; however, the process is more extensive than those used in the private sector and underwriting is performed manually. The Commission recommended FHFC amend the SHIP compliance rule to align definiti ons of acceptable income verification with those outlined in the SHIPs statute (Governors Affordable Housing Study Commission, 2007, p. 25) Explore DCAs Role in Facilitating Land Use Innovation If SHIP administrators use the recommended income verification and underwriting processes, then they can also us e them to evaluate loan applications for the CWHIP program. One of the major suggestions made by Muller (2009) was to direct DCA to take the lead in working with local governments to find innovative land use strategies. Muller (2009) stated, Local governments do not have the knowledge or capacity to innovate, nor do they know how to think about land issues [in regard] to implementing affo rdable housing (N. Muller, personal
104 communication, February 9, 2009) She continued, Comprehensive Plans are typically laundry lists focused on funding, not land use. [Housing leaders] need to look at growth management and land use to promote affordable housing in communities, which is not currently required by the state (N. Muller, personal communication, February 9, 2009) Land use played a major role in many of the 2006 CWHIP approved applications. For instance, land donations from local governments and other entities constitute a significant portion of contributions secured by the 2006 projects and all of the applicants acknowledged the importance of developing workforce housing within close proximity to employment centers and/or transportation netw orks. However, land donations and proximity to resources w ere the extent to which a majority of developers and local governments addressed land use innovation. Four of the 2006 CWHIP approved projects, Boulevard of the Arts Residences, Hatton Street House s, Westshore Landings One, and Verde, were located on infill sites. Some applications, including Village of Quillen, Merry Place at Pleasant City, and Verde, utilized financial incentives because they were located in designated redevelopment areas or speci al overlay districts H owever, the se districts did not specifically target affordable housing development. Only a couple of projects, Village of Quillen and Merry Place at Pleasant City adopted a holistic approach, incorporating affordable housing into master plans for larger developments. The Village of Quillen project was particularly innovative because the developer focus ed on smart growth. More needs to be done in identifying appropriate sites for affordable housing, helping developers identify and obtain quality sites, and target ing affordable housing where it is needed. A logical starting point would utilize DCAs expertise, possibly with assistance from FHFC, to work with local governments
105 Opportunities for Future Research Some of the workforce ho using toolkits, in particular the toolkits published by ULI and CHP, include case studies and evaluat e the effectiveness of housing tools This analysis c ould provide a sound context for understanding how successful developments have implemented land use, regulatory, financial, and other housing strategies to provide workforce housing and how the applications measured in comparison. Utilizing the rubric to analyze the 2007 CWHIP approved applications c ould illustrate how developers and local governments re sponded after the first cycle of CWHIP. Ippolito (2009) stated a number of lessons were learned after reviewing the RFPs of 2006 CWHIP approved applications. He indicated that the additional year allowed his development company to think of more creative so lutions (R. Ippolito, personal communication, February 11, 2009) Furthermore, the extra year gave local governments more time to amend Comprehensive Plan s and Land Development Regulations. Understanding the advancement in innovative strategies would illus trate the degree to which the CWHIP program effectively encouraged developers and local governments to seek innovative solutions for reducing the cost of workforce housing. Additional research would offer greater insight into the benefits of the CWHIP pro gram; however, the data does not exist or events have not occurred by the time this report was completed. Such items include investigating reasons the CWHIP approved applications, at least in the 2006 cycle, did not include rehabilitation projects, evaluating the impact of funding removal from the CWHIP program, determining the effects of the anticipated transition from state assistance to federal assistance, and surveying residents of CWHIP funded developments. Older and historic neighborhoods, unlike any other areas, are providing homes for families from every financial strata, but particularly for those in need of affordable housing (Rypkema, 2002, p. 6). R ehabilitation, preserving existing affordable housing stock, has
106 numerous advantages over new development. T he cost of rehabilitating existing structures is significantly lower because less construction material and labor are required and land is typically not in as high demand. Reinvesting in urban areas where older housing stock is located reduces development pressure on the urban fringe, a traditional solution to provide affordable housing derived from cheap land. O lder, urban neighborhoods provide access to public transportation, employment and other amenities and have existing social fabric Rehabilitating property within older, urban neighborhoods can help revitalize an entire community. Finally, rehabilitating existing affordable housing, or existing structures in general, is sustainable for the environment. A s ignificant addition to the 2007 CWHIP application was a new threshold requirement for green certification. Therefore, sustainable and green development practices are clearly a desired element in affordable housing projects. The rehabilitation of existing housing stock is one of the most frequently undertaken activities to expand the supply of affordable housing (HUD, 2009, p. 1 ). Understanding reasons developers chose new development over rehabilitating existing affordable housing stock could provide guidance for the FHFC in encouraging rehabilitation development in the future. In 2008, the Florida Legislature and FHFC decided to pull funding from a number of programs, particularly housing assistance programs focused on new construction, in response to si gnificant state budget cuts. One of the reasons FHFC chose to pull from new construction programs is because of the significant increase in housing stock derived from the rash of foreclosures. S ome of the CWHIP approved projects were fortunate to close pri or to the funding recall, such as the Westshore Landings One project. What effect will the de -obligation of funds for CWHIP hopefuls have on the development proposals? Developers, investors, local governments and other organizations have dedicated a tr emendous amount of resources prior to
