Post by Dorinda on Jul 13, 2023 21:08:47 GMT
There has been some very thoughtful feedback so far and this program seems to have potential to bring a number of additional homes to Oklahoma. Thank you for listening to all of our comments and concerns.
1. I agree the max number of homes should be lowered from 100 to 25 to allow for smaller developments, infill and small community developers to have an opportunity to improve their neighborhoods. Three to four projects of 100 units could tie up all of the funds and those sizes of projects would likely need to be on the outskirts of the towns away from job centers and existing utility and transportation infrastructure. The unintentional consequence of pushing housing away from job centers is adding a larger commute burden to the occupants and harm to the environment.
2. Requiring home buyers to utilize OHFA DPA unnecessarily limits the buying pool, potentially preventing the builder from being able to sell the unit. There are many DPA programs and there are cash buyers. One option would be to ask the builder to give any offer with OHFA DPA priority or first rights.
3. Instead of $/SF costs there should be some tie to CPI and/or the total cost of the home. The $/SF limits in the draft are challenging once land and site costs are figured in.
4. The 10% of investment the builder makes should include land and site costs. Those can be significant and are recognized by lenders as financial contributions to the project.
5. A smaller, more efficient home size allows for greater affordability so the minimum home size should be lowered to around 1,000SF. We have more single person households than ever before in this country and they don't need 1,300 SF. A smaller home will also have lower utility and upkeep costs for the occupant.
6. Allow significant rehab projects. Existing poor housing stock would be cheaper to rehab given the structure and utility infrastructure already in place. It would be better for the occupants (closer to jobs and services) and better for the environment. The rules would need to be written in such a way that aesthetic rehabs were excluded but full rehabs (new electrical, plumbing, mechanical, roof, etc) would be allowed.
7. A point system was mentioned. That is a great idea and I think points should be allotted for community located developers, minority developers, small developers, infill projects, energy efficiency, and accessible housing. This is a great way to encourage some things that could greatly benefit Tulsa. The natural disaster area preference could also be folded into this point system.
8. The Rural/Urban split is concerning, especially if the Federal MSA definition is going to be used. That definition excludes many of the small communities that the bill was written for. Specifying a community size limit might align more closely with the intent.
9. Requiring "extra" pre-development costs limits the ability for these projects to pencil out. Market studies could be streamlined at the OHFA level since there is a known housing shortage. Environmental impact studies should not be required for small or infill projects. Land under contract should suffice for review of the project for funding.
1. I agree the max number of homes should be lowered from 100 to 25 to allow for smaller developments, infill and small community developers to have an opportunity to improve their neighborhoods. Three to four projects of 100 units could tie up all of the funds and those sizes of projects would likely need to be on the outskirts of the towns away from job centers and existing utility and transportation infrastructure. The unintentional consequence of pushing housing away from job centers is adding a larger commute burden to the occupants and harm to the environment.
2. Requiring home buyers to utilize OHFA DPA unnecessarily limits the buying pool, potentially preventing the builder from being able to sell the unit. There are many DPA programs and there are cash buyers. One option would be to ask the builder to give any offer with OHFA DPA priority or first rights.
3. Instead of $/SF costs there should be some tie to CPI and/or the total cost of the home. The $/SF limits in the draft are challenging once land and site costs are figured in.
4. The 10% of investment the builder makes should include land and site costs. Those can be significant and are recognized by lenders as financial contributions to the project.
5. A smaller, more efficient home size allows for greater affordability so the minimum home size should be lowered to around 1,000SF. We have more single person households than ever before in this country and they don't need 1,300 SF. A smaller home will also have lower utility and upkeep costs for the occupant.
6. Allow significant rehab projects. Existing poor housing stock would be cheaper to rehab given the structure and utility infrastructure already in place. It would be better for the occupants (closer to jobs and services) and better for the environment. The rules would need to be written in such a way that aesthetic rehabs were excluded but full rehabs (new electrical, plumbing, mechanical, roof, etc) would be allowed.
7. A point system was mentioned. That is a great idea and I think points should be allotted for community located developers, minority developers, small developers, infill projects, energy efficiency, and accessible housing. This is a great way to encourage some things that could greatly benefit Tulsa. The natural disaster area preference could also be folded into this point system.
8. The Rural/Urban split is concerning, especially if the Federal MSA definition is going to be used. That definition excludes many of the small communities that the bill was written for. Specifying a community size limit might align more closely with the intent.
9. Requiring "extra" pre-development costs limits the ability for these projects to pencil out. Market studies could be streamlined at the OHFA level since there is a known housing shortage. Environmental impact studies should not be required for small or infill projects. Land under contract should suffice for review of the project for funding.