Affordable Housing Expansion Strategy
Transcription
Affordable Housing Expansion Strategy
Affordable Housing Expansion Strategy Prepared for the Healthy York County Coalition Housing Task Force Affordable Housing Expansion Strategy Prepared by June 2006 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Healthy York County Coalition - Housing Task Force Steve Snell, Co-Chairman Craig Zumbrun, Co-Chairman Robin Rohrbaugh, Executive Director Members contributing to this report: Debbie Althoff Kim Bracey Phil Briddell Betsy Buckingham Jane Conover Ethel Davis Tom Foust Missy Gosnell-Avery Natalie Grim Carol Kauffman Erin Kelly George Klaus Debbie Loucks Wanda Montalvo Leroy Moore Penny Myers Marion Oberdick Chris Rafferty Cheryl Rascoe Stephanie Seaton Leigh Smith Larry Stets Bill Swartz Alan Vandersloot Anne Walko Shanna Weist Craig Wolf Funding and contributions for this report were provided by: Sovereign Bank Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff The Wolf Organization M. S. Grumbacher Foundation WellSpan Affordable Housing Endeavors Community Bank York County Planning Commission 1 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 3 Introduction 7 Purpose Scope Comparing Population and Households Use of Claritas Data York County Planning Regions Previous Reports and Plans Demographic Overview 11 Introduction Every Household Needs a Dwelling York County The Affordable Housing Market in York County 16 General Owner Market Rental Market The Affordable Housing Industry Capacity to Create New Affordable Housing Units 27 Evaluation of Pipeline Projects Methodology Results of the Readiness to Proceed Analysis Organizational Capacity Common Impediments to Developing Affordable Housing in York County 34 Alternative Financing Plans and Development Solutions 36 Affordable Housing Expansion Strategy Recommendations 38 Appendices A B C D E Demographic Analysis by Planning Region Inventory of Assisted Owner Housing in York County Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing in York County Geographic Locations of Assisted Housing in York County Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Used 2 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In 2004 the YorkCounts Commission issued its latest report titled Charting a Brighter Future for All. Among the numerous goals and objectives established in this report was one specific to affordable housing: create 100 new units over the next five years. The Healthy York County Coalition offered to undertake the preparation of this report to determine if the goal was reasonable and attainable. The results of this Affordable Housing Expansion Strategy concluded that the goal of creating 100 new affordable units could actually be achieved by mid-2007. More significantly, however, was the fact that the creation of 100 new affordable housing units over five years, or even the creation of 100 units each and every year over the next five years, would barely address the increasingly high demand for affordable housing in York County. Between 1990 and 2000 the population of York County increased by 12.4%, while the number of households increased by 15.2%. Households demand housing units and the growing trend toward smaller non-traditional, nonfamily, single-person households is placing an increasing demand on the county’s housing market. This is particularly evident among older households in the 55 and older age category. Household projection estimates for 2011 in York County emphasize further still the increasing affordable housing demand that will become reality: Households 55 and older will increase by 10,000 while younger households will remain virtually unchanged in number from 2006. The area median income (AMI) for York County is projected to be $55,121 with 39% of all households having incomes below 80% of AMI. The most significant household growth is projected to occur in the lower income range of >30%-60% of AMI among all ages. This income group of primarily renters will increase by 8,147 households across the county. Projected changes will vary across the planning regions in York County. Some of the most significant projected changes for each of the planning regions are included in the following chart. 3 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Planning Region Most Significant Projected Change 1 South Central York Households 55 and older in the 0%-30% income group will increase by 499 (73%) 2 Greater York East Households 55 and older in the >30%-60% income group will increase by 1,573 (38%); in the >115% income group, the increase will include 1,682 households (31%) 3 Greater York West Households 55 and older in the >30%-60% income group will grow by 1,554 (42%) and the >115% income group will increase by 1,613 (39%) 4 Northern York Households 55 and older in the >30%-60% income group will increase by 624 (44%) while households in the >115% income group will add another 1,102 households (41%) 5 South Western York Households 55 and older in the >30%-60% income group will increase by 698 (34%) while households in the >115% income group will grow by 895 households (40%) 6 City of York Households 55 and older in the >30%-60% income group will add another 395 households (26%) while younger households will grow by 534 households (19%) 7 South Eastern York Households 55 and older in the >30%-60% income group will increase by 244 (40%) while the >115% income group will add another 415 households (47%) What’s driving the housing demand in York County? Fundamentally, it’s the economy. Between 1998 and 2004: Total employment grew by 5.7% from 149,419 to 157,906. Total annual wages increased $4,166,706,000 to $5,150,259,000. The total number of business establishments increased 4.7% from 8,160 to 8,547. 23.6% from One of the factors driving this growth is the county’s location along the Interstate 83 corridor. Development pressure from the Washington, DC / Baltimore region is forcing both developers (who are seeking developable land) and homebuyers (who are seeking more affordable housing) northward to York County. But not everyone can afford the cost of purchasing or renting a home at today’s market rates. To the county’s credit, there are numerous affordable housing developers (both non-profit and for-profit) which are successfully creating new sales and rental units for lower income households. A survey conducted for this report revealed 4 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY there are ten different affordable housing developers currently working to generate 117 new sales units and up to 292 new rental units over the next five years. Unfortunately, the housing development arena is an arduous one. Untold amounts of human, technical and financial resources are required to simply develop a project application for public and private financing. Once the financing is in place, some projects may require 18-24 months for construction. Impediments occur along the way, increasing costs and delaying occupancy availability. Add to this the uncertainty of future state and federal program funds and it becomes clear that even the most successful achievements by local affordable housing developers in York County cannot keep pace with the increasing projected needs. The foundation for the strategy proposed for York County will require continued collaboration among existing developers. The current and projected demand for affordable housing creates a need for local housing developers in York County. To address the projected increase in household growth, more housing units will have to be constructed and/or rehabilitated. Suggesting that more housing developers are needed in York County to resolve this issue is a double-edged sword. While more developers could conceivably generate more units, the competition for scarce public funding resources would become more intense. It would be preferable for local affordable housing developers to establish their unique market niche and cooperate as necessary to address increasing demand. Recommendations to assist in expanding the affordable housing stock in York County were made in four areas: Additional Research Organizational Strategy Planning Financing The need for additional research focuses on identification of workforce housing needs for households in the >30% to 50% of the area median income (AMI). SusquehannaPfaltzgraff, a local employer, conducted a Live Near Your Work survey in 2003. Survey results indicated that the primary reasons why employees were not purchasing homes were financially driven. By designing an employeeassisted housing program to provide financial incentives for down payment assistance and exterior rehabilitation, the company was able to develop a program to fit the needs of its employees who were rental households and 5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY interested in becoming homeowners. A similar study of major employers county-wide could assist in the development of a larger program with potentially greater funding from private resources available to assist lower income working households.) Organizational strategy recommendations emphasize nurturing existing non-profit organizations and enhancing their capacity to continue as well as increase affordable housing production in the county. Furthermore, it is recommended that the county continue to treat affordable housing as a regional issue. Additional planning could enhance affordable housing development in the county. It is recommended that a cycle of planning and implementation measures be established so that only one major revitalization project is being developed at any one time in York County. Obsolete municipal zoning ordinances should be updated to reflect more current planning and zoning concepts, especially those that foster affordable housing design and development. Lastly, financing strategies should include securing a reliable source of pre-development loans for local housing providers to enable worthwhile projects to move forward. Also, affordable housing providers should be taking advantage of newer PHFA funding opportunities to create highly leveraged revitalization projects that blend homeownership with other neighborhood projects. 6 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY INTRODUCTION Purpose This document represents an initiative undertaken by the Healthy York County Coalition Housing Task Force to determine the extent to which local housing providers require technical assistance and / or capacity-building assistance in their efforts to meet the current and future housing needs of County households. Recent growth in York County has been intensive and projected estimates demonstrate continued household growth. A recent report completed by the YorkCounts Commission included the objective of creating 100 new affordable housing units over the next five years. One of the questions to be answered by this report is to what degree can this objective be achieved. Scope The scope of this report includes the identification of local housing developers, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and their capacity to plan, finance and construct housing units in York County. Towards this end, the following elements are covered in the report: An overview of household growth trends and estimated projections by income level and age of householder An inventory and analysis of housing units currently in the “pipeline”—the planning and development stages, and that are expected to become available for occupancy within the next five years (July 2006 through June 2011) Identification of the developers involved in constructing and rehabilitating housing in York County, particularly for those income levels where the need for housing units is high Evaluation of the organizational capacity of housing developers in York County and their respective ability to plan, finance and develop housing units, and Identification of alternative financing plans and development solutions that are currently untapped or underutilized, and strategies for maximizing those strategies. 7 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY The Housing Task Force acknowledges that a full understanding of growth trends in a region requires an analysis of other issues that may also impact expansion of the housing market, such as tax-free pensions, new water and sewer service facilities, development of new residential subdivisions, regional economic development shifts (i.e., military base expansion), and the cultural characteristics of primary population groups (i.e., multigenerational households). Because the scope of this project is very limited and focused, it does not include data or analysis of the following housing-related issues in York County: The condition or habitability of housing units A housing demand analysis, or The housing needs of special needs populations such as persons with mental illness, HIV/AIDS, released offenders, persons with physical disabilities and recovering substance abusers. The Housing Task Force recognizes that there is a need for specialized housing development in York County for special needs populations. Comparing Population and Households This report is based on household growth in York County to determine the need for affordable housing. The U.S. Census Bureau defines “population” as “all people, male and female, child and adult, living in a given geographic area.” The term “household” is defined to include “all the people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of residence.” When describing housing markets and housing needs, focusing the discussion on households is much more relevant and accurate because each household requires a dwelling unit while several people may comprise the same household and live in the same housing unit. In other words, relating housing need to the number of households in a geographic area is much more accurate in determining housing need than trying to relate it to the number of persons. For example, if one hundred family households each had a new child born in the same year, the population of their town would increase by 100 persons. However, there would be no need for additional housing units to accommodate this increase in population. By comparison, if 50 new family households relocated to the town, then these 50 new households would each require their own housing unit. 8 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Use of Claritas Data Projection estimates of households by income level and age of householder used in this report were obtained from Claritas, Inc. Claritas data is based on a number of sources, including an annual release of current-year estimates and five-year projections of U.S. Census data. This update relies on the decennial census for an accurate starting point and a variety of sources indicating change following the census. Claritas demographers spend months each year analyzing fresh demographic data from many sources, including local governments, consumer databases and postal delivery counts. The demographers' goal is to locate and use the best sources of local level data available in order to build the most accurate picture possible of demographic growth or decline from year to year. In developing the annual demographic estimates and projections, Claritas applies both a "top-down" and a "bottom-up" process. For example, in the "bottom-up" process, Claritas uses the local level data mentioned earlier to assess demographic growth and decline at the local level. In the "top-down" process, Claritas uses U.S. Census Bureau estimates and other federal data to develop totals for demographic variables for larger areas such as cities, counties and states. These independently produced estimates serve the important function of methodological control, a "checks and balance" measure to ensure that any indications of demographic change are consistent across all data sources. For this report, household estimates by income level and age of householder for 2006 and household projections by income level and age of householder for 2011 were obtained from Claritas. York County Planning Regions The York County Planning Commission has divided the county into seven planning regions. For the purposes of this report, demographic summaries including household projections are provided for each of the seven regions and the County as a whole. Appendix A includes the demographic analyses by planning region. 