107 the application process. As mandated by the CWHIP RFP, land must be secured and evidence of available infrastructure must be documented, which can take years to accomplish for a single project (FHFC, 2006; Anonymous p ersonal communication, February 9, 2009). Will projects that anticipated using CWHIP funds continue to be built? During the current housing and financial crisis, it is hard to believe very many will, except for those incorporated in larger developments, su ch as Verde and Village of Quillen. However, even then it is likely the units will be built, but not offered at an affordable price. In response to the financial crisis stemming from the housing market crash the new presidential administration has indicated a significant desire to reinvest in infrastructure, including highway projects, public schools, and affordable housing. With severe budget cuts from the state and local governments, as evident with the CW HIP program, certainly changes will occur as to the type of assistance that will be provided to Americas working families. What impact will the transition from state and local housing assistance to federal assistance have on households? Where will the foc us of assistance be (i.e. lower income households or moderate income households, rehabilitation or new construction detached or multifamily structures) ? Certainly, there will be many questions to answer. Hopefully, the administration will see the benefits of flexible housing programs such as SHIP that allow local governments to provide the assistance they need. The best solution for the State of Florida is to e l i minate the cap on the housing trust fund and allow current housing assistance programs such as SHIP and CWHIP to function as they have. Surveying residents of CWHIP funded developments is the only sure way to determine the success of the program. According to Muller (2009), the [ultimate] objective [of the CWHIP program] is considered to be units on the ground and occupied by the targeted populations (N.
108 Muller, personal communication, February 9, 2009) Only time will tell if the CWHIP program was a success in meeting its objectives, amidst the setback of significant funding de -obligations.
109 APPENDIX A LAND USE STRATEGIES (This is not an exclusive list; Applicant may include strategies which are not represented here in their Response.) Development and preservation of a variety of housing sizes and types in residential areas, and wi thin neighborhoods, including accessory units. Preservation of existing housing stock near major employers and creation of housing opportunities in close proximity to new suburban, exurban, and rural employment centers. Development of affordable housing near transportation hubs, and transportation and transit improvements that allow lower income households in central cities to access jobs in surrounding suburbs. Reduction or elimination of site development and/or subdivision standards that are not essential to protect the public health, safety, or welfare or that are not critical to the protection or preservation of the environment, and that may otherwise make a Project economically infeasible (e.g., flexible lot configurations, building setbacks, road widths, parking and buffering requirements). Allowance of mixed land uses in an area to allow the potential to live and work in proximity (e.g., allowance of compatible neighborhood commercial centers and mixed use planned unit Projects). Allowance of home occupation and live/work regulations, providing for a range of home -work arrangements while maintaining the character of a residential neighborhood. Mitigation of impact and permitting fees for affordable housing Projects. Increased density le vels for affordable housing and/or density bonuses for inclusion of affordable housing in a residential or mixed use Project, or as -of right density bonuses for the purposes of offsetting the cost of building below market units as an incentive for any market rate residential Project that includes a portion of affordable housing. (In this case as of right refers to a density bonus granted for a fixed percentage or number of additional market rate dwelling units in exchange for the provision of a fixe d number or percentage of affordable dwelling units and without the use of discretion in determining the number of additional market rate units.) Directing reservation of infrastructure capacity first for the purpose of affordable housing. Expedited pr ocessing of development orders and permits for affordable Projects to a greater degree than other Projects. Documentation should include information on how this process works functionally (e.g., affordable Projects take x days while other developments take x days to receive development orders). Establishment of a single, consolidated permit application process for all housing development OR affordable housing development that includes building, zoning, engineering, environmental, and related permits. Conduct of concurrent, not sequential, reviews for all required permits and approvals. Establishment of time limits for government review and approval or disapproval of development orders and/or permits in which failure to act after the application is deemed complete by the government within the designated time period results in automatic approval. Other innovative land use planning approaches.
