An Overview of Existing and
Potential Programs to Increase the Supply of Affordable Workforce
Housing in the City of Cape Coral, Florida
City of Cape Coral
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
PO Box 150027
Cape Coral, Florida 33915-0027
Phone: 239-574-0776
Facsimile: 239-574-0594
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
Scope of Problem
Housing Needs in the City of Cape Coral
Current Affordable Workforce Housing Funding Resources and Programs
a) State Housing Initiative Partnership Program (SHIP)
b) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Alternative Methods of Providing Affordable Workforce Housing
a) Governmental Programs
i) Inclusionary Zoning
ii) Density Incentive Programs
iii) Linkage Fees
iv) Impact Fee Deferral
c) Public/Private Partnerships
i) Community Land Trusts
ii) Employee Assisted Housing
iii) Lease Purchase Programs
iv) Limited Equity Cooperatives
Appendices
Financial Resources for Affordable Workforce Housing
Inventory of State and Federally Assisted Rental Housing
Income Limits for SHIP and CDBG Programs
Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council Housing Policies and Local Initiatives – 2006
INTRODUCTION
Traditionally, the City’s affordable workforce housing programs have been linked directly to the two
funding sources the City receives to produce affordable housing, the State Housing Initiative Partnership
(SHIP) Program and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. While the two
programs have been successful in the community, as real estate prices have been rebounding from the
late 2000’s, these traditional programs have been unable to meet the increased demand for affordable
housing in the City of Cape Coral. These programs, funded by City of Cape Coral grant funds, must be
accompanied by other mechanisms and programs provided both publicly and privately to adequately
meet the need for affordable workforce housing within the community.
The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of a number of different private and public
programs that can assist in increasing the City’s supply of affordable workforce housing. The paper
begins with a brief discussion on the scope of the problem at hand, continues with an overview of the
City’s two existing programs, and finally provides a brief discussion of affordable workforce housing
programs, their advantages and disadvantages and examples of these programs in Florida and other
parts of the United States. It is important to note that a plethora of research has been done regarding
affordable workforce housing solutions by a multitude of organizations and the solutions discussed
within this paper are just a sample of those that might be applicable to the City of Cape Coral.
1
SCOPE OF PROBLEM
The affordability of housing is an issue facing communities throughout the state of Florida and the
nation. Federal housing policy has primarily linked housing problems to issues of poverty and welfare
dependency and has focused on the needs of very low-income households. However, there are roughly
three million families in our nation who have critical housing needs despite working full time. Experts
believe that the ability to meet the housing needs of these working families is among the factors that
impact a community’s stability and economic well being. The ability to afford housing is a function of
income and housing prices. The cost of housing in Cape Coral is affected by:
• More demand for housing fueled by investors and retirees
• Increasing prices for existing residential properties
• A demand for moderate priced homes
The City is rapidly rebounding from the economic downturn that occurred in the late 2000’s. Affordable
homeownership opportunities were abundant for low/moderate income households during this time
due to low housing prices and significant federal investment through the Neighborhood Stabilization
and Community Development Block Grant Program. It should be noted that while there was a large
inventory of homes available at affordable prices, tighter lending policies and stagnant wages made
purchasing difficult for this segment of the population without assistance.
The median sales price of a single family home in Cape Coral has been increasing steadily since 2009.
Incomes however, have not been increasing at the same rate. According to the Florida Housing Data
Clearinghouse, the 2014 median sales price for a single family home in Cape Coral was $168,000. This is
an increase of slightly over 61% since 2009.
In contrast, incomes have not seen a commensurate increase. In the past year the Area Median Income
(AMI) remained stagnant. According to HUD, the 2013 Area Median Income (AMI) for a family of four in
the Cape Coral/Fort Myers MSA was $56,300, which means that half of the households in this area had
annual incomes less than this amount and half have had incomes that were more. In 2014 Area Median
Income (AMI) for a family of four in the Cape Coral/Myers MSA slightly increased to $58,000. In 2015,
the Area Median Income (AMI) fell to $57,600.
Housing is primarily a function of the private market and is influenced by economic factors such as
financial feasibility and profitability. Government has played an increasing role in housing in response to
the failure of the private market to provide housing that is affordable to certain households. Affordable
workforce housing is housing that does not financially cost burden a family and that is safe and in decent
condition. Federal government guidelines, primarily those developed by the U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), define affordable housing as costing an owner or renter no more than
30% of the household’s gross monthly income for housing costs, including utilities. The relationship
between housing cost and income determines how affordable a community is to live in. If the housing
prices are high and incomes are low, it is more likely that people will experience difficulty in affording
housing and they are more likely to spend greater than 30% of their incomes on housing. Affordable
workforce housing can be market rate housing or subsidized housing and the term evokes different
meanings for different people. Some mistakenly equate affordable workforce housing with public
housing for very low-income households. When used in the context of housing policy, affordable
housing refers to single family and multi-family housing provided by the private sector with a mix of
private and public funds for the purpose of providing housing that is affordable and available to low
2
and moderate income households. It is housing built by the private sector (for-profit and nonprofit)
that is just like market rate housing, but made affordable through its method of financing. There are
state and federal income guidelines that serve as thresholds for various housing programs. Income limits
are set in accordance with federal statutes that use four person income limits as a starting point. As
stated previously, this number in the Cape Coral/Fort Myers MSA is $57,400.
Federal guidelines generally define very low income as less than 30% AMI, low income as greater than
30% but no more than 50% AMI, and moderate income as greater than 50% but no more than 80% AMI.
When used by the federal government, “low and moderate income” refers to all households with
income at or below 80% AMI.
The state uses a different definition that includes very low income as a household that does not exceed
50% AMI, low income as a household income that does not exceed 80%, AMI and moderate income as a
household income that does not exceed 120% AMI. The City of Cape Coral guidelines for eligibility for
various affordable housing programs uses the following income level definitions:
Very Low - households with annual gross income of less than 50% of AMI
Low - households with annual gross income of less than 80% of AMI
Moderate - households with annual gross income of less than 120% of AMI
3
HOUSING NEEDS IN THE CITY OF CAPE CORAL
The following section is an overview of housing needs/market analysis in the City from the City’s Five
Year Consolidated Plan 2015-2019 prepared for the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
According to the 2007-2011 American Community Survey Five Year Estimates, the City of Cape Coral had
a total of 76,414 housing units, of which 56,002 or 73.3% were occupied-housing units and 20,412 or
26.7% were vacant housing units. In Cape Coral single family housing units comprised of 60,373 or
79%of the total housing units. While, 13,674 or 21% were multi-family housing units, and less than 1%
[322] were mobile homes structures. The most common bedroom size for owner-occupied housing units
in Cape Coral is three bedrooms at 88%of the total units.
PROPERTY TYPE
1-UNIT DETACHED STRUCTURE
1-UNIT, ATTACHED STRUCTURE
2-4 UNITS
5-19 UNITS
20 OR MORE UNITS
MOBILE HOME, BOAT, RV, VAN, ETC
TOTAL
Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS
Residential Properties by Unit Number
NO BEDROOM
1 BEDROOM
2 BEDROOMS
3 OR MORE BEDROOMS
TOTAL
Data Source: 2007-2011 ACS
Unit Size by Tenure
NUMBER
%
60,373
2,022
4,741
6,204
2,729
345
76,414
OWNERS
NUMBER
23
198
4,883
36,862
41,966
79%
3%
6%
8%
4%
0%
100%
RENTERS
%
NUMBER
0%
0%
12%
88%
100%
72
941
4,772
8,251
14,036
%
1%
7%
34%
59%
101%
There is a gap between number of affordable housing units in Cape Coral and the number of households
who need affordable housing. According to 2008-2012 CHAS data twelve thousand (12,000) households
(both renter and owner) report a housing cost burden greater than 50% of their income. An additional
25,705 reported a housing cost burden greater than 30% of their income. Participants in public meetings
for the preparation of the City’s Consolidated Plan and the Regional Analysis of Impediments to Fair
Housing Choice indicated a need for affordable rental units in Cape Coral, especially for families, the
disabled and elderly. Additionally, local agencies implementing ownership oriented affordable housing
programs report long waiting lists for participation in their programs.
Affordable housing is needed, and varied options, whether those be single family detached or
multifamily units, to meet the demands of the population as well as to address the forecasted growth.
In reviewing US Census data and anecdotal evidence it is evident there is a lack of diversity in the types
of housing in Cape Coral. The City of Cape Coral is a relatively young City that was developed as a pre-
4
platted subdivision, which consists of a large number 10,000 square foot single family lots. This
presents a challenge when attempting to develop what would be thought of as traditional rental
housing in the form of apartments. Seventy nine percent of developed housing units in Cape Coral are
single family. Only 4% of the housing stock contains twenty or more units. Suffice to say, the majority
of Cape Coral residents live in properties with less than twenty units. This number is consistent with the
nation as a whole where 75% of all renters live in building with 19 or fewer units and of this, 52% live in
buildings with one to four units. Small rental developments house the most of the nations low income
renters. According to Multifamily Rental Housing, a background paper for the Millennial Housing
Commission Finance Task Force, over 70 percent of all lower-income households live in one-to fourfamily properties. These small scale rental portfolios are difficult to maintain and less profitable for
owners, making it more likely that these low cost properties will be permanently lost from the
affordable housing stock. By introducing additional housing types, the City will be able to maintain a
larger, more diverse, and more permanent affordable housing inventory.
COST OF HOUSING
This section provides an overall picture of housing costs within the City of Cape Coral. Information
provided will detail housing cost trends, rent trends, fair market rents, and the overall affordability of
the local housing market.
BASE YEAR: 2000
MEDIAN HOME VALUE
MEDIAN CONTRACT RENT
Data Source: 2009-2013 ACS
Cost of Housing
RENT PAID
LESS THAN $500
$500-999
$1,000-1,499
$1,500-1,999
$2,000 OR MORE
TOTAL
Data Source: 2009-2013 ACS
Rent Paid
% UNITS AFFORDABLE TO
HOUSEHOLDS EARNING
30% HAMFI
50% HAMFI
80% HAMFI
100% HAMFI
TOTAL
106,500
696
MOST RECENT YEAR:
2013
181,900
1,058
NUMBER
% CHANGE
71%
52%
%
1,190
15,826
9,950
2,599
192
29,757
RENTER
OWNER
200
1,065
7,345
NO DATA
8,610
5
4%
53%
34%
8%
1%
100.0%
NO DATA
2,535
7,215
12,300
22,050
% UNITS AFFORDABLE TO
HOUSEHOLDS EARNING
Data Source: 2007-2011 CHAS
Housing Affordability
RENTER
MONTHLY RENT ($)
EFFICIENCY
1
(NO
BEDROOM
BEDROOM)
FAIR MARKET RENT
700
705
HIGH HOME RENT
646
693
LOW HOME RENT
512
548
Data Source: US Department of HUD Fair Market Rents
Monthly Rent
OWNER
2
BEDROOM
893
834
658
3
BEDROOM
1,212
956
761
4
BEDROOM
1,247
1,047
849
The City is rebounding from the economic downturn in the late 2000’s. Affordable homeownership
opportunities were abundant for low/moderate income households during this time due to low housing
prices and significant federal investment through the Neighborhood Stabilization and Community
Development Block Grant Program. It should be noted that while there was a large inventory of homes
available at affordable prices, tighter lending policies and stagnant wages made purchasing difficult for
this segment of the population without assistance.
The median sales price of a single family home in Cape Coral has been increasing steadily since
2008/2009. Incomes however, have not been increasing at the same rate. According to the Florida
Housing Data Clearinghouse, the 2014 median sales price for a single family home in Cape Coral was
$168,000. This is lower than the statewide median sales price of $185,000. Below is a chart showing the
median sales price of homes in Cape Coral from 2000 through 2014 and the increase since this time and
the area median income for the Cape Coral/Fort Myers MSA.
Median Sales vs. Median Income Cape Coral 2000-2014
Source: Florida Housing Data Clearinghouse
The increase in prices, dormant wages, poor credit history and access to financing are impacting the
ability for low/moderate income households to purchase homes in Cape Coral.
Using data from the Comprehensive Housing Analysis Survey, from the US Department of HUD, we are
able to examine the number of properties available to low/moderate income households in Cape Coral
for homeownership. For the purpose of this analysis, extremely low income (ELI) households,
6
households earning less than 30% the Area Median Income (AMI) were not included in ownership
estimates, while persons making 80-100% the Area Median Income (AMI) have been included. The table
below illustrates a gap in ownership units available and affordable to households earning between 3050% the Area Median Income. For every 100 Low Income Households, there are 63 units available.
These numbers start to improve in the higher income levels however, as prices increase, gaps will begin
to be seen in these groups as well.
HOUSEHOLDS INCOME
>30% - 50% AMI
63
AFFORDABLE UNITS PER 100
OWNER HOUSEHOLDS
Data Source: City of Cape Coral Planning Division
Affordable Units per 100 Owner Households
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
>50% -<80% AMI
122
>80% 100% AMI
290
Over the past five years, rents have risen while the number of renters who need moderately priced
housing has increased. These two pressures make finding affordable housing even tougher for very poor
households in America. According to the Urban Institute, for every 100 extremely low-income (ELI)
renter households in the country, there are only 29 affordable and available rental units. In Lee County,
for every 100 extremely low-income (ELI) renter households in the county, there are only 9 affordable
and available rental units. As defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),
extremely low-income households earn 30 percent or less of area median income. In Cape Coral, for
