On Track? Linking Workforce Housing and Transit in the Triangle. Triangle Transit Triangle J Council of Governments

Transcription

1 On Track? Linking Workforce Housing and Transit in the Triangle Triangle Transit Triangle J Council of Governments October 2013

2 Table of Contents Introduction. 1 The Big Picture 2 A Two-Edged Sword. 2 The Triangle s Low- and Moderate-Income Workforce Examining Transit and Workforce Housing How Government Can Support Affordable Housing.. 13 A New Tool for the Triangle? Transit-Oriented Housing Fund Key Issues and Implications for the Triangle Additional Resources Acknowledgements Introduction This report poses the question: How do we stay on-track to most effectively link our affordable housing decisions with our transit investments? It explores the relationship between high quality transit investments and the provision of housing that is affordable to the types of workers who make our communities run: the firefighters, teachers, nurses, technicians and others who provide vital services in our economy. It is designed to help inform a variety of decision-makers who will determine where transit investments are made and how best to ensure that workforce housing is created and preserved near these investments, including local elected officials, developers and builders, non-profit housing and community development organizations, financial professionals, and leaders in anchor institutions such as universities and medical centers. The vast majority of housing from single family detached homes to townhouses to a range of multi-family housing in urban and suburban settings is successfully provided and managed through the private marketplace. This report focuses on a particular segment of the housing market: housing that can remain affordable to low- and moderateincome households where public investments in high-quality transit may increase land values, market rents and prices. The report doesn t point to a single solution a range of tools and techniques will need to be either started or strengthened to improve our efforts at creating and preserving workforce housing. Instead, it surveys the current landscape, highlights some approaches that have been successful elsewhere, and frames the discussion for greater progress in the Research Triangle Region. The report does focus extra attention on a transit-oriented affordable housing fund, since -- depending on the nature and structure of such a fund -- it can support a range of related tools and techniques. The report looks at examples of funds that have been successful in other regions, including key characteristics of the funds and some of the projects they have supported. 1

3 The Big Picture Easy access to transit helps connect Triangle employers to the high-quality workforce on which business depends. Better access also increases the number of riders on transit systems, helping transit agencies develop and operate more cost-effectively. In this way, increasing the number of workers who live near and regularly use transit benefits both economic development and the cost-effectiveness of public services. Recognizing this mutually supportive relationship, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) recently changed the rules it uses to decide which new transit projects to fund. These changes to FTA s New Starts and Small Starts funding programs are designed to guide new transit funds to metro areas that support workforce and affordable housing options along high quality transit lines. State legislation has similarly recognized the importance of the housing-transit link. Triangle Transit and the region s communities are working together to plan a network of high-quality bus, light rail and commuter rail services to connect communities within Wake, Durham and Orange Counties 1. With affordable housing options along transit lines, the Triangle s workers will be able to choose the commute option that best fits their budgets. Furthermore, the more that people who depend on transit to get to jobs, schools, and everyday needs live near transit stations, the better they will be able to access these necessary services, and the more riders the system will carry, improving the Triangle s chances to secure the federal funds included in our transportation plans. The housing-transit relationship is a pocketbook issue: average transportation costs for households living near transit are 10% lower than for those that live farther away and more households are seeking to lower their transportation costs by living closer to jobs or transit. 2 Most low-income households spend about 55-60% of their income for housing and transportation combined; accepted affordability benchmarks suggest this cost should be less than 45% 3. Finally, Triangle employers may increasingly rely on the region s public transit infrastructure to get their employees to work each day; more than 30,000 households in the Triangle metro region have no car available. 4 An increase in public transit options in the region may help attract and retain companies seeking more travel choices for their employees. The Triangle s marketplace for low- and moderate-income housing is extensive, with a healthy mix of private, non-profit and public sector actors. Where public transit investments may significantly influence housing market values, it will take creativity and cooperation to ensure that all the region s citizens can benefit from these investments. A Two-Edged Sword The development of new transit services, especially light rail, increases the value of land near stations 5. This is due to improved access to jobs, healthcare, and other necessities 6 that transit provides. While this increase in land value benefits cities, towns and counties along the transit corridors, it makes it harder for low- and moderateincome families to afford existing and new homes in or near these station areas, further exacerbating the challenge of living in urban areas for lower income members of the workforce. Since low- and moderate-income families tend to be more dependent on -- and heavier users of -- transit service, failure to make room for these families in station areas can hurt ridership, making transit service less cost-effective than it could be. 2