9 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Previous Reports and Plans Several reports and planning documents were reviewed as part of the data collection process for this report. These included: Renewing Our Community: The Rusk Report on the Future of Greater York (1996). Rusk Report II: A Challenge to Change (2002) Charting a Brighter Future for All—The Time is Now: A Comprehensive Action Plan of the YorkCounts Commission (2004) YorkCounts: Count Me In—Progress and Trends (2006) Consolidated Plan for York County, Pennsylvania: Fiscal Years 2005-2009 (2004) York Housing Authority Annual Plan (2005) Windsor Township Traffic Impact Fee / Land Use Assumptions Report (May 2006). 10 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW Introduction The population of York County has increased significantly over the past few decades and is projected to increase further still as new residents migrate northward along the Interstate 83 corridor from the Washington, DC / Baltimore metropolitan area. As counties to the south of York experience build-out accompanied by higher housing prices and tighter markets, developers have capitalized on the availability of developable land in York County. When the topic of housing affordability is discussed, it is often assumed that the term “affordable housing” refers to housing for lower income households. In fact, affordable housing simply means paying no more than 30% of gross household income for housing expenses including mortgage or rent, utilities, insurance and taxes regardless of income level. Generally speaking, however, lower income households experience a greater financial burden in obtaining safe and decent housing that costs less than 30% of their monthly income. For this reason, this report will focus on the capacity of local housing developers (both non-profit and for-profit) who are providing safe and decent housing to lower income York County households. Every Household Needs a Dwelling While York County’s population grew by 12.4% between 1990 and 2000, the number of households in the County increased by 15.2%. Household growth occurs when people migrate to York County. But increases in the number of households can also be attributed to lifestyle changes. Younger people tend to marry later in life. Couples tend to divorce more frequently. Seniors tend to live longer. All of these factors contribute to growth in the number of households. Growth in household formation translates to demand for housing. In this report, household data are presented in two age groups: (1) 15-54 years and (2) 55 years and older. Households 55 years and older include at least one member who is 55 years of age or older. The distinction is made at 55 years because many state and federal housing programs are targeted to households with at least one member who is 55 years old. Household projections by income level are also presented. Income levels are reported as a percentage of the area 11 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY median household income (a standard calculation reported by the Census Bureau) and for a family of four. The median household income is the income level which falls exactly in the middle of the household population: exactly one-half of all households have a lower income while the other one-half of all households have a higher income. To maintain consistency, these same standards are used throughout this report. Income data are presented in the following categories: 0% to 30% of the area median household income (AMI) Greater than 30% and up to 60% of AMI Greater than 60% and up to 80% of AMI Greater than 80% and up to 115% of AMI, and Greater than 115% of AMI. Households with incomes below 80% of AMI are also called lower income households. Generally speaking, it is reasonable to assume that most, if not all, households with income levels of 0%-30% of AMI will be renters. These are households with annual incomes below $15,000 (for a family of four in York County) which are generally too low to afford home ownership. By comparison, households between >30%60% of AMI ($15,000 to $29,999) and >60%-80% of AMI ($30,000 to $40,000) may be able to afford home ownership if the terms are reasonable and subsidies are provided. Households between 80% and 115% of the AMI can also reasonably be expected to become home owners. During the development of this report, members of the Housing Task Force voiced concerns that the Claritas household growth projections seemed very conservative when compared to observable changing conditions in York County. Even if the Claritas projection estimates are conservative, the fact remains that the anticipated increase in lower income households across the County will exceed the supply of available and planned new affordable housing units over the next five years. 12 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY York County Between 2000 and 2006, households 55 and older increased by nearly 10,000 compared to younger households which grew by approximately 3,000. By 2011, households 55 and older are projected to increase by another 10,000 but the number of younger households is projected to remain nearly unchanged from 2006. Figure 1. Projected Household Growth in York County, 2000-2011 6,000 5,000 4,000 Age 15-54 3,000 Age 55+ 2,000 1,000 0 2000 2006 2011 Source: Claritas, Inc. While the data reveal that the number of households 55 and older will increase from 62,426 in 2006 to 72,937 households in 2011, this does not mean that York County will experience a net increase of 10,000 new households by 2011. Much of the projected increase can be attributed to the baby boomer generation aging in place. In other words, many households with at least one member who is currently 50-54 years old may simply “move into” the older age category should they choose to remain in their present home. In these cases, no additional housing units will be needed but the number of households 55 and older will increase in number. The 2006 area median income (AMI) for York County is $50,975. It is estimated that 38% of all households have incomes below 80% of AMI. Of these lower income households, 53% are households age 55 and older. 13 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Figure 2. Households by Age and Income in York County, 2006 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) >30%-60% AMI ($15,000-$29,999) >60%-80% AMI ($30,000-$39,999) >80%-115% AMI ($40,000-$59,999) >115% AMI ($60,000 & up) Total Households Age 15-54 6,223 11,351 10,742 23,362 46,965 Age 55+ 9,109 14,411 8,506 12,370 18,030 62,426 15,332 25,762 19,248 35,732 64,995 161,069 Total 98,643 Source: Claritas, Inc. By 2011, the AMI for York County is projected to be $55,121 with 39% of all households having incomes below 80% of AMI. Of these lower income households, 56% are projected to be households age 55 years and older. Figure 3. Projected Households by Age and Income in York County, 2011 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) >30%-60% AMI ($15,000-$34,999) >60%-80% AMI ($35,000-$44,999) >80%-115% AMI ($45,000-$59,999) >115% AMI ($60,000 & up) Total Households Age 15-54 5,718 14,059 10,064 16,117 52,784 98,742 Age 55+ 9,032 19,850 9,005 10,452 24,598 72,937 14,750 33,909 19,069 26,569 77,382 171,679 Total Source: Claritas, Inc. The most significant household growth is projected to occur in the lower income range of >30%-60% of AMI. Over the next five years, this income group of primarily renter households (all ages) will increase by 32% (8,147 households) across York County. Household growth also is projected for the >115% of AMI and higher income group although at a much lower rate. In contrast, households in the >80%-115% income group (of all ages) are projected to decrease significantly in every planning region. 14 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Figure 4. Projected Change in Households by Age and Income in York County, 2006-2011 >115% AMI & up >80%-115% AMI Age 55+ >60%-80% AMI Age 15-54 >30%-60% AMI 0%-30% AMI -40.0% -20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% Source: Claritas, Inc. 15 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MARKET IN YORK COUNTY General What’s driving the housing market in York County? Fundamentally, it’s the economy. From 1998 through 2004, the York economy has slowly expanded based on several indicators. Total employment grew from 149,419 in 1998 to 157,906 in 2004. Total annual wages increased from $4,166,706,000 to $5,150,259,000. The total number of business establishments grew from 8,160 to 8,547. And with the in-migration of new residents, housing is in demand. Owner Market The demand for housing translates into increased housing costs. In 2003, the median sales price of a home in York County (as reported by the Realtors Association of York and Adam Counties Multi-List Service data) was $124,900. A total of 5,344 listings were advertised and a house for sale averaged 68 days on the market. By 2005, the median sales price had increased to $159,414. Listings numbered 6,224 and the average number of days on the market decreased to 44. These are indicators of a thriving housing market. However, not all households can afford market rate housing in York County. Between 2000 and 2004 the median sales price of a home increased by 36% from $117,287 to $159,414. During this same period, the median income increased approximately 10.5% from $45,292 to $50,027. As a result, the cost of housing is rising at more than three times the median income. This situation will make achieving home ownership even more difficult for lower income households. Data provided by HUD in 2000 revealed that a total of 16,947 County households with incomes up to 50% of AMI were cost-burdened and paying more than 30% of their gross income for housing costs. By comparison 7,563 households with incomes >50%-80% were cost-burdened. Appendix B includes an inventory of affordable owner housing units developed for lower income households in York County since 2004. A total of 59 affordable owner housing units have been produced and sold by local and regional housing providers, another 5 are currently under 16 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY construction, and another 48 are planned for completion and sale by 2009. Figure 5 on the following page includes an inventory of the affordable owner housing units currently in various planning and development stages in York County. A total of six housing developers are anticipating the completion of 117 new sales units to be ready for occupancy between July 2006 and 2011. All but 16 of these units are located in the City of York. As a matter of policy, the city encourages the creation of affordable owner units with its federal entitlement dollars while the county focuses the investment of its funds on affordable rental units. Note: Under the column labeled “Target Income,” the acronym LMI refers to low and moderate income households. 17 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Figure 5. Inventory of Affordable Owner Housing Units in the Pipeline, June 2006 Development Name 450 North Beaver Street 549 South Duke Street 611 Cleveland Avenue New Construction or Rehab Sales Price Projected Occupancy Date Family >80% AMI $69,900 Aug. 2006 Rehab Crispus Attucks 1 Family LMI $80,000 Oct. 2006 Rehab Crispus Attucks 1 Family LMI $30,000 Dec. 2006 YHA 6 Family 50%-80% $120,850 2006 June 2007 NC Kings Mill 2 Family 35%-60% AMI NC / Rehab HICDC/York Habitat for Humanity Dorgan & Zuck with City of York, YWCA 21 Family >115% AMI $65,000$75,000 Rehab $59,900 New $69,900 NC / Rehab HICDC 11 Family 50%-115% AMI $80,000$130,000 2007 $31,500$34,500 2008 Rehab Spring Valley Manor II Codorus Homes Target Income 1 Red Lion Community Renaissance Scattered Sites 70 West Boundary Avenue Unit Type HICDC NC 613 Cleveland Avenue West Princess Street Units Rehab Village Court Turnkey III Developer 2006 YHA 16 Family 30%-80% AMI HICDC/York Habitat for Humanity 8 Family 35%-60% AMI $65,000$75,000 Nov. 2008 $30,000 Dec. 2008 Rehab Crispus Attucks 1 Family LMI Rehab YCDC 15 Family LMI Rehab York Habitat for Humanity 3 Family 35%-60% AMI $55,000$65,000 2008 Rehab Crispus Attucks 1 Family LMI $80,000 Jan. 2009 Special Needs & Family Mixed (30%-80% AMI & market rate) Sales Prices: Affordable 2009-2011 NC / Rehab YHA TOTAL 30 117 18 2008 Sources of Funds City HOME City HOME NAP City HOME NAP LBP grant County HOME USDA Rural Dev’t FHLB YHA County CDBG/HOME FHLB Private sponsors Corporations Homeowners City HOME PHFA City HOME County HOME Brownfields PHFA HCP RDA McKinney Bank constr. loan PennHOMES LIHTC PHA Turnkey III County HOME FHLB Private sponsors Corporations Homeowners City HOME NAP LBP grant PHFA HCP City CDBG/HOME FHLB Private sponsors Corporations Homeowners City HOME NAP Potential Sources: City CDBG/HOME PHFA HCP PennHOMES LIHTC PHA funds Section 8 HOPE VI Capital Funds Bonds Municipality York City York City York City Dover Twp Red Lion Borough York City York City York City Dover Borough York City York City York City York City York City AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Rental Market The cost to rent housing in York County is also rising faster than incomes. The median rent in 1990 was $329; by 2000, it had increased 61.4% to $531. (The 2000 census is the only source of data for median rents.) By comparison, median income increased only 39% from $32,605 in 1990 to $45,268 in 2000. HUD data revealed that in 2000 a total of 12,874 renter households with incomes up to 50% of AMI were costburdened and paying more than 30% of their gross income for rent and utilities. By comparison, only 1,282 renter households with incomes >50%-80% were cost-burdened. These numbers further emphasize the high demand for affordable, safe and decent rental housing for lower income households in York County. Appendix C includes an inventory of affordable rental housing units available for lower income households in York County. A total of 3,964 affordable rental housing units were identified. Numerous funding sources were used to finance the construction of these units over the past several decades by both for-profit and non-profit developers. Figure 6 below includes an inventory of the assisted rental housing developments currently in various planning and development stages in York County. A total of seven housing developers are anticipating the completion of between 282 and 292 new rental housing units to be ready for occupancy between July 2006 and 2009. 