every 100 extremely low-income (ELI) households, there are only 11 units of affordable rental available.
From the table below, it is apparent that this gap in affordable rental is evident in renter households
making less than 50% the area median income. This data is consistent with information from social
service agencies at scoping meetings held with the Department of Community Developments Planning
Division. At these meetings, affordable rental housing and homeless services and housing were
identified as a significant problem in Cape Coral.
HOUSEHOLDS
INCOME <30% AMI
11
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
>30% AMI - <50% AMI
46
AFFORDABLE UNITS PER
100 RENTER HOUSEHOLDS
Data Source: City of Cape Coral Planning Division
Affordable Units per 100 Renter Households
7
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
>50% AMI - 80% AMI
214
AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUNDING RESOURCES
This section will review the two primary sources of affordable housing funding utilized by the City of
Cape Coral: State Housing Initiatives Partnership Program (SHIP) and the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG). While the Neighborhood Stabilization Program has been the primary funding source
utilized to provide affordable housing since 2009, this program has not been included because it was a
onetime grant received by the City. Potential sources of state and federal funding available to the
private sector will be provided within the appendix of the document.
SHIP Program Description
SHIP provides funds to local governments as an incentive to create partnerships that produce and
preserve affordable homeownership and multifamily housing. The program was designed to serve very
low, low and moderate-income families. SHIP funds are distributed on an entitlement basis to all 67
counties and 48 Community Development Block Grant entitlement cities in Florida. The minimum
allocation a local government agency can receive is $350,000. In order to participate local governments
must establish a local housing assistance program by ordinance; develop a local housing assistance plan
and housing incentive strategy; amend land development regulations or establish local policies to
implement the incentive strategies; form partnerships and combine resources in order to reduce
housing costs; and ensure that rent or mortgage payments within the targeted areas do not exceed 30
percent of the area median income limits, unless authorized by the mortgage lender. SHIP dollars may
be used to fund emergency repairs, new construction, rehabilitation, down payment and closing cost
assistance, impact fees, construction and gap financing, mortgage buy-downs, acquisition of property
for affordable housing, matching dollars for federal housing grants and programs, and homeownership
counseling. SHIP funds may not be used to assist mobile homes or manufactured housing; however,
manufactured buildings with the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity insignia are eligible. A
minimum of 65 percent of the funds must be spent on eligible homeownership activities; a minimum of
75 percent of funds must be spent on eligible construction activities; at least 30 percent of the funds
must be reserved for very-low income households (up to 50 percent of the area median income or AMI);
an additional 30 percent may be reserved for low income households (up to 80 percent of AMI); and the
remaining funds may be reserved for moderate income households (up to 120 percent of AMI). In
addition, recent legislative changes have included a 20 percent set-aside requirement for persons with
special needs. It is important to note that no more than 5 percent of SHIP funds may be used for
administrative expenses. However, if a local government makes a finding of need by resolution, a local
government may use up to 10 percent for administrative expenses. The City of Cape Coral has passed
such a resolution and utilizes 10% of its funds for administration. Funding for this program was
established by the passage of the 1992 William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing Act. Funds are allocated
to local governments each month on a population-based formula. These funds are derived from the
collection of documentary stamp tax revenues, which are deposited into the Local Government Housing
Trust Fund. Total actual disbursements are dependent upon these documentary stamp collections. The
following graph shows the City’s historical SHIP allocation.
8
City of Cape Coral
Historical SHIP Allocation
$1,800,000.00
$1,600,000.00
$1,400,000.00
$1,200,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$-
The City of Cape Coral Local Housing Assistance Plan
The LHAP details the program activities and management plan for the use of these funds through
partnerships with public and private for-profit and not-for-profit entities to produce and preserve
affordable housing in the City of Cape Coral. Funding is awarded to organizations such as the Cape Coral
Housing Development Corporation, Habitat for Humanity of Lee and Hendry Counties, Goodwill
Industries and other eligible not-for-profits. The Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAP) adopts ten
affordable housing strategies. The following is a brief description of the primary strategies utilized.
1. Purchase Assistance New Construction
The City of Cape Coral provides counseling and financial assistance to homebuyers
through its Purchase Assistance New Construction strategy.
This strategy allows
homebuyers to purchase a newly constructed home through a program operated by a
sponsor organization. The financial assistance is provided in the form of a deferred
forgivable loan to income-eligible and qualified homebuyers purchasing a home only
within the City. The deferred forgivable loan is subordinate to the first mortgage and is
for a term of fifteen (15) years, which is issued and held by the City. The subordinate
mortgage remains at full face value until its expiration or upon its recapture. Upon
expiration at the end of the fifteenth year, the loan is forgiven and becomes a grant.
2. Purchase Assistance With Rehabilitation
The City of Cape Coral provides counseling and financial assistance to homebuyers
through its Purchase Assistance with Rehabilitation strategy. This strategy allows
homebuyers to either purchase a rehabilitated home through a program operated by a
sponsor organization. The financial assistance is provided in the form of a deferred
forgivable loan to income-eligible and qualified homebuyers purchasing a home only
9
within the City. The forgivable loan is subordinate to the first mortgage and is for a term
of fifteen (15) years, which is issued and held by the City. The subordinate mortgage
remains at full face value until its expiration or upon its recapture. Upon expiration at
the end of the fifteenth year, the loan is forgiven and becomes a grant.
3. Owner Occupied Rehabilitation
The City of Cape Coral provides financial assistance to income eligible city
residents, whose single-family homes are in need of rehabilitation through this
strategy. For the purpose of this strategy, single-family homes include: free
standing single-family homes, condominium units, and duplexes that have a
separate strap and fee simple ownership. This strategy allows for established
homeowners, who reside within city limits, and are income eligible to receive
financial assistance through an established program operated by a sponsor
organization. The financial assistance will be in the form of a deferred payment
no interest ten-year loan, issued to a qualified property owner. The deferred
payment loan will be subordinate to a first and/or second mortgage that is in
good standing. At the end of the tenth-year, the loan will be forgiven and
become a grant.
Rehabilitation is limited to repairs or improvements that are needed for safe or
sanitary habitation, correction of substantial code violations and/or barrier
removal for accessibility by physically challenged individuals. Under this
strategy, funding assistance may also be provided for emergency repairs,
including but not limited to, repairs performed by existing service providers
under weatherization assistance programs under §409.509 - 409.5093 Florida
Statute.
4. Down Payment/Closing Cost Assistance
The City of Cape Coral provides down payment/closing cost assistance to firsttime homebuyers purchasing existing, eligible housing. This strategy differs
from the homeownership strategy because clients eligible for this strategy must
purchase the real estate from either a private person, through a realtor, and or
through a builder. The homeownership purchase assistance strategy requires
the client to purchase either a rehabilitated home or a newly constructed home
through the sponsor agency only and provides a greater subsidy to the client.
This strategy allows qualified applicants to receive a ten (10) year, no interest,
and deferred payment loan based on income classification to assist with down
payment and closing costs. The deferred payment loan will be subordinate to
the first mortgage. At the end of the tenth year, the loan will be forgiven and
become a grant.
5. Senior Housing Rental Assistance
The City of Cape Coral provides assistance to eligible sponsor organizations for
the production of affordable, senior, rental housing. This strategy will provide
for partnering with for-profit developers and sponsor agencies for the
construction of rental units to serve elderly persons within the City.
6. Special Needs Rental Assistance
10
Under this strategy, the City provides funding for acquisition, rehabilitation, and
modification of rental housing for persons with disabilities as defined in Rule 6737.002(11). This strategy provides income eligible household modifications
and/or assistive technology modifications needed to increase independence,
maximize safety, reduce expenditures on equipment and allow for individual
development in their homes.
CDBG Program Description
The City of Cape Coral is an entitlement community receiving Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The City has been a recipient
of these funds since 1981. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is authorized
under Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended. The purpose of the
program is described in 24 CFR § 570.2. The primary objective of the Title I of the Housing and
Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and of the community development program of
each grantee under the title is the development of viable urban communities by providing decent
housing and a suitable living environment and expanding economic opportunities, principally for
persons of low and moderate income. CDBG funds can only be used incompliance with the national
objectives of the program. Participating communities must certify that the projected uses of funds have
been developed as to give maximum feasible priority to activities that will carry out one of the national
objectives of: benefiting low and moderate income families, aiding in the prevention of slum and blight
and addressing urgent needs. The CDBG program requires that 70% of all funds are used to benefit low
and moderate income individuals. The City of Cape Coral exceeds this threshold; 100% of the City’s
grant funds are used to benefit low and moderate income persons. The following graph shows the City’s
historical CDBG allocation.
City of Cape Coral
Historical CDBG Allocation
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00
$600,000.00
$400,000.00
$200,000.00
$1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
The City’s goals and objectives for the CDBG program are contained within the 2015-2019 Consolidated
Plan. This five-year plan identifies the community’s affordable housing, community development and
economic development needs and outlines a comprehensive and coordinated strategy for addressing
11
them. Using CDBG funds and by leveraging other public and private investment, the City of Cape Coral
will:
 Increase Access to Affordable Housing;
 Increase Access to Public Services;
 Increase Economic Opportunity;
 Decrease Homelessness; and
 Improvements to Public Facility and Infrastructure.
The identification of these strategic priorities is a product of extensive consultation with community
stakeholders combined with data from the U.S. Census and other sources that indicates specific housing
and community development needs in the City of Cape Coral.
City’s Role in Affordable Housing
The 1985 Growth Management Act, requires every local government in the state adopt a housing
element that addresses adequate and affordable housing for all of its current and anticipated
populations. Local governments must ensure that adequate sites are available for affordable housing
including housing for those with special needs and the most vulnerable populations. The City’s role for
furthering affordable housing has historically been as a facilitator for implementing the City’s Local
Housing Assistance Plan’s strategies, the Community Development Block Grant program’s Action Plan,
and the goals and objectives contained in the Housing Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The
housing providers are 501 (c) 3 not-for-profit agencies, who have formed public/private partnerships
with the City to allow for the construction and rehabilitation of affordable housing units. The private
sector has contributed limited amounts of affordable housing including, but not limited to, senior rental
housing, multi-family and single family residential units.
12
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF PROVIDING AFFORDABLE WORKFORCE HOUSING
PUBLIC PROGRAMS
There are a number of methods and programs for facilitating the production of affordable workforce
housing at the public level. It is important to note that the programs discussed throughout this paper are
merely a select few, of many available, that staff feels could be used in the City of Cape Coral. These
programs can be utilized individually or together to facilitate the production of affordable workforce
housing by the private sector. A description, examples, and the advantages and disadvantages are
discussed for each program.
Inclusionary Zoning
Inclusionary zoning is a local zoning ordinance or land use policy that either requires or encourages
housing developers to include a specified percentage (usually 10 to 20 percent) of low and/or moderate
income housing in new residential developments.
The ordinance must include a clear definition of the “affordable” units whose inclusion in a development
will meet ordinance requirements. The ordinance should specify the household income levels for which
units must be affordable. Typically, inclusionary housing programs target families at the very low (50
percent of the area median income) and low (80 percent of the area median) income levels; some
programs also include units for families with moderate incomes (120 percent of the area median).
In order to make the inclusionary zoning work, many communities, provide a "density bonus" to
developers; that is, within local planning constraints, a builder is granted the ability to build, in most
cases, 15 to 25 percent more units in the subdivision than otherwise would be allowed.
The ordinance also should specify the minimum size of developments that will be subject to mandates.
It is reasonable to exclude very small developments from the ordinance. However, if the inclusionary
housing program is mandatory, the minimum development size should be relatively low so that the
program does not simply encourage the building of slightly smaller developments. For example, setting
the minimum development size at 75 units could result in a spate of 74-unit developments that do not
include affordable units.
Example:
The City of Tallahassee, FL introduced Inclusionary Housing Ordinance in 2006 with the following main
features:

Applies to new developments in specified locations within the City of Tallahassee

Mandatory compliance

At least 10% of the housing units in the development must be priced at no higher than $159,378
and sold to eligible households or 15% of the housing units must be rented at affordable rates
and rented to eligible households.

A variety of development incentives, including a 25% density bonus, design flexibility, and
transportation concurrency exemption are available in exchange for providing the inclusionary
housing.
13

The requirements apply to all developments of 50 or more housing units in applicable areas. In
addition to providing inclusionary housing within their development, additional methods of
compliance will be available, including payment of a fee in-lieu into the City’s inclusionary
housing trust fund, and providing inclusionary housing at “off-site” locations.

Development incentives are available only when inclusionary housing is provided on site, within
the “primary development.”
The City of Cape Coral Planning staff recently contacted the City of Tallahassee to inquire about the
implementation, challenges, and progress in creating affordable housing units via inclusionary zoning
method. Tallahassee staff provided the following information:
Tallahassee housing staff recognizes that the past downturn in Florida’s housing market has hampered
the City’s ability to generate affordable housing using this method. In the period from 2006 to present,
only two developments over fifty housing units took place in Tallahassee. As a result, in the past nine
years, only ten affordable housing units were created using inclusionary zoning tool in this community.
The Inclusionary Housing Ordinance is still in place and the City anticipates more affordable units will be
created once construction picks up the pace. Tallahassee staff plans to revisit this ordinance to revaluate
the requirement of what is considered to be the value of an affordable housing unit. Currently, the
Ordinance states $159,378 is the value of one affordable housing unit, however, Tallahassee staff would
like to revise this number so it better reflects current market conditions in their City.
In 2007, The City of Tallahassee Inclusionary Housing Ordinance was challenged by the Florida Home
Builders Association as an unlawful taking, a violation of substantive due process, and an unlawful tax.
The Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit granted summary judgment in favor of Tallahassee on all
three counts. The trial court found the inclusionary housing ordinance to be a land use regulation under
the City’s police power and not taking of any type.
Advantages:
 Tried and true in various parts of the country. As long as compensation is provided to the
developer (as in a density bonus that would allow more intensive development to enable the
developer to recapture what the locality has required him/her to produce below what the
market would sustain), “takings” challenges in the courts (Fifth Amendment prohibition of
taking property without just compensation) can be avoided.
 Affordable units can be blended into market-rate developments, to minimize impact on marketrate re-sales and to avoid concentrations of lower-priced units.
 Inclusionary zoning programs do not generally require the expenditure of local tax dollars to
fund the construction of affordable housing units
 Inclusionary programs avoid the problems of over concentration, isolation, and stigmatization of
affordable housing units, by integrating them into housing developments located throughout
the community.
Disadvantages:
 Additional staff required and extra administrative costs.
14
Density Incentives and Other Incentive Zoning Techniques
This type of ordinance allows increased density, reduction in lot size, and other incentives as quid pro
quo for the provision of low and moderate income housing. A density bonus allows a developer to build
more units within a project than would otherwise be permitted under normal density limits.
In some jurisdictions around the country, incentive programs allow for a variation of paying an “in-lieu”
fee, rather than actually constructing the affordable units within the project. This option is allowed, and
sometimes encouraged, in order to provide the developer with the option of paying money rather than
impacting the perceived marketability of the project by including mixed household incomes within it.
The “in-lieu” fee is often set at a level necessary to serve as equity in an off-site affordable project on a
per unit basis, not the entire development cost of that unit. This approach is followed because
affordable housing developers can utilize the equity amount to leverage debt on the units, thereby
minimizing the payments collected from the market rate developer, and maximizing the number of
affordable units built elsewhere. Incentive based zoning programs do not always have to rely on
additional density as the incentive. Other types of incentives include design flexibility, expedited
permitting, and/or reduced bulk requirements.
Key to a density incentive based program is a strong residential real estate market, where a developer
desires to obtain additional market rate unit entitlements and is confident that each additional unit will
be marketable and contribute the expected profit to the project. In many strong residential markets,
land costs also tend to rise – the option of providing affordable units in exchange for additional market
rate units at zero additional land cost can therefore be especially attractive in these cases.
Currently, The City of Cape Coral has a density incentive program for two zoning districts. In the South
Cape and Marketplace Residential zoning districts developers are eligible for increased density by
utilizing choices from a number of categories, including affordable housing. Developers are allowed to
provide the units on site, provide the units off site, or pay an in lieu fee to an affordable housing trust
fund. To date, this has been utilized for one project located in the South Cape.
Example:
Tallahassee, FL: The City of Tallahassee utilized a variety of incentives in their affordable housing
programs prior to the adoption of their inclusionary zoning ordinance. These incentives included the
following:


Additional Development Density. Any development providing inclusionary housing pursuant to
this section is entitled to a 25% increase in allowable density above that otherwise established
by the zoning district in which the development is located.
Design Flexibility. The developer of inclusionary housing developments shall be eligible to obtain
greater flexibility in development design through application of the following:
Choice of Housing Type. Inclusionary housing units may be provided as single family,
duplex, townhouse units, or cluster development within the RP-1, RP-2, and RP-MH
zoning districts. In all other zoning districts, inclusionary housing units may be provided
as single family, duplex, triplex, or townhouse units or as units intended for owner
occupancy in a condominium, or multifamily residential structure, provided that the
height, setbacks, massing and exterior appearance of the inclusionary units is
consistent with other residential units within the development in which they are
15
located.
Alleviation of Setback and Lot Size Requirements Internal to the Development.
Housing units (both inclusionary and "non-inclusionary") shall not be subject to yard
setback requirements, except for yards adjacent to the exterior boundary of the
primary development. Housing units (both inclusionary and "non-inclusionary") shall
not be subject to minimum lot size requirements, except where lots are located
adjacent to property outside of the primary development.
Alleviation of Buffering and Screening Requirements Internal to the Development.
Inclusionary housing units shall not be subject to buffering and screening requirements
for purpose of mitigating incompatibility within the primary development. Where
adjacent to property outside of the primary development, inclusionary housing units
shall be subject to those buffering and screening requirements as set out in this Code
as may be applicable.

Expedited Review. The developer of an inclusionary housing development shall be eligible for
expedited development review. The Growth Management Department shall expedite the review
of the application to the fullest extent permitted by law and shall notify other reviewing
departments/agencies that the application is required to receive expedited review. Expedited
applications are to be reviewed prior to other applications filed on the same date or in the same
application period, except for other applications including inclusionary housing or workforce
housing. This provision shall apply to site and development plan applications, subdivision
applications, environmental permits, as well to building permits for individual inclusionary units.

Modified Criteria for Deviations to Development Standards for Developments Incorporating
Inclusionary Housing. Deviation(s) to development standards not already addressed by the
Design Flexibility incentive, above, may be obtained through demonstration of compliance with
the following criteria:
1. The request for deviation shall specify the standard(s) to be deviated, the extent of
deviation, and where the deviation will apply (requests for deviations to setbacks should
be expressed in terms of linear feet and, requests for deviations to lot sizes should be
expressed in square footage; requests may provided on a graphic plan);
2. The deviation shall not result in an increase in gross residential density for the
development in excess of the density bonus provided by this section;
3. The deviation shall not result in conditions detrimental to the public's health, safety, or
welfare; and,
4. The granting of this deviation shall be consistent with the intent and purpose of this
section and the Tallahassee-Leon County Comprehensive Plan.
There is no fee for deviations requested in conjunction with the development of the
inclusionary housing.
16

Transportation Concurrency Exemption. Any inclusionary units provided, less than or equal to
10% of the total number of units in the development, and any provided through use of the
density bonus, shall be exempt from Transportation concurrency requirements.

Additional incentives. Additional incentives inclusionary housing may be requested. The City
Commission may grant additional incentives through approval of a development agreement
pursuant to Section 163.3220, Florida Statutes ("163 Development Agreement") or Planned Unit
Development Concept Plan.
Advantages:
 Ordinances based on developer incentives, such as density bonus programs, offer a positive
alternative to mandatory programs that may be resisted by local developers. Voluntary
programs allow developers to determine for themselves whether participation will be cost
effective.
Disadvantages:
 Additional staff required and extra administrative costs
Linkage Fees
Commercial linkage strategies tie new economic development to the construction and maintenance of
affordable housing or other community needs. Most linkage programs do this by requiring developers of
new commercial properties to pay fees (usually assessed per square foot of development) to support
affordable housing. Some programs give developers the option to actually construct the affordable
units. In exchange for compliance, developers receive their building permits. Established by legislation
or ordinance, linkage strategies are an important vehicle for ensuring that community benefit is derived
from commercial development.
Revenues collected under these programs are typically deposited into a trust fund or count dedicated
for funding moderate-, low- and very low- income housing. Most programs include broad purpose
statements when describing how the funds will be spent. This provides flexibility to address needs as
they change over time. Typically, local agencies design the fund to assure total flexibility on a variety of
important factors, such as the type of affordable housing (e.g. single family, multifamily), type of
ownership, income targeting, acquisition and preservation needs, services (e.g. financial assistance and
homeownership counseling) and potential partners (e.g. nonprofit developers, for profit developers,
service providers).
In metropolitan areas experiencing growth, commercial development (usually office or retail space)
often outpaces affordable housing production. This can create a jobs-housing imbalance, meaning there
are not enough places for workers to live in the vicinity of their jobs. A jobs-housing imbalance can drive
up prices in the local housing market, forcing some people out. Low-income people and communities of
color are often the most acutely affected. A jobs-housing imbalance also leads to long commutes and
traffic congestion as workers live farther from jobs, which affects the entire region. Linkage programs
seek to correct this imbalance by tying the construction and maintenance of the affordable housing
stock to commercial growth.
17
Example:
The City of Coconut Creek, FL adopted affordable housing linkage fee to be paid at the time of the
issuance of building permits for all non-residential development. The amount of the fee is hereby
established per the following table:
Type of Use
Linkage Fee
Industrial
Commercial
Office
Hotel
Limited service hotel
$0.37 per square foot
$1.36 per square foot
$0.15 per square foot
$2.42 per square foot
$0.70 per square foot
The affordable housing linkage fee shall be assessed for all new non-residential construction, nonresidential construction within a mixed-use project, building additions and on the renovation of existing
buildings and building space when the building permit value of the renovation or improvement exceeds
fifty (50) percent of the replacement cost of the building or building space at the time of the
construction.
As an alternative to payment of the housing linkage fee, a developer of non-residential project or mixeduse project may submit a request to produce affordable housing units, which request can be granted in
the form of a developer's agreement approved by the city commission.
The following buildings constructed within the city shall be exempt from the affordable housing linkage
fee:



Non-residential building construction that constitutes the exempt use of property for education,
religious, charitable or governmental use, as defined by F.S. ch. 196, or that is used for such
purposes by organizations which qualify for exemption from taxation under Section 501(c)(3) of
the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
Interpretations or doubts as to the applicability of these exemptions shall be decided by the
director of development services. Affected parties may appeal any such decision to the city
commission.
If a development is exempt from the fee at initial construction, but later converts to a new nonresidential development project, the converted square footage will be deemed net new nonresidential square footage and the housing impact fee paid shall be a condition of the building
permit certificate of occupancy
The City of Coconut Creek established affordable housing linkage fee trust fund. All linkage fees
collected shall be deposited within this fund, and shall be expended only for those purposes budgeted
and authorized by the city commission. The city commission shall use the funds deposited within the
affordable housing linkage fee trust fund for the following purposes:




Construction of affordable housing units.
Acquisition of land for affordable housing unit construction.
Assistance for first-time home buyers, following guidelines to be adopted and established by the
city commission by resolution.
Preservation of existing affordable housing supply.
18