4 The Triangle s Low- and Moderate-Income Workforce People from low- and moderate-income families in the Triangle form the backbone of many essential professions. Teachers, childcare workers, firefighters, librarians, and nurses in the Triangle often fall within the low- to moderateincome brackets when measured by a common income metric: Area Median Income (AMI) 7. * Area Median Income (AMI) *As calculated by HUD. Presumes that workers are the sole earners supporting 4-person households The AMI is simply a dollar amount for which half of all 4-person households in an area earn more, and half the households earn less. It is calculated at the household level (so not for any individual person or job), and adjusted by HUD for cost of living. AMI is calculated for all counties grouped together within their metropolitan statistical area (MSA). The Triangle metro region is made up of 2 MSAs: the Raleigh-Cary MSA (Wake, Franklin and Johnston counties) and the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA (Durham, Orange, Chatham and Person counties). Comparing a worker s wages against the local AMI creates a standardized measure of income, and that s one reason that measures of residential affordability are often based on a worker s %AMI. The FTA New Starts guidance sets the thresholds for residential affordability differently for renters (60% AMI) than for homeowners (<100% AMI) 8. This new policy aims to reduce unintended consequences of transit investments on existing low- and moderate-income families living near transit stations. It also seeks to take advantage of the increase in potential ridership associated with the preservation and creation of workforce and affordable housing within station FTA is seeking legally binding affordability restricted units to renters areas. Since it combines two issues that with incomes below 60 percent of the area median income and/or are often addressed separately -- the owners with incomes below the area median that are within ½ mile of provision of transit and the provision of station areas and in the counties through which the project travels. affordable housing -- greater collaboration can help increase transit ridership FTA, NEW AND SMALL STARTS EVALUATION AND RATING PROCESS, FINAL POLICY GUIDANCE and affordable housing simultaneously. Table 1: Annual income associated with different percentages of the AMI AMI 30% 60% 80% 120% Durham-Chapel Hill MSA (Durham, Orange, Chatham, Person) $67,700 $20,310 $40,620 $54,160 $81,240 Raleigh-Cary MSA (Wake, Johnston, Franklin) $75,300 $22,590 $45,180 $60,240 $90,360 Table 2: Percent of households by county that earn less-than the income shown Total households <$10,000 <$14,999 <$24,999 <$34,999 <$49,999 <$74,999 <$99,999 Durham County 113,769 8% 13% 25% 35% 49% 67% 78% Orange County 52,139 10% 16% 24% 36% 49% 62% 70% Wake County 357,684 4% 8% 16% 26% 38% 57% 70% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates (in 2012 inflation adjusted dollars) 3

5 Programs that support affordable housing such as the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) also set thresholds using %AMI; these thresholds differ among programs and can also vary within programs as shown below. AMI Thresholds of Affordable Housing Programs: Renters vs. Owners 100% 90% % of Area Median Income 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% Renter Owner 10% 0% FTA New Starts LIHTC (20% of units) LIHTC (40% of units) HUD Section 8 (75% of vouchers) HUD Section 8 (up to 25%of vouchers) HUD Public Housing (very low income) HUD Public Housing (lower income) Examining Transit and Workforce Housing Understanding the nature of the development and demographics we have today is a good starting point for steps to create and preserve workforce housing near transit. This includes knowing: 1. The status of land along planned transit investments: what is already developed, what has been preserved for green space, what is currently vacant, and what might be only partially developed or redevelopable; 2. The current inventory of legally-binding affordable housing in our region and its relationship to transit; and 3. The income and socioeconomic profile of households living in transit-served neighborhoods today. Land status helps us understand where there might be opportunities for additional workforce housing; a key subset of this information is land already owned by the public or by other willing partners. By early 2014, a new inventory of the status of every parcel of land in the region will be completed as part of on-going transportation planning efforts. The affordable housing inventory helps us see where past actions have created or preserved affordable housing, and how it aligns with planned transit investments. As land values near transit stations rise, rents and prices of market-rate affordable housing may increase, and so may not remain affordable to low- and moderate-income people over time. The socioeconomic profile helps us understand where existing low- and moderate income households live, and can provide an early warning for places where a failure to preserve affordability could lead to displacement. The maps on the following pages show some of this information for two transit projects included in our region s 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan: light-rail investments spanning Durham and Orange Counties and linking Cary and Raleigh in Wake County. Note that the data can be shown in many ways; the maps illustrate the types of information that can be displayed. 4