19 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Figure 6. Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing Developments in the Pipeline, June 2006 Developmen t Name 431 South George Street Stony Brook Gardens Senior Residences at Hanover Shoe Hudson Park Towers Preservation West Princess Street Manchester Borough Housing Codorus Homes New Constructio nor Rehab Developer Units Rehab Crispus Attucks 5 Unit Type Target Income Rent Projected Occupancy Date Family LMI $360/month July 2006 $503$638/month (inc. utilities) June 2007 Springwood Development 84 Elderly 20%-60% AMI Rehab Pennrose Properties 24 Elderly 20%-60% AMI $357/month average March 2008 Rehab HDC of Lancaster, Brandywine LLC 69 General & Disabled $520$628/month July 2008 Rehab Y CDC 30 Family Up to 60% AMI Up to 60% AMI NC NC NC / Rehab York Area Development Corp. YHA (CONE) TOTAL 40-50 30 282-292 20 Elderly Special Needs & Family Below 50% AMI Mixed (30%-80% AMI & market rate) 2008-2009 30% of annual adjusted income Rents: $50$650 Sources of Funds City CDBG NAP County HOME Brownfields LIHTC County CDBG/HOME LIHTC City HOME PennHOMES LIHTC Rural LISC FHLB City CDBG LIHTC Municipality York City Springettsbury Twp Hanover Borough York City York City 2009 County CDBG/HOME HUD Section 202 USDA Rural Develop. Manchester Borough 2009-2011 Potential Sources: City CDBG/HOME PHFA HCP PennHOMES LIHTC PHA funds Section 8 HOPE VI Capital Funds Bonds York City AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY It is evident from the anticipated occupancy dates of these 282-292 new rental housing units that the YorkCounts Commission objective of creating 100 new affordable housing units over the next five years will be easily exceeded. However, based on the projected household growth anticipated by 2011, there will remain a severe shortage of affordable housing for lower income renter households. For example, according to the data in Figure 6, Springwood Development anticipates leasing 84 rental units for elderly households (55 and older) with incomes up to 60% of AMI by January 2007. However, projected growth among households 55 and older in the >30%-60% of AMI income group is estimated to be 5,439 households by 2011. The Affordable Housing Industry In addition to collecting hard data (household projections, housing inventories, etc.), several key stakeholders in the development industry in York County were interviewed. These individuals were identified as playing critical roles in the planning, financing and development measures associated with creating new affordable housing units for lower income households in York County. A summary of the interview comments follows. The comments are categorized into strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats relative to the current affordable housing environment in York County. Strengths are conditions or issues that make a place stand out when compared with other places. A strength can be a physical asset, a program, or an impression or feeling. These assets are valuable and should be preserved or improved upon. Weaknesses are drawbacks or short-term challenges that need to be addressed so that they do not cause long-term problems to the quality of life. Opportunities are the long-range positive trends affecting the region as well as the positive paths that could be followed. These are things that could be done to improve a place. Threats include long-term weaknesses that could jeopardize the future success of the region if not reversed in a timely and effective manner. Strengths Based on increased need, the County recently doubled its HOME Program subsidy up to $40,000 per unit from $20,000 per unit. This action will 21 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY enable local applicants for state funds to prepare more competitive and financially sound applications. The County targets its HOME Program investment by requiring HOME-financed projects to be located within the County’s designated growth boundaries, or in its villages and boroughs. The benefits of this policy cannot be overstated. Land and housing costs are lower in these areas where infrastructure already exists to support new household growth. The County primarily works with three local entities (York Housing Authority, the Housing Council, and York Habitat for Humanity) to distribute its first-time homebuyer funds. The experience of these organizations provides the County with credible and competent administrators for a key source of home ownership financing. The Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency (PHFA) has expressed its “comfort level” with York County projects, according to one County official. As a major financier of affordable housing developments in the County, a strong relationship with PHFA is very advantageous. One local developer stated that the County housing staff “is the best group of skilled and motivated government employees” he has ever encountered. York Housing Authority has established strong relationships with York County and USDA Rural Development. York County granted exceptions to their 3/2 Homebuyer’s Mortgage Assistance Program requirements and USDA expanded its eligible coverage area to include the Village Court home ownership development. As a result, financial resources which were previously unavailable were secured and 16 new affordable sales units were generated. Weaknesses Many of the new affordable units created included the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing older homes. However, with these units comes the issue of lead-based paint which is costly to abate or remove. As a result, the rehabilitation costs per unit increases. Many of the County’s municipalities have outdated zoning ordinances that do not allow higher density 22 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY residential uses nor distinguish between senior housing and family housing for parking requirements, for example. This results in a developer being required to apply for variances, rezonings or other time-consuming and costly changes in order to get plan approval. Ultimately, time costs money and in some cases, it may even cost the entire affordable housing project to be cancelled. Previously, the County and the City partnered to form a housing consortium for HOME Program funds. This arrangement permitted a more regional approach to addressing affordable housing needs wherein the City and the County could agree to allocate funds for priority housing development projects without regard to the geographic location of the project. Since the Consortium was dissolved, the City must now use its federal HOME funds exclusively on projects within the City of York while the County can only use its federal HOME funds outside the City of York. During the period of time that the HOME Consortium was in place, the City and the County split HUD’s allocation of HOME funds into two separate buckets: one for the City and the other for the County. Each entity administered its own fair share of Consortium funds. So in practical terms, dissolving the Consortium has not significantly altered the geographic distribution of federal HOME funds. But after the collapse of the HOME Consortium, the amount of communication and collaboration between the City and the County on affordable housing issues has become minimal. The City of York has experienced turnover in its CDBG and HOME staff. Developers report that the process of building and re-building staff capacity has adversely affected the flow of federal CDBG and HOME funds into local affordable housing activities. It is difficult for a housing developer to estimate accurate construction costs for a project determined to require two years of construction time when the cost of materials continues to rise. This makes it difficult to secure adequate financing upfront and places the project in jeopardy of being delayed due to lack of funds to complete it. 23 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Opportunities Most applicants for County funds have the organizational capacity to complete their projects. If the County is uncertain about their abilities, they are required to partner with another entity to carry out their project. The benefits of this partnership are threefold. First, the County has a greater comfort level in the success of the project. Second, teaming with an experienced and competent developer will enhance the capacity of the less experienced developer, thus increasing their ability to become an independent developer in the future. And finally, this results in more experienced and credible affordable housing developers in York County. Two municipalities (York Township and Carroll Township) have traditional neighborhood development, or TND, ordinances. TNDs are compact developments of both commercial and residential land uses. The best examples of TNDs are the existing villages and boroughs of York County. By encouraging or requiring new development to mirror the elements of the traditional town patterns, local municipalities can promote a more efficient use of land, and lower the costs of housing, infrastructure and services. TND ordinances can create opportunity for additional affordable housing if the ordinances are written properly. There are many opportunities for creating new affordable housing units within the City of York; however, sites are difficult to locate and it is even more cumbersome to package several contiguous parcels for a larger project. Adaptive re-use of older quality structures, such as vacant stores and schools, could provide alternatives to new construction on vacant parcels. The lack of affordable handicap accessible housing is an issue, particularly for persons moving out of long-term rehabilitation or nursing homes. York Housing Authority is very interested in developing this type of housing but would prefer to partner with a developer experienced in this specific type of housing. 24 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Threats Locating affordable sites for new affordable housing development is becoming more difficult as the cost of land and materials increases. Out-of-state developers have acquired almost all the land available for multi-family housing in York County. This situation has several impacts, some of which are not so obvious. For example, a local developer stated that he must construct a minimum of 45 units at a project site in order to afford employing a fulltime on-site manager. An on-site manager becomes a critical element in maintaining the longterm condition of a development, which is especially important to the developer and the local community. The cost of construction and related materials also has risen, including gasoline. This, too, will increase the per-unit cost of affordable housing. Developers who acquire vacant housing units for rehabilitation must pay high liability insurance premiums. Unable to find a local insurer, organizations are forced to take out liability policies with companies such as Lloyd’s of London to cover personal injuries suffered by burglars or vagrants who trespass onto their properties. As with all other project costs, this expense is added to the overall project budget. While non-profit developers have the opportunity to acquire vacant housing units from a local redevelopment authority, often these units sit vacant for several years until such time that financing can be obtained to cover the cost of rehabilitation. During this waiting period, in addition to liability insurance, the developer also is responsible for paying the taxes and utilities on the vacant property. Depending on the location, NIMBYism (“Not in my backyard”) can be an issue. While a couple of developers suggested that the reputation and credibility of local developers and their quality housing have allayed the fears of residents in many areas of the County, two other developers stated they are having to defend planned rental housing developments to surrounding residents. Decreasing federal programs, such as the CDBG, HOME, USDA Rural, and Section 202 Housing for the Elderly Programs, are viewed as a direct threat 25 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY to the region’s ability to continue the creation of affordable housing for lower income residents. The lack of sufficient Section 8 housing vouchers also restricts the creation of new units. As of November 2004 the York Housing Authority had a waiting list of 3,000 applicants when it closed its list for Section 8 vouchers. Furthermore, the Authority has approximately 100 households with vouchers in hand who cannot locate safe, decent affordable housing units. Housing counseling providers reported that predatory lending practices involving subprime mortgage loans are impacting York County home owners. These types of loans allow for higher risk ratios than conventional loans and, therefore, carry higher interest rates. The negative impact occurs when these mortgages are all that are available to lower income households, who would be paying more for the same type of housing than middle and higher income households. Typically, subprime loans increase the housing cost burden for lower income households, which are precisely the households that can least afford higher housing costs. Secondarily, foreclosure of the housing units can open the door to acquisition by absentee landlords, an action which can further destabilize a transitioning neighborhood. 