110 APPENDIX B LOCAL FINANCIAL STRATEGIES (This is not an exclusive list; A pplicant may include strategies which are not represented here in their Response.) Public and private sector employer assisted housing programs, especially those which encourage employees to own or rent in the neighborhood adjacent to the employer. Tax increment financing for the support of af fordable housing and/or residential community revitalization. Involvement of public and private sector partners in the development and preservation of affordable housing. Involvement of local banking/financial institutions in affordable housing develop ment and preservation (e.g., through financial matches, provision of low interest financing programs for affordable housing). Provision of land for affordable housing (e.g., transfer of density bonus rights, land assembly mechanisms, land donation polici es). Advertisement and provision of financial assistance to house a range of populations in the community, including such strategies as employer down payment assistance, shared equity and/or a community land trust model to promote perpetual affordability access to credit and homebuyer counseling. Provision of housing opportunities combined with services targeted to special needs populations. Provision of linkage fees from commercial entities to generate funds for affordable housing. Provision of lo cally derived revenues in support of affordable housing. Other innovative local financial strategies.
111 APPENDIX C INFORMED CONSENT LETTER
119 APPENDIX D RUBRIC EVALUATION OF 2006 CWHIP APPROVED PROJECTS Village of Quillen, Indiantown Area, Martin County Field Below threshold (1) Met threshold (2) Above Threshold (3) Development Statistics: Housing Need 3 Cost Tier 3 Growth Tier 1 Percentage of Set asides 3 Housing Mix 2 Proximity to Employment 3 Development Strategies: RFP Scoring Criteria 3 Land Acquisition 3 Financial Innovation 3 Regulatory Incentives 3 Contributions 3 Affordability Period 3 Zoning District 3 Resident Assistance 3 Subtotal 1 2 36 Total 39
120 Merry Place at Pleasant City, West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County Field Below threshold (1) Met threshold (2) Above Threshold (3) Development Statistics: Housing Need 3 Cost Tier 3 Growth Tier 2 Percentage of Set asides 3 Housing Mix 3 Proximity to Employment 3 Development Strategies: RFP Scoring Criteria 3 Land Acquisition 3 Financial Innovation 3 Regulatory Incentives 2 Contributions 3 Affordability Period 3 Zoning District 3 Resident Assistance 3 Subtotal 0 4 36 Total 40 Wolf Creek Village, Freeport, Walton County Field Below threshold (1) Met threshold (2) Above Threshold (3) Development Statistics: Housing Need 2 Cost Tier 3 Growth Tier 3 Percentage of Set asides 3 Housing Mix 2 Proximity to Employment 3 Development Strategies: RFP Scoring Criteria 3 Land Acquisition 2 Financial Innovation 3 Regulatory Incentives 3 Contributions 3 Affordability Period 2 Zoning District 1 Resident Assistance 2 Subtotal 1 10 24 Total 35
121 Boulevard of the Arts, City of Sarasota, Sarasota County Field Below threshold (1) Met threshold (2) Above Threshold (3) Development Statistics: Housing Need 3 Cost Tier 2 Growth Tier 2 Percentage of Set asides 3 Housing Mix 2 Proximity to Employment 2 Development Strategies: RFP Scoring Criteria 3 Land Acquisition 3 Financial Innovation 3 Regulatory Incentives 2 Contributions 3 Affordability Period 3 Zoning District 2 Resident Assistance 3 Subtotal 0 12 24 Total 36 The Preserve, City of St. Cloud, Osceola County Field Below threshold (1) Met threshold (2) Above Threshold (3) Development Statistics: Housing Need 2 Cost Tier 1 Growth Tier 3 Percentage of Set asides 3 Housing Mix 2 Proximity to Employment 3 Development Strategies: RFP Scoring Criteria 3 Land Acquisition 3 Financial Innovation 3 Regulatory Incentives 3 Contributions 3 Affordability Period 3 Zoning District 2 Resident Assistance 3 Subtotal 1 6 30 Total 37