6 Durham-Orange Light Rail Transit and Affordable Housing Support Affordable Housing 2-10 Homes Homes > 50 Homes 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Station (by 2030) Station (by 2040) Half-Mile Buffer Route Routes to be Studied Further Parks & Open Space This map shows affordable housing opportunities in relation to the Durham-Orange Light Rail Line that is part of the region s 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The dots represent affordable housing that has been created or preserved with support from a local, state, federal or non-profit program, or where landlords accept Section 8 housing vouchers. The degree to which the housing might remain affordable to low- and moderate-income households over the long term varies by the type of program ": 86 ORANGE DURHAM Carrboro Chapel Hill ": 54

7 85 ": 98 Durham 70 ": 751 ": 55 ": ": 54 NO Triangle J Council of Governments Geographic Information Systems October 2013 Miles Caution: data come from a variety of sources and have been mapped directly from those sources; no field verification has been conducted. Only locations with 2 or more units are shown. Sources may not include all affordable housing programs. Contact Triangle J COG for details about the data.

8 Raleigh-Cary Light Rail Transit and Affordable Housing Support risville Affordable Housing 2-10 Homes Homes > 50 Homes 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Station (by 2030) This map shows affordable housing opportunities in relation to the Raleigh-Cary Light Rail Line that is part of the region s 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The dots represent affordable housing that has been created or preserved with support from a local, state, federal or non-profit program, or where landlords accept Section 8 housing vouchers. The degree to which the housing might remain affordable to low- and moderate-income households over the long term varies by the type of program. Half-Mile Buffer Route Parks & Open Space NO Triangle J Council of Governments Geographic Information Systems October 2013 Miles Cary 1 64 Caution: data come from a variety of sources and have been mapped directly from those sources; no field verification has been conducted. Only locations with 2 or more units are shown. Sources may not include all affordable housing programs. Contact Triangle J COG for details about the data.

9 Raleigh

10 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Light Rail Transit Station by (2030) Station by (2040) Half-Mile Buffer Route Routes to be Studied Further Household Income & Cost of Housing* Median Amount Spent on Housing is More Than 30% of Income Median Household Income Under $35,000 Median Household Income Under $35,000 & Median Amount Spent on Housing is More Than 30% of Income Parks & Open Space This map shows areas in relation to the Durham- Orange Light Rail Line that is part of the region s 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan where: 1) median household income is below $35,000 (roughly 50% of the Area Median Income), 2) areas where the median amount spent on housing is >30% of income, or 3) areas where both conditions apply. These areas include households that might be most dependent on transit service and -- where they are within station areas -- most susceptible to displacement if land values rise and steps are not taken to create and preserve affordable housing. Universities & RTP * Source Data - ACS 5-year 2011 Blockgroups UNC ": 86 Chapel Hill ORANGE DURHAM Carrboro ": 54 UNC

11 85 Duke ": 98 Durham NCCU 70 ": 55 ": 147 ": 751 Research Triangle Park ": 54 O Miles Note: Similar mapping could be prepared for any current or proposed bus or rail transit investments and for a variety of different income ranges and housing cost burdens.