26 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY CAPACITY TO CREATE NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS Evaluation of Pipeline Projects In an effort to identify the number and timing of affordable housing units expected to be made available to lower income households for occupancy over the next five years, housing providers with projects in the pipeline were first identified. The “pipeline” refers to all proposed affordable assisted housing projects which are in various stages of pre-development or construction. (See Figures 5 and 6.) It is important to note that the pipeline projects list is a fluid one constantly changing as housing units are completed and occupied, and as new projects are planned, financed and initiated. Evidence of this activity can be found in the annual review process and funding cycle of new project applications by both the City and the County. Ten housing developers currently have a total of 20 projects in the pipeline. The developers include the following entities: Crispus Attucks Association, Inc. – Through its nonprofit Crispus Attucks Community Development Corporation, this local organization focuses on the production of affordable rental housing units in the City of York. Housing Initiatives Community Development Corporation, Inc. – HICDC is a nonprofit community housing development organization that develops both rental and owner affordable housing units, primarily in the City of York. York Habitat for Humanity – A local affiliate of Habitat for Humanity International, this organization constructs new housing units and rehabilitates deteriorated units in the City of York and boroughs throughout the County. York Habitat partners with HICDC to develop many of their projects. York Housing Authority – The public housing entity chartered to provide affordable housing to York County residents, YHA continues to secure financing for the development of new housing to lower income residents. Y Community Development Corporation – A local non-profit housing development organization affiliated with the YMCA of York. 27 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY York Area Development Corporation – A local nonprofit housing development corporation. Housing Development Corporation of Lancaster -A regional non-profit housing development corporation based in Lancaster, PA. Springwood Development – A regional for-profit housing developer. Dorgan & Zuck Building Contractors, Inc. – A local for-profit housing developer. Pennrose Properties, LLC – A national for-profit housing developer based in Philadelphia. Methodology Each housing developer was surveyed to determine the degree to which it has achieved certain pre-development and development milestones for each of the 20 projects in the pipeline. The milestones included the following: Site control achieved Zoning approval received Progress of design: o Schematic drawings only o Development drawings completed o Construction drawings completed General contractor selected Progress of financing: o All financing applications submitted o Some financing commitments approved o All financing commitments approved Environmental release achieved Building permit obtained Stage of construction: o Mobilization of construction underway o Construction underway o Construction 50% complete o Construction 75% complete o Construction 100% complete equipment Progress toward occupancy: o o Marketing efforts have resulted in contact information for prospective occupants Income verification of buyers/tenants complete 28 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY o Initial occupancy achieved. Results of the Readiness to Proceed Analysis Based on this evaluation method, the pipeline projects were ranked in the following order with the highest ranked project identified as being the one most ready to proceed with or complete construction. The locations of the pipeline projects are illustrated on the following page and also listed in Figure 7. Owner Units: 1. Community Renaissance 2. 611 Cleveland Avenue 3. Village Court 4. Spring Valley Manor II 5. 450 North Beaver Street 6. 549 South Duke Street 7. Red Lion Borough Project 8. York City Rehab Project Scattered Sites 9. Kings Mill 10. (tie) 613 Cleveland Avenue and 70 Boundary Avenue 11. (tie) West Princess Street and Turnkey III 12. Codorus Homes (30 owner units) Rental Units: 1. 431 South George Street 2. Stony Brook Gardens 3. Senior Residences at Hanover Shoe 4. Hudson Park Towers Preservation 5. West Princess Street 6. (tie) Manchester Borough Housing and Codorus Homes (30 rental units) Relying on this evaluation methodology, it is then possible to estimate when the planned housing units will be ready for occupancy. 29 PROPOSED PIPELINES IN COUNTY 7 Approx. Location of proposed pipelines A - Hanover Senior Residences B - Stony Brook Gardens C - Village Court Homeownership D - Spring Valley Manor II E - Kings Mill F - 611 Cleveland Ave. G - 549 S. Duke St. H - 431 S. George St. I - Scattered Sites J - Turnkey III K - Codorus Homes FAIRVIEW TWP GOLDSBORO BORO CARROLL TWP LEWISBERRY BORO MONAGHAN TWP NEWBERRY TWP YORK HAVEN BORO DILLSBURG BORO FRANKLINTOWN BORO WARRINGTON TWP FRANKLIN TWP CONEWAGO TWP WELLSVILLE BORO MOUNT WOLF BORO MANCHESTER BORO EAST MANCHESTER TWP HELLAM TWP DOVER TWP D 7 WASHINGTON TWP DOVER BORO WEST YORK BORO WEST MANCHESTER TWP PARADISE TWP 7 77 7 777 I J G F K H E SPRING GARDEN TWP WINDSOR TWP YOE BORO WINDSOR BORO RED LION BORO DALLASTOWN BORO CHANCEFORD TWP JACOBUS BORO NORTH CODORUS TWP . LOWER WINDSOR TWP NEW SALEM BORO JACKSON TWP EAST PROSPECT BORO YORKANA BORO B 7 YORK CITY YORK TWP SPRING GROVE BORO SEVEN VALLEYS BORO FELTON BORO LOGANVILLE BORO WINTERSTOWN BORO SPRINGFIELD TWP HEIDELBERG TWP HANOVER BORO JEFFERSON BORO A 7 GLEN ROCK BORO CODORUS TWP PENN TWP MANHEIM TWP WEST MANHEIM TWP SPRINGETTSBURY TWP NORTH YORK BORO C 7 WRIGHTSVILLE BORO HALLAM BORO MANCHESTER TWP SHREWSBURY BORO EAST HOPEWELL TWP HOPEWELL TWP FAWN TWP RAILROAD BORO NEW FREEDOM BORO LOWER CHANCEFORD TWP CROSS ROADS BORO NORTH HOPEWELL TWP STEWARTSTOWN BORO SHREWSBURY TWP PEACH BOTTOM TWP FAWN GROVE BORO DELTA BORO AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Figure 7. Estimated Date of Occupancy of Pipeline Projects 2006 Development 3Q 4Q 2007 1Q 2Q 3Q 2008 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 2009 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 2010 4Q 1Q 2Q 3Q 2011 4Q 1Q 2Q Total Units OWNER UNITS Village Court 6 6 450 North Beaver Street 1 1 611 Cleveland Avenue 1 1 549 South Duke Street 1 Red Lion Borough Project 2 York City Rehab Project 2 1 2 2 Community Renaissance 2 6 21 21 Kings Mill 13 12 Spring Valley Manor II 25 8 8 613 Cleveland Avenue 1 1 Turnkey III 16 16 70 Boundary Avenue 1 1 West Princess Street 15 15 Codorus Homes (owner units) 30 30 RENTAL UNITS 431 South George Street 5 5 Stony Brook Gardens 84 84 Senior Residences at Hanover Shoe 24 24 Hudson Park Towers Preservation 69 Codorus Homes (rental units) 69 30 30 West Princess Street 30 30 Manchester Borough Housing* TOTAL UNITS (owner and rental) 40 13 5 0 105 0 15 24 0 69 102 1 30 0 52 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 416 Sources: Housing Developers; Mullin & Lonergan Associates * May be as many as 50 units. 30 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY In Figure 7, the number of housing units anticipated to be available for occupancy has been estimated for each quarter beginning in July 2006. For example, in the third quarter of 2006, 8 new owner units and 5 new rental units are expected to be completed and occupied. By the end of 2007, another 36 new owner and 84 new rental units will be completed and occupied. Based on the data in Figure 7, it is estimated that the 100 new affordable housing units proposed in the YorkCounts Commission report will be achieved by the end of the second quarter in 2007—three years in advance of the target date. Cumulatively, over the next five years, 134 new owner units and 282-292 new rental units will be added to the affordable housing stock in York County. Organizational Capacity To determine the degree to which local and regional housing providers are able to address the need for affordable housing in York County, a total of fifteen developers were surveyed. Of these, thirteen responded with information on active projects, two (Pennrose Properties and John Lingg) responded that they had no active projects in York County and one (Penn Mar Organization) did not respond at all. Figure 8 provides a summary of this assessment of organizational capacity for the thirteen housing providers with active projects in the county. Three primary criteria were used to assess the organizational capacity of the housing developers. These included: Access to capital for pre-development costs Number of staff persons dedicated exclusively to housing development, and Number of housing units developed compared to the number of years of experience in real estate development. Access to capital financing for pre-development costs enables a developer to perform a market study, conduct a Phase I environmental assessment and obtain site control in a timely manner. Without ready access to pre-development funds, developers are very limited in their ability to explore the feasibility of a project. Among the local developers, York Housing Authority (through its non-profit organization CONE – Creating Opportunities in Neighborhood Environments), Springwood Development, Y CDC, Dorgan & Zuck Building Contractors all reported ready access to capital. 31 1.5 1 1 0 32 Number of fulltime staff members dedicated to housing development Number of affordable rental housing projects undertaken Number of LIHTC projects undertaken Number of affordable rental housing units constructed Number of affordable rental housing units rehabilitated 32 7.1 8.2 no yes Ready access to capital for site control and other development expenses Experience in partnering with other affordable housing providers on real estate development projects no no 0 12 0 142 142 0 3 5 0 20 20 no Number of affordable home ownership units rehabilitated and sold Average annual production rate (total number of units constructed and rehabilitated divided by number of years in affordable housing development) 38 10 Number of years of experience in affordable housing development 32 10 Number of years of experience in real estate development Number of affordable home ownership units constructed and sold no Concentrates exclusively on development of affordable housing Number of affordable rental housing units currently under management HICDC CRITERIA Crispus Attucks Assoc. yes no 3.8 32 47 0 0 0 0 0 5 21 21 yes York Habitat for Humanity yes yes 25.8 0 42 1,395 60 1,342 2 20 2 56 56 yes York Housing Authority (CONE) yes yes 23.6 0 0 189 189 0 3 3 5 8 8 no Y CDC yes no 14.6 34 0 394 206 272 2 52 18 35 35 yes York Area Dev. Corp. yes yes 61.1 152 0 412 47 412 7 9 12 10 10 no Springwood Development yes yes NA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2 2 no Dorgan & Zuck Building Cont. yes yes 359.3 48 9 3998 1881 2373 42 47 12 12 12 yes Homes for America yes yes 88.9 0 50 2040 >60 >3,000 >25 >50 96 35 35 yes HDC of Lancaster yes yes 64.7 0 50-100 0 116 262 18 18 3 7 25 no S&A Homes Source: Housing Developers; Mullin & Lonergan Associates yes yes 24.4 0 0 464 410 54 12 12 15 19 19 no PFG Capital Corporation AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Figure 8. Assessment of Developers’ Capacity AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY The number of staff dedicated exclusively to housing development indicates how much time and effort a developer can devote to creating new housing. A staff of several fulltime employees working exclusively on locating sites and developing financing packages, as well as overseeing construction, enables a developer to focus on its mission to build housing. Among the local developers, all but Crispus Attucks Association reported full-time staff dedicated to housing development. Finally, the number of housing units created compared to the number of years of experience in affordable housing development indicates the level of productivity of a housing developer. Among local York County entities, Springwood Development is the most productive developer having created 611 units over the past 10 years. This equates to an average annual production rate of 61.1 units. York Housing Authority has an annual rate of 25.8 units. Y CDC reported an annual rate of 23.6 units. Annual production rates of other local providers included York Area Development Corporation – 14.6 units, HICDC – 8.2 units, Crispus Attucks Association – 7.1 units and York Habitat for Humanity – 3.8 units. Typically, for-profit entities with paid professional staff dedicated to housing development will have the capacity to produce more affordable housing units. Non-profit organizations such as York Habitat for Humanity, whose mission emphasizes volunteer labor, do not typically complete large scale projects; however, they can construct or rehabilitate homes much more cost-effectively than other developers, making their contribution to the community just as valuable. The average annual production rates of regional housing providers ranged from 24.4 units by PFG Capital Corporation to 359.3 units by Homes for America. In summary, the current and projected demand for affordable housing creates a need for local housing developers in York County. To address the projected increase household growth, more housing units will have to be constructed and/or rehabilitated. Suggesting that more housing developers are needed in York County to resolve this issue is a double-edged sword. While more developers could conceivably generate more units, the competition for scarce resources would become more intense. It would be preferable for local affordable housing developers to establish their unique market niche and cooperate as necessary to address increasing demand. 33 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY COMMON IMPEDIMENTS TO DEVELOPING AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN YORK COUNTY The following impediments to developing affordable housing York County were identified: The high cost of land, specifically undeveloped land Difficulty in finding land Inadequate supply of development sites in general Insufficient supply of land zoned for multi-family housing Relocation and demolition involving site assembly The NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”) response In distressed areas, achievable rents are too low to meet operating expenses, thereby making some projects unfeasible too finance or require high subsidies. The increasing costs of ongoing property management such as real estate taxes, insurance, management and maintenance, which make it difficult for developers to offer quality management services, thereby making smaller projects less viable Funding is being re-directed away from rehabilitation, which historically paid for the high cost of lead based paint abatement, making expansion of affordable housing in older boroughs and the City of York extremely difficult. Non-profit developers having an inadequate supply of capital to meet pre-development expenses severely limits their ability to explore the feasibility of potential projects as prospects arise. Total development costs are greater than achievable sales price for homeownership projects. As a result, the actual cost of developing housing can be twice as high as the sales price of affordable units to lower income households. In high growth areas, market rate projects offer higher profit margins to builders and developers thereby reducing the supply of labor and number of firms interested in affordable housing. 34 costs in projects AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Market rate transactions offer fewer challenges and higher commissions to Realtors (homeownership projects). Continuously shrinking state and federal funding sources to subsidize affordable housing projects. 