122 Homes of West Augustine, West Augustine, St. Johns County Field Below threshold (1) Met threshold (2) Above Threshold (3) Development Statistics: Housing Need 3 Cost Tier 2 Growth Tier 3 Percentage of Set asides 3 Housing Mix 2 Proximity to Employment 2 Development Strategies: RFP Scoring Criteria 3 Land Acquisition 3 Financial Innovation 2 Regulatory Incentives 2 Contributions 3 Affordability Period 2 Zoning District 2 Resident Assistance 3 Subtotal 0 14 21 Total 35 Verde, City of Orlando, Orange County Field Below threshold (1) Met threshold (2) Above Threshold (3) Development Statistics: Housing Need 3 Cost Tier 2 Growth Tier 2 Percentage of Set asides 3 Housing Mix 3 Proximity to Employment 2 Development Strategies: RFP Scoring Criteria 3 Land Acquisition 2 Financial Innovation 2 Regulatory Incentives 2 Contributions 3 Affordability Period 3 Zoning District 3 Resident Assistance 2 Subtotal 0 14 21 Total 35
123 Ridgeview Subdivision and The Villas at Kenilworth, Sebring, Highlands County Field Below threshold (1) Met threshold (2) Above Threshold (3) Development Statistics: Housing Need 2 Cost Tier 1 Growth Tier 1 Percentage of Set asides 3 Housing Mix 2 Proximity to Employment 2 Development Strategies: RFP Scoring Criteria 3 Land Acquisition 3 Financial Innovation 3 Regulatory Incentives 3 Contributions 2 Affordability Period 3 Zoning District 1 Resident Assistance 3 Subtotal 3 8 21 Total 32 Westshore Landings One, Tampa, Hillsborough County Field Below threshold (1) Met threshold (2) Above Threshold (3) Development Statistics: Housing Need 3 Cost Tier 1 Growth Tier 2 Percentage of Set asides 3 Housing Mix 2 Proximity to Employment 2 Development Strategies: RFP Scoring Criteria 3 Land Acquisition 3 Financial Innovation 3 Regulatory Incentives 2 Contributions 2 Affordability Period 3 Zoning District 3 Resident Assistance 2 Subtotal 1 12 21 Total 34
124 Midtown Delray, City of Delray Beach, Palm Beach County Field Below threshold (1) Met threshold (2) Above Threshold (3) Development Statistics: Housing Need 3 Cost Tier 3 Growth Tier 2 Percentage of Set asides 3 Housing Mix 3 Proximity to Employment 3 Development Strategies: RFP Scoring Criteria 3 Land Acquisition 3 Financial Innovation 3 Regulatory Incentives 2 Contributions 3 Affordability Period 3 Zoning District 2 Resident Assistance 3 Subtotal 0 6 33 Total 39 Hatton Street Houses, City of Sarasota, Sarasota County Field Below threshold (1) Met threshold (2) Above Threshold (3) Development Statistics: Housing Need 3 Cost Tier 2 Growth Tier 2 Percentage of Set asides 3 Housing Mix 2 Proximity to Employment 2 Development Strategies: RFP Scoring Criteria 3 Land Acquisition 3 Financial Innovation 2 Regulatory Incentives 2 Contributions 3 Affordability Period 3 Zoning District 2 Resident Assistance 3 Subtotal 0 14 21 Total 35