12 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Light Rail Transit Station by (2030) Half-Mile Buffer Route Household Income & Cost of Housing* Median Amount Spent on Housing is More Than 30% of Income Median Household Income Under $35,000 Median Household Income Under $35,000 & Median Amount Spent on Housing is More Than 30% of Income Parks & Open Space NC State University * Source Data - ACS 5-year 2011 Blockgroups This map shows areas in relation to the Raleigh- Cary Light Rail Line that is part of the region s 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan where: 1) median household income is below $35,000 (roughly 50% of the Area Median Income), 2) areas where the median amount spent on housing is >30% of income, or 3) areas where both conditions apply. These areas include households that might be most dependent on transit service and -- where they are within station areas -- most susceptible to displacement if land values rise and steps are not taken to create and preserve affordable housing. 40 Cary O Miles Note: Similar mapping could be prepared for any current or proposed bus or rail transit investments and for a variety of different income ranges and housing cost burdens.

13 Raleigh 64 NCSU 70

14 How Government Can Support Affordable Housing Local and state governments have a range of financial and regulatory tools they can use to encourage the preservation and creation of workforce housing. The following tools were assessed through a 2012 survey of 26 housing and transit professionals in the region 9. All of these tools were judged to be able to result in lower costs for developers, with the exception of inclusionary zoning which was judged cost-neutral at best, depending on program details. Views about the value of each tool vary, and success can hinge on a number of local factors, but each could have a place in the toolbox. Policy Tool (Rank ordered by overall survey score from the 26 respondents) -- for details on methods and important caveats, see endnote #9 -- Effectiveness Public Acceptance Ease to Implement Resilience to Market Fluctuation Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC): Developers apply to the NC Housing Finance Agency for these tax credits, which enable them to claim either 4 or 9 percent of the project costs on their taxes for up to 10 years. Applicants must be a LLC or limited partnership to receive credits. NC Housing Trust Fund: Supplies a portion of financing to eligible affordable rental and home ownership construction/preservation projects. Since 1998 it has contributed $188.5 million to affordable housing projects in NC, though funds have been reduced over recent years. It is administered by the NC Housing Finance Agency. Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME) & Community Development Block Grant (CDBG): Two federal HUD grant programs that provide matching funds to projects serving low and moderate income families including: construction and rehabilitation projects, rental assistance, and real estate acquisition. In 2010 HOME (and state matching funds it leveraged) financed $21 million of affordable housing projects in NC. Neighborhood Stabilization Program (NSP): A federal HUD grant program started in 2008 specifically geared towards foreclosed and abandoned properties for revitalization purposes. Funds have been declining since its inception in Expedited Review and Permitting: A process where developers of affordable housing projects can move through the development review more quickly and with greater certainty, saving developers time and money Impact Fee Rebate/Waiver/Reduction: Rebating, waiving or reducing the fees assessed for projects that include affordable housing. There are restrictions on the ability to waive fees in NC. Density Bonus: Permits developers to build more than the otherwise allowable number of units in exchange for providing a specified amount of affordable units. The income from the extra market-rate units could offset the cost of the affordable units, but this depends on local factors and the market. Local/Regional Housing Trust Fund: A fund that can be used to finance rental or owned affordable housing. Initial capital may come from bonds, payments-in-lieu, foundations or from taxes. If managed as a revolving loan fund scores improve on Public Acceptance and Market Resilience (shown in light blue) and ranking jumps to 5th. Tax Increment Financing (TIF): Bonds are issued to create affordable housing in an approved TIF district, with the expectation that the new development will increase property values and taxes. The increment from the increased taxes will be used to repay the bonds. Due to some inherent risks, NC has put safeguards in place that require time and money. Land Banking: A process in which land is purchased and held for future use. This can be used to convert abandoned, vacant or tax-delinquent properties into affordable housing. Governments may have the ability to waive taxes and clear prior ownership while the land is in their possession, thus making it easier for developers to purchase it. Inclusionary zoning: A mandatory, conditional or voluntary ordinance which requires that a portion of new housing be affordable to low and moderate income households. This tool costs developers money unless it is paired with significant incentives such as density bonuses and fee rebates/reductions. 13

