Affordable Housing Expansion Strategy

Transcription

Prepared for the
Healthy York County Coalition
Housing Task Force
Prepared by
June 2006
AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXPANSION STRATEGY
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Healthy York County Coalition - Housing Task Force
Steve Snell, Co-Chairman
Craig Zumbrun, Co-Chairman
Robin Rohrbaugh, Executive Director
Members contributing to this report:
Debbie Althoff
Kim Bracey
Phil Briddell
Betsy Buckingham
Jane Conover
Ethel Davis
Tom Foust
Missy Gosnell-Avery
Natalie Grim
Carol Kauffman
Erin Kelly
George Klaus
Debbie Loucks
Wanda Montalvo
Leroy Moore
Penny Myers
Marion Oberdick
Chris Rafferty
Cheryl Rascoe
Stephanie Seaton
Leigh Smith
Larry Stets
Bill Swartz
Alan Vandersloot
Anne Walko
Shanna Weist
Craig Wolf
Funding and contributions for this report were provided by:
Sovereign Bank
Susquehanna Pfaltzgraff
The Wolf Organization
M. S. Grumbacher Foundation
WellSpan
Affordable Housing Endeavors
Community Bank
York County Planning Commission
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
3
Introduction
7
Purpose
Scope
Comparing Population and Households
Use of Claritas Data
York County Planning Regions
Previous Reports and Plans
Demographic Overview
11
Introduction
Every Household Needs a Dwelling
York County
The Affordable Housing Market in York County
16
General
Owner Market
Rental Market
The Affordable Housing Industry
Capacity to Create New Affordable Housing Units
27
Evaluation of Pipeline Projects
Methodology
Results of the Readiness to Proceed Analysis
Organizational Capacity
Common Impediments to Developing Affordable
Housing in York County
34
Alternative Financing Plans and Development
Solutions
36
Recommendations
38
Appendices
A
B
C
D
E
Demographic Analysis by Planning Region
Inventory of Assisted Owner Housing in York County
Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing in York County
Geographic Locations of Assisted Housing in York
County
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Used
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2004 the YorkCounts Commission issued its latest
report titled Charting a Brighter Future for All. Among the
numerous goals and objectives established in this report
was one specific to affordable housing: create 100 new
units over the next five years. The Healthy York County
Coalition offered to undertake the preparation of this report
to determine if the goal was reasonable and attainable.
The results of this Affordable Housing Expansion Strategy
concluded that the goal of creating 100 new affordable
units could actually be achieved by mid-2007. More
significantly, however, was the fact that the creation of 100
new affordable housing units over five years, or even the
creation of 100 units each and every year over the next
five years, would barely address the increasingly high
demand for affordable housing in York County.
Between 1990 and 2000 the population of York County
increased by 12.4%, while the number of households
increased by 15.2%. Households demand housing units
and the growing trend toward smaller non-traditional, nonfamily, single-person households is placing an increasing
demand on the county’s housing market.
This is
particularly evident among older households in the 55 and
older age category. Household projection estimates for
2011 in York County emphasize further still the increasing
affordable housing demand that will become reality:

Households 55 and older will increase by 10,000
while younger households will remain virtually
unchanged in number from 2006.

The area median income (AMI) for York County is
projected to be $55,121 with 39% of all households
having incomes below 80% of AMI.

The most significant household growth is projected
to occur in the lower income range of >30%-60% of
AMI among all ages.
This income group of
primarily renters will increase by 8,147 households
across the county.
Projected changes will vary across the planning regions in
York County. Some of the most significant projected
changes for each of the planning regions are included in
the following chart.
3
Planning Region
Most Significant Projected Change
1 South Central York
Households 55 and older in the 0%-30% income
group will increase by 499 (73%)
2 Greater York East
Households 55 and older in the >30%-60% income
group will increase by 1,573 (38%); in the >115%
income group, the increase will include 1,682
households (31%)
3 Greater York West
group will grow by 1,554 (42%) and the >115%
income group will increase by 1,613 (39%)
4 Northern York
group will increase by 624 (44%) while households in
the >115% income group will add another 1,102
households (41%)
5 South Western York
group will increase by 698 (34%) while households in
the >115% income group will grow by 895
households (40%)
6 City of York
group will add another 395 households (26%) while
younger households will grow by 534 households
(19%)
7 South Eastern York
group will increase by 244 (40%) while the >115%
income group will add another 415 households (47%)
What’s driving the housing demand in York County?
Fundamentally, it’s the economy. Between 1998 and
2004:

Total employment grew by 5.7% from 149,419 to
157,906.

Total annual wages increased
$4,166,706,000 to $5,150,259,000.

The total number of business establishments
increased 4.7% from 8,160 to 8,547.
23.6%
from
One of the factors driving this growth is the county’s
location along the Interstate 83 corridor. Development
pressure from the Washington, DC / Baltimore region is
forcing both developers (who are seeking developable
land) and homebuyers (who are seeking more affordable
housing) northward to York County.
But not everyone can afford the cost of purchasing or
renting a home at today’s market rates. To the county’s
credit, there are numerous affordable housing developers
(both non-profit and for-profit) which are successfully
creating new sales and rental units for lower income
households. A survey conducted for this report revealed
4
there are ten different affordable housing developers
currently working to generate 117 new sales units and up
to 292 new rental units over the next five years.
Unfortunately, the housing development arena is an
arduous one. Untold amounts of human, technical and
financial resources are required to simply develop a project
application for public and private financing. Once the
financing is in place, some projects may require 18-24
months for construction. Impediments occur along the
way, increasing costs and delaying occupancy availability.
Add to this the uncertainty of future state and federal
program funds and it becomes clear that even the most
successful achievements by local affordable housing
developers in York County cannot keep pace with the
increasing projected needs.
The foundation for the strategy proposed for York County
will require continued collaboration among existing
developers.
The current and projected demand for
affordable housing creates a need for local housing
developers in York County. To address the projected
increase in household growth, more housing units will have
to be constructed and/or rehabilitated. Suggesting that
more housing developers are needed in York County to
resolve this issue is a double-edged sword. While more
developers could conceivably generate more units, the
competition for scarce public funding resources would
become more intense. It would be preferable for local
affordable housing developers to establish their unique
market niche and cooperate as necessary to address
increasing demand.
Recommendations to assist in expanding the affordable
housing stock in York County were made in four areas:

Additional Research

Organizational Strategy

Planning

Financing
The need for additional research focuses on identification
of workforce housing needs for households in the >30% to
50% of the area median income (AMI). SusquehannaPfaltzgraff, a local employer, conducted a Live Near Your
Work survey in 2003. Survey results indicated that the
primary reasons why employees were not purchasing
homes were financially driven. By designing an employeeassisted housing program to provide financial incentives
for down payment assistance and exterior rehabilitation,
the company was able to develop a program to fit the
needs of its employees who were rental households and
5
interested in becoming homeowners. A similar study of
major employers county-wide could assist in the
development of a larger program with potentially greater
funding from private resources available to assist lower
income working households.)
Organizational strategy recommendations emphasize
nurturing existing non-profit organizations and enhancing
their capacity to continue as well as increase affordable
housing production in the county. Furthermore, it is
recommended that the county continue to treat affordable
housing as a regional issue.
Additional planning could enhance affordable housing
development in the county. It is recommended that a cycle
of planning and implementation measures be established
so that only one major revitalization project is being
developed at any one time in York County. Obsolete
municipal zoning ordinances should be updated to reflect
more current planning and zoning concepts, especially
those that foster affordable housing design and
development.
Lastly, financing strategies should include securing a
reliable source of pre-development loans for local housing
providers to enable worthwhile projects to move forward.
Also, affordable housing providers should be taking
advantage of newer PHFA funding opportunities to create
highly leveraged revitalization projects that blend
homeownership with other neighborhood projects.
6
INTRODUCTION
Purpose
This document represents an initiative undertaken by the
Healthy York County Coalition Housing Task Force to
determine the extent to which local housing providers
require technical assistance and / or capacity-building
assistance in their efforts to meet the current and future
housing needs of County households.
Recent growth in York County has been intensive and
projected estimates demonstrate continued household
growth. A recent report completed by the YorkCounts
Commission included the objective of creating 100 new
affordable housing units over the next five years. One of
the questions to be answered by this report is to what
degree can this objective be achieved.
Scope
The scope of this report includes the identification of local
housing developers, both for-profit and not-for-profit, and
their capacity to plan, finance and construct housing units
in York County. Towards this end, the following elements
are covered in the report:

An overview of household growth trends and
estimated projections by income level and age of
householder

An inventory and analysis of housing units currently
in the “pipeline”—the planning and development
stages, and that are expected to become available
for occupancy within the next five years (July 2006
through June 2011)

Identification of the developers involved in
constructing and rehabilitating housing in York
County, particularly for those income levels where
the need for housing units is high

Evaluation of the organizational capacity of housing
developers in York County and their respective
ability to plan, finance and develop housing units,
and

Identification of alternative financing plans and
development solutions that are currently untapped
or underutilized, and strategies for maximizing
those strategies.
7
The Housing Task Force acknowledges that a full
understanding of growth trends in a region requires an
analysis of other issues that may also impact expansion of
the housing market, such as tax-free pensions, new water
and sewer service facilities, development of new
residential subdivisions, regional economic development
shifts (i.e., military base expansion), and the cultural
characteristics of primary population groups (i.e., multigenerational households).
Because the scope of this project is very limited and
focused, it does not include data or analysis of the
following housing-related issues in York County:

The condition or habitability of housing units

A housing demand analysis, or

The housing needs of special needs populations
such as persons with mental illness, HIV/AIDS,
released offenders, persons with physical
disabilities and recovering substance abusers.
The Housing Task Force recognizes that there is a need
for specialized housing development in York County for
special needs populations.
Comparing Population and Households
This report is based on household growth in York County
to determine the need for affordable housing. The U.S.
Census Bureau defines “population” as “all people, male
and female, child and adult, living in a given geographic
area.” The term “household” is defined to include “all the
people who occupy a housing unit as their usual place of
residence.”
When describing housing markets and
housing needs, focusing the discussion on households is
much more relevant and accurate because each
household requires a dwelling unit while several people
may comprise the same household and live in the same
housing unit. In other words, relating housing need to the
number of households in a geographic area is much more
accurate in determining housing need than trying to relate
it to the number of persons.
For example, if one hundred family households each had a
new child born in the same year, the population of their
town would increase by 100 persons. However, there
would be no need for additional housing units to
accommodate this increase in population. By comparison,
if 50 new family households relocated to the town, then
these 50 new households would each require their own
housing unit.
8
Use of Claritas Data
Projection estimates of households by income level and
age of householder used in this report were obtained from
Claritas, Inc. Claritas data is based on a number of
sources, including an annual release of current-year
estimates and five-year projections of U.S. Census data.
This update relies on the decennial census for an accurate
starting point and a variety of sources indicating change
following the census.
Claritas demographers spend months each year analyzing
fresh demographic data from many sources, including local
governments, consumer databases and postal delivery
counts. The demographers' goal is to locate and use the
best sources of local level data available in order to build
the most accurate picture possible of demographic growth
or decline from year to year.
In developing the annual demographic estimates and
projections, Claritas applies both a "top-down" and a
"bottom-up" process. For example, in the "bottom-up"
process, Claritas uses the local level data mentioned
earlier to assess demographic growth and decline at the
local level. In the "top-down" process, Claritas uses U.S.
Census Bureau estimates and other federal data to
develop totals for demographic variables for larger areas
such as cities, counties and states. These independently
produced estimates serve the important function of
methodological control, a "checks and balance" measure
to ensure that any indications of demographic change are
consistent across all data sources.
For this report, household estimates by income level and
age of householder for 2006 and household projections by
income level and age of householder for 2011 were
obtained from Claritas.
York County Planning Regions
The York County Planning Commission has divided the
county into seven planning regions. For the purposes of
this report, demographic summaries including household
projections are provided for each of the seven regions and
the County as a whole.
Appendix A includes the
demographic analyses by planning region.
9
Previous Reports and Plans
Several reports and planning documents were reviewed as
part of the data collection process for this report. These
included:

Renewing Our Community: The Rusk Report on the
Future of Greater York (1996).