125 APPENDIX E GAP BETWEEN BUYING POWER AND MEDIAN SALES PRICE FOR THE 2006 CWHIP Rank County Median Income for Family of 4 Buying Power (Income x 3) Median Sales Price Gap Between Buying Power and Sales Price Tier I 1 Monroe County $58,450 $175,350 $660,000 $484,650 2 Collier County $63,300 $189,900 $433,000 $243,100 3 Palm Beach County $62,100 $186,300 $396,800 $210,500 4 Walton County $44,000 $132,000 $320,000 $188,000 5 Martin County $52,450 $157,350 $339,900 $182,550 6 Miami Dade County $46,350 $139,050 $318,000 $178,950 7 Broward County $58,100 $174,300 $330,000 $155,700 Tier II 8 Manatee County $55,900 $167,700 $306,000 $138,300 9 Franklin County $35,850 $107,550 $233,000 $125,450 10 Lee County $54,100 $162,300 $279,500 $117,200 11 St. Johns County $57,850 $173,550 $289,050 $115,500 12 Sarasota County $55,900 $167,700 $270,000 $102,300 13 Seminole County $55,100 $165,300 $260,000 $94,700 14 Orange County $55,100 $165,300 $260,000 $94,700 15 Charlotte County $49,150 $147,450 $230,000 $82,550 16 St. Lucie County $52,450 $157,350 $237,000 $79,650 Tier III Florida $52,550 $157,650 $235,000 $77,350 17 Sumter County $43,800 $131,400 $207,200 $75,800 18 Hillsborough County $52,150 $156,450 $230,000 $73,550 19 Flagler County $48,650 $145,950 $215,000 $69,050 20 Osceola County $55,100 $165,300 $230,000 $64,700 21 Indian River County $53,250 $159,750 $223,000 $63,250 22 Santa Rosa County $50,700 $152,100 $214,150 $62,050 23 Brevard County $54,900 $164,700 $226,000 $61,300 24 DeSoto County $39,950 $119,850 $180,250 $60,400 25 Pinellas County $52,150 $156,450 $214,500 $58,050 26 Lake County $55,100 $165,300 $221,250 $55,950 27 Volusia County $48,650 $145,950 $201,500 $55,550 28 Bay County $49,300 $147,900 $202,400 $54,500 29 Okaloosa County $40,100 $120,300 $169,900 $49,600 30 Hendry County $55,150 $165,450 $213,900 $48,450 31 Pasco County $52,150 $156,450 $204,200 $47,750 32 Nassau County $57,850 $173,550 $221,000 $47,450 33 Marion County $43,100 $129,300 $170,000 $40,700
126 Rank County Median Income for Family of 4 Buying Power (Income x 3) Median Sales Price Gap Between Buying Power and Sales Price 34 Citrus County $42,050 $126,150 $165,000 $38,850 35 Levy County $35,200 $105,600 $144,200 $38,600 36 Okeechobee County $41,900 $125,700 $160,000 $34,300 37 Gilchrist County $39,800 $119,400 $153,500 $34,100 38 Alachua County $53,550 $160,650 $191,000 $30,350 39 Polk County $47,600 $142,800 $172,100 $29,300 40 Columbia County $41,250 $123,750 $152,550 $28,800 41 Clay County $57,850 $173,550 $199,100 $25,550 42 Gulf County $41,700 $125,100 $150,000 $24,900 43 Wakulla County $51,300 $153,900 $178,700 $24,800 44 Lafayette County $40,300 $120,900 $145,000 $24,100 45 Jefferson County $46,600 $139,800 $162,000 $22,200 46 Suwannee County $39,150 $117,450 $139,500 $22,050 47 Highlands County $46,100 $138,300 $159,200 $20,900 48 Leon County $57,700 $173,100 $190,900 $17,800 49 Duval County $57,850 $173,550 $187,500 $13,950 50 Hernando County $52,150 $156,450 $169,500 $13,050 51 Glades County $41,000 $123,000 $134,900 $11,900 52 Putnam County $41,000 $123,000 $131,700 $8,700 53 Baker County $51,400 $154,200 $160,200 $6,000 54 Escambia County $50,700 $152,100 $150,900 ($1,200) 55 Union County $42,700 $128,100 $125,400 ($2,700) 56 Washington County $38,400 $115,200 $112,500 ($2,700) 57 Liberty County $40,900 $122,700 $114,700 ($8,000) 58 Bradford County $45,300 $135,900 $125,000 ($10,900) 59 Jackson County $41,900 $125,700 $110,000 ($15,700) 60 Calhoun County $37,000 $111,000 $92,000 ($19,000) 61 Madison County $37,000 $111,000 $91,250 ($19,750) 62 Hamilton County $34,950 $104,850 $85,000 ($19,850) 63 Hardee County $37,600 $112,800 $92,700 ($20,100) 64 Dixie County $37,900 $113,700 $92,500 ($21,200) 65 Taylor County $40,150 $120,450 $90,000 ($30,450) 66 Gadsden County $57,700 $173,100 $139,000 ($34,100) 67 Holmes County $40,900 $122,700 $79,900 ($42,800) Source: FHFC, 2006