Rental assistance and relocation assistance.
Reasonable administrative costs and expenses of the program.
The above list is not exhaustive, and the city commission by resolution may add or remove alternative
affordable housing programs.
Advantages:
 Linkage programs assure that major employment generators provide close-in living for the new
work force, thus relieving the housing crunch and workforce commuting otherwise created
 Linkage programs do not generally require the expenditure of local tax dollars to fund the
construction of affordable housing units
Disadvantages:
 Could “scare-off” potential employers who can build in the same market in a different
jurisdiction that has no linkage requirements.
Impact Fee Deferral Program
Eliminating, reducing, or deferring development fees is an incentive cities can offer to housing
developers to encourage them to build lower cost housing. Impact fee deferral can reduce the cost of
housing when the savings are passed on to the buyers or renters. In some states, cities can waive the
fees, in others, cities collect then reimburse after compliance is determined. In some cases, all fees
related to residential development are included (school and traffic impact fees, water and sewer fees,
park fees, building permit fees), in other cases only some fees are waived.
Example:
Hillsborough County, FL: Hillsborough County offers impact fee relief from Transportation, Parks, and
Fire impact fees for affordable single family homes and multi-family rental developments (multi-family
projects are subject to an annual cap).
This relief is available to owner occupied households or in the case of multi-family projects, units that
will be set-aside, whose total annual anticipated gross income does not exceed 80% of the Median
Annual Income adjusted for family size for households within the metropolitan statistical area. Up to
96% of the impact fees are paid for multi-family projects that include amenities such as on-site daycare.
A seven year restrictive covenant is placed on the property in order to preserve the affordable nature of
the property.
The Affordable Housing Impact Fee Relief Program has been funded for the fiscal year 2014/15 at
$250,000. The County uses these monies to pay impact fees for affordable housing projects.
Advantages:
 Depending on the design of the program, may require no budget allocation.
 Can make affordable housing projects more attractive to developers since waivers result in
fewer up-front, out-of-pocket costs by the developer, and reimbursements at least return the
up-front costs to result in net savings.
 Provides another “layer” of subsidy to projects already benefiting from federal grants or loans,
which in high-cost areas is often what is required to bring the cost of housing down to the level
needed for their moderate-income residents and workers.
19
Disadvantages:
 Subsidy may not be deep enough to achieve significant savings in new units.
 Difficult to track the passing of savings on to the housing consumer.
 Unless applied to units receiving another subsidy, may not guarantee that units are occupied by
moderate-income persons.
 Has no impact on the sales price of existing units, only new houses.
20
ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF PROVIDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING
PRIVATE AND/OR PUBLIC PROGRAMS
The following programs are strategies for providing affordable housing at the private level or through
public/private partnerships. These types of programs can be utilized individually or together to facilitate
the production of affordable housing by the private sector. A description, examples, and the advantages
and disadvantages are discussed for each program.
Community Land Trust
A community land trust (CLT) is a democratically controlled nonprofit organization that owns real estate
in order to provide benefits to its local community - and in particular to make land and housing available
to residents who cannot otherwise afford them.
Acquiring Land for the Community. Sometimes community land trusts acquire vacant land and arrange
for the development of housing or other structures on it. At other times, community land trusts acquire
land and buildings together. In both cases, community land trusts treat land and buildings differently.
The land is held permanently by the land trust so that it will always benefit the community. Buildings can
be owned by those who use them.
Homeownership on Community Land. Buildings on Community land trust land may serve different
needs, but, when possible, Community land trusts help people to own their own homes on this land.
When a community land trust sells homes, it leases the underlying land to the homeowners through a
long-term (usually 99-year) renewable lease, which gives the residents and their descendants the right
to use the land for as long as they wish to live there.
Still Affordable for the Next Homeowners. When community land trust homeowners decide to move out
of their homes, they can sell them. However, the land lease requires that the home be sold either back
to the community land trust or to another lower income household, and for an affordable price. The
lease lays out a "resale formula" that determines the maximum allowable price. There are several types,
but the majority of community land trusts use what are called "appraisal-based" formulas. These
formulas set the maximum price as the sum of what the seller paid for the home in the first place plus a
certain percentage of any increase in market value (as measured by appraisals). Variations on these and
other types of formulas are possible.
Community land trusts have been established by a variety of local groups, including neighborhood
associations, religious coalitions, community development corporations, local governments, and groups
of concerned citizens. It is common for community land trusts to work in cooperation with local
governments in meeting present and future community needs.
Although community land trusts are usually created “from scratch”, as newly formed, autonomous
corporations, some have been established as successors, affiliates, or programs of an older nonprofit.
Many community land trusts are initiated through the sponsorship of other organizations, or emerge
out of other organizations. Most community land trusts, regardless of how they were created,
cooperate with the efforts of other organizations in their community. Burlington, Vermont’s community
land trust, for instance, works closely with a network of organizations that address the area’s housing
and community development needs. In a number of communities it is common for community land
21
trusts to acquire housing (or the land beneath housing) that has been built or rehabilitated by other notfor-profit (or sometimes for-profit) organizations.
Most community land trusts have the following features:









Nonprofit, tax exempt corporation
Dual ownership
Leased Land
Perpetual Affordability
Perpetual Responsibility
Community Base
Resident Control
Tripartite Governance
Flexible Development
Example:
Monroe County, Florida: In response to a housing crisis in the Florida Keys, the Middle Keys Community
Land Trust (MKCLT) was formed. The MKCLT is a grass roots, community based private, non-profit
organization whose mission is to provide affordable housing homeownership and rental opportunities
for the workforce in Monroe County. The all-volunteer Board of Directors consists of broad cross
section of affordable housing advocates representing the City of Marathon, Department of Community
Affairs, local business, community activists, Monroe County and the Sheriff’s Department. The Trust
constructs homes, but retains ownership of the land. Thus, the Trust assures the availability of
affordable quality housing in perpetuity. The homebuyer purchases the home and receives a 99-year
renewable ground lease.
The resale price of the home is determined by an indexed formula, which limits the resale price of the
home, thereby keeping it affordable for future buyers. In exchange for the opportunity to own or rent a
home they might not otherwise be able to afford, applicants agree to pass the opportunity along to
others through the resale formula. The Land Trust model is a program to create shelter, not investment.
Since the land remains in the control of the Trust, only those qualifying under the affordable housing
income limits will be allowed to purchase the home at a controlled cost, therefore the land will be used
for affordable housing in perpetuity. By taking the cost of the land out of the equation, the homebuyer
can
purchase
the
home
at
a
lower
cost.
The homeowners or renters also must be members of the Land Trust and must make a commitment to
attend meetings and assist others to achieve the same opportunity for safe, decent shelter and stability.
This creates a strong sense of community and commitment to help others.
The Middle Keys Community Land Trust continues to proactively partner with the City of Marathon and
the Monroe County Land Authority to acquire parcels of land to construct new home or purchase
existing units to preserve affordability for the workforce of the Keys-wide community. As of today, the
MKCLT has 24 homeownership units and 14 rental units in its inventory.
22
Florida Housing Coalition : http://www.flhousing.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/2014-CLT-list.pdf
Advantages:
 Has the effect of assuring long term affordability.
 The fact that profits are regulated may encourage turnover, making sure beneficiaries “buy up”
when they can, freeing up land trust houses for those who truly need them.
Disadvantages:
 Permanent affordability deprives the homebuyers of the opportunity to fulfill one of the major
goals of homeownership: realizing the investment potential of owning real estate.
 The City has less control over a housing program administered by an independent trust.
Employer Assisted Housing
Housing as an employee benefit has received only sporadic attention by both employers and labor. In
the 1980s, however, a number of employers began to offer housing assistance as a part of their benefit
plan.
Housing assistance as an employee benefit has not been standardized like the more common health
insurance. Instead companies have customized their plans to meet their own cash/debt/risk
preferences, to meet the corporate objectives that fostered the plan, to meet the perceived housing
needs of the workers, and to meet the needs of the community. In general, companies sought to create
a plan that is cost-effective and has minimum risk while enhancing the image of the organization both to
the employees and the community. Employer assisted housing can be defined as the offering of one or
23
more housing benefits to non-management workers. There are a number of different examples of
housing benefits:

Group Mortgage Origination - Group mortgage origination plans are viewed as the starting point
on which to build a more broadly based employer-assisted housing program. Group mortgage
origination plans essentially are volume discount plans in which a mortgage lender agrees to
reduce interest rates, points, and/or application fees in return for the expectation of increased
mortgage lending activity.

Closing Cost Subsidy - Closing costs, as opposed to down payment, represent one of the most
difficult barriers to home ownership faced by lower-income families. Under the State Housing
Incentives Partnership (SHIP) program, closing-cost subsidy is regarded as a desirable action by
many local governments. In the case of employer assisted housing plans, closing-cost subsidies
can be layered on top of group mortgage origination plans. The closing costs that may be the
focus of an employer’s closing-cost subsidy program may include: points, title insurance, title
searches, or engineering studies.

Mortgage Guarantees - Employers that choose to offer a mortgage guarantee incur a financial
liability but have no direct cash outlay. The company’s balance sheet may show the guarantee as
a “contingent liability.” However, since the mortgage default rates are about 2 percent and since
there is evidence that the default and foreclosure rate for lower-income families is even lower;
the likelihood of the company having to face the liability is quite small. Another comforting fact
is that the value of a property usually is sufficient to satisfy the liability. If the mortgage
guarantee program is structured to be in effect only as long as the employee remains with the
company, the problems and costs associated with employee turnover are reduced. In terms of
the company’s “bottom line,” reduced turnover lowers costs for recruitment, training, and other
hiring costs.

Group Mortgage Insurance - Conventional private mortgage insurance costs from 50 to 100
basis points. It is this down payment cost that group mortgage insurance addresses. The
advantage to the employer is that the contingent liability incurred in a guarantee program is
transferred from the employer to the private mortgage insurance company. Employers can
provide this housing assistance in several ways including a grant, a loan, or a forgivable loan.

Down Payment Assistance - One form of down payment assistance is a third-party second
mortgage. In this arrangement the employer enters into an agreement with the lender to
provide payroll deductions for payment of the first or second mortgage. This agreement and
others encourage the lender to offer second mortgage loans at or near first mortgage rates. If
the second mortgage brings the loan-to-home-value ratio down to 80 percent, the first
mortgage becomes readily marketable by the lender without mortgage insurance. It is worth
noting that an employer organizing this form of down payment assistance may do so without
funding the down payment; the benefit may, in fact, be costless.