Rusk Report II: A Challenge to Change (2002)

Charting a Brighter Future for All—The Time is
Now: A Comprehensive Action Plan of the
YorkCounts Commission (2004)

YorkCounts: Count Me In—Progress and Trends
(2006)

Consolidated Plan for York County, Pennsylvania:
Fiscal Years 2005-2009 (2004)

York Housing Authority Annual Plan (2005)

Windsor Township Traffic Impact Fee / Land Use
Assumptions Report (May 2006).
10
DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW
Introduction
The population of York County has increased significantly
over the past few decades and is projected to increase
further still as new residents migrate northward along the
Interstate 83 corridor from the Washington, DC / Baltimore
metropolitan area. As counties to the south of York
experience build-out accompanied by higher housing
prices and tighter markets, developers have capitalized on
the availability of developable land in York County.
When the topic of housing affordability is discussed, it is
often assumed that the term “affordable housing” refers to
housing for lower income households. In fact, affordable
housing simply means paying no more than 30% of gross
household income for housing expenses including
mortgage or rent, utilities, insurance and taxes regardless
of income level. Generally speaking, however, lower
income households experience a greater financial burden
in obtaining safe and decent housing that costs less than
30% of their monthly income. For this reason, this report
will focus on the capacity of local housing developers (both
non-profit and for-profit) who are providing safe and decent
housing to lower income York County households.
Every Household Needs a Dwelling
While York County’s population grew by 12.4% between
1990 and 2000, the number of households in the County
increased by 15.2%. Household growth occurs when
people migrate to York County. But increases in the
number of households can also be attributed to lifestyle
changes. Younger people tend to marry later in life.
Couples tend to divorce more frequently. Seniors tend to
live longer. All of these factors contribute to growth in the
number of households. Growth in household formation
translates to demand for housing.
In this report, household data are presented in two age
groups: (1) 15-54 years and (2) 55 years and older.
Households 55 years and older include at least one
member who is 55 years of age or older. The distinction is
made at 55 years because many state and federal housing
programs are targeted to households with at least one
member who is 55 years old.
Household projections by income level are also presented.
Income levels are reported as a percentage of the area
11
median household income (a standard calculation reported
by the Census Bureau) and for a family of four. The
median household income is the income level which falls
exactly in the middle of the household population: exactly
one-half of all households have a lower income while the
other one-half of all households have a higher income. To
maintain consistency, these same standards are used
throughout this report.
Income data are presented in the following categories:

0% to 30% of the area median household income
(AMI)

Greater than 30% and up to 60% of AMI

Greater than 60% and up to 80% of AMI

Greater than 80% and up to 115% of AMI, and

Greater than 115% of AMI.
Households with incomes below 80% of AMI are also
called lower income households.
Generally speaking, it is reasonable to assume that most, if
not all, households with income levels of 0%-30% of AMI
will be renters.
These are households with annual
incomes below $15,000 (for a family of four in York
County) which are generally too low to afford home
ownership. By comparison, households between >30%60% of AMI ($15,000 to $29,999) and >60%-80% of AMI
($30,000 to $40,000) may be able to afford home
ownership if the terms are reasonable and subsidies are
provided. Households between 80% and 115% of the AMI
can also reasonably be expected to become home owners.
During the development of this report, members of the
Housing Task Force voiced concerns that the Claritas
household growth projections seemed very conservative
when compared to observable changing conditions in York
County. Even if the Claritas projection estimates are
conservative, the fact remains that the anticipated increase
in lower income households across the County will exceed
the supply of available and planned new affordable
housing units over the next five years.
12
York County
Between 2000 and 2006, households 55 and older
increased by nearly 10,000 compared to younger
households which grew by approximately 3,000. By 2011,
households 55 and older are projected to increase by
another 10,000 but the number of younger households is
projected to remain nearly unchanged from 2006.
Figure 1. Projected Household Growth in York County, 2000-2011
6,000
5,000
4,000
Age 15-54
3,000
Age 55+
2,000
1,000
0
2000
2006
2011
Source: Claritas, Inc.
While the data reveal that the number of households 55
and older will increase from 62,426 in 2006 to 72,937
households in 2011, this does not mean that York County
will experience a net increase of 10,000 new households
by 2011. Much of the projected increase can be attributed
to the baby boomer generation aging in place. In other
words, many households with at least one member who is
currently 50-54 years old may simply “move into” the older
age category should they choose to remain in their present
home. In these cases, no additional housing units will be
needed but the number of households 55 and older will
increase in number.
The 2006 area median income (AMI) for York County is
$50,975. It is estimated that 38% of all households have
incomes below 80% of AMI. Of these lower income
households, 53% are households age 55 and older.
13
Figure 2. Households by Age and Income in York County, 2006
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
>30%-60% AMI
($15,000-$29,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($30,000-$39,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($40,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI
($60,000 & up)
Total
Households
Age 15-54
6,223
11,351
10,742
23,362
46,965
Age 55+
9,109
14,411
8,506
12,370
18,030
62,426
15,332
25,762
19,248
35,732
64,995
161,069
Total
98,643
By 2011, the AMI for York County is projected to be
$55,121 with 39% of all households having incomes below
80% of AMI. Of these lower income households, 56% are
projected to be households age 55 years and older.
Figure 3. Projected Households by Age and Income in York County, 2011
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
>30%-60% AMI
($15,000-$34,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($35,000-$44,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($45,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI
($60,000 & up)
Total
Households
Age 15-54
5,718
14,059
10,064
16,117
52,784
98,742
Age 55+
9,032
19,850
9,005
10,452
24,598
72,937
14,750
33,909
19,069
26,569
77,382
171,679
Total
The most significant household growth is projected to
occur in the lower income range of >30%-60% of AMI.
Over the next five years, this income group of
primarily renter households (all ages) will increase by
32% (8,147 households) across York County.
Household growth also is projected for the >115% of AMI
and higher income group although at a much lower rate.
In contrast, households in the >80%-115% income group
(of all ages) are projected to decrease significantly in every
planning region.
14
Figure 4. Projected Change in Households by Age and Income in York County, 2006-2011
>115% AMI & up
>80%-115% AMI
Age 55+
>60%-80% AMI
Age 15-54
>30%-60% AMI
0%-30% AMI
-40.0%
-20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
15
THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MARKET IN YORK
COUNTY
General
What’s driving the housing market in York County?
Fundamentally, it’s the economy. From 1998 through
2004, the York economy has slowly expanded based on
several indicators. Total employment grew from 149,419
in 1998 to 157,906 in 2004. Total annual wages increased
from $4,166,706,000 to $5,150,259,000. The total number
of business establishments grew from 8,160 to 8,547. And
with the in-migration of new residents, housing is in
demand.
Owner Market
The demand for housing translates into increased housing
costs. In 2003, the median sales price of a home in York
County (as reported by the Realtors Association of York
and Adam Counties Multi-List Service data) was $124,900.
A total of 5,344 listings were advertised and a house for
sale averaged 68 days on the market. By 2005, the
median sales price had increased to $159,414. Listings
numbered 6,224 and the average number of days on the
market decreased to 44. These are indicators of a thriving
housing market.
However, not all households can afford market rate
housing in York County. Between 2000 and 2004 the
median sales price of a home increased by 36% from
$117,287 to $159,414. During this same period, the
median income increased approximately 10.5% from
$45,292 to $50,027. As a result, the cost of housing is
rising at more than three times the median income. This
situation will make achieving home ownership even more
difficult for lower income households.
Data provided by HUD in 2000 revealed that a total of
16,947 County households with incomes up to 50% of AMI
were cost-burdened and paying more than 30% of their
gross income for housing costs. By comparison 7,563
households with incomes >50%-80% were cost-burdened.
Appendix B includes an inventory of affordable owner
housing units developed for lower income households in
York County since 2004. A total of 59 affordable owner
housing units have been produced and sold by local and
regional housing providers, another 5 are currently under
16
construction, and another 48 are planned for completion
and sale by 2009.
Figure 5 on the following page includes an inventory of the
affordable owner housing units currently in various
planning and development stages in York County. A total
of six housing developers are anticipating the completion
of 117 new sales units to be ready for occupancy between
July 2006 and 2011. All but 16 of these units are located
in the City of York. As a matter of policy, the city
encourages the creation of affordable owner units with its
federal entitlement dollars while the county focuses the
investment of its funds on affordable rental units.
Note: Under the column labeled “Target Income,” the
acronym LMI refers to low and moderate income
households.
17
Figure 5. Inventory of Affordable Owner Housing Units in the Pipeline, June 2006
Development
Name
450 North Beaver
Street
549 South Duke
Street
611 Cleveland
Avenue
New
Construction
or Rehab
Sales Price
Projected
Occupancy
Date
Family
>80% AMI
$69,900
Aug. 2006
Rehab
Crispus Attucks
1
Family
LMI
$80,000
Oct. 2006
Rehab
Crispus Attucks
1
Family
LMI
$30,000
Dec. 2006
YHA
6
Family
50%-80%
$120,850
2006
June 2007
NC
Kings Mill
2
Family
35%-60%
AMI
NC / Rehab
HICDC/York Habitat
for Humanity
Dorgan & Zuck with
City of York, YWCA
21
Family
>115% AMI
$65,000$75,000
Rehab $59,900
New $69,900
NC / Rehab
HICDC
11
Family
50%-115%
AMI
$80,000$130,000
2007
$31,500$34,500
2008
Rehab
Spring Valley
Manor II
Codorus Homes
Target
Income
1
Red Lion
Community
Renaissance
Scattered Sites
70 West Boundary
Avenue
Unit
Type
HICDC
NC
613 Cleveland
Avenue
West Princess
Street
Units
Rehab
Village Court
Turnkey III
Developer
2006
YHA
16
Family
30%-80%
AMI
HICDC/York Habitat
for Humanity
8
Family
35%-60%
AMI
$65,000$75,000
Nov. 2008
$30,000
Dec. 2008
Rehab
Crispus Attucks
1
Family
LMI
Rehab
YCDC
15
Family
LMI
Rehab
York Habitat for
Humanity
3
Family
35%-60%
AMI
$55,000$65,000
2008
Rehab
Crispus Attucks
1
Family
LMI
$80,000
Jan. 2009
Special
Needs
&
Family
Mixed
(30%-80%
AMI
& market
rate)
Sales Prices:
Affordable
2009-2011
NC / Rehab
YHA
TOTAL
30
117
18
2008
Sources of Funds
City HOME
City HOME
NAP
City HOME
NAP
LBP grant
County HOME
USDA Rural Dev’t
FHLB
YHA
County CDBG/HOME
FHLB
Private sponsors
Corporations
Homeowners
City HOME
PHFA
City HOME
County HOME
Brownfields
PHFA HCP
RDA McKinney
Bank constr. loan
PennHOMES
LIHTC
PHA Turnkey III
County HOME
FHLB
Private sponsors
Corporations
Homeowners
City HOME
NAP
LBP grant
PHFA HCP
City CDBG/HOME
FHLB
Private sponsors
Corporations
Homeowners
City HOME
NAP
Potential Sources:
City CDBG/HOME
PHFA HCP
PennHOMES
LIHTC
PHA funds
Section 8
HOPE VI
Capital Funds Bonds
Municipality
York City
York City
York City
Dover Twp
Red Lion Borough
York City
York City
York City
Dover Borough
York City
York City
York City
York City
York City
Rental Market
The cost to rent housing in York County is also rising faster
than incomes. The median rent in 1990 was $329; by
2000, it had increased 61.4% to $531. (The 2000 census
is the only source of data for median rents.)
By
comparison, median income increased only 39% from
$32,605 in 1990 to $45,268 in 2000.
HUD data revealed that in 2000 a total of 12,874 renter
households with incomes up to 50% of AMI were costburdened and paying more than 30% of their gross income
for rent and utilities. By comparison, only 1,282 renter
households with incomes >50%-80% were cost-burdened.
These numbers further emphasize the high demand for
affordable, safe and decent rental housing for lower
income households in York County.
Appendix C includes an inventory of affordable rental
housing units available for lower income households in
York County. A total of 3,964 affordable rental housing
units were identified. Numerous funding sources were
used to finance the construction of these units over the
past several decades by both for-profit and non-profit
developers.
Figure 6 below includes an inventory of the assisted rental
housing developments currently in various planning and
development stages in York County. A total of seven
housing developers are anticipating the completion of
between 282 and 292 new rental housing units to be ready
for occupancy between July 2006 and 2009.
19
Figure 6. Inventory of Assisted Rental Housing Developments in the Pipeline, June 2006
Developmen
t Name
431 South
George Street
Stony Brook
Gardens
Senior
Residences at
Hanover Shoe
Hudson Park
Towers
Preservation
West Princess
Street
Manchester
Borough Housing
Codorus Homes
New
Constructio
nor Rehab
Developer
Units
Rehab
Crispus Attucks
5
Unit Type
Target
Income
Rent
Projected
Occupancy
Date
Family
LMI
$360/month
July 2006
$503$638/month
(inc. utilities)
June 2007
Springwood
Development
84
Elderly
20%-60%
AMI
Rehab
Pennrose
Properties
24
Elderly
20%-60%
AMI
$357/month
average
March 2008
Rehab
HDC of
Lancaster,
Brandywine
LLC
69
General &
Disabled
$520$628/month
July 2008
Rehab
Y CDC
30
Family
Up to 60%
AMI
Up to 60%
AMI
NC
NC
NC / Rehab
York Area
Development
Corp.
YHA (CONE)
TOTAL
40-50
30
282-292
20
Elderly
Special
Needs &
Family
Below
50% AMI
Mixed
(30%-80%
AMI
& market
rate)
2008-2009
30% of
annual
adjusted
income
Rents: $50$650
Sources of Funds
City CDBG
NAP
County HOME
Brownfields
LIHTC
County
CDBG/HOME
LIHTC
City HOME
PennHOMES
LIHTC
Rural LISC
FHLB
City CDBG
LIHTC
Municipality
York City
Springettsbury Twp
Hanover Borough
York City
York City
2009
County
CDBG/HOME
HUD Section 202
USDA Rural
Develop.
Manchester
Borough
2009-2011
Potential Sources:
City CDBG/HOME
PHFA HCP
PennHOMES
LIHTC
PHA funds
Section 8
HOPE VI
Capital Funds
Bonds
York City
It is evident from the anticipated occupancy dates of these
282-292 new rental housing units that the YorkCounts
Commission objective of creating 100 new affordable
housing units over the next five years will be easily
exceeded. However, based on the projected household
growth anticipated by 2011, there will remain a severe
shortage of affordable housing for lower income renter
households.
For example, according to the data in Figure 6,
Springwood Development anticipates leasing 84 rental
units for elderly households (55 and older) with incomes up
to 60% of AMI by January 2007. However, projected
growth among households 55 and older in the >30%-60%
of AMI income group is estimated to be 5,439 households
by 2011.
The Affordable Housing Industry
In addition to collecting hard data (household projections,
housing inventories, etc.), several key stakeholders in the
development industry in York County were interviewed.
These individuals were identified as playing critical roles in
the planning, financing and development measures
associated with creating new affordable housing units for
lower income households in York County. A summary of
the interview comments follows.
The comments are categorized into strengths,
weaknesses, opportunities and threats relative to the
current affordable housing environment in York County.
Strengths are conditions or issues that make a place stand
out when compared with other places. A strength can be a
physical asset, a program, or an impression or feeling.
These assets are valuable and should be preserved or
improved upon. Weaknesses are drawbacks or short-term
challenges that need to be addressed so that they do not
cause long-term problems to the quality of life.
Opportunities are the long-range positive trends affecting
the region as well as the positive paths that could be
followed. These are things that could be done to improve a
place. Threats include long-term weaknesses that could
jeopardize the future success of the region if not reversed
in a timely and effective manner.
Strengths