127 APPENDIX F POPULATION GROWTH FOR THE 2006 CWHIP PROGRAM Rank County Avg. Annual % Change 2000 05* Tier I 1 FLAGLER 9.547% 2 OSCEOLA 6.366% 3 WALTON 5.093% 4 ST. JOHNS 4.973% 5 COLLIER 4.793% 6 ST. LUCIE 4.478% 7 LEE 4.477% 8 SUMTER 4.475% 9 LAKE 4.466% Tier II 10 CLAY 3.793% 11 PASCO 3.327% 12 MARION 3.082% 13 ORANGE 3.029% 14 MANATEE 2.869% 15 HERNANDO 2.816% 16 INDIAN RIVER 2.796% 17 SANTA ROSA 2.760% 18 NASSAU 2.629% 19 HILLSBOROUGH 2.500% 20 SARASOTA 2.447% 21 CHARLOTTE* 2.432% 22 SEMINOLE 2.416% 23 LEON 2.363% 24 CITRUS 2.329% 25 PALM BEACH 2.218% 26 WAKULLA 2.195% Tier III FLORIDA 2.184% 27 BREVARD 2.180% 28 POLK 2.155% 29 VOLUSIA 2.134% 30 DUVAL 2.017% 31 MARTIN 1.979% 32 OKALOOSA 1.887%
128 Rank County Avg. Annual % Change 200005* 33 ALACHUA 1.862% 34 SUWANNEE 1.842% 35 LEVY 1.806% 36 BAY 1.629% 37 FRANKLIN 1.410% 38 BROWARD 1.390% 39 MIAMI DADE 1.367% 40 HIGHLANDS 1.352% 41 GILCHRIST 1.276% 42 COLUMBIA 0.836% 43 PUTNAM 0.807% 44 WASHINGTON 0.716% 45 MONROE 0.684% 46 HENDRY 0.656% 47 PINELLAS 0.540% 48 ESCAMBIA 0.449% 49 TAYLOR 0.429% 50 DIXIE 0.392% 51 JEFFERSON 0.282% 52 OKEECHOBEE 0.083% 53 DE SOTO* 0.121% 54 GADSDEN 0.138% 55 BAKER 0.289% 56 MADISON 0.740% 57 HARDEE* 0.750% 58 CALHOUN 0.771% 59 HOLMES 0.878% 60 GLADES 1.147% 61 JACKSON 1.443% 62 GULF 1.741% 63 BRADFORD 1.892% 64 LAFAYETTE 2.256% 65 HAMILTON 2.908% 66 LIBERTY 3.383% 67 UNION 5.289% Source: FHFC, 2006
129 APPENDIX G VILLAGE OF QUILLEN HOMEOWNER ASSISTANCE
130 REFERENCES Altos R esearch (2009). Raw d ata. Retrieved March 16, 2009, available from Altos Research: Real time Real Estate Data Web site: http://www.altosresearch.com/ Bell, C A. (2002). Workforce Housing: The New E conomic Imper ative? Housing Facts & F indings 4(2), 3 4 Bender, G. (2006a). [Midtown Delray CHWIP Application RFP 20065]. Unpublished raw data. Bender, G. (2006b). [Village of Quillen CHWIP Application RFP 20065]. Unpublished raw data. Blue, Jr., F.L. (2006). [Walton County Workforce Housing Authority Wolf Creek Village Workforce Housing Development]. Unpublished raw data. Chaney, M. (2008). Staying Dry During a Wave of Foreclosures. Housing News 24(2 ), 11 14. City of Tampa Housing and Development Division (HCD). (2008). Down Payme nt Assistance (DPA) Brochure. Tampa, FL. Community News Publications. (2008). Hillsborough Approves Funds for Future Affordable Housing Property Retrieved January 9, 2007, from Community News Publications Web site: http://cnewspubs.com/realestate/modules /news/article.php?storyid=1277 Connerly, C E. (2004). Smart Growth: Opportunity or Threat to Affordable Housing? Tallahassee, FL: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Florida State University. Crawford, T. (2006). [Concept Proposal for the Homes of West Augustine]. Unpublished raw data. Crowe, D Ledford, D., Emrath, P., Eisenberg, & E. Liu, Y. (2004). Where is Workforce Housing Located? A Study of the Geography of Housing Affordability. Washington, DC: The National Association of Home Builders. Delaney, J J. (2005). Update on the Workforce Hou sing Cr isis: Addressing The Imbalance B etween Jobs and Housing. Bethesda, MA: Land Use Institute. DeMarco, R. (2006). [Verde Application to the Florida Workforce Housing Finance Corporation: 2006 Communi ty Workforce Housing Innovation Program]. Unpublished raw data. Engel, D Applegate, A. B., & Mills, K (2007). Creating a Task Force on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development Research.