Purchase of Securities - Public or private mortgage bonds can be purchased by employers at
negotiated, below-market rates. Proceeds from the sale of these bonds can be loaned to
employees for first or second mortgage purposes. The rates applied to these loans would reflect
the below-market rate being paid by the bond. Although the return to the company may be
24
relatively low when compared to other investment opportunities, the rate considered in
combination with the savings gained by facilitating recruitment and reducing turnover may
make the return more acceptable. Since other employee benefit plans have a zero return, even
a low return is significantly better.
Employers of all shapes and sizes have started EAH programs. Private corporations offering EAH benefits
to their employees include Computer Associates, Tyson Foods, Honeywell, and Harley-Davidson. A
number of large urban employers-particularly universities and hospitals-have developed EAH programs
to both assist their employees and encourage reinvestment in their surrounding neighborhoods. For
instance, Howard University, University of Washington at St. Louis, Yale University, and Johns Hopkins
University provide EAH assistance to promote homeownership in targeted geographic areas. Health care
providers with EAH programs include nationwide HMOs such as Kaiser Permanente, as well as a number
of local hospitals and medical centers. Municipal and county governments in high-cost housing markets,
such as Los Angeles and Charlotte, North Carolina, are using EAH to close the housing affordability gap
for teachers, firefighters, and police.
Example:
Baltimore, MD. - The Baltimore City Employee Homeownership Program is designed to help the
employees of city agencies and quasi-city agencies become homeowners in the city. In order to be
eligible, the following criteria must be met: applicant must be employed and paid by the Mayor and City
Council of Baltimore City for minimum of six (6) months, property must be located in eligible, Baltimore
City neighborhood, and property must be owner-occupied as a primary residence and can be a single
family house, one- to two- dwelling unit, or condominium. The program provides qualifying employees
with a loan up to $5,000 with a 5-year term, reducing 20% for each year of occupancy. The applicant is
required to invest a minimum of $1,000 from personal funds. Mortgage loan may not exceed $417,000.
Live Near Your Work Program, Baltimore, MD
This partnership between participating employers and the City of Baltimore is designed to encourage
homeownership near place of employment. The City of Baltimore matches participating employers’
contributions between $1,000 to $2,500. Over 80 employers are currently enrolled in the program. Of
special note is the Johns Hopkins Live Near Your Work Program, which now offers $36,000 and $27,000
in designated neighborhoods near the hospital and university.
Lease/Purchase Option
With this tool, houses are acquired or built and then leased to households unable to obtain a mortgage
for income or credit reasons. The assisted household is able during the lease period to accumulate down
payment funds, clear up bad credit, and receive homeownership and credit counseling. If the rent
payments are at a level equivalent to a mortgage, then the ability to manage a mortgage is
demonstrated to potential lenders. The Enterprise Foundation cites the following typical features:
eligibility criteria usually include steady employment history, 33% mortgage-debt-to-income ratio and
40% total debt-to-income ratio. Usually the step from renter to owner requires a grant or soft second
mortgage from a public agency.
Under this arrangement, a renter generally pays some form of upfront deposit or fee plus a rent
premium and, in return, obtains the option to purchase the property, generally for a price that is locked
in upfront. In some arrangements, the renter may assume an existing mortgage; in others, the renter
25
obtains a new mortgage at the time of purchase. During the option period, the owner may not offer the
property for sale to anyone else. Under this type of agreement, the owner is usually responsible for
maintenance during this lease period, but some contracts require renters to cover maintenance costs.
When the purchase option expires, the renter must either exercise or forfeit the purchase option. The
initial deposit and the rent premium are generally applied to the purchase price if the renter exercises
the option to purchase, and under some contracts, the renter forfeits both if the purchase does not take
place.
Example:
Cleveland, OH - The Cleveland Housing Network, or CHN, a community development corporation, or
CDC, operates the nation’s longest-running lease-purchase program. CHN uses Low-Income Housing Tax
Credits, or LIHTC, to attract equity investors who, in exchange for the 15-year tax credits, help CHN to
buy single-family rental properties. CHN then offers these homes for rent at an affordable price of about
$550 per month. At the end of the 15-year period, the value of the home is usually between $30,000
and $80,000. Renters who have successfully made it through the program are then able to purchase the
home below the market value, usually for less than $20,000. The organization is able to keep the home
purchase price low because the LIHTC credits allow it to buy the home without going into significant
debt. Moreover, the household, not the organization, keeps any home equity built during the time of
the agreement.
CHN also uses dollars designated for the city of Cleveland through the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development’s, or HUD’s, HOME program to offer lease-purchase participants an interest-free
second mortgage, which only needs to be repaid upon resale or refinancing. This model makes it
possible for a household to lock into a long-term affordable rental home while also creating an
affordable and sustainable homeownership opportunity. When the tenants convert to homeownership,
they often have significant equity in the home. The rate of foreclosure among program participants is
low. Out of 539 homes purchased through the program since 2010, only one homeowner has lost a
home to foreclosure, according to CHN. CHN reports that about 85 percent of participants are able to
convert to homeownership through its lease-purchase program.
Advantages:
 Allows prospective homebuyers to get on a “homeownership track” and save necessary down
payment funds while learning how to manage their finances as a homeowner.
 Provides the housing agency the ability to “grow” their homeownership clients through a lease
period that can require attendance at credit counseling seminars.
Disadvantages:
 Requires an entity with property management experience.
 A renting household that does not fulfill the purchase requirements must be evicted or have its
lease extended: neither a comforting prospect for public agencies.
Limited Equity Cooperative Housing
Limited-equity cooperative housing is a form of multi-family housing that offers residents both
affordability and management control. Limited-equity co-ops are common in a number of cities and are
particularly well-established in New York City and Washington, D.C., each of which has or has had citysponsored subsidy programs that support cooperative development. Limited-equity cooperatives are
26
identical, in almost all respects, to market rate cooperatives, with the fundamental difference that they
restrict resale prices to maintain affordability. Market rate co-ops allow partners to buy and sell shares
at whatever rate the market will bear. Limited equity co-ops set restrictions on the price at which shares
may be bought and sold. This emphasis on affordability makes limited equity cooperatives a form of
homeownership and resident control that is accessible to a broad range of incomes, although most
limited-equity cooperatives are limited to households with moderate or low incomes. Limited-equity
cooperatives are a form of cooperative ownership. Residents do not own the land or their individual
units; rather, residents acquire shares in the cooperative corporation that holds title to the building. In a
limited-equity cooperative, share prices are restricted to levels well below the typical down payment
required for the acquisition of a single-family dwelling.
While this resale price restriction means that the cooperatives are accessible to low- and moderateincome families, it also means that cooperative members cannot look to their homes as sources of
substantial equity or as opportunities for capital appreciation. If asset-accumulation is a primary goal,
limited-equity cooperatives may not be the optimum housing model; however, it should be noted that
almost all limited-equity cooperatives have both low initial purchase prices and low maintenance
payments, making them a prime vehicle for building conventional savings accounts.
A primary purpose of limited-equity cooperatives is the development of a permanent stock of affordable
housing. To accomplish this objective, all limited-equity cooperatives have resale restrictions. These
restrictions are usually incorporated into cooperatives’ by-laws and into individual occupancy
agreements. They may also be included in mortgage or regulatory documents connected to government
financing or subsidy sources. Most limited-equity cooperatives have income guidelines for prospective
members, restricting sale to low- and moderate- income households.
Example:
Mutual Housing California (MHC) (former Yolo Mutual Housing Association) Davis, California - is a
nonprofit California corporation that develops and provides affordable housing in Yolo County. MHC was
formed as a partnership of neighborhood residents, business representatives, housing advocates, and
local government dedicated to improving housing opportunities for lower income families. The Mutual
Housing founders’ major objective was to create a locally controlled nonprofit that would be a force for
revitalizing low-income communities by strengthening neighborhood assets–both the housing and the
neighborhood residents. By acquiring deteriorating multifamily structures, they envisioned that Mutual
Housing could leverage private and public capital to renovate properties and turn them around into
safe, affordable and well functioning residential communities.
MHC has an active membership, and each household living in the MHC community has the right of
membership. Members in good standing donate time each month to community service and community
building activities, such as community gardening, participating in after-school programs, being active in
the larger community, writing for the newsletter, serving on a resident council or committee, serving on
the MHC board of directors, and producing community events. Each MHC community has a resident
council which identifies common issues and concerns and develops strategies to meet those concerns.
MHC owns and operates 1,009 homes in 18 multifamily communities in Yolo County and Sacramento
area. The units in four communities (Twin Pines, Owendale, Tremont Green and Moore Village) are
obtained from the City of Davis through inclusionary zoning.
27
Advantages:





Control: cooperative members elect a board of directors that oversees management of the
property. The membership controls the project; individual members have almost complete
control over their individual units;
Shared risk: particularly for larger projects, cooperatives allow members to the risks, particularly
financial, of owning property. Nonprofit sponsors may also be prepared to share risk by
providing interim or bridge member maintenance payments, among other support;
Affordability: share purchase prices are usually significantly less than down payment costs for
single-family homes;
Training: nonprofit sponsors of cooperative housing can provide on-going training in a variety of
areas, including homeownership skills, credit counseling and economic literacy, both to equip
members with the tools to make them effective co-op members and to prepare them, if wanted,
for single-family homeownership. The incentive of a home with many of the privileges of fee
simple homeownership is a powerful draw: it brings individuals to training programs and keeps
them in class.
Security of tenure: as long as members abide by the rules of their occupancy agreements, they
have the right to remain in their co-op unit. Units can be transferred to family members at will.
Disadvantages:


Limited return on investment: members are not permitted to sell shares at market value. Resale
prices are restricted according to certain formulas;
Limited use rights: cooperative ownership is shared ownership: co-op occupancy agreements
can and usually do restrict use of the member’s designated unit in certain ways. For example,
co-op members are generally prohibited from subletting their units for more than a total of one
or two years.
28
APPENDIX A
FLORIDA COMMUNITY LOAN FUND
SOURCE:
PRIVATE FUNDING
Enacted:
1994
APPLICANTS:
COMMUNITY-BASED 501 (C) (3)
NONPROFITS
Cycle:
Open Cycle
Regulation:
None
Administrator:
Florida Community Loan Fund
FINANCE TYPE:
COMMERCIAL LOANS
Housing Type:
Rental, Homeownership,
Supportive Housing, MixedUse Projects
Primary Uses:
New Construction,
Rehabilitation, Acquisition
The Florida Community Loan Fund (Loan Fund), a statewide Community Development Financial
Institution, provides loan capital and technical assistance to qualifying organizations throughout Florida
that have insufficient access to funding from conventional lending sources. The Loan Fund seeks lowinterest loans and Equity capital contributions from socially-concerned institutions and individuals.
Contributions are then used to make below-market interest rate or flexibly-structured loans to eligible
nonprofits to support affordable housing, economic development and social services in urban and rural,
low-income communities.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING GUARANTEE PROGRAM
SOURCE:
SADOWSKI ACT FUNDS,
BOND ISSUE
APPLICANTS:
FOR-PROFIT, NONPROFIT, PUBLIC
AGENCIES
FINANCE TYPE:
“A” RATED LOAN & BOND
GUARANTEES
Enacted:
1992
Regulation:
Section 420.5092, FS
Rule Chapter 67-39, FAC
Cycle:
Year Round
Administrator:
Florida Housing Finance Corp.
through Qualified Lending
Institutions
Housing Type:
Rental, Homeownership
Primary Uses:
Guarantees for Purchase,
Construction, Rehabilitation,
Financing and Refinancing
The Florida Affordable Housing Guarantee Program (“Guarantee Program”) was created by the Florida
Legislature as part of the William E. Sadowski Affordable Housing Act of 1992 for the purpose of:
 Stimulating creative private-sector lending activities to increase the supply and lower the cost of
financing or refinancing eligible housing;
 Creating security mechanisms to allow lenders to sell affordable housing loans in the secondary
market; and
 Encouraging affordable housing lending activities that would not have taken place or that serve
persons who would not have been served but for the creation of this program.
HOUSING CREDITS (HC)
SOURCE:
1986 TAX REFORM ACT –
U.S. DEPT. OF THE
TREASURY
Enacted:
1986
Regulation:
Section 420.5099, FS
Rule Chapter 67-48, FAC
Section 42 Internal
Revenue Code
APPLICANTS:
NONPROFIT, FOR-PROFIT
FINANCE TYPE:
FEDERAL TAX CREDIT EQUITY
Cycle:
Annual Competitive
Administrator:
Florida Housing Finance Corp.
Housing Type:
Rental
Primary Uses:
New Construction,
Rehabilitation
The Housing Credit (HC) Program is governed by the U.S. Department of the Treasury and Florida’s
allocation is administered by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation. Under the HC Program,
successful applicants are provided with a dollar-for-dollar reduction in federal tax liability in exchange
for the development or rehabilitation of units to be occupied by very low- and low- income households.
Developers who cannot use the tax reduction may sell credits in exchange for equity to the
development.
MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS FOR RENTAL HOUSING (MRB)
SOURCE:
BOND ISSUES
Enacted:
1986
Regulation:
Section 420.508(2), FS
Rule Chapter 67-21, FAC
APPLICANTS:
NONPROFIT, FOR-PROFIT
DEVELOPERS
Cycle:
Year Round with Preference in
Limited Cycle
Administrator:
Florida Housing Finance Corp.
FINANCE TYPE:
BELOW MARKET RATE LOANS
Housing Type:
Rental
Primary Uses:
New Construction,
Rehabilitation, Acquisition
The Multifamily Bond Program utilizes funds generated from the sale of both taxable and tax – exempt
bonds to make below-market interest rate loans to nonprofit and for-profit developers of rental
housing. Developments that receive tax exempt financing also receive automatic four percent Housing
Credits directly from the federal government.
PRE-DEVELOPMENT LOAN PROGRAM (PLP)
SOURCE:
SADOWSKI ACT FUNDS
Enacted:
1992
Regulation:
Section 420.521-529 , FS
Rule Chapter 67-38, FAC
APPLICANTS:
NONPROFIT DEVELOPERS AND
PUBLIC ENTITIES
Cycle:
Year Round
Administrator:
Florida Housing Finance Corp.
FINANCE TYPE:
BELOW MARKET RATE LOANS
Housing Type:
Rental, Homeownership
Primary Uses:
Acquisition and PreDevelopment Activities
The Pre-Development Loan Program (PLP) provides below market interest rate financing and technical
advisory services to nonprofit organizations and public entities for preliminary development activities
necessary to obtain the requisite financing to construct homeownership or rental housing
developments.
SECTION 202 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR THE ELDERLY
SOURCE:
HOUSING ACT OF 1959,
210 OF THE HOUSING
AND COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT ACT OF
1974 – U.S. HUD
Enacted:
1974
Regulation:
24 CFR Part 891
APPLICANTS:
NONPROFIT SPONSORS
FINANCE TYPE:
LOANS AND RENT SUBSIDIES
Cycle:
Annual Competitive
Administrator:
HUD - Multifamily
Housing Type:
Rental
Primary Uses:
New Construction, Rental
Assistance, Rehabilitation,
Acquisition
HUD provides capital advance to fiancé the construction, rehabilitation or acquisition with or with our
rehabilitation of structures that will serve as supportive housing for very low-income elderly persons,
including the frail elderly, and provides rent subsidies for the projects to help make them affordable. It
provides very low-income elderly with options that allow them to live independently but in an
environment that provides support activities such as cleaning, cooking, transportation, etc. the program
is similar to Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities (Section 811).
SECTION 811: SUPPORTIVE HOUSING FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
SOURCE:
SECTION 811 OF THE
NATIONAL AFFORDABLE
HOUSING ACT OF 1990
Enacted:
1990
Regulation:
24 CFR Part 891
APPLICANTS:
NONPROFIT SPONSORS
FINANCE TYPE:
LOANS AND RENT SUBSIDIES
Cycle:
Annual Competitive
Administrator:
HUD - Multifamily
Housing Type:
Rental
Primary Uses:
New Construction, Rental
Assistance, Rehabilitation,
Acquisition
HUD provides funding to nonprofit organizations to develop rental housing with the availability of
supportive services for very low-income adults with disabilities, and provides rent subsidies for the
projects to help make them affordable. The program also provides project rental assistance, which
covers the difference between the HUD –approved operating costs of the project and tenants’
contribution toward rent. The program is similar to Supportive Housing for the Elderly (Section 202)
STATE APARTMENT INCENTIVE LOAN PROGRAM (SAIL)
SOURCE:
SADOWSKI ACT FUNDS
Enacted:
1988
Regulation:
Section 420.5087, F.S.
Rule Chapter 67-48 FAC
APPLICANTS:
FOR-PROFIT, NONPROFIT,
PUBLIC AGENCIES
Cycle:
Annual Competitive Cycle
Administrator:
Florida Housing Finance
Corporation
FINANCE TYPE:
GENERALLY SECOND OR
BRIDGE LOANS
Housing Type:
Rental
Primary Uses:
New Construction,
Substantial Rehabilitation
The State Apartment Incentive Loan (SAIL) Program provides low-interest rate mortgage loans to
developers who build or substantially rehabilitate rental developments, made affordable to very low (50
percent or less of area median) income households. The SAIL loan bridges the gap between a
development’s primary financing and total development costs.
APPENDIX B
City of Cape Coral - Subsidized Housing Units
DEVELOPMENT
STREET ADDRESS
CITY
STATE ZIP
TOTAL
TARGET
NAME
CODE
UNITS
POPULATION
CORAL VILLAGE
121 NE 10TH PL
CAPE
FL
33909 72
ELDERLY
CORAL
CORONADO PLACE 4642 CORONADO
CAPE
FL
33904 10
PERSONS
PKWY
CORAL
W/DISABILITIES
CROSSINGS AT
1150 HANCOCK
CAPE
FL
33903 168
FAMILY
CAPE CORAL
CREEK BLVD.
CORAL
SOUTH
LAUREL OAKS
4626 SKYLINE BLVD CAPE
FL
33914 12
PERSONS
CORAL
W/DISABILITIES
SANTA BARBARA
3618 SANTA
CAPE
FL
33914 12
PERSONS
VILLAGE
BARBARA BLVD
CORAL
W/DISABILITIES
COCONUT COVE I
1221 SE 8TH TER
CAPE
FL
33990 8
ELDERLY
CORAL
COCONUT COVE II
515 SE VAN LOON
CAPE
FL
33990 4
ELDERLY
TER
CORAL
Data Source: University of Florida Shimberg Center for Housing Data and City of Cape Coral Planning
Division
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
Southwest Florida
Community Housing Subcommittee
Housing Policies and Local Initiatives
Locally sponsored Recommendations to Increase the Supply of Workforce Housing
1.
Development of Regional Impact Mitigation - Affordable housing impacts created by
Developments of Regional Impact (DRI) developments in Southwest Florida may be mitigated by any one
of the follow three (3) options:
a. The first option would require the applicant to construct or have constructed an appropriate
number of affordable housing units on a site provided by the applicant within the DRI property
boundaries.
b. The second option would require the developer to provide for an off-site affordable housing tract
with the appropriate number of affordable housing units.
c. The third alternative would require the applicant to provide a financial contribution to the local
government for affordable housing. The amount of the contribution would be as negotiated
between the local government and the applicant.
2.
Density Bonus - Developers who commit to allotting a certain percentage of units at below
market rates may be allowed to reduce lot sizes or increase the number of houses on a lot, thereby
reducing land cost per unit. Density bonuses may be used in conjunction with an open space
development or planned unit development where the community desires to preserve open space and
have lower municipal costs (street, water, and sewer). Municipalities can also offer density bonuses in a
—trade“ with developers who agree to provide additional community benefits, such as nature trails,
conservation easements, additional public transportation stops, or public access to waterways.
3.
Infill Construction - Development or redevelopment that makes use of vacant or underutilized
land and buildings in downtown or suburban areas. Infill developments provide more affordable housing
opportunities for smaller households (i.e. singles, the elderly and empty nesters), discourage sprawl,
make use of existing infrastructure, encourage community revitalization, and make residents less autodependant.
4.
Inclusionary Zoning - In exchange for development approval, developers must include
affordable homes when they build a particular number of market-rate homes. Some communities allow
building the units off-site or a contribution to a housing fund in an equivalent amount of money.
5.
Lot Size and Home Size Reductions - Where the infrastructure (water and sewer) allows,
reducing the lot size is a solution to lessen the cost of building housing, with savings that can be passed
along to buyers. Relaxing of regulations regarding frontage or lot width requirements, allowable lot
coverage, side and rear setback, and the height of structures promote smaller, more affordable lots.
Additionally, the size of the structure may become more affordable as the cost of construction and
materials is reduced.
6.
Partnership of Government Owned Land – Identify government owned lands that could be used
to produce more community housing. The program can be linked with the recipient providing lower