Based on increased need, the County recently
doubled its HOME Program subsidy up to $40,000
per unit from $20,000 per unit. This action will
21
enable local applicants for state funds to prepare
more
competitive
and
financially
sound
applications.

The County targets its HOME Program investment
by requiring HOME-financed projects to be located
within the County’s designated growth boundaries,
or in its villages and boroughs. The benefits of this
policy cannot be overstated. Land and housing
costs are lower in these areas where infrastructure
already exists to support new household growth.

The County primarily works with three local entities
(York Housing Authority, the Housing Council, and
York Habitat for Humanity) to distribute its first-time
homebuyer funds.
The experience of these
organizations provides the County with credible and
competent administrators for a key source of home
ownership financing.

The Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency
(PHFA) has expressed its “comfort level” with York
County projects, according to one County official.
As a major financier of affordable housing
developments in the County, a strong relationship
with PHFA is very advantageous.

One local developer stated that the County housing
staff “is the best group of skilled and motivated
government employees” he has ever encountered.

York Housing Authority has established strong
relationships with York County and USDA Rural
Development. York County granted exceptions to
their 3/2 Homebuyer’s Mortgage Assistance
Program requirements and USDA expanded its
eligible coverage area to include the Village Court
home ownership development.
As a result,
financial resources which were previously
unavailable were secured and 16 new affordable
sales units were generated.
Weaknesses

Many of the new affordable units created included
the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing older
homes. However, with these units comes the issue
of lead-based paint which is costly to abate or
remove. As a result, the rehabilitation costs per
unit increases.

Many of the County’s municipalities have outdated
zoning ordinances that do not allow higher density
22
residential uses nor distinguish between senior
housing and family housing for parking
requirements, for example.
This results in a
developer being required to apply for variances,
rezonings or other time-consuming and costly
changes in order to get plan approval. Ultimately,
time costs money and in some cases, it may even
cost the entire affordable housing project to be
cancelled.

Previously, the County and the City partnered to
form a housing consortium for HOME Program
funds. This arrangement permitted a more regional
approach to addressing affordable housing needs
wherein the City and the County could agree to
allocate funds for priority housing development
projects without regard to the geographic location
of the project.
Since the Consortium was
dissolved, the City must now use its federal HOME
funds exclusively on projects within the City of York
while the County can only use its federal HOME
funds outside the City of York. During the period of
time that the HOME Consortium was in place, the
City and the County split HUD’s allocation of HOME
funds into two separate buckets: one for the City
and the other for the County.
Each entity
administered its own fair share of Consortium
funds.
So in practical terms, dissolving the
Consortium has not significantly altered the
geographic distribution of federal HOME funds. But
after the collapse of the HOME Consortium, the
amount of communication and collaboration
between the City and the County on affordable
housing issues has become minimal.

The City of York has experienced turnover in its
CDBG and HOME staff. Developers report that the
process of building and re-building staff capacity
has adversely affected the flow of federal CDBG
and HOME funds into local affordable housing
activities.

It is difficult for a housing developer to estimate
accurate construction costs for a project
determined to require two years of construction
time when the cost of materials continues to rise.
This makes it difficult to secure adequate financing
upfront and places the project in jeopardy of being
delayed due to lack of funds to complete it.
23
Opportunities

Most applicants for County funds have the
organizational capacity to complete their projects.
If the County is uncertain about their abilities, they
are required to partner with another entity to carry
out their project. The benefits of this partnership
are threefold. First, the County has a greater
comfort level in the success of the project. Second,
teaming with an experienced and competent
developer will enhance the capacity of the less
experienced developer, thus increasing their ability
to become an independent developer in the future.
And finally, this results in more experienced and
credible affordable housing developers in York
County.

Two municipalities (York Township and Carroll
Township)
have
traditional
neighborhood
development, or TND, ordinances.
TNDs are
compact developments of both commercial and
residential land uses. The best examples of TNDs
are the existing villages and boroughs of York
County.
By encouraging or requiring new
development to mirror the elements of the
traditional town patterns, local municipalities can
promote a more efficient use of land, and lower the
costs of housing, infrastructure and services. TND
ordinances can create opportunity for additional
affordable housing if the ordinances are written
properly.

There are many opportunities for creating new
affordable housing units within the City of York;
however, sites are difficult to locate and it is even
more cumbersome to package several contiguous
parcels for a larger project. Adaptive re-use of
older quality structures, such as vacant stores and
schools, could provide alternatives to new
construction on vacant parcels.

The lack of affordable handicap accessible housing
is an issue, particularly for persons moving out of
long-term rehabilitation or nursing homes. York
Housing Authority is very interested in developing
this type of housing but would prefer to partner with
a developer experienced in this specific type of
housing.
24
Threats

Locating affordable sites for new affordable housing
development is becoming more difficult as the cost
of land and materials increases.
Out-of-state
developers have acquired almost all the land
available for multi-family housing in York County.
This situation has several impacts, some of which
are not so obvious. For example, a local developer
stated that he must construct a minimum of 45 units
at a project site in order to afford employing a fulltime on-site manager.
An on-site manager
becomes a critical element in maintaining the longterm condition of a development, which is
especially important to the developer and the local
community.

The cost of construction and related materials also
has risen, including gasoline.
This, too, will
increase the per-unit cost of affordable housing.

Developers who acquire vacant housing units for
rehabilitation must pay high liability insurance
premiums.
Unable to find a local insurer,
organizations are forced to take out liability policies
with companies such as Lloyd’s of London to cover
personal injuries suffered by burglars or vagrants
who trespass onto their properties. As with all
other project costs, this expense is added to the
overall project budget.

While non-profit developers have the opportunity to
acquire vacant housing units from a local
redevelopment authority, often these units sit
vacant for several years until such time that
financing can be obtained to cover the cost of
rehabilitation. During this waiting period, in addition
to liability insurance, the developer also is
responsible for paying the taxes and utilities on the
vacant property.

Depending on the location, NIMBYism (“Not in my
backyard”) can be an issue. While a couple of
developers suggested that the reputation and
credibility of local developers and their quality
housing have allayed the fears of residents in many
areas of the County, two other developers stated
they are having to defend planned rental housing
developments to surrounding residents.

Decreasing federal programs, such as the CDBG,
HOME, USDA Rural, and Section 202 Housing for
the Elderly Programs, are viewed as a direct threat
25
to the region’s ability to continue the creation of
affordable housing for lower income residents.

The lack of sufficient Section 8 housing vouchers
also restricts the creation of new units. As of
November 2004 the York Housing Authority had a
waiting list of 3,000 applicants when it closed its list
for Section 8 vouchers. Furthermore, the Authority
has approximately 100 households with vouchers in
hand who cannot locate safe, decent affordable
housing units.

Housing counseling providers reported that
predatory lending practices involving subprime
mortgage loans are impacting York County home
owners. These types of loans allow for higher risk
ratios than conventional loans and, therefore, carry
higher interest rates. The negative impact occurs
when these mortgages are all that are available to
lower income households, who would be paying
more for the same type of housing than middle and
higher income households. Typically, subprime
loans increase the housing cost burden for lower
income households, which are precisely the
households that can least afford higher housing
costs. Secondarily, foreclosure of the housing units
can open the door to acquisition by absentee
landlords, an action which can further destabilize a
transitioning neighborhood.
26
CAPACITY TO CREATE NEW AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNITS
Evaluation of Pipeline Projects
In an effort to identify the number and timing of affordable
housing units expected to be made available to lower
income households for occupancy over the next five years,
housing providers with projects in the pipeline were first
identified. The “pipeline” refers to all proposed affordable
assisted housing projects which are in various stages of
pre-development or construction. (See Figures 5 and 6.)
It is important to note that the pipeline projects list is a fluid
one constantly changing as housing units are completed
and occupied, and as new projects are planned, financed
and initiated. Evidence of this activity can be found in the
annual review process and funding cycle of new project
applications by both the City and the County.
Ten housing developers currently have a total of 20
projects in the pipeline. The developers include the
following entities:

Crispus Attucks Association, Inc. – Through its
nonprofit Crispus Attucks Community Development
Corporation, this local organization focuses on the
production of affordable rental housing units in the
City of York.

Housing Initiatives Community Development
Corporation, Inc. – HICDC is a nonprofit community
housing development organization that develops
both rental and owner affordable housing units,
primarily in the City of York.

York Habitat for Humanity – A local affiliate of
Habitat for Humanity International, this organization
constructs new housing units and rehabilitates
deteriorated units in the City of York and boroughs
throughout the County. York Habitat partners with
HICDC to develop many of their projects.

York Housing Authority – The public housing entity
chartered to provide affordable housing to York
County residents, YHA continues to secure
financing for the development of new housing to
lower income residents.

Y Community Development Corporation – A local
non-profit housing development organization
affiliated with the YMCA of York.
27

York Area Development Corporation – A local nonprofit housing development corporation.

Housing Development Corporation of Lancaster -A
regional non-profit housing development
corporation based in Lancaster, PA.

Springwood Development – A regional for-profit
housing developer.

Dorgan & Zuck Building Contractors, Inc. – A local
for-profit housing developer.

Pennrose Properties, LLC – A national for-profit
housing developer based in Philadelphia.
Methodology
Each housing developer was surveyed to determine the
degree to which it has achieved certain pre-development
and development milestones for each of the 20 projects in
the pipeline. The milestones included the following:

Site control achieved

Zoning approval received

Progress of design:
o Schematic drawings only
o Development drawings completed
o Construction drawings completed

General contractor selected

Progress of financing:
o All financing applications submitted
o Some financing commitments approved
o All financing commitments approved

Environmental release achieved

Building permit obtained

Stage of construction:
o Mobilization of construction
underway
o Construction underway
o Construction 50% complete

equipment
Progress toward occupancy:
o
o
Marketing efforts have resulted in contact
information for prospective occupants
Income verification of buyers/tenants
complete
28
o
Initial occupancy achieved.
Results of the Readiness to Proceed Analysis
Based on this evaluation method, the pipeline projects
were ranked in the following order with the highest ranked
project identified as being the one most ready to proceed
with or complete construction. The locations of the
pipeline projects are illustrated on the following page and
also listed in Figure 7.