131 Environmental Land and Water Management Act, Fla. Stat. 380.06 (1) (1972). Developments of Regional Impact. Retrieved June 16, 2008, from Online Sunshine Web site: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mod e=Display_Statute&Search_String=&UR L=Ch0380/SEC06.HTM&Title= %3E2008-%3ECh0380%3ESection%2006#0380.06 Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough County (EPC). (2008). Brownfields 2008 Annual Report Tampa, FL : Hillsborough County. Family Housing Fund (FHF). (2008). About Affordable Housing. Retrieved August 27, 2008, from Family Housing Fund Web site: http://www.fhfund.org/affordable_housing.asp Feldman, R. (2002). The Affordable Housing Shortage: Considering the Problem, Causes and Solutions Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Banking and Policy Working Paper 02 2. First H ousing Development Corporation of Florida (FHDC). (2008). Florida Housing Finance Corporation Credit Underwriting Report RFP 2006-05: Westshore Landings One C ommunity Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program (CWHIP 06-33). Tallahassee, FL. The Washington Area Housing Partnership. (2005) Toolkit for Affordable Housing Development Washington, DC Florida Housing Coalition (FHC). (2006). Florida Priced Out R eport Retrieved January 22, 2009, from Florida Priced Out Report Web site: http://pricedoutreport.org/results.php Florida Housing Finance Corporation ( FHFC ). (2006). Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program Request for Proposals (RFP). Tallahassee, FL. Florida Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC). (2007). Report on the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program (CWHIP). Tallahassee, FL. Florid a Housing Finance Corporation (FHFC). (2008). Retrieved April 14, 2008, from Florida Housing Finance Corporation Web site: http://www.floridahousing.org/Home/Developers/WorkforceHousing/cwhiptimeline.htm Florida Housing Partnership. (2006). Florida Housi ng Partnership: Concept Paper. Retrieved November 3, 2008, from Florida Housing Partnership Web site: http://www.flshc.net/documents/ConceptPaper.pdf Florida International University Metropolitan Center. (2006). Palm Beach County Workforce Housing Needs Assessment. Miami, FL. Florida Supportive Housing Coalition. (2007). Common Sense: A Strategic Plan to Providing Supportive Housing Throughout Florida. Tallahassee, FL. Flowers, R. (2007). A Community Housing R esource Guide 2007. Tallahassee, FL: Flori da League of Cities, Inc.
132 Gedalius, E. (October 2 8, 2007 ). City T o Add Affordable Homes. The Tampa Tribune Retrieved November 7, 2008, from Web site: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2007/oct/28/me -city to add affordable -homes/ Governors Affordable Housing Study Commission. (2007). Final Report 2007. Tallahassee, FL. Guilfoil, M. (2006a). [Concept Proposal for the Boulevard of the Arts Residences]. Unpublished raw data. Guilfoil, M. (2006b). [Concept Proposal for the Hatton Street Houses]. Unpublished raw data. Harkness, J. M., Ph.D Newman, S. J., Ph.D., & Lipman, B. J. (2002). Housing Americas Working Families: A Further Exploration. Washington, DC: New Century Housing. 3 (1). Haughey, R (2007). Developing Housing for the Workforce: A Toolkit. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute. Jenkins, A. (2007). CWHIP: Intended to Complement, n ot Supplant, Programs for Lower Income Floridians. Housing News Winter 2007, 23(1). Tallahassee, FL: Florida Housing Coalition. Joint Ce nter for Housing Studies of Harvard University. (2007). The State of the Nations Housing: 2007. Cambridge, MA. Lipman, B J. (2004). Paycheck to Paycheck: Wages and the Cost of Housing in Counties, 2004. Washington, DC: Center for Housing Policy and the National Association of Counties. Lipman, B J. (2005). Somethings Gotta give: Working Families and the Cost of Housing. Washington DC: New Century housing. 5 (2). Lubell, Jeffrey. (2007). Increasing the Availability of Affordable Homes: An Analysis of High Impact State and Local Solutions. Washington, DC: Homes for Working Families and The Center for Housing Policy. National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2006). Out of Reach 2006. Washington, DC Orange County Government, Florida. (2007) Central Flo rida Workforce Housing Toolkit Retrieved December 2, 2007, from Orange County Government, Florida Web site: http://www.orangecountyfl.net/cms/WorkforceHousing/default.htm Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force (2007). Workforce Housing for Orange Countys Working Families: Orange County Workforce Housing Task Force Report Orlando, FL. Phillippi, P. (2006). [Heartland Community Workforce Housing Initiative 2007: Highlands County Florida and Partners]. Unpublished raw data.