35 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY ALTERNATIVE FINANCING PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS Most of the pipeline projects reviewed as part of this study involved mainstream sources of financing that are commonly used in affordable housing development. This is a positive reflection of the local affordable housing development industry and its ability to understand and utilize major funding tools. The competition for these funds is intense. The fact that these tools are widely used in York County reflects the capacity of local affordable housing developers to compete successfully for scarce resources. One project in particular is noteworthy in terms of the anticipated trend in affordable housing development in Pennsylvania. This project involves HICDC’s proposed creation of 25 sales units in the City of York under PHFA’s Homeownership Construction Initiative (HCI). This financing mechanism has emerged as an important tool to create affordable sales housing within the context of a broader urban revitalization plan. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is supportive of urban revitalization planning efforts that lead to successful development projects. In order to qualify for “impact project” funding from the Commonwealth, it is important for York County to have several revitalization projects in various stages of planning and development at all times. The HCI project in the city is an important step in building the capacity and a track record for future funding streams under PHFA’s three Homeownership Choice Programs and PA DCED programs. In order to further expand the supply of affordable housing in York County, developers may wish to consider several sources of financing, which are underrepresented among current projects: Rural LISC as a source of pre-development financing Act 137 funds received from the county’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund, especially as a source of cash for debt service and / or other strategic uses PA DCED’s new Core Communities Housing Program (CCHP) as well as Housing and Redevelopment Assistance funds Mixed income projects (both rental and homeownership) in more affluent areas of the County where above average rents and sales 36 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY prices can support the market rate component of the project HUD 202 capital advance and rental assistance for senior housing HUD 811 capital advance and rental assistance in support of housing for persons with disabilities CDBG and HUD Section 108 loans, used primarily in support of projects involving rehabilitation or for infrastructure improvements. Under the CDBG Program, predominantly residential targeted areas designated by HUD as Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Areas (NRSA) are more easily qualified for mixed income housing. PHFA’s Mixed Use Facility Financing Initiative (MUFFI) for the rehabilitation of vacant downtown buildings that can support ground floor commercial and upper floor residential uses. This tool can be combined effectively with historic tax credits. PHFA Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative for projects involving the rehabilitation of existing residential structures and/or infill development on vacant lots in urban residential neighborhoods. Note that this is a homeownership program, not a rental housing or a homeowner rehab program. Tax increment financing, especially in projects involving the assembly of sites through the redevelopment process or in properties that are currently exempt from real estate taxes Fannie Mae, the largest purchaser of low income housing tax credits in the nation, offers loan products to local governments, for-profits and nonprofits to bridge or leverage other financing resources. PA Neighborhood Assistance Act tax credits PHFA New Markets tax credits AHP assistance from the Federal Home Loan Bank USDA Rural Development programs such as SelfHelp Housing, Rural Home Loan Partnership, 538 Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing, and Community Facilities Program for Housing. 37 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY AFFORDABLE HOUSING RECOMMENDATIONS EXPANSION STRATEGY Additional Research Determine the need for affordable workforce housing. Conduct a survey of major employers in the county to determine whether their manpower needs are being adequately met and the extent to which adequate housing (for all income groups) is a factor in the recruitment process. Research commutation patterns and travel time to work. Research the adequacy of public transit in terms of linking lower income housing resources to places of employment. Use the results of this research to determine whether employer-assisted housing programs for lower wage employees are needed. (Note: Susquehanna-Pfaltzgraff conducted a Live Near Your Work survey in 2003. Survey results indicated that the primary reasons why employees were not purchasing homes were financially driven. By designing an employerassisted housing program to provide financial incentives for down payment assistance and exterior rehabilitation, the company was able to develop a program to fit the needs of its employees who were rental households and interested in becoming homeowners. A similar study of major employers county-wide could assist in the development of a larger program with potentially greater funding from private resources available to assist lower income working households.) Organizational Strategy Nurture organizations that play a role in the development and management of affordable housing, particularly small, local non-profit developers. Consider the establishment of an umbrella organization (such as Housing York County) for the purpose of soliciting private foundation resources on behalf of all non-profit housing developers in the county. Such a resource could be used to finance a revolving loan fund for ready access to pre-development capital, capacity-building initiatives and other identified funding shortfalls. Conduct affordable housing workshops to offer local affordable housing developers frequent opportunities to network about available sites, potential buildings, possible partnerships, etc. Travel to other areas of the state to tour affordable housing initiatives that are relevant to York County. Consider co-development opportunities as appropriate. 38 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Continue to foster communication and coordination between developers, government, employers, and human service agencies. Treat affordable housing as a regional issue. Identify priority housing and supportive service initiatives. Make sure that the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. Select the next five priority housing projects that have the potential to make a difference in the county. Focus resources on priority projects. Planning Conduct revitalization planning studies in priority urban areas. Establish a cycle of planning and implementation measures such that only one major revitalization project is being developed at any one time. Update zoning ordinances to reflect current conditions and needs. Increase the amount of land zoned for medium and higher density residential use and mixed use development. Encourage municipalities to develop innovative zoning regulations such as distinguishing between multi-family housing and elderly housing when developing parking requirements. Advocate for inclusionary housing requirements and clustered housing design in the townships. Financing Secure a reliable source of pre-development loans for local housing providers to enable worthwhile projects to move forward. Establish a level of confidence with a predevelopment lender and make repeated use of predevelopment loans for priority projects. Explore new USDA funding programs. Expand the use of non-traditional financing mechanisms. Take advantage of newer PHFA funding opportunities to create highly leveraged revitalization projects that blend homeownership with other neighborhood projects. Seek out “impact project” funding from PA DCED’s Community Action Team. Remain open to complicated projects involving site assembly, environmental remediation and infrastructure improvements. Create the local expertise to re-build urban neighborhoods. 39 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY APPENDIX A Demographic Analysis By Planning Region 40 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Planning Region 1, South Central York Planning Region 1 in South Central York County is one of the most rural of the seven regions. The following municipalities are included in this region: Glen Rock Borough Hopewell Township Jacobus Borough Loganville Borough New Freedom Borough North Hopewell Township Railroad Borough Seven Valleys Borough Shrewsbury Borough Shrewsbury Township Stewartstown Borough Winterstown Borough Households 55 years and older grew by approximately 1,000 households since 2000 and are projected to increase by the same number over the next five years. By comparison, the number of younger households is projected to remain virtually unchanged during the same period. Figure 9. Projected Household Growth in Planning Region 1, 2000-2011 9,000 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 Age 15-54 4,000 Age 55+ 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2000 2006 2011 Source: Claritas, Inc. Among all households, 29% have incomes of less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). Of these, 58% are households 55 and older. 41 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Figure 10. Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 1, 2006 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) >30%-60% AMI ($15,000-$29,999) >60%-80% AMI ($30,000-$39,999) >80%-115% AMI ($40,000-$59,999) >115% AMI & up ($60,000 & up) Total Households Age 15-54 299 589 665 1,605 4,579 Age 55+ 679 980 523 1,015 2,000 5,197 Total 978 1,569 1,188 2,620 6,579 12,934 7,737 Source: Claritas, Inc. By 2011 34% of all households are projected to have incomes of less than 80% of AMI. Of these lower income households, 65% are projected to be households 55 and older. Figure 11. Projected Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 1, 2011 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) Age 15-54 >30%-60% AMI ($15,000-$34,999) >60%-80% AMI ($35,000-$44,999) >80%-115% AMI ($45,000-$59,999) >115% AMI & up ($60,000 & up) Total Households 260 766 637 1,092 4,970 Age 55+ 1,178 1,334 615 875 2,247 7,725 6,249 Total 1,438 2,100 1,252 1,967 7,217 13,974 Source: Claritas, Inc. The number of households 55 and older in the 0%-30% income group will increase by 73% (499 households) over the next five years from 679 to 1,178. Increases also are projected in the >30%-60% income group among households 55 and older (354 households; 36%) and among households 15-54 (177 households; 30%). Figure 12. Projected Change in Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 1, 2006-2011 >115% AMI & up >80%-115% AMI Age 55+ >60%-80% AMI Age 15-54 >30%-60% AMI 0%-30% AMI -40.0% -20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% Source: Claritas, Inc. 42 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Planning Region 2, Greater York East Planning Region 2 is located east of the City of York and includes the following municipalities: Dallastown Borough East Prospect Borough Hallam Borough Hellam Township Lower Windsor Township Red Lion Borough Springettsbury Township Spring Garden Township Windsor Borough Windsor Township Wrightsville Borough Yoe Borough York Township Yorkana Borough Households 55 years and older grew by approximately 2,400 households since 2000 and are projected to increase by another 2,700 households over the next five years. By comparison, the number of younger households is projected to remain virtually unchanged from 2006 to 2011. Figure 13. Projected Household Growth in Planning Region 2, 2000-2011 30,000 25,000 20,000 Age 15-54 15,000 Age 55+ 10,000 5,000 0 2000 2006 2011 Source: Claritas, Inc. Among all households, 36% have incomes of less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). Of these lower income households, 58% are households 55 and older. 43 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Figure 14. Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 2, 2006 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) >30%-60% AMI ($15,000-$29,999) >60%-80% AMI ($30,000-$39,999) >80%-115% AMI ($40,000-$59,999) >115% AMI & up ($60,000 & up) Total Households Age 15-54 1,247 2,619 2,703 6,375 12,532 Age 55+ 2,412 4,165 2,650 3,541 5,514 25,476 18,282 Total 3,659 6,784 5,353 9,916 18,046 43,758 Source: Claritas, Inc. By 2011, 38% of all households are projected to have incomes of less than 80% of AMI. Of these lower income households, 61% are projected to be households 55 and older. Figure 15. Projected Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 2, 2011 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) >31%-60% AMI ($15,000-$34,999) >60%-80% AMI ($35,000-$44,999) >80%-115% AMI ($45,000-$59,999) >115% AMI & up (%60,000 & up) Total Households Age 15-54 1,171 3,321 2,537 4,426 14,086 Age 55+ 2,397 5,738 2,737 2,930 7,196 25,541 20,998 Total 3,568 9,059 5,274 7,356 21,282 46,539 Source: Claritas, Inc. The most significant household growth is projected to occur among households 55 and older in the >30%60% income group (1,573 households; 38%) and the >115% income group (1,682 households; 31%). Households 15-54 in the >30%-60% income group are projected to increase by 702 households (27%). Figure 16. Projected Change in Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 2, 2006-2011 >115% AMI >80%-115% AMI Age 55+ >60%-80% AMI Age 15-54 >30%-60% AMI 0%-30% AMI -40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% Source: Claritas, Inc. 44 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Planning Region 3, Greater York West Planning Region 3 is located in central York County west of the City of York and includes the following municipalities: Conewago Township Dover Borough Dover Township East Manchester Township Jackson Township Manchester Borough Manchester Township Mount Wolf Borough New Salem Borough North Codorus Township North York Borough Paradise Township Spring Grove Borough West Manchester Township West York Borough Households 55 years or older grew by approximately 3,000 households since 2000 and are projected to increase by the same number over the next five years. By comparison, the number of households 15-54 is projected to increase by only 422 by 2011. Figure 17. Household Growth in Planning Region 3, 2000-2011 30,000 25,000 20,000 Age 15-54 15,000 Age 55+ 10,000 5,000 0 2000 2006 2011 Source: Claritas, Inc. Among all households, 36% have incomes of less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). Of these lower income households, 58% are households 55 and older. 45 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Figure 18. Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 3, 2006 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) Age 15-54 >30%-60% AMI ($15,000-$29,999) >60%-80% AMI ($30,000-$39,999) >80%-115% AMI ($40,000-$59,999) >115% AMI & up ($60,000 & up) Total Households 896 2,423 2,685 5,997 12,039 Age 55+ 2,067 3,693 2,390 3,247 4,101 24,040 15,498 Total 2,963 6,116 5,075 9,244 16,140 39,538 Source: Claritas, Inc. By 2011 it is projected that as many as 38% of all households will have incomes of less than 80% of AMI. Of these lower income households, 60% are projected to be households 55 and older. Figure 19. Projected Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 3, 2011 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) Age 15-54 >30%-60% AMI ($15,000-$34,999) >60%-80% AMI ($35,000-$44,999) >80%-115% AMI ($45,000-$59,999) >115% AMI & up ($60,000 & up) Total Households 804 3,085 2,550 4,221 13,802 Age 55+ 2,050 5,247 2,540 2,738 5,714 24,462 18,289 Total 2,854 8,332 5,090 6,959 19,516 42,751 Source: Claritas, Inc. The most significant household growth projected to occur will be among households 55 and older in the >30%-60% income group (1,554 households; 42%) and the >115% income group (1,613 households; 39%). Also, households 15-54 in the >30%-60% income group are projected to increase by 662 households (27%). Figure 20. Projected Change in Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 3, 2006-2011 >115% AMI & up >80%-115% AMI Age 55+ >60%-80% AMI Age 15-54 >30%-60% AMI 0%-30% AMI -40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% Source: Claritas, Inc. 46 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Planning Region 4, Northern York Planning Region 4 is the northernmost region in the County and includes the following municipalities: Carroll Township Dillsburg Township Fairview Township Franklin Township Franklintown Borough Goldsboro Borough Lewisberry Borough Monaghan Township Newberry Township Warrington Township Washington Township Wellsville Borough York Haven Borough Households 55 years and older grew by approximately 1,700 households since 2000 and are projected to increase by the same number over the next five years. By comparison, the number of younger households is projected to decrease by 1% from 2006 to 2011. Figure 21. Projected Household Growth in Planning Region 4, 2000-2011 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 Age 15-54 8,000 Age 55+ 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2000 2006 2011 Source: Claritas, Inc. Among all households, 29% have incomes of less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). Of these lower income households, 50% are households 55 and older. 47 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Figure 22. Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 4, 2006 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) >30%-60% AMI ($15,000-$29,999) >60%-80% AMI ($30,000-$39,999) >80%-115% AMI ($40,000-$59,999) >115% AMI & up ($60,000 & up) Total Households Age 15-54 569 1,213 1,320 3,135 7,847 Age 55+ 830 1,414 906 1,712 2,707 7,569 1,399 2,627 2,226 4,847 10,554 21,653 Total 14,084 Source: Claritas, Inc. By 2011 it is projected that as many as 31% of all households will have incomes of less than 80% of AMI with 56% of these being households 55 and older. Figure 23. Projected Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 4, 2011 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) >30%-60% AMI ($15,000-$34,999) >60%-80% AMI ($35,000-$44,999) >80%-115% AMI ($45,000-$59,999) >115% AMI & up ($60,000 & up) Total Households Age 15-54 490 1,458 1,235 2,081 8,676 Age 55+ 859 2,038 1,075 1,554 3,809 9,335 1,349 3,496 2,310 3,635 12,485 23,275 Total 13,940 Source: Claritas, Inc. The most significant household growth is projected to occur among households 55 and older in the >30%60% income group (624 households; 44%) and the >115% income group (1,102 households; 41%). Moderate household growth is projected for households 15-54 in the >30%-60% income group (245 households; 20%). Figure 24. Projected Change in Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 4, 2006-2011 >115% AMI & up >80%-115% AMI Age 55+ >60%-80% AMI Age 15-54 >30%-60% AMI 0%-30% AMI -40.0% -20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% Source: Claritas, Inc. 48 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Planning Region 5, South Western York Planning Region 5 is located in southwestern York County and includes the following municipalities: Codorus Township Hanover Borough Heidelberg Township Jefferson Borough Manheim Township Penn Township West Manheim Township Households 55 years or older grew by approximately 1,400 households since 2000 and are projected to increase by the same number over the next five years. By comparison, the number of younger households is projected to increase by only 221 households between 2006 and 2011. Figure 25. Projected Household Growth in Planning Region 5, 2000-2011 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 Age 15-54 6,000 Age 55+ 4,000 2,000 0 2000 2006 2011 Source: Claritas, Inc. Among all households, 37% have incomes of less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). Of these, 58% are households 55 and older. Figure 26. Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 5, 2006 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) Age 15-54 >30%-60% AMI ($15,000-$29,999) >60%-80% AMI ($30,000-$39,999) >80%-115% AMI ($40,000-$59,999) >115% AMI & up ($60,000 & up) Total Households 516 1,297 1,231 2,915 5,480 Age 55+ 1,115 2,037 1,005 1,584 2,230 11,439 7,971 Total 1,631 3,334 2,236 4,499 7,710 19,410 Source: Claritas, Inc. 49 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY By 2011 it is projected that as many as 39% of all households will have incomes of less than 80% of AMI. Of these lower income households, 59% are projected to be households 55 and older. Figure 27. Projected Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 5, 2011 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) Age 15-54 >30%-60% AMI ($15,000-$34,999) >60%-80% AMI ($35,000-$44,999) >80%-115% AMI ($45,000-$59,999) >115% AMI & up ($60,000 & up) Total Households 477 1,603 1,240 2,075 6,265 Age 55+ 1,099 2,735 1,038 1,327 3,125 11,660 9,324 Total 1,576 4,338 2,278 3,402 9,390 20,984 Source: Claritas, Inc. The most significant household growth is projected to occur among households 55 and older in the >30%60% income group (698 households; 34%) and the >115% income group (895 households; 40%). Growth also is projected in the >115% income group among households 15-54 (785 households; 14%). Moderate household growth is projected to occur among households 15-54 in the >30%-60% income group (306 households; 24%). Figure 28. Projected Change in Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 5, 2006-2011 >115% AMI & up >80%-115% AMI Age 55+ >60%-80% AMI Age 15-54 >30%-60% AMI 0%-30% AMI -40.0% -20.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% Source: Claritas, Inc. 50 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Planning Region 6, City of York Planning Region 6 is comprised exclusively of the City of York. Households 55 years and older grew by approximately 200 households since 2000 and are projected to increase by the same number over the next five years. By comparison, the number of younger households is projected to decline by nearly 4% (419 households) over the next five years. Figure 29. Household Growth in Planning Region 6, 2000-2011 12,000 10,000 8,000 Age 15-54 6,000 Age 55+ 4,000 2,000 0 2000 2006 2011 Source: Claritas, Inc. Among all households, 68% have incomes of less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). Of these lower income households, 35% are households 55 and older. Figure 30. Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 6, 2006 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) >30%-60% AMI ($15,000-$29,999) >60%-80% AMI ($30,000-$39,999) >80%-115% AMI ($40,000-$59,999) >115% AMI & up ($60,000 & up) Total Households Age 15-54 2,520 2,820 1,665 2,125 1,506 Age 55+ 1,638 1,522 625 769 592 5,146 Total 4,158 4,342 2,290 2,894 2,098 15,782 10,636 Source: Claritas, Inc. By 2011 it is projected that as many as 72% of all households will have incomes of less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). Of these lower income households, 36% are projected to be households 55 and older. 51 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Figure 31. Projected Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 6, 2011 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) >30%-60% AMI ($15,000-$34,999) >60%-80% AMI ($35,000-$44,999) >80%-115% AMI ($45,000-$59,999) >115% AMI & up ($60,000 & up) Total Households Age 15-54 2,353 3,354 1,419 1,410 1,681 Age 55+ 1,559 1,917 571 572 726 5,345 Total 3,912 5,271 1,990 1,982 2,407 15,562 10,217 Source: Claritas, Inc. The most significant household growth projected to occur will be in the >30%-60% income group of households 55 and older (395 households; 26%) and among households 15-54 (534 households; 19%). Moderate household growth is projected in the >115% income group of households 55 and older (134 households; 23%) and among households 15-54 (175 households; 12%). Figure 32. Projected Change in Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 6, 2006-2011 >115% AMI & up >80%-115% AMI Age 55+ >60%-80% AMI Age 15-54 >30%-60% AMI 0%-30% AMI -40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% Source: Claritas, Inc. 52 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Planning Region 7, South Eastern York Planning Region 7, located in far southeastern York County, is the least populated and the most rural region. It includes the following municipalities: Chanceford Township Cross Roads Borough Delta Borough East Hopewell Township Fawn Township Fawn Grove Borough Felton Borough Lower Chanceford Township Peach Bottom Township Households 55 years and older grew by approximately 500 households since 2000 and are projected to increase by another 600 households over the next five years. By comparison, the number of younger households is projected to remain nearly unchanged in 2011. Figure 33. Projected Household Growth in Planning Region 7, 2000-2011 6,000 5,000 4,000 Age 15-54 3,000 Age 55+ 2,000 1,000 0 2000 2006 2011 Source: Claritas, Inc. Among all households, 30% have incomes of less than 80% of the area median income (AMI). Of these lower income households, 57% are households 55 and older. 53 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Figure 34. Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 7, 2006 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) >30%-60% AMI ($15,000-$29,999) >60%-80% AMI ($30,000-$39,999) >80%-115% AMI ($40,000-$59,999) >115% AMI & up ($60,000 & up) Total Households Age 15-54 178 393 471 1,217 2,974 5,233 Age 55+ 369 613 405 496 887 2,770 Total 547 1,006 876 1,713 3,861 8,003 Source: Claritas, Inc. By 2011 it is projected that as many as 32% of all households will have incomes of less than 80% of AMI. Of these lower income households, 60% are projected to be households 55 and older. Figure 35. Projected Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 7, 2011 0%-30% AMI ($0-$14,999) >30%-60% AMI ($15,000-$34,999) >60%-80% AMI ($35,000-$44,999) >80%-115% AMI ($45,000-$59,999) >115% AMI & up ($60,000 & up) Total Households Age 15-54 163 472 450 815 3,300 5,200 Age 55+ 369 857 422 453 1,302 3,403 Total 532 1,329 872 1,268 4,602 8,603 Source: Claritas, Inc. The most significant household growth is projected to occur among households 55 and older in the >30%60% income group (244 households; 40%) and in the >115% income group (415 households; 47%). Moderate household growth is projected to occur among households 15-54 in the >115% income group (326 households; 11%). Figure 36. Projected Change in Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 7, 2006-2011 >115% AMI & up >80%-115% AMI Age 55+ >60%-80% AMI Age 15-54 >30%-60% AMI 0%-30% AMI -40.0% -20.0% 0.0% 20.0% Source: Claritas, Inc. 54 40.0% 60.0% AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY APPENDIX B Inventory of Assisted Owner Housing in York County 55 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY ASSISTED HOME OWNER UNITS IN YORK COUNTY (as of June 26, 2006) ADDRESS 525 Thomas Street 527 Thomas Street 529 Thomas Street 80 Charles Lane 82 Charles Lane 88 Charles Lane 607 Cleveland Ave 10 Penna Ave MUNICIPALITY York City York City York City Dover Borough Dover Borough Dover Borough York City Goldsboro Borough DEVELOPER HICDC HICDC HICDC HICDC HICDC HICDC HICDC HICDC BUILDER YHFH YHFH YHFH YHFH YHFH YHFH Youthbuild S&A SALES PRICE $52,000 $52,000 $49,000 $68,000 $68,000 $62,000 $34,900 $104,900 FUNDING SOURCES / SPONSOR RDA McKinney, Bon-Ton RDA McKinney, Harley Davidson RDA McKinney, Susquehanna County HOME County HOME County HOME City HOME County HOME, DCED Brownfields 2005 531 Thomas St 533 Thomas St 523 Thomas St 521 Thomas St 519 Thomas St 517 Thomas St 84 Charles Lane 86 Charles Lane 81 Charles Lane 79 Charles Lane 78 Charles Lane 21 E Broadway 23 E Broadway 12 Penna Ave 3150 Jayne Lane 3151 Jayne Lane 3152 Jayne Lane 3153 Jayne Lane 3155 Jayne Lane 3157 Jayne Lane 3163 Jayne Lane 3165 Jayne Lane 3166 Jayne Lane 3167 Jayne Lane 3168 Jayne Lane 3169 Jayne Lane York City York City York City York City Dover Borough Dover Borough Dover Borough Dover Borough Dover Borough Dover Borough Dover Borough Goldsboro Borough Goldsboro Borough Goldsboro Borough Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township HICDC HICDC HICDC HICDC HICDC HICDC HICDC HICDC HICDC HICIC HICDC HICDC HICDC HICDC AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA D&Z D&Z YHFH YHFH YHFH YHFH YHFH YHFH YHFH YHFH YHFH S&A S&A S&A Reistville Reistville Reistville Reistville Reistville Reistville Reistville Reistville E.G. Stolzfus Reistville E.G. Stolzfus Reistville $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $53,000 $53,000 $50,000 $62,000 $68,000 $68,000 $68,000 $70,000 $104,900 $104,900 $104,900 $121,850/$112,850 $120,850/$111,850 $121,850/$112,850 $120,850/$111,850 $120,850/$111,850 $120,850/$111,850 $120,850/$111,850 $120,850/$111,850 $117,900/$106,900 $120,850/$111,850 $119,200/$110,200 $120,850/$111,850 RDA McKinney RDA McKinney RDA McKinney, Wolf Organization RDA McKinney, St. Onge Co./YTI RDA McKinney, Bankers & Brokers RDA McKinney, St. John’s Episcopal County HOME, Youth United County HOME, Kinsley County HOME, RAYAC County HOME, Harley Davidson County HOME, Building on Faith County HOME, DCED Brownfields County HOME, DCED Brownfields County HOME, DCED Brownfields FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME, RHS FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME, RHS FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME, RHS FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME FHLB, AHO/YHA FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME, RHS FHLB, AHO/YHA FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME, RHS FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME, RHS FHLB, AHO/YHA 2006 76 Allen Lane 78 Allen Lane 80 Allen Lane 437 N Beaver St 312 East Princess 314 East Princess Dover Borough Dover Borough Dover Borough York City York City York City HICDC HICDC HICDC YHFH D&Z D&Z YHFH YHFH YHFH YHFH D&Z D&Z $75,000 $75,000 $68,000 $62,000 $69,900 $69,900 County HOME, Coldwell Banker