Owner Units:
1. Community Renaissance
2. 611 Cleveland Avenue
3. Village Court
4. Spring Valley Manor II
5. 450 North Beaver Street
6. 549 South Duke Street
7. Red Lion Borough Project
8. York City Rehab Project Scattered Sites
9. Kings Mill
10. (tie) 613 Cleveland Avenue and 70 Boundary
Avenue
11. (tie) West Princess Street and Turnkey III
12. Codorus Homes (30 owner units)

Rental Units:
1. 431 South George Street
2. Stony Brook Gardens
3. Senior Residences at Hanover Shoe
4. Hudson Park Towers Preservation
5. West Princess Street
6. (tie) Manchester Borough Housing and Codorus
Homes (30 rental units)
Relying on this evaluation methodology, it is then possible
to estimate when the planned housing units will be ready
for occupancy.
29
PROPOSED PIPELINES IN COUNTY
7 Approx. Location of proposed pipelines
A - Hanover Senior Residences
B - Stony Brook Gardens
C - Village Court Homeownership
D - Spring Valley Manor II
E - Kings Mill
F - 611 Cleveland Ave.
G - 549 S. Duke St.
H - 431 S. George St.
I - Scattered Sites
J - Turnkey III
K - Codorus Homes
FAIRVIEW TWP
GOLDSBORO
BORO
CARROLL TWP
LEWISBERRY
BORO
MONAGHAN TWP
NEWBERRY TWP
YORK
HAVEN
BORO
DILLSBURG
BORO
FRANKLINTOWN
BORO
WARRINGTON TWP
FRANKLIN TWP
CONEWAGO TWP
WELLSVILLE
BORO
MOUNT
WOLF
BORO
MANCHESTER
BORO
EAST
MANCHESTER
TWP
HELLAM TWP
DOVER TWP
D
7
WASHINGTON TWP
DOVER
BORO
WEST
YORK
BORO
WEST
MANCHESTER
TWP
PARADISE TWP
7
77
7
777
I J G
F K
H
E
SPRING
GARDEN
TWP
WINDSOR TWP
YOE
BORO
WINDSOR
BORO
RED LION
BORO
DALLASTOWN
BORO
CHANCEFORD TWP
JACOBUS
BORO
NORTH CODORUS TWP
.
LOWER WINDSOR TWP
NEW
SALEM
BORO
JACKSON TWP
EAST
PROSPECT
BORO
YORKANA
BORO
B
7
YORK CITY
YORK TWP
SPRING
GROVE
BORO
SEVEN
VALLEYS
BORO
FELTON
BORO
LOGANVILLE
BORO
WINTERSTOWN
BORO
SPRINGFIELD TWP
HEIDELBERG TWP
HANOVER
BORO
JEFFERSON
BORO
A
7
GLEN
ROCK
BORO
CODORUS TWP
PENN TWP
MANHEIM TWP
WEST MANHEIM TWP
SPRINGETTSBURY TWP
NORTH
YORK
BORO
C
7
WRIGHTSVILLE
BORO
HALLAM BORO
MANCHESTER TWP
SHREWSBURY
BORO
EAST HOPEWELL TWP
HOPEWELL TWP
FAWN TWP
RAILROAD
BORO
NEW
FREEDOM
BORO
LOWER CHANCEFORD TWP
CROSS
ROADS
BORO
NORTH
HOPEWELL
TWP
STEWARTSTOWN
BORO
SHREWSBURY TWP
PEACH BOTTOM TWP
FAWN
GROVE
BORO
DELTA BORO
Figure 7. Estimated Date of Occupancy of Pipeline Projects
2006
Development
3Q
4Q
2007
1Q
2Q
3Q
2008
4Q
1Q
2Q
3Q
2009
4Q
1Q
2Q
3Q
2010
4Q
1Q
2Q
3Q
2011
4Q
1Q
2Q
Total
Units
OWNER UNITS
Village Court
6
6
450 North Beaver Street
1
1
611 Cleveland Avenue
1
1
549 South Duke Street
1
Red Lion Borough Project
2
York City Rehab Project
2
1
2
2
Community Renaissance
2
6
21
21
Kings Mill
13
12
Spring Valley Manor II
25
8
8
613 Cleveland Avenue
1
1
Turnkey III
16
16
70 Boundary Avenue
1
1
West Princess Street
15
15
Codorus Homes (owner units)
30
30
RENTAL UNITS
431 South George Street
5
5
Stony Brook Gardens
84
84
Senior Residences at Hanover Shoe
24
24
Hudson Park Towers Preservation
69
Codorus Homes (rental units)
69
30
30
West Princess Street
30
30
Manchester Borough Housing*
TOTAL UNITS (owner and rental)
40
13
5
0
105
0
15
24
0
69
102
1
30
0
52
40
0
0
0
0
0
0
416
Sources: Housing Developers; Mullin & Lonergan Associates
* May be as many as 50 units.
30
In Figure 7, the number of housing units anticipated to be
available for occupancy has been estimated for each
quarter beginning in July 2006. For example, in the third
quarter of 2006, 8 new owner units and 5 new rental units
are expected to be completed and occupied. By the end of
2007, another 36 new owner and 84 new rental units will
be completed and occupied. Based on the data in Figure
7, it is estimated that the 100 new affordable housing units
proposed in the YorkCounts Commission report will be
achieved by the end of the second quarter in 2007—three
years in advance of the target date. Cumulatively, over the
next five years, 134 new owner units and 282-292 new
rental units will be added to the affordable housing stock in
York County.
Organizational Capacity
To determine the degree to which local and regional
housing providers are able to address the need for
affordable housing in York County, a total of fifteen
developers were surveyed. Of these, thirteen responded
with information on active projects, two (Pennrose
Properties and John Lingg) responded that they had no
active projects in York County and one (Penn Mar
Organization) did not respond at all. Figure 8 provides a
summary of this assessment of organizational capacity for
the thirteen housing providers with active projects in the
county.
Three primary criteria were used to assess the
organizational capacity of the housing developers. These
included:

Access to capital for pre-development costs

Number of staff persons dedicated exclusively to
housing development, and

Number of housing units developed compared to the
number of years of experience in real estate
development.
Access to capital financing for pre-development costs
enables a developer to perform a market study, conduct a
Phase I environmental assessment and obtain site control in
a timely manner. Without ready access to pre-development
funds, developers are very limited in their ability to explore
the feasibility of a project. Among the local developers, York
Housing Authority (through its non-profit organization CONE
– Creating Opportunities in Neighborhood Environments),
Springwood Development, Y CDC, Dorgan & Zuck Building
Contractors all reported ready access to capital.
31
1.5
1
1
0
32
Number of fulltime staff members
dedicated to housing development
Number of affordable rental
housing projects undertaken
Number of LIHTC projects
undertaken
housing units constructed
housing units rehabilitated
32
7.1
8.2
no
yes
Ready access to capital for site
control and other development
expenses
Experience in partnering with other
affordable housing providers on
real estate development projects
no
no
0
12
0
142
142
0
3
5
0
20
20
no
Number of affordable home
ownership units rehabilitated and
sold
Average annual production rate
(total number of units constructed
and rehabilitated divided by
number of years in affordable
housing development)
38
10
Number of years of experience in
affordable housing development
32
10
Number of years of experience in
real estate development
Number of affordable home
ownership units constructed and
sold
no
Concentrates exclusively on
development of affordable housing
housing units currently under
management
HICDC
CRITERIA
Crispus
Attucks
Assoc.
yes
no
3.8
32
47
0
0
0
0
0
5
21
21
yes
York Habitat for
Humanity
yes
yes
25.8
0
42
1,395
60
1,342
2
20
2
56
56
yes
York Housing
Authority
(CONE)
yes
yes
23.6
0
0
189
189
0
3
3
5
8
8
no
Y CDC
yes
no
14.6
34
0
394
206
272
2
52
18
35
35
yes
York Area Dev.
Corp.
yes
yes
61.1
152
0
412
47
412
7
9
12
10
10
no
Springwood
Development
yes
yes
NA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
2
2
no
Dorgan & Zuck
Building Cont.
yes
yes
359.3
48
9
3998
1881
2373
42
47
12
12
12
yes
Homes for
America
yes
yes
88.9
0
50
2040
>60
>3,000
>25
>50
96
35
35
yes
HDC of
Lancaster
yes
yes
64.7
0
50-100
0
116
262
18
18
3
7
25
no
S&A
Homes
Source: Housing Developers; Mullin & Lonergan Associates
yes
yes
24.4
0
0
464
410
54
12
12
15
19
19
no
PFG Capital
Corporation
Figure 8. Assessment of Developers’ Capacity
The number of staff dedicated exclusively to housing
development indicates how much time and effort a developer
can devote to creating new housing. A staff of several fulltime employees working exclusively on locating sites and
developing financing packages, as well as overseeing
construction, enables a developer to focus on its mission to
build housing. Among the local developers, all but Crispus
Attucks Association reported full-time staff dedicated to
housing development.
Finally, the number of housing units created compared to the
number of years of experience in affordable housing
development indicates the level of productivity of a housing
developer. Among local York County entities, Springwood
Development is the most productive developer having
created 611 units over the past 10 years. This equates to an
average annual production rate of 61.1 units. York Housing
Authority has an annual rate of 25.8 units. Y CDC reported
an annual rate of 23.6 units. Annual production rates of
other local providers included York Area Development
Corporation – 14.6 units, HICDC – 8.2 units, Crispus Attucks
Association – 7.1 units and York Habitat for Humanity – 3.8
units. Typically, for-profit entities with paid professional staff
dedicated to housing development will have the capacity to
produce more affordable housing units.
Non-profit
organizations such as York Habitat for Humanity, whose
mission emphasizes volunteer labor, do not typically
complete large scale projects; however, they can construct
or rehabilitate homes much more cost-effectively than other
developers, making their contribution to the community just
as valuable.
The average annual production rates of regional housing
providers ranged from 24.4 units by PFG Capital Corporation
to 359.3 units by Homes for America.
In summary, the current and projected demand for affordable
housing creates a need for local housing developers in York
County. To address the projected increase household
growth, more housing units will have to be constructed
and/or rehabilitated.
Suggesting that more housing
developers are needed in York County to resolve this issue
is a double-edged sword. While more developers could
conceivably generate more units, the competition for scarce
resources would become more intense.
It would be
preferable for local affordable housing developers to
establish their unique market niche and cooperate as
necessary to address increasing demand.
33
COMMON IMPEDIMENTS TO DEVELOPING AFFORDABLE
HOUSING IN YORK COUNTY
The following impediments to developing affordable
housing York County were identified:

The high cost of land, specifically undeveloped land

Difficulty in finding land

Inadequate supply of development sites in general

Insufficient supply of land zoned for multi-family
housing

Relocation and demolition
involving site assembly

The NIMBY (“Not In My Backyard”) response

In distressed areas, achievable rents are too low to
meet operating expenses, thereby making some
projects unfeasible too finance or require high
subsidies.

The increasing costs of ongoing property
management such as real estate taxes, insurance,
management and maintenance, which make it
difficult for developers to offer quality management
services, thereby making smaller projects less
viable

Funding is being re-directed away from
rehabilitation, which historically paid for the high
cost of lead based paint abatement, making
expansion of affordable housing in older boroughs
and the City of York extremely difficult.

Non-profit developers having an inadequate supply
of capital to meet pre-development expenses
severely limits their ability to explore the feasibility
of potential projects as prospects arise.

Total development costs are greater than
achievable sales price for homeownership projects.
As a result, the actual cost of developing housing
can be twice as high as the sales price of
affordable units to lower income households.

In high growth areas, market rate projects offer
higher profit margins to builders and developers
thereby reducing the supply of labor and number of
firms interested in affordable housing.
34
costs
in
projects

Market rate transactions offer fewer challenges and
higher commissions to Realtors (homeownership
projects).

Continuously shrinking state and federal funding
sources to subsidize affordable housing projects.
35
ALTERNATIVE FINANCING PLANS AND DEVELOPMENT
SOLUTIONS
Most of the pipeline projects reviewed as part of this study
involved mainstream sources of financing that are
commonly used in affordable housing development. This
is a positive reflection of the local affordable housing
development industry and its ability to understand and
utilize major funding tools. The competition for these funds
is intense. The fact that these tools are widely used in
York County reflects the capacity of local affordable
housing developers to compete successfully for scarce
resources.
One project in particular is noteworthy in terms of the
anticipated trend in affordable housing development in
Pennsylvania. This project involves HICDC’s proposed
creation of 25 sales units in the City of York under PHFA’s
Homeownership Construction Initiative (HCI).
This
financing mechanism has emerged as an important tool to
create affordable sales housing within the context of a
broader urban revitalization plan. The Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania is supportive of urban revitalization planning
efforts that lead to successful development projects. In
order to qualify for “impact project” funding from the
Commonwealth, it is important for York County to have
several revitalization projects in various stages of planning
and development at all times. The HCI project in the city is
an important step in building the capacity and a track
record for future funding streams under PHFA’s three
Homeownership Choice Programs and PA DCED
programs.
In order to further expand the supply of affordable housing
in York County, developers may wish to consider several
sources of financing, which are underrepresented among
current projects:

Rural LISC as a source of pre-development
financing

Act 137 funds received from the county’s Affordable
Housing Trust Fund, especially as a source of cash
for debt service and / or other strategic uses

PA DCED’s new Core Communities Housing
Program (CCHP) as well as Housing and
Redevelopment Assistance funds

Mixed income projects (both rental and
homeownership) in more affluent areas of the
County where above average rents and sales
36
prices can support the market rate component of
the project

HUD 202 capital advance and rental assistance for
senior housing

HUD 811 capital advance and rental assistance in
support of housing for persons with disabilities

CDBG and HUD Section 108 loans, used primarily
in support of projects involving rehabilitation or for
infrastructure improvements. Under the CDBG
Program, predominantly residential targeted areas
designated by HUD as Neighborhood Revitalization
Strategy Areas (NRSA) are more easily qualified for
mixed income housing.