133 The Planning Authori ty LLC, The Center for Governmental Services at Rutgers University, Building Technology Inc., Planning/Communications, Daniel Mandelker, and Arianne Aughey. (2008). Local Housing Incentive Strategies: Final Report. Retrieved February 23, 2009, available fr om Hillsborough County Affordable Housing Department Web site : http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/affordablehousing/ Pratt, S ., & Allen M (2004). Addressing Community Opposition to Affordable H ousing D evelopment: A Fair Housing Toolkit. Glenside, PA: The Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania. National Association of Home Builders. (2004). Americas Working Families: Where Will They Live? Close to Home, A Symposium for Workforce Housing. Washington, DC RealtyTrac (2009). Raw data. Retrieved April 16, 2009, available from RealtyTrac Web site: http://www.realtytrac.com/ValueTrac/HomeValues.aspx?a=b&address=Tampa,%20FL&parsed= 1&ct=Tampa&cn=Hillsborough%20county&stc=FL#Tampa,%20FL Robinson, L. (2006). [Concept Proposal for Merry Place at Pleasant City]. Unpublished raw data. Rotella, R. (2006). [Westshore Community Development Corporation for Westshore Landings One]. Unpublished raw data. Rypkema, D D. (2002). H istoric Preservation and Affordable Housing: The Missed Connection. Washington, DC: The Natio nal Trust for Historic Preservation. Shimberg Center for Affordable Housing. (2006). Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse. Retrieved January 22, 2009, from GeoPortal Web site: http://flhousingdata.shimberg.ufl.edu/a/geo_portal?action=results&nid=2809 Sout h Florida Community Development Coalition (SFCDC). (200 8 ) Outline of Ideas for Increasing Production. Retrieved December 07, 2008, from South Florida Community Development Coalition Web site: http://www.floridacdc.org/policy/workforce hsing.html Strategic Planning Group, Inc (SPG). (2005). Palm Beach County Workforce Housing Study. Jacksonville Beach, FL. Sullivan, T (2004). Putting the Force in Workforce Housing. Retrieved March 16, 2008, from American Planning Association Web site: http://myapa.planning.org/affordablereader/planning/workforce1104.htm Tampa Bay R egional Planning Council (TBRPC). (2007). Annual R eport Summary, DRI #141 Westshore Areawide. Pinellas Park, FL. University Partnership for Community & Economic Development (2006). Attainable Housing for Hillsborough Countys G rowing Economy Retrieved February 23, 2009, available from Hillsborough County Affordable Housing Department Web site: http://www.hillsboroughcounty.org/affordablehousing/
134 U.S. Departmen t of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2004). HOME Program Rehabilitation Tune up Kit. Washington, DC: HUD, Community Planning and Development. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (2007). Deputy Secretary Bernardi Urges Communities to Join HUDs National Call to Action During First Workforce Housing Conference Retrieved December 11, 2007, from HUD: The Daily Message Web site: http://www.hud.gov/news/focus .cfm?content=20070712.cfm Westshore Alliance. (2008). About Westshore. Retrieved December 08, 2008, from Westshore Alliance. Web site: http://www.Choosewestshore.com /page/quick_facts.php Wolf, J. (2006). [The Foundation for Osceola Education, Inc.: 120 Units St. Cloud, Florida]. Unpublished raw data. Yin, R K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Third Edition) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
135 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH C. Ryan Thompson was born and raised in Gainesville, Florida. He is the son of two University of Florida graduates, his father a certified public accountant and his mother an interior designer. After working for his parents during several summer breaks while in high school, he recognized that his interests w ere in design and the built environment, more than in accounting or another financial field. Following his mothers advice after high school graduation, Ryan pursued a degree in building construction at Santa Fe Community College. However, he discovered th at, although he was passionate about building, he desired to enter a profession that would influence how we live rather than a career managing construction projects. Determined to pursue a degree at the University of Florida, which did not offer an undergr aduate degree in urban and regional planning, Ryan chose natural resource and environmental economic policy as a field of study that would be a strong complement to a future masters degree. It is in this program that he became familiar with government pol icy and where he learned to evaluate the feasibility of development and conservation decisions. After earning his bachelors degree, Ryan entered the urban and regional planning program at the University of Florida and began to study and research how geogr aphic information systems could facilitate the decision -making process used by urban planners and developers. He soon realized that it was necessary to understand planning issues as well as decision -making technology. Following the suggestion of one of his professors, Ryan applied to study at the Preservation Institute: Nantucket. During an internship with the Nantucket Planning and Economic Development Commission, he discovered the importance of work force housing and
136 the ways Nantucket Island has been aff ected by the shortage of such housing. The experience gained during this internship led Ryan to pursue the evaluation of a newly created housing assistance program that addresses workforce housing issues in the State of Florida.