County HOME, Women Build County HOME, SPONSOR City Adopt-A-House, SPONSOR PHFA HCP, City HOME PHFA HCP, City HOME 2004 56 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY ADDRESS 316 East Princess 318 East Princess 320 East Princess 322 East Princess 324 East Princess 340 E. Princess St. 626 S. Newberry St. 3143 Jayne Lane 3145 Jayne Lane 3147 Jayne Lane 3149 Jayne Lane 3154 Jayne Lane 3156 Jayne Lane 3158 Jayne Lane 3159 Jayne Lane 3160 Jayne Lane 3161 Jayne Lane 3162 Jayne Lane 3164 Jayne Lane 450 N Beaver St * 611 Cleveland Ave * 549 S. Duke St * 70 E High St * 72 E High St * MUNICIPALITY York City York City York City York City York City York City York City Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township Dover Township York City York City York City Red Lion Borough Red Lion Borough DEVELOPER D&Z D&Z D&Z D&Z D&Z YHFH YHFH AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA AHO/YHA HICDC Crispus Attucks Crispus Attucks HICDC HICDC BUILDER D&Z D&Z D&Z D&Z D&Z YHFH YHFH Reistville Reistville Reistville Reistville Reistville Reistville Reistville Reistville Reistville Reistville Reistville Reistville D&Z 82 Allen Lane 84 Allen Lane 86 Allen Lane 537 Atlantic Ave 38 W. Jackson St. Olde Towne East Dover Borough Dover Borough Dover Borough York City York City York City HICDC HICDC HICDC YHFH YHFH D&Z YHFH YHFH YHFH YHFH YHFH D&Z 2008 Allen Lane Allen Lane Jackson St. Dover Borough Dover Borough York City HICDC HICDC YHFH YHFH YHFH YHFH 2009 Jackson St. Kings Mill York City York City YHFH HICDC YHFH 2007 * Under construction 57 YHFH YHFH SALES PRICE $69,900 $69,900 $69,900 $69,900 $69,900 $55,000 $60,000 $121,850/$112,850 $121,850/$112,850 $121,850/$112,850 $121,850/$112,850 $120,850/$111,850 $120,850/$111,850 $120,850/$111,850 $120,850/$111,850 $120,850/$111,850 $120,850/$111,850 $120,850/$111,850 $120,850/$111,850 $69,900 $30,000 $80,000 $65,000 $65,000 FUNDING SOURCES / SPONSOR PHFA HCP, City HOME PHFA HCP, City HOME PHFA HCP, City HOME PHFA HCP, City HOME PHFA HCP, City HOME City Adopt-A-House, SPONSOR YHFH Board, Committees & Staff FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME FHLB, AHO/YHA FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME City HOME NAP, LBP Grant NAP, City HOME County, HOME, Building on Faith County, HOME, Building on Faith 14 rehabs County HOME, SPONSOR County HOME, SPONSOR County HOME, SPONSOR SPONSOR York College, St. Paul’s Lutheran PHFA HCP, City HOME County HOME, SPONSOR County HOME, SPONSOR York College 25 units proposed York College City HOME, County HOME, Brownfields, PHFA, RDA, Bank construction loan AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY APPENDIX C Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing in York County 58 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Development 131 East Maple Street 222 West College Avenue Bailey Mills Apartments Bell Housing Scattered Sites Boundary Avenue Broad Park Manor Cable House Clearview Terrace I & II Cloverfield Apartments Codorus Homes Scattered Sites Country Side Estates Crispus Attucks Dairyland Apartments Delphia House Dillsburg Heights Dutch Kitchen (SRO) Eldon R. Gemmill The Fairmont Fairmont Village Family Housing Scattered Sites Rehab / New Rehab Partnership Ross Anderson Initial Occupancy Ross Anderson Rehab Rehab New Bell Soc. Services, YADC Crispus Attucks 1987 YHA 1972 General / Family Units Subsidized Units Elderly Units Special Needs Units 1 1 0 0 York City 1 1 0 0 York City 28 28 15 0 7 20 0 20 0 20 2 2 0 0 0 281 83 83 281 83 0 0 27 30 112 0 112 112 7 Sources of Funds LIHTC Section 8 HUD 202 (CMI) Private Financing Funding Municipality West York Borough West York York City YADC 1983 24 0 24 0 24 Public Housing Section 8 HUD 236 & 202 Section 8 Section 8 HUD 202 YHA 1954 60 60 60 0 5 Public Housing York City 32 32 32 0 2 Dover 25 25 10 0 0 40 103 0 0 40 103 40 103 4 10 RHS Private Financing RHS Section 8 Section 8 36 13 13 0 2 Dillsburg 1993 59 0 50 0 59 RHS LIHTC Section 8 1983 1 75 1 0 0 75 0 75 4 YHA York City Lower Chanceford Twp Fairview Township YHA 1988 25 25 25 0 2 YHA Fairview Twp YHA 1986 12 12 12 0 0 YHA Hanover Crispus Attucks New Rehab Total Units 381 Assoc., YADC Eldon Gemmill YHA 59 York City York City Hanover W. Manchester Twp York City Dallastown York City AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Development Family Housing Scattered Sites Fielding Way Fox Hunter Apartments Gateway Apartments Green Meadow Helfrich Building Highland Manor Apartments Historic Fairmont Apartments Hudson Park Kain Rehab 12-20 Baltimore St. Kingston House Rehab / New Partnership YHA YHA Rehab NC Rehab NC Rehab Rehab Initial Occupancy Total Units General / Family Units Subsidized Units Elderly Units Special Needs Units 1986 1995 17 15 17 15 17 15 0 0 0 4 YHA YHA 46 46 46 0 1 2005 33 33 9 0 9 RHS 1st Mortgage AHTF Revolving Brownfields LIHTC YADC Sherman Property Mgmt 1981 46 0 46 46 6 RHS/RA 9 9 0 0 YADC 1982 33 33 33 0 38 38 0 0 HICDC PFG Capital Corp. YWCA, YADC PFG Capital Corp. 1 RHS Section 8 LIHTC Penn Homes 70 70 34 0 4 19 19 19 0 0 64 34 0 0 ? Rental Rehab Section 8 HUD 202 Historic Tax Credits City HOME Historic Tax Credits City HOME HOME Taxable Bond LIHTC Owner Approp. 8 8 8 0 0 RHS 1982 78 0 78 78 8 King Street Apartments Rehab YADC 1997 6 6 6 0 0 Liberty Apartments Rehab YADC 1996 6 6 6 0 0 New 1998 60 Municipality York City Newberry Township Dover $550,000 $576,000 $400,000 $154,550 $3,276,000 West York Borough Dillsburg Stewartstown York City YADC The Shelter Group, Homes for America Funding York City Rehab Manchester Heights Maple Apartments Sources of Funds York City Hanover West York Borough York City York City $750,000 $894,866 $2,636,412 $62,995 $640,000 W. Manchester Twp Manchester AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Development M’Calister Inn Mt. Rose Avenue Apartments New Freedom Apartments North Beaver St. Ext. Old Salem Road Apartments Opera House I Opera House II Parkside Townhomes Parkview at Tyler Run Parkway Homes Penn Apartments Rehab / New Rehab Rehab New Partnership Initial Occupancy Total Units General / Family Units Subsidized Units Elderly Units Special Needs Units M’Calister Inn Associates, HICDC 1998 34 34 0 34 2 YADC Springwood Development, Southern Community Services 1982 4 4 4 0 0 1999 28 28 0 0 2 YHA 1991 6 6 6 0 4 YHA 1985 10 10 10 0 0 Rehab PFG Capital Corp. 1999 30 30 17 0 12 Rehab PFG, Housing Initiatives 2002 30 30 7 0 8 82 82 25 0 0 New New Shelter Development, Homes for America YHA Bell Soc. Services, 1997 80 0 39 80 21 1954-1963 270 246 270 24 1 1995 7 0 7 0 7 61 Sources of Funds HOME CDBG AHTF LIHTC Historic Owner Funding $301,075 $904,025 $30,000 $658,406 $210,406 $110,000 Section 8 HOME HOME AHTF 1st Mtg. Def. Dev. LIHTC $50,672 $250,000 $291,000 $656,550 $178,494 $1,584,108 AHTF CountyCDBG 1st Mtg Owner LIHTC HOME CDBG AHTF 1st Mtg LIHTC Owner $165,203 $734,796 $700,000 $101,000 $2,425,000 $40,000 $300,000 $294,000 $510,000 $1,680,000 $96,000 LIHTC HOME AHTF PHFA Bond Penn Homes Grant LIHTC $649,900 $ 94,030 $679,716 $1,100,000 $ 20,000 $2,124,000 Municipality Hanover Borough Spring Garden Township New Freedom Borough Manchester Township W. Manchester Twp YHA HUD 811 (CMI) Red Lion Borough Red Lion Springettbury Township York Township York City York City AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Development Poplar Creek Apartments Presbyterian House at Dillsburg Princess Apartments Pullman Apartments Pullman Building R-Towne Development Ridgefield Court SKW Housing Project Scattered Sites Rehab / New New New Partnership YADC PFG Capital, HICDC Lobar Associates PFG Capital Corp. Initial Occupancy Total Units General / Family Units Subsidized Units Elderly Units Sources of Funds 2000 54 54 14 0 15 HOME 1st Mtg. Owner LIHTC Under construction 50 0 0 50 50 LIHTC 28 28 0 0 11 Rehab Special Needs Units David Beecher Funding $923,000 $800,000 $ 52,500 $1,600,000 Municipality Manchester Township Carroll Township West York Borough 7 York City 22 0 0 22 3 LIHTC York City 10 10 10 0 0 RHS 1995 10 10 10 0 2 Public Housing 1989 34 4 0 4 13 4 34 0 0 Public Housing York City Glen Rock Scattered Sites YHA Crispus Attucks YHA YHA, Hanover Firehouse Dillsburg W. Manchester Township 12 12 12 0 0 Section 8 Scattered Sites YHA 1986 2 0 2 0 2 Public Housing Scattered Sites Scattered Sites Scattered Sites Scattered Sites YHA YHA YHA YADC 1997 1989 1986 1972-1982 10 5 10 32 10 5 10 32 10 5 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 Public Housing Public Housing Public Housing 4 PHFA Tax Bond State Tax Bond HOME CDBG Revolving DCED AHTF Owner LIHTC Senior Residence at Hanover Shoe Rehab Rehab Rehab Pennrose, Housing Initiatives 2001 70 62 70 0 0 Hanover Manchester Township Red Lion Windsor Yoe Borough York City $135,000 $1,000,000 $2,200,000 $185,000 $700,000 $800,000 $346,356 $386,125 $5,974,829 $340,000 Hanover AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Development Shady Oak Apartments Shelly School Apartments Sherrill Apartments Shrewsbury Courtyards I Shrewsbury Courtyards II Smyser Street Apartments Springfield Apartments South George Street Southeast Historic Partnership Southeast Neighborhood Rehab Springwood Overlook Rehab / New Rehab Rehab Rehab Partnership Initial Occupancy PFG Capital PFG Capital, HICDC 2001 Total Units General / Family Units Subsidized Units Elderly Units Special Needs Units 35 35 8 0 0 17 17 8 0 20 20 0 0 5 Sources of Funds 1st Mtg. LIHTC City HOME Revolving 1st Mtg. Owner Historic & LIHTC Funding Municipality York City $340,000 $285,000 $99,700 $1,160,000 West York Borough Rehab Terry Schrum Springwood Dev. Corp., Southern Community Services Coalition 1997 47 0 4 47 4 New Springwood Development, Southern Community Services Coalition 2001 55 0 12 55 4 HOME AHTF Owner 1st Mtg. AHP LIHTC HOME AHTF Def. Develop. Donated Land FHLB AHP LIHTC 21 21 0 0 3 LIHTC York City 75 0 0 75 4 W. Manchester Twp 36 36 0 0 1 Public Housing LIHTC Penn Homes Crispus Attucks 21 21 21 0 1 Crispus Attucks 19 19 0 0 0 Rehab PFG Capital Rehab YHA Crispus Attucks Rehab New Penn Mar, Springwood Development 1983 2004 84 63 0 10 84 York City 9 $600,000 $250,000 $ 61,000 $760,00 $1,657,576 $555,250 $ 69,750 $224,299 $ 85,000 $625,000 $225,000 $2,798,000 Shrewsbury Borough Shrewsbury Township York City York City York City HOME AHTF PHFA 1st PH FHLB Land Dev. Fee LIHTC $746,250 $288,750 $377,500 $1,335,000 $490,000 $150,000 $161,595 $4,343,000 York Township AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Development Stony Brook Gardens Stony Brook Manor Strasburg House Tailored Lady Apartments Village at York Rehab / New New Rehab Walnut Street School Rehab Wrightsville Wyndamere Apts. General / Family Units Subsidized Units Elderly Units Springwood Development Under construction 84 0 0 84 1984 100 0 100 100 10 Public Housing 60 0 60 60 6 John Lingg 1994 York NSA New Waverly Court Apartments at Eastgate Wellington Homes Total Units YHA Village Court Warehouse Apartments Partnership Initial Occupancy Rehab New New YHA (CONE) YHA West Lake Falls 2004 Special Needs Units Sources of Funds HOME Brownfields LIHTC Dev. Equity 11 0 0 11 0 HUD 202 HOME 1st Mtg. LIHTC 73 73 73 0 5 Section 8 60 60 11 0 6 1st Mtg. Penn Homes HOME AHTF Dev. Eq. LIHTC 39 15 39 24 0 Section 8 Mod Rehab Funding $2,450,000 $500,000 $6,853,322 $181,612 Municipality Springettsbury Twp Springettsbury Twp Shrewsbury $275,000 $400,000 $212,000 Hanover Borough York City $580,000 $1,000,000 $569,209 $323,050 $97,206 $3,711,005 Dover Township Hanover $500,000 $150,000 $650,000 $22,000 $1,200,000 $620,000 $300,000 $141,930 $1,380,000 $115,000 $3,520,855 Baltimore Street Associates 1996 33 33 19 0 3 YHA (CONE), Community Basics 2006 46 46 11 0 7 HOME AHTF 1st Mtg. GP Loan LIHTC HOME AHTF PHFA 1st PennHomes FHLB LIHTC YHA 1960 72 72 72 0 2 Public Housing York City YHA HICDC, YADC 1985 10 10 10 0 0 1996 65 65 13 0 3 Public Housing PHFA 1st PennHomes Wrightsville Borough Springettsburty Township 64 $777,426 $650,000 Hanover Springettsbury Township AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY Development Rehab / New YMCA Rehab YMCA SRO Rehab York Commons Yorkbuild Yorktowne Apartments Yorktowne House New Rehab New Partnership Initial Occupancy SMB Properties YMCA, YADC Shelter Group, Homes for America Crispus Attucks 2004 Wilson Serfass YHA 1980 TOTALS 65 Total Units General / Family Units Subsidized Units Elderly Units Special Needs Units 31 31 0 0 3 120 0 56 0 120 102 102 17 0 15 14 14 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 200 3,964 0 1,994 200 2,502 200 1,438 Sources of Funds CDBG HOME Grant LIHTC DCED LIHTC Sect. 8 Mod Rehab PHFA 1st PennHomes HOME Dev. Eq. LIHTC Private Financing Funding $436,088 $438,000 $75,336 $2,800,000 $200,000 Municipality York City York City $1,857,349 $1,500,000 $ 630,000 $ 583,882 $6,018,000 York Township York City York City 0 587 Section 8 New Const. $6,110,000 York City AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY APPENDIX D Geographic Locations of Assisted Housing in York County 66 U SQ SU AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL UNITS A EH NN O YN RE AT R LD IL L YORK RD SM ST CHUR SOUTH CENTRAL PLANNING REGION 1 CH ST YO R KR D RD W AT ER MAIN ST VALLEY RD Q SUS JACOBUS BORO IRO TO NS ANN LLEYS RD UEH VA SEVE N D AR MP RA D Y LE RD HERBST RD FR A NK L IN ST E ST T PLEASA NT LEGEND AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING VIEW RD ST ST MA E V IE UN l RD ON R NT ZI LOGANVILLE BORO AV MO U O LL YE C H S AD W SEAKS RUN RD R RO U H D T D YR TO L IV ET R D RD CHURCH RD D R D MT E NR RD D RY LE G OW ST T IL DIS ID R TE WIN R Z IO NR D PO TO SI R UN MP EN GL CK RO RD DL AN MO WO O RA RD LS l 21NUMBER OF ELDERLY APARTMENTS FOR ELDERLY D M HW US ME VFW OF E HIL CR R RU LA OS S C WINTERSTOWN BORO SPRINGFIELD TWP 02 NUMBER OF FAMILIES APARTMENTS FOR FAMILIES A - Highland Manor Apartments C - New Freedom Apartments D - Housing Authority Scattered Sites E - Shrewsbury Courtyards I F - Shrewsbury Courtyards II G - Staburg House D G RD GR RD RID W P LIN RIP P IN OR E SEVEN VALLEYS BORO AM SW ST L VA RD D AIN DU A NK LR M H AV RD MIL CH C UR H D LR RT NO MP HIL R NE AT RA CH UR CH ST NORTH HOPEWELL TWP HAIN RD VALL RD KS ST IC V IE W D D R RY O K IC H SAWMILL RD YH ILL R D D l 33 RD N TS TO W ST EW AR A M IL L RD COLLEGE AV STEWARTSTOWN BORO A R R EN S R D WN RD DRACO RD D NEW FREEDOM BORO B TSTO STEWAR TY R NEW FREEDOM RD CON SE CO ND ST S TIT UT IO NA V ST LE N BER RD L SHREWSBURY TWP TR N R W LI l 28 C A ET OW B NEW FREEDOM RD NN DL MAIN ST HA UE ID MIL T RD SQ SU M SH LS M 851 HIL FR DO EE RES T RD OL RD FRO NT ST STELTZ RD ll l B W OO SR 0 ROADSIDE W NE µ 47 E 55 F 60 G W E WIN D RAILROAD BORO BOWSER SCHO HOPEWELL TWP RD D D R MP A RA R AV MAIN ST N BO I NA T RES MP SHREWSBURY BORO FO R RD Location of the Planning Region 1 within York County S RD AIR YR D R UNT H RD REN C C K BAR LS R AN PL DR RA E SS FI U EY RD MAIN ST ER ST MANCHEST TO AD MO RD LE V IL ST GLEN ROCK BORO CL EA R H EM HW IN l 04D A TR MA RO CK NN UEHA RD M OF US VFW CK RO SUSQ EN GL RD TELLER MARS AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL UNITS GREATER YORK EAST PLANNING