My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Browse
Search
AgdaPkt 2016-10-24 Closed and Joint SA PFA HHCC
RedwoodCity
>
City Clerk
>
Agenda Packets
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
AgdaPkt 2016-10-24 Closed and Joint SA PFA HHCC
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/3/2016 4:45:27 PM
Creation date
10/20/2016 5:13:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CC Index
CC Index - Document Type
Agenda Packet
Meeting Type
Joint
Agency Type
City Council and Successor Agency and Public Financing Authority
Date
10/24/2016
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
350
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
6.A. - Page 3 <br /> Income Level and Unit Ty_ pe Development Cost Affordability Gap <br /> Very Low Income <br /> Studio $205,000 $168,448 <br /> 1 Bedroom $287,000 $234,741 <br /> 2 Bedroom $397,700 $329,975 <br /> 3 Bedroom $479,700 $389,967 <br /> Average Affordability Gap $280,783 <br /> Low Income <br /> Studio $205,000 $135,677 <br /> 1 Bedroom $287,000 $197,267 <br /> 2 Bedroom $397,700 $287,798 <br /> 3 Bedroom $479,700 $341,165 <br /> Average Affordability Gap $240,477 <br /> Moderate Income <br /> Studio $205,000 $92,204 <br /> 1 Bedroom $287,000 $147,583 <br /> 2 Bedroom $397,700 $231,904 <br /> 3 Bedroom $479,700 $276,573 <br /> Average Affordability Gap $187,066 <br /> *Data source: Residential Impact Fee Nexus Study, Strategic Economics& Vernazza Wolf <br /> There are two important things to note in the table above. First, the analysis is based on <br /> 2013 construction and land costs, and construction costs and land costs have increased <br /> significantly over the past three years. Therefore, today's affordability gaps are likely <br /> even higher. Second, the Council has generally directed staff to focus on the <br /> production of low and very low income units, which require a greater level subsidy per <br /> unit and therefore a greater total subsidy. Nonetheless, the chart reflects that fact that it <br /> is very expensive to produce affordable housing. <br /> Existing Affordable Housing Funding Sources <br /> The following is a list of current affordable housing funding sources and how those <br /> funds are spent: <br /> Community Development Block Grant / Home Investment Partnership Program <br /> (CDBG/HOME) - $773,000 FY 2016-17. Since the end of Redevelopment, the primary <br /> way the City Council has funded affordable housing cases is through CDBG and HOME <br /> funds received through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. <br /> Although all of these funds do not have to be spent entirely on housing, the City has <br /> historically spent most of the funds on housing causes. The City awarded $1.2M in <br /> CDBG and HOME grant funds for fiscal year 2016-2017 that will support affordable <br /> housing preservation programs, new affordable housing development, homeless <br /> services and economic development programs. For fiscal year 2016-2017 <br /> approximately $773,000 of CDBG and HOME funds were allocated to affordable <br /> housing activities: <br /> Page 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.