15 Three key barriers to the creation and preservation of affordable housing in the Triangle are: 1) the ability to acquire land for affordable housing, 2) enabling existing families who live near transit to stay where they are in the face of rising rents and land values, and 3) the costs associated with developing and marketing affordable units as part of mixed income projects 10. The ongoing Atlanta Beltline project provides several key lessons around the linkages between transit and affordable housing. Speaking at a symposium convened by the City of Durham and HUD in 2013, representatives from the project noted that most of the funds for the project would come from tax increment financing, with 15% of those funds set aside for the creation of affordable housing. One of the challenges that these funds will help ameliorate is the cost to acquire land on which to build new affordable housing. The Atlanta Beltline project plans to create various types of affordable housing including single family homes and large multi-family developments supported by commercial space, and to make that housing permanently affordable in partnership with a community land trust. The panelists pointed out that developers, community land trusts, and affordable housing finance organizations work together best when there is a clear framework of local affordable housing policies and incentives. Researchers from UNC-Chapel Hill developed a list of 10 factors that signal the potential for low- and moderate-income household displacement near transit 11. Their report looked closely at four station areas along the Durham-Orange line, finding that between one-half and two-thirds of households near the stations had incomes below $25,000. Households so close to the federal poverty line will likely need assistance to remain in place as land values increase around transit. Increasing the affordability of new and existing workforce housing can be expensive. According to ULI-Triangle s 2012 Technical Assistance Panel Report on Inclusionary Zoning in the City of Raleigh, for every $100 that a developer takes out of his monthly rent roll, [the developer] needs to offset this loss with about $17,500 of savings or subsidy. A New Tool for the Triangle? Transit-Oriented Housing Fund Many of the highest-rated tools on the preceding page are existing state and federal programs that play key roles in creating and preserving affordable housing. One tool that is not in place but that has paid dividends in other regions is a transit-oriented affordable housing trust fund. A fund to help purchase land and existing affordable developments, and/or close the cost gap for building new affordable housing near transit could address many current barriers. In other regions, the establishment of a fund has resulted in creative partnerships that combine participation from government, foundations, banks and anchor institutions. Several regions have pursued transit-oriented housing funds, including Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Washington DC and San Francisco. Two affordable housing fund examples can help illustrate different elements to consider in setting up a fund. The Denver Transit-Oriented Development Fund and the Bay Area Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH) Fund in San Francisco Area are both successful ventures. While Denver is often used in peer comparisons to the Triangle, the Bay Area is a much different kind of real estate market. Comparing the two funds highlights the different ways in which funds can be set up. The table on the next page lists key attributes of these Part of Durham HOPE VI affordable housing redevelopment and restored Durham Hosiery Mill; the Mill consists of affordable apartments for seniors and disabled people. Located less than 1/3 mile from planned light rail transit 14 two approaches; representative projects supported by the funds are also described.