PHFA’s Mixed Use Facility Financing Initiative
(MUFFI) for the rehabilitation of vacant downtown
buildings that can support ground floor commercial
and upper floor residential uses. This tool can be
combined effectively with historic tax credits.

PHFA Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative for
projects involving the rehabilitation of existing
residential structures and/or infill development on
vacant lots in urban residential neighborhoods.
Note that this is a homeownership program, not a
rental housing or a homeowner rehab program.

Tax increment financing, especially in projects
involving the assembly of sites through the
redevelopment process or in properties that are
currently exempt from real estate taxes

Fannie Mae, the largest purchaser of low income
housing tax credits in the nation, offers loan
products to local governments, for-profits and nonprofits to bridge or leverage other financing
resources.

PA Neighborhood Assistance Act tax credits

PHFA New Markets tax credits

AHP assistance from the Federal Home Loan Bank

USDA Rural Development programs such as SelfHelp Housing, Rural Home Loan Partnership, 538
Guaranteed Rural Rental Housing, and Community
Facilities Program for Housing.
37
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
RECOMMENDATIONS
EXPANSION
STRATEGY
Additional Research
Determine the need for affordable workforce housing.
Conduct a survey of major employers in the county to
determine whether their manpower needs are being
adequately met and the extent to which adequate housing
(for all income groups) is a factor in the recruitment
process. Research commutation patterns and travel time
to work. Research the adequacy of public transit in terms
of linking lower income housing resources to places of
employment. Use the results of this research to determine
whether employer-assisted housing programs for lower
wage employees are needed.
(Note: Susquehanna-Pfaltzgraff conducted a Live Near
Your Work survey in 2003. Survey results indicated that
the primary reasons why employees were not purchasing
homes were financially driven. By designing an employerassisted housing program to provide financial incentives
for down payment assistance and exterior rehabilitation,
the company was able to develop a program to fit the
needs of its employees who were rental households and
interested in becoming homeowners. A similar study of
major employers county-wide could assist in the
development of a larger program with potentially greater
funding from private resources available to assist lower
income working households.)
Organizational Strategy
Nurture organizations that play a role in the development
and management of affordable housing, particularly small,
local non-profit developers. Consider the establishment of
an umbrella organization (such as Housing York County)
for the purpose of soliciting private foundation resources
on behalf of all non-profit housing developers in the
county. Such a resource could be used to finance a
revolving loan fund for ready access to pre-development
capital, capacity-building initiatives and other identified
funding shortfalls. Conduct affordable housing workshops
to offer local affordable housing developers frequent
opportunities to network about available sites, potential
buildings, possible partnerships, etc.
Travel to other
areas of the state to tour affordable housing initiatives that
are relevant to York County. Consider co-development
opportunities as appropriate.
38
Continue to foster communication and coordination
between developers, government, employers, and human
service agencies. Treat affordable housing as a regional
issue. Identify priority housing and supportive service
initiatives. Make sure that the right hand knows what the
left hand is doing. Select the next five priority housing
projects that have the potential to make a difference in the
county. Focus resources on priority projects.
Planning
Conduct revitalization planning studies in priority urban
areas. Establish a cycle of planning and implementation
measures such that only one major revitalization project is
being developed at any one time.
Update zoning ordinances to reflect current conditions and
needs. Increase the amount of land zoned for medium
and higher density residential use and mixed use
development.
Encourage municipalities to develop
innovative zoning regulations such as distinguishing
between multi-family housing and elderly housing when
developing parking requirements.
Advocate for
inclusionary housing requirements and clustered housing
design in the townships.
Financing
Secure a reliable source of pre-development loans for local
housing providers to enable worthwhile projects to move
forward. Establish a level of confidence with a predevelopment lender and make repeated use of predevelopment loans for priority projects. Explore new
USDA funding programs.
Expand the use of non-traditional financing mechanisms.
Take advantage of newer PHFA funding opportunities to
create highly leveraged revitalization projects that blend
homeownership with other neighborhood projects. Seek
out “impact project” funding from PA DCED’s Community
Action Team. Remain open to complicated projects
involving site assembly, environmental remediation and
infrastructure improvements. Create the local expertise to
re-build urban neighborhoods.
39
APPENDIX A
Demographic Analysis
By
Planning Region
40
Planning Region 1, South Central York
Planning Region 1 in South Central York County is one of
the most rural of the seven regions. The following
municipalities are included in this region:

Glen Rock Borough
Hopewell Township
Jacobus Borough
Loganville Borough
New Freedom Borough
North Hopewell Township
Railroad Borough
Seven Valleys Borough
Shrewsbury Borough
Shrewsbury Township
Stewartstown Borough
Winterstown Borough
Households 55 years and older grew by approximately
1,000 households since 2000 and are projected to
increase by the same number over the next five years. By
comparison, the number of younger households is
projected to remain virtually unchanged during the same
period.
Figure 9. Projected Household Growth in Planning Region 1, 2000-2011
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
Age 15-54
4,000
Age 55+
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2000
2006
2011
Among all households, 29% have incomes of less than
80% of the area median income (AMI). Of these, 58% are
households 55 and older.
41
Figure 10. Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 1, 2006
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
>30%-60% AMI
($15,000-$29,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($30,000-$39,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($40,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI & up
($60,000 & up)
Total
Households
Age 15-54
299
589
665
1,605
4,579
Age 55+
679
980
523
1,015
2,000
5,197
Total
978
1,569
1,188
2,620
6,579
12,934
7,737
By 2011 34% of all households are projected to have
incomes of less than 80% of AMI. Of these lower income
households, 65% are projected to be households 55 and
older.
Figure 11. Projected Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 1, 2011
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
Age 15-54
>30%-60% AMI
($15,000-$34,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($35,000-$44,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($45,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI & up
($60,000 & up)
Total
Households
260
766
637
1,092
4,970
Age 55+
1,178
1,334
615
875
2,247
7,725
6,249
Total
1,438
2,100
1,252
1,967
7,217
13,974
The number of households 55 and older in the 0%-30%
income group will increase by 73% (499 households)
over the next five years from 679 to 1,178. Increases
also are projected in the >30%-60% income group
among households 55 and older (354 households;
36%) and among households 15-54 (177 households;
30%).
Figure 12. Projected Change in Households by Age and Income in Planning Region 1, 2006-2011
>115% AMI & up
>80%-115% AMI
Age 55+
>60%-80% AMI
Age 15-54
>30%-60% AMI
0%-30% AMI
-40.0%
-20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
80.0%
42
Planning Region 2, Greater York East
Planning Region 2 is located east of the City of York and
includes the following municipalities:

Dallastown Borough
East Prospect Borough
Hallam Borough
Hellam Township
Lower Windsor Township
Red Lion Borough
Springettsbury Township
Spring Garden Township
Windsor Borough
Windsor Township
Wrightsville Borough
Yoe Borough
York Township
Yorkana Borough
increase by another 2,700 households over the next five
years. By comparison, the number of younger households
is projected to remain virtually unchanged from 2006 to
2011.
30,000
25,000
20,000
Age 15-54
15,000
Age 55+
10,000
5,000
0
2000
2006
2011
80% of the area median income (AMI). Of these lower
income households, 58% are households 55 and older.
43
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
>30%-60% AMI
($15,000-$29,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($30,000-$39,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($40,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI & up
($60,000 & up)
Total
Households
Age 15-54
1,247
2,619
2,703
6,375
12,532
Age 55+
2,412
4,165
2,650
3,541
5,514
25,476
18,282
Total
3,659
6,784
5,353
9,916
18,046
43,758
By 2011, 38% of all households are projected to have
incomes of less than 80% of AMI. Of these lower income
households, 61% are projected to be households 55 and
older.
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
>31%-60% AMI
($15,000-$34,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($35,000-$44,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($45,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI & up
(%60,000 & up)
Total
Households
Age 15-54
1,171
3,321
2,537
4,426
14,086
Age 55+
2,397
5,738
2,737
2,930
7,196
25,541
20,998
Total
3,568
9,059
5,274
7,356
21,282
46,539
occur among households 55 and older in the >30%60% income group (1,573 households; 38%) and the
>115% income group (1,682 households; 31%).
Households 15-54 in the >30%-60% income group are
projected to increase by 702 households (27%).
>115% AMI
>80%-115% AMI
Age 55+
>60%-80% AMI
Age 15-54
>30%-60% AMI
0%-30% AMI
-40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0%
10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
44
Planning Region 3, Greater York West
Planning Region 3 is located in central York County west
of the City of York and includes the following
municipalities:

Conewago Township
Dover Borough
Dover Township
East Manchester Township
Jackson Township
Manchester Borough
Manchester Township
Mount Wolf Borough
New Salem Borough
North Codorus Township
North York Borough
Paradise Township
Spring Grove Borough
West Manchester Township
West York Borough
Households 55 years or older grew by approximately 3,000
households since 2000 and are projected to increase by
the same number over the next five years. By comparison,
the number of households 15-54 is projected to increase
by only 422 by 2011.
Figure 17. Household Growth in Planning Region 3, 2000-2011
30,000
25,000
20,000
Age 15-54
15,000
Age 55+
10,000
5,000
0
2000
2006
2011
45
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
Age 15-54
>30%-60% AMI
($15,000-$29,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($30,000-$39,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($40,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI & up
($60,000 & up)
Total
Households
896
2,423
2,685
5,997
12,039
Age 55+
2,067
3,693
2,390
3,247
4,101
24,040
15,498
Total
2,963
6,116
5,075
9,244
16,140
39,538
By 2011 it is projected that as many as 38% of all
households will have incomes of less than 80% of AMI. Of
these lower income households, 60% are projected to be
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
Age 15-54
>30%-60% AMI
($15,000-$34,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($35,000-$44,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($45,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI & up
($60,000 & up)
Total
Households
804
3,085
2,550
4,221
13,802
Age 55+
2,050
5,247
2,540
2,738
5,714
24,462
18,289
Total
2,854
8,332
5,090
6,959
19,516
42,751
The most significant household growth projected to
occur will be among households 55 and older in the
>30%-60% income group (1,554 households; 42%) and
the >115% income group (1,613 households; 39%).
Also, households 15-54 in the >30%-60% income
group are projected to increase by 662 households
(27%).
>115% AMI & up
>80%-115% AMI
Age 55+
>60%-80% AMI
Age 15-54
>30%-60% AMI
0%-30% AMI
-40.0% -30.0% -20.0% -10.0% 0.0%
10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%
46
Planning Region 4, Northern York
Planning Region 4 is the northernmost region in the
County and includes the following municipalities:

Carroll Township
Dillsburg Township
Fairview Township
Franklin Township
Franklintown Borough
Goldsboro Borough
Lewisberry Borough
Monaghan Township
Newberry Township
Warrington Township
Washington Township
Wellsville Borough
York Haven Borough
increase by the same number over the next five years. By
projected to decrease by 1% from 2006 to 2011.
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
Age 15-54
8,000
Age 55+
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2000
2006
2011
47
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
>30%-60% AMI
($15,000-$29,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($30,000-$39,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($40,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI & up
($60,000 & up)
Total
Households
Age 15-54
569
1,213
1,320
3,135
7,847
Age 55+
830
1,414
906
1,712
2,707
7,569
1,399
2,627
2,226
4,847
10,554
21,653
Total
14,084
households will have incomes of less than 80% of AMI with
56% of these being households 55 and older.
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
>30%-60% AMI
($15,000-$34,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($35,000-$44,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($45,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI & up
($60,000 & up)
Total
Households
Age 15-54
490
1,458
1,235
2,081
8,676
Age 55+
859
2,038
1,075
1,554
3,809
9,335
1,349
3,496
2,310
3,635
12,485
23,275
Total
13,940
occur among households 55 and older in the >30%60% income group (624 households; 44%) and the
>115% income group (1,102 households; 41%).
Moderate household growth is projected for households
15-54 in the >30%-60% income group (245 households;
20%).
>115% AMI & up
>80%-115% AMI
Age 55+
>60%-80% AMI
Age 15-54
>30%-60% AMI
0%-30% AMI
-40.0%
-20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
48
Planning Region 5, South Western York
Planning Region 5 is located in southwestern York County
and includes the following municipalities:

Codorus Township
Hanover Borough
Heidelberg Township
Jefferson Borough
Manheim Township
Penn Township
West Manheim Township
Households 55 years or older grew by approximately 1,400
the same number over the next five years. By comparison,
the number of younger households is projected to increase
by only 221 households between 2006 and 2011.
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
Age 15-54
6,000
Age 55+
4,000
2,000
0
2000
2006
2011
80% of the area median income (AMI). Of these, 58% are
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
Age 15-54
>30%-60% AMI
($15,000-$29,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($30,000-$39,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($40,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI & up
($60,000 & up)
Total
Households
516
1,297
1,231
2,915
5,480
Age 55+
1,115
2,037
1,005
1,584
2,230
11,439
7,971
Total
1,631
3,334
2,236
4,499
7,710
19,410
49
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
Age 15-54
>30%-60% AMI
($15,000-$34,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($35,000-$44,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($45,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI & up
($60,000 & up)
Total
Households
477
1,603
1,240
2,075
6,265
Age 55+
1,099
2,735
1,038
1,327
3,125
11,660
9,324
Total
1,576
4,338
2,278
3,402
9,390
20,984
occur among households 55 and older in the >30%60% income group (698 households; 34%) and the
>115% income group (895 households; 40%). Growth
also is projected in the >115% income group among
households 15-54 (785 households; 14%).
Moderate household growth is projected to occur among
households 15-54 in the >30%-60% income group (306
households; 24%).
>115% AMI &
up
>80%-115%
AMI
Age 55+
>60%-80% AMI
Age 15-54
>30%-60% AMI
0%-30% AMI
-40.0%
-20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
40.0%
60.0%
50
Planning Region 6, City of York
Planning Region 6 is comprised exclusively of the City of
York.
Households 55 years and older grew by
approximately 200 households since 2000 and are
projected to increase by the same number over the next
five years. By comparison, the number of younger
households is projected to decline by nearly 4% (419
households) over the next five years.
Figure 29. Household Growth in Planning Region 6, 2000-2011
12,000
10,000
8,000
Age 15-54
6,000
Age 55+
4,000
2,000
0
2000
2006
2011
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
>30%-60% AMI
($15,000-$29,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($30,000-$39,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($40,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI & up
($60,000 & up)
Total
Households
Age 15-54
2,520
2,820
1,665
2,125
1,506
Age 55+
1,638
1,522
625
769
592
5,146
Total
4,158
4,342
2,290
2,894
2,098
15,782
10,636
households will have incomes of less than 80% of the area
median income (AMI). Of these lower income households,
36% are projected to be households 55 and older.
51
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
>30%-60% AMI
($15,000-$34,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($35,000-$44,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($45,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI & up
($60,000 & up)
Total
Households
Age 15-54
2,353
3,354
1,419
1,410
1,681
Age 55+
1,559
1,917
571
572
726
5,345
Total
3,912
5,271
1,990
1,982
2,407
15,562
10,217
The most significant household growth projected to
occur will be in the >30%-60% income group of
households 55 and older (395 households; 26%) and
among households 15-54 (534 households; 19%).
Moderate household growth is projected in the >115%
income group of households 55 and older (134
households; 23%) and among households 15-54 (175
households; 12%).
>115% AMI & up
>80%-115% AMI
Age 55+
>60%-80% AMI
Age 15-54
>30%-60% AMI
0%-30% AMI
-40.0%
-30.0%
-20.0%
-10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
52
Planning Region 7, South Eastern York
Planning Region 7, located in far southeastern York
County, is the least populated and the most rural region. It
includes the following municipalities:

Chanceford Township
Cross Roads Borough
Delta Borough
East Hopewell Township
Fawn Township
Fawn Grove Borough
Felton Borough
Lower Chanceford Township
Peach Bottom Township
Households 55 years and older grew by approximately 500
another 600 households over the next five years. By
projected to remain nearly unchanged in 2011.
6,000
5,000
4,000
Age 15-54
3,000
Age 55+
2,000
1,000
0
2000
2006
2011
53
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
>30%-60% AMI
($15,000-$29,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($30,000-$39,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($40,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI & up
($60,000 & up)
Total
Households
Age 15-54
178
393
471
1,217
2,974
5,233
Age 55+
369
613
405
496
887
2,770
Total
547
1,006
876
1,713
3,861
8,003
0%-30% AMI
($0-$14,999)
>30%-60% AMI
($15,000-$34,999)
>60%-80% AMI
($35,000-$44,999)
>80%-115% AMI
($45,000-$59,999)
>115% AMI & up
($60,000 & up)
Total
Households
Age 15-54
163
472
450
815
3,300
5,200
Age 55+
369
857
422
453
1,302
3,403
Total
532
1,329
872
1,268
4,602
8,603
occur among households 55 and older in the >30%60% income group (244 households; 40%) and in the
>115% income group (415 households; 47%).
Moderate household growth is projected to occur among
households 15-54 in the >115% income group (326
households; 11%).
>115% AMI & up
>80%-115% AMI
Age 55+
>60%-80% AMI
Age 15-54
>30%-60% AMI
0%-30% AMI
-40.0%
-20.0%
0.0%
20.0%
54
40.0%
60.0%
APPENDIX B
Inventory of Assisted
Owner Housing in York County
55
ASSISTED HOME OWNER UNITS IN YORK COUNTY (as of June 26, 2006)
ADDRESS
525 Thomas Street
527 Thomas Street
529 Thomas Street
80 Charles Lane
82 Charles Lane
88 Charles Lane
607 Cleveland Ave
10 Penna Ave
MUNICIPALITY
York City
York City
York City
Dover Borough
Dover Borough
Dover Borough
York City
Goldsboro Borough
DEVELOPER
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
BUILDER
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
Youthbuild
S&A
SALES PRICE
$52,000
$52,000
$49,000
$68,000
$68,000
$62,000
$34,900
$104,900
FUNDING SOURCES / SPONSOR
RDA McKinney, Bon-Ton
RDA McKinney, Harley Davidson
RDA McKinney, Susquehanna
County HOME
County HOME
County HOME
City HOME
County HOME, DCED Brownfields
2005
531 Thomas St
533 Thomas St
523 Thomas St
521 Thomas St
519 Thomas St
517 Thomas St
84 Charles Lane
86 Charles Lane
81 Charles Lane
79 Charles Lane
78 Charles Lane
21 E Broadway
23 E Broadway
12 Penna Ave
3150 Jayne Lane
3151 Jayne Lane
3152 Jayne Lane
3153 Jayne Lane
3155 Jayne Lane
3157 Jayne Lane
3163 Jayne Lane
3165 Jayne Lane
3166 Jayne Lane
3167 Jayne Lane
3168 Jayne Lane
3169 Jayne Lane
York City
York City
York City
York City
Dover Borough
Dover Borough
Dover Borough
Dover Borough
Dover Borough
Dover Borough
Dover Borough
Goldsboro Borough
Goldsboro Borough
Goldsboro Borough
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
HICIC
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
D&Z
D&Z
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
S&A
S&A
S&A
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
E.G. Stolzfus
Reistville
E.G. Stolzfus
Reistville
$50,000
$50,000
$50,000
$53,000
$53,000
$50,000
$62,000
$68,000
$68,000
$68,000
$70,000
$104,900
$104,900
$104,900
$121,850/$112,850
$120,850/$111,850
$121,850/$112,850
$120,850/$111,850
$120,850/$111,850
$120,850/$111,850
$120,850/$111,850
$120,850/$111,850
$117,900/$106,900
$120,850/$111,850
$119,200/$110,200
$120,850/$111,850
RDA McKinney
RDA McKinney
RDA McKinney, Wolf Organization
RDA McKinney, St. Onge Co./YTI
RDA McKinney, Bankers & Brokers
RDA McKinney, St. John’s Episcopal
County HOME, Youth United
County HOME, Kinsley
County HOME, RAYAC
County HOME, Harley Davidson
County HOME, Building on Faith
FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME, RHS
FHLB, AHO/YHA, County HOME
FHLB, AHO/YHA
FHLB, AHO/YHA
FHLB, AHO/YHA
2006
76 Allen Lane
78 Allen Lane
80 Allen Lane
437 N Beaver St
312 East Princess
314 East Princess
Dover Borough
Dover Borough
Dover Borough
York City
York City
York City
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
YHFH
D&Z
D&Z
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
D&Z
D&Z
$75,000
$75,000
$68,000
$62,000
$69,900
$69,900
County HOME, Coldwell Banker
County HOME, Women Build
County HOME, SPONSOR
City Adopt-A-House, SPONSOR
PHFA HCP, City HOME
PHFA HCP, City HOME
2004
56
ADDRESS
316 East Princess
318 East Princess
320 East Princess
322 East Princess
324 East Princess
340 E. Princess St.
626 S. Newberry St.
3143 Jayne Lane
3145 Jayne Lane
3147 Jayne Lane
3149 Jayne Lane
3154 Jayne Lane
3156 Jayne Lane
3158 Jayne Lane
3159 Jayne Lane
3160 Jayne Lane
3161 Jayne Lane
3162 Jayne Lane
3164 Jayne Lane
450 N Beaver St *
611 Cleveland Ave *
549 S. Duke St *
70 E High St *
72 E High St *
MUNICIPALITY
York City
York City
York City
York City
York City
York City
York City
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
Dover Township
York City
York City
York City
Red Lion Borough
Red Lion Borough
DEVELOPER
D&Z
D&Z
D&Z
D&Z
D&Z
YHFH
YHFH
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
AHO/YHA
HICDC
Crispus Attucks
Crispus Attucks
HICDC
HICDC
BUILDER
D&Z
D&Z
D&Z
D&Z
D&Z
YHFH
YHFH
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
Reistville
D&Z
82 Allen Lane
84 Allen Lane
86 Allen Lane
537 Atlantic Ave
38 W. Jackson St.
Olde Towne East
Dover Borough
Dover Borough
Dover Borough
York City
York City
York City
HICDC
HICDC
HICDC
YHFH
YHFH
D&Z
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
D&Z
2008
Allen Lane
Allen Lane
Jackson St.
Dover Borough
Dover Borough
York City
HICDC
HICDC
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
YHFH
2009
Jackson St.
Kings Mill
York City
York City
YHFH
HICDC
YHFH
2007
* Under construction
57
YHFH
YHFH
SALES PRICE
$69,900
$69,900
$69,900
$69,900
$69,900
$55,000
$60,000
$121,850/$112,850
$121,850/$112,850
$121,850/$112,850
$121,850/$112,850
$120,850/$111,850
$120,850/$111,850
$120,850/$111,850
$120,850/$111,850
$120,850/$111,850
$120,850/$111,850
$120,850/$111,850
$120,850/$111,850
$69,900
$30,000
$80,000
$65,000
$65,000
FUNDING SOURCES / SPONSOR
PHFA HCP, City HOME
PHFA HCP, City HOME
PHFA HCP, City HOME
PHFA HCP, City HOME
PHFA HCP, City HOME
City Adopt-A-House, SPONSOR
YHFH Board, Committees & Staff
FHLB, AHO/YHA
City HOME
NAP, LBP Grant
NAP, City HOME
County, HOME, Building on Faith
County, HOME, Building on Faith
14 rehabs
SPONSOR
York College, St. Paul’s Lutheran
PHFA HCP, City HOME
York College
25 units proposed
York College
City HOME, County HOME, Brownfields, PHFA, RDA,
Bank construction loan
APPENDIX C
Inventory of Assisted
Rental Housing in York County
58
Development
131 East
Maple Street
222 West
College
Avenue
Bailey Mills
Apartments
Bell Housing
Scattered Sites
Boundary
Avenue
Broad Park
Manor
Cable House
Clearview
Terrace I & II
Cloverfield
Apartments
Codorus
Homes
Scattered Sites
Country Side
Estates
Crispus
Attucks
Dairyland
Apartments
Delphia House
Dillsburg
Heights
Dutch Kitchen
(SRO)
Eldon R.
Gemmill
The Fairmont
Fairmont
Village
Family
Housing
Scattered Sites
Rehab /
New
Rehab
Partnership
Ross
Anderson
Initial
Occupancy
Ross
Anderson
Rehab
Rehab
New
Bell Soc.
Services,
YADC
Crispus
Attucks
1987
YHA
1972
General /
Family
Units
Subsidized
Units
Elderly
Units
Special
Needs
Units
1
1
0
0
York City
1
1
0
0
York City
28
28
15
0
7
20
0
20
0
20
2
2
0
0
0
281
83
83
281
83
0
0
27
30
112
0
112
112
7
Sources of
Funds
LIHTC
Section 8
HUD 202
(CMI)
Private
Financing
Funding
Municipality
West York Borough
West York
York City
YADC
1983
24
0
24
0
24
Public Housing
Section 8
HUD 236 &
202
Section 8
Section 8
HUD 202
YHA
1954
60
60
60
0
5
Public Housing
York City
32
32
32
0
2
Dover
25
25
10
0
0
40
103
0
0
40
103
40
103
4
10
RHS
Private
Financing
RHS
Section 8
Section 8
36
13
13
0
2
Dillsburg
1993
59
0
50
0
59
RHS
LIHTC
Section 8
1983
1
75
1
0
0
75
0
75
4
YHA
York City
Lower Chanceford
Twp
Fairview Township
YHA
1988
25
25
25
0
2
YHA
Fairview Twp
YHA
1986
12
12
12
0
0
YHA
Hanover
Crispus
Attucks
New
Rehab
Total
Units
381 Assoc.,
YADC
Eldon
Gemmill
YHA
59
York City
York City
Hanover
W. Manchester Twp
York City
Dallastown
York City
Development
Family
Housing
Scattered Sites
Fielding Way
Fox Hunter
Apartments
Gateway
Apartments
Green
Meadow
Helfrich
Building
Highland
Manor
Apartments
Historic
Fairmont
Apartments
Hudson Park
Kain Rehab
12-20
Baltimore St.
Kingston
House
Rehab /
New
Partnership
YHA
YHA
Rehab
NC
Rehab
NC
Rehab
Rehab
Initial
Occupancy
Total
Units
General /
Family
Units
Subsidized
Units
Elderly
Units
Special
Needs
Units
1986
1995
17
15
17
15
17
15
0
0
0
4
YHA
YHA
46
46
46
0
1
2005
33
33
9
0
9
RHS
1st Mortgage
AHTF
Revolving
Brownfields
LIHTC
YADC
Sherman
Property
Mgmt
1981
46
0
46
46
6
RHS/RA
9
9
0
0
YADC
1982
33
33
33
0
38
38
0
0
HICDC
PFG Capital
Corp.
YWCA,
YADC
PFG Capital
Corp.
1
RHS
Section 8
LIHTC
Penn Homes
70
70
34
0
4
19
19
19
0
0
64
34
0
0
?
Rental Rehab
Section 8
HUD 202
Historic Tax
Credits
City HOME
Historic Tax
Credits
City HOME
HOME
Taxable Bond
LIHTC
Owner
Approp.
8
8
8
0
0
RHS
1982
78
0
78
78
8
King Street
Apartments
Rehab
YADC
1997
6
6
6
0
0
Liberty
Apartments
Rehab
YADC
1996
6
6
6
0
0
New
1998
60
Municipality
York City
Newberry Township
Dover
$550,000
$576,000
$400,000
$154,550
$3,276,000
West York Borough
Dillsburg
Stewartstown
York City
YADC
The Shelter
Group, Homes
for America
Funding
York City
Rehab
Manchester
Heights
Maple
Apartments
Sources of
Funds
York City
Hanover
West York Borough
York City
York City
$750,000
$894,866
$2,636,412
$62,995
$640,000
W. Manchester Twp
Manchester
Development
M’Calister Inn
Mt. Rose
Avenue
Apartments
New Freedom
Apartments
North Beaver
St. Ext.
Old Salem
Road
Apartments
Opera House I
Opera House
II
Parkside
Townhomes
Parkview at
Tyler Run
Parkway
Homes
Penn
Apartments
Rehab /
New
Rehab
Rehab
New
Partnership
Initial
Occupancy
Total
Units
General /
Family
Units
Subsidized
Units
Elderly
Units
Special
Needs
Units
M’Calister Inn
Associates,
HICDC
1998
34
34
0
34
2
YADC
Springwood
Development,
Southern
Community
Services
1982
4
4
4
0
0
1999
28
28
0
0
2
YHA
1991
6
6
6
0
4
YHA
1985
10
10
10
0
0
Rehab
PFG Capital
Corp.
1999
30
30
17
0
12
Rehab
PFG, Housing
Initiatives
2002
30
30
7
0
8
82
82
25
0
0
New
New
Shelter
Development,
Homes for
America
YHA
Bell Soc.
Services,
1997
80
0
39
80
21
1954-1963
270
246
270
24
1
1995
7
0
7
0
7
61
Sources of
Funds
HOME
CDBG
AHTF
LIHTC
Historic
Owner
Funding
$301,075
$904,025
$30,000
$658,406
$210,406
$110,000
Section 8
HOME
HOME
AHTF
1st Mtg.
Def. Dev.
LIHTC
$50,672
$250,000
$291,000
$656,550
$178,494
$1,584,108
AHTF
CountyCDBG
1st Mtg
Owner
LIHTC
HOME
CDBG
AHTF
1st Mtg
LIHTC
Owner
$165,203
$734,796
$700,000
$101,000
$2,425,000
$40,000
$300,000
$294,000
$510,000
$1,680,000
$96,000
LIHTC
HOME
AHTF
PHFA Bond
Penn Homes
Grant
LIHTC
$649,900
$ 94,030
$679,716
$1,100,000
$ 20,000
$2,124,000
Municipality
Hanover Borough
Spring Garden
Township
New Freedom
Borough
Manchester
Township
W. Manchester Twp
YHA
HUD 811
(CMI)
Red Lion Borough
Red Lion
Springettbury
Township
York Township
York City
York City
Development
Poplar Creek
Apartments
Presbyterian
House at
Dillsburg
Princess
Apartments
Pullman
Apartments
Pullman
Building
R-Towne
Development
Ridgefield
Court
SKW Housing
Project
Scattered Sites
Rehab /
New
New
New
Partnership
YADC
PFG Capital,
HICDC
Lobar
Associates
PFG Capital
Corp.
Initial
Occupancy
Total
Units
General /
Family
Units
Subsidized
Units
Elderly
Units
Sources of
Funds
2000
54
54
14
0
15
HOME
1st Mtg.
Owner
LIHTC
Under
construction
50
0
0
50
50
LIHTC
28
28
0
0
11
Rehab
Special
Needs
Units
David Beecher
Funding
$923,000
$800,000
$ 52,500
$1,600,000
Municipality
Manchester
Township
Carroll Township
West York Borough
7
York City
22
0
0
22
3
LIHTC
York City
10
10