REGION 2 AC M O C AC C RD RAMP HW l ST O LN NT LI NC G 10 O FR WRIGHTSVILLE BORO RD LEY VAL CH UR CH ST RD AH RD RD LR UN RD WOO DBINE RD EDG EW OOD RD RD PEN N O AN R DR M O AN R WINDSOR BORO MAI N ST T RD M DU US HW ST KE EM O ST D R O V E W N R RD DE LT AR O LT FE N RD FRANKL IN ST ET R TE IN W D ST OF RD RN HO RD ST BRO ADWAY RD LUB DER G YC RED LION BORO IN MA NT R BUR KHO L T D COU ST HIG H ll l l A IN ST TS SP EC × ST T ST l N10 D AN E LR T AV R ST PL EA S G HIL WALN U R PR O LO M BA RD ST R O NE PLE AS A N O 2A A 40 C 50 10 I 30 NM SPRINGW OOD MAIN ST AN RD R RD H M CH ST BRO WNT ON R D AV RD ON BS T LI HER D RE HESS FARM RD L BU SO WIND l5 E G TO NS W VF CHUR D CR AH R AL EY RD HAINES RD RAMP I RD RAMP K PI SG T M SG PI E RA MP RAMP H RD ST SHE R OLD BALTIMORE PK MA IN M AN ST EDEN RD RD LOUCKS MILL RD SCHO OL RD BA D IRO S QUEEN ST DALLASTOWN BORO D M LO NR YOE BORO HEIGHT S RD RD R EL EV T OO D RD RD LE ADER RCH GL M OR ILL RD PD RAM RAMP A RD RD CHU N LO ST SPRINGW A RY CALV WINDSOR TWP H PE CA R-M 36 SH E WD PO SR 30 L IL IN MA RD l 102 T AB EL S RD FREYSVILLE P ES PL MA LOWER WINDSOR TWP RD YORK TWP RD M Y ER RS RD RD NU VE SO R T RD L CROLL RD RO N N G NG TO W TO CK ST AS HI DU RD CU OS PEC EAST PR IL ST A AN RK LO EAST PROSPECT BORO M W AT ER RD R- D S YO RD W YORKANA BORO RD DE W LD RD PO R NO EY T ON ZI Y ST L RD BE TT RD M GE ORGE DAY SM IL S AD T SH R P ILL WIT ME RR D WY 036 PA HA ERN 3 SR JO P M RT WINDSO R DR l l T ES Location of the Planning Region 2 within York County TYLER RUN RD C OR OLD ARD RD STO NEW OOD WIN D 84J 80 F G OR GE SPRING GARDEN TWP OLD OR CH RT H NO DR N RD ST ET BL AV MT ROS E CA M HALLAM BORO D UN RD T HA LIB KINGSTON RD D OO YW T LL LS HO HIL TO RATH HILL ST A - High Street Project - York Habitat for Humanity/HICDC TS ST ALBEMARLE 12 NUMBER OF UNITS SP EC D ER MO RY MO ME l N EAST ER RD PR T NT S * PR O RK MA 04 B RIA HW RAM O BELM LPHIA ST PHILA DE ST INDU LS RD G E ST NORTH HIL MEM HW VFW OF US SR L VIL YS FR RAMP L RD RAMP J RD CK D RD OD RD H-HIL NORT NORTH YORK BORO U LO BR MP RA O EW l l ll RD RD N STO SPRINGETTSBURY 46 M L100 TWP K 84 65 O KS D BRO MP RA UC LO R GE O HOMES D MUNDIS MILL RD EMIG RD * × LR RD l AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP OO EE K D H SC L CR 02 NUMBER OF FAMILIES APARTMENTS FOR FAMILIES A - Dairyland Apartments 21 NUMBER OF ELDERLY B - Mt. Rose Apartments APARTMENTS FOR ELDERLY C - Opera House I D - Opera House II E - Parkside Townhomes F - Parkview at Tyler Run G - Housing Authority Scattered Sites H - Housing Authority Scattered Sites I - Housing Authority Scattered Sites J - Springwood Overlook K - Stony Brook Gardens L - Stony Brook Manor M - Waverly Court N - Housing Authority Scattered Sites O - Wynamere Apartments P - York Commons NEED ADDRESS K RUC ER US HA COO AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING R HELLAM TWP LEGEND l D CODO RUS FURN ACE RD D µ R GO WA K EE RD RD MAIN ST Q SUS D T RA IL RD L R D G R E EN B R IA R IN l 46 32 ll R L MANCHESTER TWP D IV E A CK L AN RS G HE S W O RD E UR RD M A MP A BANNIST ER ET K R A CO LN M K RD LI N V EA RA RA MP MP W RD ZR D LEGEND AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING l 02 NUMBER OF FAMILIES APARTMENTS FOR FAMILIES A - Bailey Mills Apartments C - Cloverfield Apartments D - Country Side Estates E - Fox Hunter Apartments F - Gateway Apartments G - Kingston House H - Manchester Heights I - Maple Apartments J - North Beaver St. Ext K - Old Salem Road Apartments L - Poplar Creek Apartments M - Ridgefield Court N - Housing Authority Scattered Site O - Shelly School Apartments P - Springfield Apartments Q - Village Court Apartments l 21 NUMBER OF ELDERLY APARTMENTS FOR ELDERLY * * NEED ADDRESS AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP × HOMES 12 NUMBER OF UNITS B - Spring Valley Manor - York Habitat for Humanity/HICDC C - Village Court/AHO/YHA RD M R VE RD D AY S M IL L R DA CK RO Location of the Planning Region 3 within York County D DIA N NO IN NR D HA RD HR D MIT N TU LH NE SPRING GROVE BORO GL AT FE LT ER S O RD LE Y R D BE NT Z RD NORTH CODORUS TWP D MYE RS IG EM RD RD EG ZI ERS RD PO RT R LE S E GR ON MIL LR D ST RD S AFT YO RK S ER FF JE KR CH UR CH RD R EY LL VA EN RD VA L SR RO CK L MY ER GL EN NIA RD D E RD RIDG HA R VE NO LEHM AN KR RD IRO N N W CO LO PA R O ST UL RD PIGEON HILL I LL RD RST OW ST MAIN ST M D OL R VE NO STO VE RD RD RD HA NO LD ME SS ER S K O C R RD E E µ MOUNT WOLF BORO NE W HA D R LE IL V RD RD NEW SALEM BORO AR LL EY S CH G PIN RID E VA SEVE N D MR UR Y LA K PP KO T EM NO VE R RD LE SA CH RD EG LL CO S ET SA L RD IT Y TH RO VE 78 G KIN T GS RK RD WOO DBERRY IN TR JACKSON TWP CK RO O GR RD A RAMP A RD N HW PARADISE TWP E PL ST WEST MANCHESTER TWP RD OL LI NC MA G IL L T F KIN SM HW S T KE HO OU N H OAD M LI LR BIG BE R IL SM EMIG EAST ST AV 24 17 O 33 RA HIG HLAND CH E RD RD WEST YORK BORO N RD C lll l 64 l 28l 1l0 TAXVILL R IG CH EM O D U LO HW LN D LIN T R SE C N P SU l CO LN ll 75 P M 02 RD CH R 06 J ROOSEVE LT AV RAMP C RD N AV UR U CH U BRO M M LE SA IL L D LR NIA CO LO HILTO L IL CH D RD IG M R 38 RD R EM CARL ISLE RD T2 R AV RD RD D /R RIA T EL EV OS RO ER IRE ADM GR Y RD DERR CK SE BIE 24 × C S VID DA R BU RD H AT A CH CH C UR NN N CA POPLA R RD EN B RD A EH E D LR GR E U SQ SU D DOVER TWP LA CA N D NA L ST VI EW D ST R N MA 16 Q × 60 A MA RD MA E P M RA C D DOVER BORO R B VE RD RD RCH RD IG RO CHU W V IE AR ST EM YG NG LO T NA RD ON ST NS TE ST AN W EM H UEH LE IS RL RM CE NT ER D GE ORGE SM OF U VFW LR BUL l 54 l N 02 CA HA ST EAST MANCHESTER TWP DR D RD LE AP SHE R T DE BO AR Y LR W EM H IS BE RR NA SM OF U VFW LE W CA VIE WR ST AN N GEO RGE ST NT RD LOCUST POI CONEWAGO TWP M ZIO NS IN N TO W CR PB MANCHESTER BORO MA RD O AG W RAM DE RS ON GREATER YORK WEST PLANNING REGION 3 NE CO SUSQ UEHA NN A TR BOW ERS BRID GE RD D AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL UNITS D ST AT IO N RD AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL UNITS ROSS AV GREEN- W LE RR BE IS Y RD RD MARSH NORTHERN PLANNING REGION 4 RUN RD D RD FISHING CRE EK RD M ME RD HIL L M OU YS R D FI LE D W R D CR N AG M OO R RD YO R MT AIRY RD D MA GE ST N GEOR D LE W EL LS V IL R O NY G R RO D E SL LI BLU R RM Y LN BRITTAN A ST RD IN WELLSVILLE BORO C E-G RAY HW SR KE RD HA RD RID G E VE CHURCH RD Location of the Northern Planning Region 4 within York County FRANKL IN E-G RA YH W O ST D R S O YORK HAVEN BORO RD FIC RD BLU KISE MILL RD K RD D R YO N NR D OL LE IS RL TA I RD R GO WA D CA UN RD RD ER E ST MO D ER SL INE ALP M GA IM OR V IE W P HI W WARRINGTON TWP BALT OW M D KR ISB U RR HA N SR 0194 SH ME AD SR NEWBERRY TWP TO W D E ST FRANKLIN TWP PO TT S GE TT YS BU PK PIN E CARROLL TWP IM OR FRANKLINTOWN BORO E PIN RA R BALT ER L × K MP GOLDSBORO 4 BORO D R MU D LEWISBERRY BORO SIDDONSBURG RD RG RD UND YR D NR CLY RD PG RO LE W IS BE RR YO CAM RD MO O RE S RG PIK E NTAIN RD HW RG W TO OAD ST US OF WY ND W VF YO RK RD D BU NS MONAGHAN TWP DILLSBURG 50 F BORO ll l l 15 l 46 l A 36 75 C 25 DO UM RAILR E RD ERE RD RIDG B E SID C YO D RD RD CAS SE L R E FAIRVIEW TWP RD YO RK HAV EN RD AG ST RD VALLEY YORK ST D OL ARS CED NA UV OO AM E RG MIL LR IKE K FO ER S NP R YO D OL GL R TU EVERGREEN RD /W ST EA SP AN T ES D OL LAN DR LIMEKI LN RD KRA LLT OW NR D WASHINGTON TWP VID DA SB UR G RD LEGEND AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING l 02 NUMBER OF FAMILIES APARTMENTS FOR FAMILIES BR A - Dillsburg Heights B - The Fairmont C - Fairmont Village D - Fielding Way E - Green Meadow F - Proctor House (PHI) G - R-Towne Development l 21 NUMBER OF ELDERLY APARTMENTS FOR ELDERLY D OA T YS WA * * AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP × NEED ADDRESS 12 NUMBER OF UNITS HOMES D - Goldsboro Project - HICDC AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL UNITS OL D HA NO VE R RD SOUTHWESTERN PLANNING REGION 5 IRO N RID LEGEND AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING GE RD BR l l D OA T YS WA JAC ER RT R ILL SM PO OB S RD D M O O ST UL N W RD HEIDELBERG TWP EISENHOWE R DR NO VE R HA L AV E * NEED ADDRESS D PARK RD RD CH UR CH BS DU CODORUS TWP BLOO MI NG GROVE RD RD KREBS RO CK RD RD 02 16 SH Location of the Southwestern Planning Region 5 DR DR V IL EN GL MANHEIM TWP LE RD CK RO V IL RD LE IC ST K S R D HIL DEB RA RD RD N LI O EB RO RD PIE EIM RD NH EV IL LE CK RO RD MA RC K D KS EC RO RD RD ND D WN R LETO ER IL L EB O MIDD V EN GL LI N EBR A RD HIL D LE RD IL GRAV E RUN RD V EN GL OD B PK AC BL E OR RD RD ND IM LT RT N MI LL ALLISO BA WEST MANHEIM TWP BA HO BR BECKMILL RD SR 0216 SH WN TO KE SR DV IEW RD KR GRANDVIEW RD AV MINI ST ER VIE W O SM L RD BLUE HIL FA IR K * RD WE ST BL AC GRAN RO CK YO R ES T DL MID AV RY DA BO UN G GROV E SH ST UN BO Y E OR AV R DA 16 BLOO MIN IM LT NE R AV 05 H PENN TWP ST SR ST YO R K BA BL ET T JEFFERSON BORO RD RD K IM HE N IC S SIN IO AT ST R I D TH E FR HOF I SM ED ST EY FR ST GL EN ST MO U ER NT CE TN ES ST CH RN AD RO FO IL PO PL A R ST RA B&E ST K ST RIDG E AV STO CK ST UT R YO E OR ST ELM 3R THIRD ST D ST ST IM LT HA T DR R VE NO BA AV ER ST BE RG EICHEL T ES LISL CAR ELM ST HIGH ST llll 24 l 33l 3l 9 C19 11 G 34 D GRA N IN RL BE F70 KRAF TS MI LL RD 21 NUMBER OF ELDERLY APARTMENTS FOR ELDERLY A - Clearview Terrace I & II B - Housing Authority Scattered Site C - Kain Rehab D - M'Calister Inn E - Housing Authority Scattered Site F - Proctor House (PHI) G - R-Towne Development RD HANOVER BORO 02 NUMBER OF FAMILIES APARTMENTS FOR FAMILIES AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL UNITS YORK CITY PLANNING REGION 6 LEGEND AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING l U LO HW C LIN N OL HW D SR U LO CK A - 131 East Maple B - 222 West College Avenue C - Boundary Avenue D - Broad Park Manor E - Cable House G - Crispus Attucks H - Delphia House I - Dutch Kitchen J - Housing Authority Scattered Site K - Helfrich Building L.- Historic Fairmont Apartments M - Hudson Park N - King Street Apartments O - Liberty Apartments P - Parkway Homes Q - Penn Apartments D SR T EL EV OS RO AV N LI LN CO CK PHILA A ST DELPHI HARR ISO N ST l l 11 × l21 1l 03 1l 7 17 38 l l120 1 1 l31l0l6 ×590ll6 281l 0l4 14 7 3 l l 25 22 × l 01 19 34 l 01 l l l 60 l 02l35 21l 21l l 270 P PARKWAY BL X AV E IA HILL ST ST SY LV AN AN PE NN M ER SH PRO SPE CT ST GE AV BOU N S QU N EE AV ST T V DA F 5 ND YS LE AN × × ST A EL EV CL NT H 3 JAC KS ON ST E - Thomas Street Project - YHFH/HICDC F - YHFH Projects G - Olde Towne East - Dorgan & Zuck H - Crispus Attucks/HICDC I - HICDC - Kings Mill Project KE L LE CO 12 NUMBER OF UNITS Location of the Planning Region 6 within York County Y AV DAR AV TE ET FAY LA R - Pullman Apartments S - Pullman Building T - SKW Housing Project V - Shady Oak Apartments W- Sherrill Apartments X - Smyser Street Apartments Y - South George Street Apartments Z - Southeast Historic Partnership AA - Southeast Neighborhood CC - Village of York DD - Wellington Homes EE - YMCA/SMB Properties FF - YMCA GG - Yorkbuild HH - Yorktowne Apartments II - Yorktowne House ST RG BE Z 21 NUMBER OF ELDERLY APARTMENTS FOR ELDERLY DU C PRO SPECT ST COLLEG E AV D LIN IN PR T ES Y A GR HL V EA T GS T SS ES l HH E 83 ST E AV RIC LE G AV KIN D G T V GA RE 25 I × M LE SA COL C V S R AVE BE E LVID BE l EL S ET N T H IN RS PE 72 DD ST AD ST RL ISL E F IL PH T PS RK HS HOMES l T MA N PEN CA µ I O GG N G B CC AA T A ST RT NO × ST G OR GE RLIS LE FF EE AV H L CH S EN CA J AR AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP E QU RO OS EV EL T M 70 E 02 NUMBER OF FAMILIES E - ELDERLY APARTMENTS FOR FAMILIES SB GE TT SPRIN URY ST D NR HT O RAT T TH RA ON RD G OR GE T ES AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL UNITS SOUTHEASTERN PLANNING REGION 7 RICHMO ND RD D WO O BINE RD LEGEND AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING BUR LDER KHO Y RD LU C K Y R D RR FE CHANCEFORD TWP RD RD EE N TO TR N OW Location of the Planning Region 7 within York County GU M BR AL EY RD NEED ADDRESS CR 12 NUMBER OF UNITS DELTA RD R PE HR SEC M RD RD AM ST FELT ON RD GO RA * S N RD HOGTOW HOMES K EN SH HO USE RD * AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP × RD RD 02 NUMBER OF FAMILIES APARTMENTS FOR FAMILIES A - Eldon R. Gemmill Rehab ACE CANNING l N FUR D AT R IST FL AIN ST RED LION AV M ER RD M D C RA FELTON BORO L WA C LA E RD BINE FEN M OR D WO O ER D TE RD FO ER RG D M FO RK S LOWER CHANCEFORD TWP RD RD CROSS ROADS BORO G D AD ET O SA EE K N RD CR FROST Y HILL RD IG H U LA CR H R O OS S C K RO R ID CH V Y UR NT CHU CE R M DY BR R FA S RD UD GOOD RD D OL L RE RD ROUND HILL CHURCH RD EAST HOPEWELL TWP M U D D OO W LT HO Y C R EE K FO R K S R D RD D RD RY RD OW AD PAP ER DEER RD MIL L LE T VIL RD BRYA MO UN E KILG ORE ET T OL IV O W O IL L E NS V RD RD E IS W R D PEACH BOTTOM TWP N CHUR LE M IL R CH RD L RK RD EA R D PA CAR W NE MAIN ST MARKET ST D µ OO W IN DB LA Y RD RD FAWN TWP FL IN D ER R FAWN GROVE RD PLEASANT VALL EY RD HIC KO BLUE BALL RD M ATO RD FAWN GROVE BORO CK RO S RD GRACETON RD E LIN RD DELTA BORO MIL L RD AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY APPENDIX E Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Used 67 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY ACT 137 -- Passed by the Pennsylvania State Legislature in 1992 to enable counties to raise additional revenues to be used for affordable housing needs by increasing fees for recording mortgages and deeds. The authorizing legislation (SB 962: Act 1992-137) requires that these additional funds be expended for "any program or project approved by the county commissioners which increases the availability of quality housing, either sales or rental, to any county resident whose annual income is less than the median income of the county." AHP – The Affordable Housing Program of the federal Home Loan Bank AMI – Area median income CCHP – DCED’s new Core Communities Housing Program CDBG – Community Development Block Grant Program CONE – YHA’s non-profit organization: Opportunities in Neighborhood Environments Creating DCED – Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development FHLB – Federal Home Loan Bank HCP – PHFA’s Homeownership Choice Program HOME – HOME Investment Partnership Program HOPE VI – HUD’s Homeownership Opportunities for Persons Everywhere VI Program HUD – U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development HUD 202 – HUD’s Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly Program HUD 811 – HUD’s Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities LBP – Lead based paint LIHTC – Low income housing tax credit LMI – Low and moderate income MUFFI – PHFA’s Mixed Use Facility Financing Incentive NAP – DCED’s Neighborhood Assistance Program NIMBY – Not In My Back Yard NRSA – HUD’s Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area designation 68 AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY PHA – Public housing authority PHFA – Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency Rural LISC – Rural Local Initiatives Support Corporation TND – Traditional Neighborhood Development / Design USDA – U.S. Department of Agriculture YCDC – York Community Development Corporation YHA – York Housing Authority 69