cost, affordable housing. Local government with land or property received through tax liens can donate
them to affordable housing developers who will rehabilitate them into permanently affordable housing
(i.e. school districts).
7.
Housing Trust Fund - A trust fund earmarked for a community‘s housing needs can be made up
of developers’ contributions, repayments of CDBG loans, sale of municipal owned property, town and
city capital budget appropriations, inclusionary zoning payments made in lieu of providing on-site units,
and annual repayments of loans and leases made by the housing trust fund. The money in turn can be
used for building or rehab, subsidizing low and moderate-income families’ mortgages and helping
finance construction of new housing. Support a special tax approved by referendum for affordable
housing.
8.
Limiting Apartment-Condominium Conversion - Conversions to condominiums usually increases
the cost of housing and often displaces residents. An ordinance that requires a conversion fee and/or
requires a certain percentage of units remain in the rental market to prevent large reductions in a
community‘s available rental stock. Turnover of affordable units can be prevented through deed
restrictions.
9.
Linkage Fee - A local government requires the provision of affordable housing in return for a
permit to build certain types of development. The concept is that there is a link between the
construction of offices and/or industrial facilities and the need to accommodate workers. In some cases
the linkage may be in the form of a dollar payment based on a per square foot formula for non
residential and residential development.
10.
Impact Fee - A local government ordinance that requires the payment of a fee for homes above
an established market price that would be deposited in the community’s affordable housing trust fund.
11.
Encourage Non Traditional Housing Developers - Nonprofit organizations, communities and
neighborhood associations are increasingly involved in the rehabilitation and upgrading of older or
substandard housing for affordable housing. This private sector solution can be encouraged by reducing
regulatory requirements, streamlining the approval process and waiting permit fees. Municipalities can
inform these parties of federal and state subsidized housing and financial programs to serve their work.
12.
Streamlining of Permit/Review Process - When governments (state and local) can better
articulate the ground rules for development, strive to decrease the number of months for approvals,
and can consolidate permits, and then the costs of development can be decreased. Recommend
dedicated reviewers for affordable housing permits.
13.
Street Right-of-Way and Pavement Width Reduction - Purpose is to reduce development costs,
also including options such as reducing sidewalk requirement from two sides of the street to one and
reducing the thickness of pavement.
14.
Infrastructure Investment – Encourage expansion of water and sewer service areas and/or
allowing community water or septic systems in appropriate areas provides alternatives for developers
whose cost rise dramatically with the need for wells and private septic systems.
15.
Manufactured Housing Subdivision - With improved construction quality in recent decades,
manufactured housing provide viable option for people seeking affordable homeownership
opportunities. Towns can develop design standards for manufactured housing to ensure quality design
and siting.
16.
Village/Conservation Development - a land development technique which allows buildings to
be grouped more closely together, disturbing a smaller portion of the site than conventional
development to preserve open space. Grouping buildings can decrease the cost of infrastructure
construction, long-term maintenance costs, and hopefully reduce the per-unit cost.
17.
Planned Unit Development - A comprehensively planned land development project which
permits flexibility in the siting of buildings, allows a mixture of housing types and sometimes other land
uses, provides useable open space, and preserves significant natural features. Similar to open space
development, but also allows mixed-use development that, with sufficient density, can help create a —
community within a community“.
a. The first option would require the applicant to construct or have constructed an appropriate
number of affordable housing units on a site provided by the applicant within the DRI property
boundaries.
b. The second option would require the developer to provide for an off-site affordable housing tract
with the appropriate number of affordable housing units.
c. The third alternative would require the applicant to provide a financial contribution to the local
government for affordable housing. The amount of the contribution would be as negotiated
between the local government and the applicant.
18.
Mixed-Use Development - Through land use ordinances and regulations that allow mixed-use
development, higher densities are allowed and thereby permit more diverse residential opportunities.
Intensifying the use of a location, allowing second floor housing above retail space for example, often
will create a demand for and improve the efficiency of services such as public transit.
a. The first option would require the applicant to construct or have constructed an appropriate
number of affordable housing units on a site provided by the applicant within the DRI property
boundaries.
b. The second option would require the developer to provide for an off-site affordable housing tract
with the appropriate number of affordable housing units.
c. The third alternative would require the applicant to provide a financial contribution to the local
government for affordable housing. The amount of the contribution would be as negotiated
between the local government and the applicant.
19.
Home Ownership Resource Center (HORC) – A public/private partnership that provides “onestop” shopping for a broad array of housing information and services; the concept is that services are
available in one location. The information and applications for the myriad of mortgage and home
improvement programs are consolidated in one place. Residents can find educational assistance in
preventing mortgage foreclosures, credit ratings, refinancing, energy improvements, and learn the
necessary steps to become a homeowner.
20.
Employer-Assisted Housing – (EAH) The employer offers the employee benefit, often in the
form of a forgivable, deferred, or repayable second loan, a grant, a matched saving plan, or home-buyer
education that helps the employee achieve homeownership. The employee, who is the potential home
buyer, participates by applying for the benefit, meeting the criteria set by the employer to receive the
benefit, and fulfilling the necessary qualifications to become a home buyer. The lender provides the first
mortgage underwriting and origination, and manages the relationship with the employee. Although EAH
is used mostly to help an employee buy a home, the employer also can offer an EAH benefit to help the
employee with rental housing.
21. Owner-Occupied Housing Rehabilitation Program – Local government have come to learn that the
extent of the incentives provided should be the basis for regulations governing the preservation of
affordability. For example, indirect costs such as unit credits should require household income
restrictions at the initial sale; subsidized rental units should require income restrictions and a multi-year
maintenance agreement; impact fee credits or use of land trust assets should require payment in lieu.
22.
Low Income Housing Tax Credit – Funds raised can be used for acquisition and substantial
rehabilitation of rental units. The Tax credit attracts for-profit entities to the development of affordable
housing by reducing federal income taxes in exchange for investments in low-income rental housing. A
for-profit or non-profit developer partners with an investor to develop the property and often mange’s
it as well.
23.
Rate of Growth Ordinance - ROGO establishes a building permit allocation system for residential
construction that both encourages the infill of platted lots (building upon lots already serviced by
existing infrastructure (i.e. roads, water, sewage, and electrical)) and limits growth in a way that enables
a safe and timely evacuation of the community in the event of a hurricane.
By implementing ROGO, goals, objectives, and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan are
implemented, including managing the rate of growth in order to deter deterioration of public facility
service levels, environmental degradation and potential land use conflicts, and encouraging sound
development of residential and affordable housing.
24.
Comprehensive Plan Statements of Values - The community‘s visions and values on how it
wants to grow is described in its Master Plan. This is a policy document that supports and validates a
community‘s land use regulations and controls. When appropriate, a Master Plan should reference the
growth and design concepts that encourage varied housing opportunities such as Minimum Impact
Design, New Urbanism and Smart Growth. Development priorities would speak to the need to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Create Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices
Create Walkable Neighborhoods
Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration
Foster Distinctive, Attractive Places with a Strong Sense of Place
Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair and Cost Effective
Mix Land Uses
Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty and Critical
Environmental Areas
Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices
Strengthen and Direct Development towards Existing Communities
Take Advantage of Compact Building Design
25.
Regional or Multi-Jurisdictional Contribution Agreements – The interlocal agreement allows
local government jurisdictions to pay other jurisdictions to build up to half of their required affordable
housing units.
26.
Multi-Jurisdictional Consolidated Plan – A consortium of local governments agree to file a joint
or consolidated plan for community based projects funded by the HUD Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG), Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) and Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG)
programs.
27.
State Legislative Support – The State of Florida established the William E. Sadowski Affordable
Housing Trust Fund in 1992 using the documentary stamp to create affordable housing. Unfortunately,
the State Legislature has repeatedly diverted more than $350 million from this fund for non-housing
uses. Local government should support full funding of the affordable housing trust fund established
under the Sadowski Act.
28.
Federal Legislative Support – Local and State government need to demonstrate additional
leadership by demanding that the federal government fully fund the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.
Local and State government need to demonstrate additional leadership by demanding that the
federal government fully fund the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Rural Rental Housing
Program used to finance affordable rental housing in rural areas, including farmworkers housing.
29.
Local and State Support - Local initiatives should help nonprofit community development
corporations, such as the Southwest Florida Resource Conservation and Development Corporation,
transform distressed neighborhoods into healthy communities through loans, grants, equity
investments, technical and management assistance.