16 When/How Started Initial Investment Goal Scope Structure and Longevity Process and Requirements Progress Denver Transit-Oriented Development Fund Started in 2009 with a public-private partnership spearheading the effort, including city, county, Enterprise, banks, non-profits and foundations Grant of $2.25 million from the MacArthur Foundation and Enterprise Community Partners assembling an additional $15 million in investments. The Urban Land Conservancy, a 501(c)(3) started by local business leaders invested $1.5 million in equity and the City of Denver was the largest single investor ($2.5 million and first loss). Create and preserve at least 1,000 units of affordable housing near transit. Do this by buying existing multi-family properties, land (banking) and industrial/brownfields sites for redevelopment Currently serves just Denver, but wants to expand to regional level as transit system expands. Will need more investors to get fund up to $30 million. Urban Land Conservancy is the sole borrower and leads the real estate acquisition. The loan is a revolving fund that can only be used for real estate acquisition by the ULC. ULC can hold the land while securing a developer that fits the requirements for an affordable housing project for 3-5 years and pays a 3.38% interest on the loan. Developers must preserve/create primarily rental units for 60% AMI population. Developers must also receive LIHTC for their projects. As of April 2013: Acquired 8 properties, creating 626 affordable units and 120,000 square feet of community assets (child care, nonprofit office space, library, etc.) 700 jobs created from TOD fund property development and redevelopment > $15 million borrowed, leveraging ~ $200 million Bay Area Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing (TOAH) Acquisition Fund Started in 2011 at the urging of the Great Communities Collaborative, a Bay Area partnership of national and regional advocacy, research, and funding organizations dedicated to promoting affordable housing and TOD. Hired the Center for Transit Oriented Development to do a feasibility study that suggested forming the fund. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the region s MPO, committed the top loss investment of $10 million by exchanging CMAQ and STP money for discretionary funds from one of the region s Congestion Management Agencies. Also, $15 million from six Community Development Finance Institutions (CDFIs), Ford Foundation, San Francisco Foundation and Living Cities The final $25 million, in the most secure spot, is provided by two banks Promote equitable transit-oriented development (TOD) across the ninecounty Bay Area by catalyzing the development of affordable housing, community services, fresh foods markets and other neighborhood assets Fund is regional, covering nine Bay Area counties The target borrowers are experienced nonprofit or for-profit developers, municipal agencies, and joint ventures with strong track records in affordable housing development. There are five types of loans: Pre-development loans, Acquisition loans, Construction bridge loans, Construction-to-mini-permanent loans, and Leveraged loans. The fund is intended to last for ten years first five years originating loans, second five years collecting repayment. Low Income Investment Fund is fund manager and administrative agent. Five other CDFIs can originate loans, with approval from the fund s credit committee 85% of fund is used for preservation and creation of affordable housing; 15% may be used for community facilities, health clinics, fresh food markets, and other neighborhood retail projects. Max loan size is $7.5 million, except for pre-development loans which are capped at $750,000 Project must be within ½ mile of high-quality transit and be in one of the development priority areas Project must show demonstration of local public sector support Project Sponsor/Borrower must meet minimum organizational standards along with other eligibility requirements based on type of Loan Product To date: Funded 506 units of affordable housing Created 48,000 square feet of retail space Almost $16 million borrowed 15

17 Fund Development Examples Denver TOD At a Glance Details Evans Station Lofts 12 Villa TOD Type: New Development Affordable Units: 50 Retail/Commercial Space: 7,100 sq. ft. TOD Fund Use: Property purchased for $1,197,900 Type: Preservation/ Redevelopment Affordable Units: 16 Retail/Commercial Space: 7,400 sq. ft. TOD Fund Use: Property purchased for $1,350,000 This 1-acre property is located next to the Evans Light Rail Station. This development will be the first family low income housing tax credit project at an existing light rail station in Denver. It will serve households with incomes ranging from 30% to 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). This 0.31 acre mixed use property is located in the Santa Fe arts district on the Santa Fe bus line and five blocks from the 10th and Osage light rail station. Developers are completing the necessary rehabilitation work, after which Denver Inner City Parish will provide housing services programs for the long term. Bay Area TOAH Fund At a Glance Details Eddy & Taylor Family Housing 13 Leigh Avenue Senior Apartments Type: New Development Affordable Units: 153 Retail/Commercial Space: 12,000 square feet TOAH Fund Financing: $7.2 million Type: Preservation/ Redevelopment Affordable Units: 64 Retail/Commercial Space: 7,000 sq. ft. TOAH Fund Financing: $2.9 million Developers are transforming a San Francisco parking lot into a 14-story building including affordable housing and retail space. The development is planned to attract a grocery store to this underserved community. The site is located just two blocks from the Powell Street BART station, a major transit hub. A pioneer of green building in the Bay Area plans to build a mixed-use, affordable, green, senior housing development in San Jose. Every one of the 64 units will be affordable, senior housing and 35% will be dedicated to serving residents needing in-home care. The commercial space is planned to include dental offices. The project is located near a Valley Transit Authority Light Rail station and the developer plans to provide free transit passes to residents. 16

18 Key Issues & Implications for the Triangle With the region projected to add a million people over the next generation, the Triangle is well-positioned to craft a thoughtful and effective approach to ensuring that workforce housing production and preservation dovetail with planned transit investments. Developing a successful program might be best accomplished by harnessing the combined expertise and resources of our region s public agencies, developers, non-profit housing organizations, financial community, foundations and anchor institutions. Many tools and techniques will likely be used in any effective response, but a transit-linked fund that can bank land, preserve or rehabilitate existing workforce housing and make new mixed-income projects financially feasible might play an especially important role, based on the experience of other regions. With our transportation plans calling for high quality transit investments that will span three counties and several cities and towns and with commute patterns that carry people across county boundaries every day a regional partnership might be particularly effective. Housing affordability policies and programs such as a transitoriented housing fund could help low- to moderate-income workers in many essential professions throughout the Triangle. Preserving and creating more affordable workforce housing will enable a full range of households to have the increased mobility and reduced transportation costs of living near a transit station, and the transit system can in turn benefit from more riders. The Prairie Building has 11 family apartments for households earning less than 60% of AMI, located a block from the Moore Square Transit Center and a half-mile from the rail line in the region s 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan Exploring a transit-oriented housing fund for the Research Triangle Region would require addressing a host of issues, including: A goal for the fund, The geographic scope of the fund, The scale and sources of initial funding, The structure and governance of the fund, What types of organizations would be eligible to access the fund, Coordination with funding sources to ensure continued effectiveness, The relationship of the fund to existing affordable housing providers in both the public and non-profit sectors, Standards and requirements for grants or loans made by the fund, and Responsibilities for auditing and reporting results. Beginning to address these and other issues could be an important step to making sure our region is able to stay ontrack as we develop high-quality transit investments to serve our residents, businesses and universities. 17

19 Additional Resources TJCOG Development & Infrastructure Partnership Triangle Transit Planning Projects Enterprise Community Partners HUD Evidence Matters Center for Transit Oriented Development Reconnecting America Denver TOD Fund Bay Area Transit-Oriented Affordable Housing Fund Endnotes 1 What is the TRTP? (2013) Triangle Regional Transit Program, 2 Realizing The Potential: Expanding Housing Opportunities Near Transit (2007) 3 H+T Affordability Index (2013) Center for Neighborhood Technology. 4 US Census Bureau: American Community Survey. 5 MacCleery, Rachel. (2013) ULI Research Roundup: August 7 th post, 6 Spotts, Michael. Cars, Busses, Trains and Bikes (2011) October 14 post, 7 FY Median Family Income Documentation System (2013) 8 New And Small Starts Evaluation And Rating Process Final Policy Guidance (2013) Federal Transit Administration, 9 Alunkal, Maya. Connecting Workforce Affordable Housing and Light Rail (2012) 10 Technical Assistance Panel Report on the Inclusionary Zoning in the City of Raleigh (2012) 11 Gentrification Index for the Triangle Area Proposed Transit Corridor (December 2012) 12 Denver TOD Fund (2013) 13 Eddy & Taylor Family Housing (2013) Acknowledgements This report was prepared by Bergen Watterson, Brennan Bouma and John Hodges-Copple of the Triangle J Council of Governments. Special thanks to the Durham Department of Community Development, Durham Housing Authority, Chapel Hill Planning Department and the Raleigh Community Development Department for sharing data on existing affordable housing developments. Special thanks as well to Patrick McDonough, Geoff Green and Michael Clark of Triangle Transit, Gregg Warren of DHIC, and Jeff Furman of Northwood Ravin for their review and comment on initial drafts, and to Ben Bearden of Triangle J for mapping assistance. For questions or comments, please contact Bergen Watterson at or bwatterson@tjcog.org. Copies of this report, along with supplementary material and additional mapping, are available for download from the Land Use- Community Infrastructure-Development (LUCID) web page at: Support for the work to match development with infrastructure investments in the Triangle Region is provided by Triangle Transit, Triangle J COG and its member communities, and the sponsors of the Triangle Development & Infrastructure Partnership, including the following university and regional partners: Duke University North Carolina State University The Research Triangle Foundation The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro Metropolitan Planning Organization NC Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 18

20 Land Use-Community Infrastructure-Development Triangle Transit Triangle J Council of Governments Printed on recycled paper