10
0
0
RHS
1995
10
10
10
0
2
Public Housing
1989
34
4
0
4
13
4
34
0
0
Public Housing
York City
Glen Rock
Scattered Sites
YHA
Crispus
Attucks
YHA
YHA,
Hanover
Firehouse
Dillsburg
W. Manchester
Township
12
12
12
0
0
Section 8
Scattered Sites
YHA
1986
2
0
2
0
2
Public Housing
Scattered Sites
Scattered Sites
Scattered Sites
Scattered Sites
YHA
YHA
YHA
YADC
1997
1989
1986
1972-1982
10
5
10
32
10
5
10
32
10
5
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
Public Housing
Public Housing
Public Housing
4
PHFA Tax
Bond
State Tax
Bond
HOME
CDBG
Revolving
DCED
AHTF
Owner
LIHTC
Senior
Residence at
Hanover Shoe
Rehab
Rehab
Rehab
Pennrose,
Housing
Initiatives
2001
70
62
70
0
0
Hanover
Manchester
Township
Red Lion
Windsor
Yoe Borough
York City
$135,000
$1,000,000
$2,200,000
$185,000
$700,000
$800,000
$346,356
$386,125
$5,974,829
$340,000
Hanover
Development
Shady Oak
Apartments
Shelly School
Apartments
Sherrill
Apartments
Shrewsbury
Courtyards I
Shrewsbury
Courtyards II
Smyser Street
Apartments
Springfield
Apartments
South George
Street
Southeast
Historic
Partnership
Southeast
Neighborhood
Rehab
Springwood
Overlook
Rehab /
New
Rehab
Rehab
Rehab
Partnership
Initial
Occupancy
PFG Capital
PFG Capital,
HICDC
2001
Total
Units
General /
Family
Units
Subsidized
Units
Elderly
Units
Special
Needs
Units
35
35
8
0
0
17
17
8
0
20
20
0
0
5
Sources of
Funds
1st Mtg.
LIHTC
City HOME
Revolving
1st Mtg.
Owner
Historic &
LIHTC
Funding
Municipality
York City
$340,000
$285,000
$99,700
$1,160,000
West York Borough
Rehab
Terry Schrum
Springwood
Dev. Corp.,
Southern
Community
Services
Coalition
1997
47
0
4
47
4
New
Springwood
Development,
Southern
Community
Services
Coalition
2001
55
0
12
55
4
HOME
AHTF
Owner
1st Mtg. AHP
LIHTC
HOME
AHTF
Def.
Develop.
Donated Land
FHLB AHP
LIHTC
21
21
0
0
3
LIHTC
York City
75
0
0
75
4
W. Manchester Twp
36
36
0
0
1
Public Housing
LIHTC
Penn Homes
Crispus
Attucks
21
21
21
0
1
Crispus
Attucks
19
19
0
0
0
Rehab
PFG Capital
Rehab
YHA
Crispus
Attucks
Rehab
New
Penn Mar,
Springwood
Development
1983
2004
84
63
0
10
84
York City
9
$600,000
$250,000
$ 61,000
$760,00
$1,657,576
$555,250
$ 69,750
$224,299
$ 85,000
$625,000
$225,000
$2,798,000
Shrewsbury Borough
Shrewsbury
Township
York City
York City
York City
HOME
AHTF
PHFA 1st
PH
FHLB
Land
Dev. Fee
LIHTC
$746,250
$288,750
$377,500
$1,335,000
$490,000
$150,000
$161,595
$4,343,000
York Township
Development
Stony Brook
Gardens
Stony Brook
Manor
Strasburg
House
Tailored Lady
Apartments
Village at
York
Rehab /
New
New
Rehab
Walnut Street
School
Rehab
Wrightsville
Wyndamere
Apts.
General /
Family
Units
Subsidized
Units
Elderly
Units
Springwood
Development
Under
construction
84
0
0
84
1984
100
0
100
100
10
Public Housing
60
0
60
60
6
John Lingg
1994
York NSA
New
Waverly Court
Apartments at
Eastgate
Wellington
Homes
Total
Units
YHA
Village Court
Warehouse
Apartments
Partnership
Initial
Occupancy
Rehab
New
New
YHA (CONE)
YHA
West Lake
Falls
2004
Special
Needs
Units
Sources of
Funds
HOME
Brownfields
LIHTC
Dev. Equity
11
0
0
11
0
HUD 202
HOME
1st Mtg.
LIHTC
73
73
73
0
5
Section 8
60
60
11
0
6
1st Mtg.
Penn Homes
HOME
AHTF
Dev. Eq.
LIHTC
39
15
39
24
0
Section 8 Mod
Rehab
Funding
$2,450,000
$500,000
$6,853,322
$181,612
Municipality
Springettsbury Twp
Springettsbury Twp
Shrewsbury
$275,000
$400,000
$212,000
Hanover Borough
York City
$580,000
$1,000,000
$569,209
$323,050
$97,206
$3,711,005
Dover Township
Hanover
$500,000
$150,000
$650,000
$22,000
$1,200,000
$620,000
$300,000
$141,930
$1,380,000
$115,000
$3,520,855
Baltimore
Street
Associates
1996
33
33
19
0
3
YHA (CONE),
Community
Basics
2006
46
46
11
0
7
HOME
AHTF
1st Mtg.
GP Loan
LIHTC
HOME
AHTF
PHFA 1st
PennHomes
FHLB
LIHTC
YHA
1960
72
72
72
0
2
Public Housing
York City
YHA
HICDC,
YADC
1985
10
10
10
0
0
1996
65
65
13
0
3
Public Housing
PHFA 1st
PennHomes
Wrightsville
Borough
Springettsburty
Township
64
$777,426
$650,000
Hanover
Springettsbury
Township
Development
Rehab /
New
YMCA
Rehab
YMCA SRO
Rehab
York
Commons
Yorkbuild
Yorktowne
Apartments
Yorktowne
House
New
Rehab
New
Partnership
Initial
Occupancy
SMB
Properties
YMCA,
YADC
Shelter Group,
Homes for
America
Crispus
Attucks
2004
Wilson Serfass
YHA
1980
TOTALS
65
Total
Units
General /
Family
Units
Subsidized
Units
Elderly
Units
Special
Needs
Units
31
31
0
0
3
120
0
56
0
120
102
102
17
0
15
14
14
0
0
0
4
4
0
0
200
3,964
0
1,994
200
2,502
200
1,438
Sources of
Funds
CDBG
HOME
Grant
LIHTC
DCED
LIHTC
Sect. 8 Mod
Rehab
PHFA 1st
PennHomes
HOME
Dev. Eq.
LIHTC
Private
Financing
Funding
$436,088
$438,000
$75,336
$2,800,000
$200,000
Municipality
York City
York City
$1,857,349
$1,500,000
$ 630,000
$ 583,882
$6,018,000
York Township
York City
York City
0
587
Section 8 New
Const.
$6,110,000
York City
APPENDIX D
Geographic Locations of
Assisted Housing in York County
66
U
SQ
SU
AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP AND RENTAL UNITS
A
EH
NN
O
YN
RE
AT
R
LD
IL L
YORK RD
SM
ST
CHUR
SOUTH CENTRAL PLANNING REGION 1
CH ST
YO
R
KR
D
RD
W
AT
ER
MAIN ST
VALLEY RD
Q
SUS
JACOBUS BORO
IRO
TO
NS
ANN
LLEYS RD
UEH
VA
SEVE N
D
AR
MP
RA
D
Y
LE
RD
HERBST
RD
FR
A
NK
L IN
ST
E
ST
T
PLEASA
NT
LEGEND
AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING
VIEW RD
ST
ST
MA
E
V IE
UN
l
RD
ON R
NT ZI
LOGANVILLE BORO
AV
MO U
O
LL
YE
C
H
S
AD
W
SEAKS RUN RD
R
RO
U
H
D
T
D
YR
TO
L IV
ET
R
D
RD
CHURCH
RD
D
R
D
MT
E
NR
RD
D
RY
LE
G
OW
ST
T IL
DIS
ID
R
TE
WIN
R
Z IO
NR
D
PO
TO
SI
R
UN
MP
EN
GL
CK
RO
RD
DL
AN
MO
WO
O
RA
RD
LS
l
21NUMBER OF ELDERLY
APARTMENTS FOR ELDERLY
D
M HW
US ME
VFW OF
E
HIL
CR
R
RU
LA
OS
S
C
WINTERSTOWN BORO
SPRINGFIELD TWP
02 NUMBER OF FAMILIES
APARTMENTS FOR FAMILIES
A - Highland Manor Apartments
C - New Freedom Apartments
D - Housing Authority Scattered Sites
E - Shrewsbury Courtyards I
F - Shrewsbury Courtyards II
G - Staburg House
D
G
RD
GR
RD
RID
W
P LIN
RIP
P
IN
OR
E
SEVEN VALLEYS BORO
AM
SW
ST
L
VA
RD
D
AIN
DU
A
NK
LR
M
H
AV
RD
MIL
CH
C
UR
H
D
LR
RT
NO
MP
HIL
R
NE
AT
RA
CH
UR
CH
ST
NORTH HOPEWELL TWP
HAIN RD
VALL
RD
KS
ST
IC
V IE
W
D
D
R
RY
O
K
IC
H
SAWMILL RD
YH
ILL
R
D
D
l
33
RD
N
TS
TO
W
ST
EW
AR
A
M
IL
L
RD
COLLEGE AV
STEWARTSTOWN BORO
A
R
R
EN
S
R
D
WN RD
DRACO RD
D
NEW FREEDOM BORO
B
TSTO
STEWAR
TY R
NEW FREEDOM RD
CON
SE
CO
ND
ST
S TIT
UT IO
NA
V
ST
LE
N
BER
RD
L
SHREWSBURY TWP
TR
N
R
W LI
l
28 C
A
ET
OW
B
NEW FREEDOM RD
NN
DL
MAIN ST
HA
UE
ID
MIL
T
RD
SQ
SU
M
SH
LS
M
851
HIL
FR
DO
EE
RES T RD
OL RD
FRO NT ST
STELTZ RD
ll
l
B
W
OO
SR
0
ROADSIDE
W
NE
µ
47 E
55 F
60 G
W
E
WIN
D
RAILROAD BORO
BOWSER
SCHO
HOPEWELL TWP
RD
D
D R MP A
RA
R
AV
MAIN ST
N
BO
I
NA
T
RES
MP
SHREWSBURY BORO
FO R
RD
Location of the Planning Region 1 within York County
S RD
AIR
YR
D
R
UNT
H
RD
REN
C
C
K
BAR
LS
R
AN
PL
DR
RA
E
SS
FI
U
EY RD
MAIN ST
ER ST
MANCHEST
TO AD
MO
RD
LE
V IL
ST
GLEN ROCK BORO
CL
EA
R
H
EM HW
IN
l
04D
A TR
MA
RO
CK
NN
UEHA
RD
M
OF US
VFW
CK
RO
SUSQ
EN
GL
RD
TELLER
MARS
GREATER YORK EAST PLANNING REGION 2
AC
M
O
C
AC
C RD
RAMP
HW
l
ST
O LN
NT
LI NC
G 10
O
FR
WRIGHTSVILLE BORO
RD
LEY
VAL
CH
UR
CH
ST
RD
AH
RD
RD
LR
UN
RD
WOO DBINE RD
EDG EW OOD
RD
RD
PEN
N
O
AN
R
DR
M
O
AN
R
WINDSOR
BORO
MAI N
ST
T
RD
M
DU
US
HW
ST
KE
EM
O
ST
D
R
O
V
E
W
N
R
RD
DE
LT
AR
O
LT
FE
N
RD
FRANKL
IN ST ET
R
TE
IN
W
D
ST
OF
RD
RN
HO
RD
ST
BRO ADWAY
RD
LUB
DER
G
YC
RED LION BORO
IN
MA
NT R
BUR
KHO
L
T
D
COU
ST
HIG H
ll
l l
A IN
ST
TS
SP
EC
×
ST
T ST
l
N10
D
AN
E
LR
T AV
R
ST
PL
EA
S
G
HIL
WALN
U
R
PR
O
LO
M
BA
RD
ST
R
O
NE
PLE
AS A
N
O
2A
A 40 C
50
10 I 30
NM
SPRINGW OOD
MAIN ST
AN
RD
R RD
H
M
CH ST
BRO
WNT
ON R
D
AV
RD
ON
BS T
LI
HER
D
RE
HESS
FARM
RD
L
BU
SO
WIND
l5
E
G
TO
NS
W
VF
CHUR
D
CR
AH
R
AL
EY
RD
HAINES RD
RAMP I RD
RAMP K
PI
SG
T
M
SG
PI
E
RA
MP
RAMP
H RD
ST
SHE
R
OLD BALTIMORE PK
MA
IN
M AN
ST
EDEN RD
RD
LOUCKS MILL
RD
SCHO OL
RD
BA
D
IRO
S QUEEN ST
DALLASTOWN BORO
D
M
LO
NR
YOE BORO
HEIGHT
S RD
RD
R
EL
EV
T
OO D RD
RD
LE ADER
RCH
GL
M
OR
ILL
RD
PD
RAM RAMP A RD
RD
CHU
N
LO
ST
SPRINGW
A RY
CALV
WINDSOR TWP
H
PE
CA
R-M
36 SH
E
WD
PO
SR 30
L
IL
IN
MA
RD
l
102
T
AB
EL
S
RD
FREYSVILLE
P
ES
PL
MA
LOWER WINDSOR TWP
RD
YORK TWP
RD
M
Y
ER
RS
RD
RD
NU
VE
SO
R
T RD
L
CROLL
RD
RO
N
N
G
NG
TO
W
TO
CK
ST
AS
HI
DU
RD
CU
OS PEC
EAST PR
IL
ST
A
AN
RK
LO
EAST PROSPECT BORO
M
W
AT
ER
RD
R-
D
S
YO
RD
W
YORKANA BORO
RD
DE
W
LD
RD
PO
R
NO
EY
T
ON
ZI
Y
ST
L RD
BE
TT
RD
M
GE ORGE
DAY
SM
IL
S
AD
T
SH
R
P
ILL
WIT
ME
RR
D
WY
036
PA
HA
ERN
3
SR
JO
P
M
RT
WINDSO R DR
l
l
T
ES
TYLER RUN RD
C
OR
OLD
ARD RD
STO NEW OOD
WIN
D
84J
80 F
G
OR
GE
SPRING
GARDEN
TWP
OLD OR
CH
RT H
NO
DR
N RD
ST
ET
BL
AV
MT ROS E
CA
M
HALLAM BORO
D
UN
RD
T
HA
LIB
KINGSTON RD
D
OO
YW
T
LL
LS
HO
HIL
TO
RATH
HILL ST
A - High Street Project - York Habitat for Humanity/HICDC
TS
ST
ALBEMARLE
12 NUMBER OF UNITS
SP
EC
D
ER
MO
RY
MO
ME
l
N
EAST ER
RD
PR
T
NT S
*
PR
O
RK
MA
04 B
RIA HW
RAM
O
BELM
LPHIA ST
PHILA DE
ST
INDU
LS RD
G E ST
NORTH HIL
MEM HW
VFW OF US
SR
L
VIL
YS
FR
RAMP L RD
RAMP
J RD
CK
D
RD
OD
RD
H-HIL
NORT
NORTH YORK
BORO
U
LO
BR
MP
RA
O
EW
l
l
ll
RD
RD
N
STO
SPRINGETTSBURY
46 M
L100
TWP
K 84 65
O
KS
D
BRO
MP
RA
UC
LO
R
GE O
HOMES
D
MUNDIS MILL RD
EMIG RD
*
×
LR
RD
l
AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP
OO
EE K
D
H
SC
L CR
A - Dairyland Apartments
21 NUMBER OF ELDERLY
B - Mt. Rose Apartments
C - Opera House I
D - Opera House II
E - Parkside Townhomes
F - Parkview at Tyler Run
G - Housing Authority Scattered Sites
H - Housing Authority Scattered Sites
I - Housing Authority Scattered Sites
J - Springwood Overlook
K - Stony Brook Gardens
L - Stony Brook Manor
M - Waverly Court
N - Housing Authority Scattered Sites
O - Wynamere Apartments
P - York Commons
NEED ADDRESS
K
RUC
ER
US
HA
COO
R
HELLAM TWP
LEGEND
l
D
CODO RUS FURN
ACE RD
D
µ
R
GO
WA
K
EE
RD
RD
MAIN ST
Q
SUS
D
T RA
IL
RD
L
R
D
G
R
E
EN
B
R
IA
R
IN
l
46
32
ll
R
L
MANCHESTER TWP
D
IV
E
A
CK
L AN
RS
G HE
S
W
O
RD
E
UR
RD
M
A
MP
A
BANNIST ER
ET
K
R
A
CO
LN
M
K
RD
LI
N
V
EA
RA
RA
MP
MP
W
RD
ZR
D
LEGEND
l
A - Bailey Mills Apartments
C - Cloverfield Apartments
D - Country Side Estates
E - Fox Hunter Apartments
F - Gateway Apartments
G - Kingston House
H - Manchester Heights
I - Maple Apartments
J - North Beaver St. Ext
K - Old Salem Road Apartments
L - Poplar Creek Apartments
M - Ridgefield Court
N - Housing Authority Scattered Site
O - Shelly School Apartments
P - Springfield Apartments
Q - Village Court Apartments
l
*
*
NEED ADDRESS
×
HOMES
12 NUMBER OF UNITS
B - Spring Valley Manor - York Habitat for Humanity/HICDC
C - Village Court/AHO/YHA
RD
M
R
VE
RD
D
AY
S
M
IL
L
R
DA
CK
RO
D
DIA
N
NO
IN
NR
D
HA
RD
HR
D
MIT
N
TU
LH
NE
SPRING GROVE BORO
GL
AT
FE
LT
ER
S
O
RD
LE
Y
R
D
BE
NT
Z
RD
NORTH CODORUS TWP
D
MYE
RS
IG
EM
RD
RD
EG
ZI
ERS RD
PO RT
R
LE
S
E
GR
ON
MIL
LR
D
ST
RD
S
AFT
YO RK
S
ER
FF
JE
KR
CH
UR
CH
RD
R
EY
LL
VA
EN
RD
VA
L
SR
RO
CK
L
MY
ER
GL
EN
NIA
RD
D
E RD
RIDG
HA
R
VE
NO
LEHM
AN
KR
RD
IRO N
N
W
CO
LO
PA
R
O
ST
UL
RD
PIGEON HILL
I LL
RD
RST
OW
ST
MAIN ST
M
D
OL
R
VE
NO
STO
VE
RD
RD
RD
HA
NO
LD
ME
SS
ER
S
K
O
C
R
RD
E
E
µ
MOUNT
WOLF
BORO
NE
W
HA
D
R
LE
IL
V
RD
RD
NEW SALEM BORO
AR
LL EY S
CH
G
PIN
RID
E
VA
SEVE N
D
MR
UR
Y
LA
K
PP
KO
T
EM
NO
VE
R
RD
LE
SA
CH
RD
EG
LL
CO
S
ET
SA
L
RD
IT Y
TH
RO
VE
78 G
KIN
T
GS
RK
RD
WOO DBERRY
IN
TR
JACKSON TWP
CK
RO
O
GR
RD
A
RAMP A RD
N HW
PARADISE TWP
E
PL
ST
WEST MANCHESTER TWP
RD
OL
LI NC
MA
G
IL L
T
F
KIN
SM
HW
S
T
KE
HO
OU
N
H
OAD
M
LI
LR
BIG
BE R
IL
SM
EMIG
EAST
ST
AV
24
17
O 33
RA
HIG HLAND
CH
E RD
RD
WEST YORK BORO
N RD
C
lll l
64
l 28l 1l0
TAXVILL
R
IG
CH
EM
O
D
U
LO
HW
LN
D LIN
T
R
SE
C
N
P
SU
l
CO
LN
ll
75 P
M 02
RD
CH
R
06 J
ROOSEVE
LT AV
RAMP C RD
N AV
UR
U
CH
U
BRO
M
M
LE
SA
IL
L
D
LR
NIA
CO
LO
HILTO
L
IL
CH
D
RD
IG
M
R
38
RD
R
EM
CARL
ISLE
RD
T2
R
AV
RD
RD
D
/R
RIA
T
EL
EV
OS
RO
ER
IRE
ADM
GR
Y RD
DERR
CK
SE
BIE
24
×
C
S
VID
DA
R
BU
RD
H
AT
A
CH
CH
C
UR
NN
N
CA
POPLA R RD
EN
B
RD
A
EH
E
D
LR
GR
E
U
SQ
SU
D
DOVER TWP
LA
CA
N
D
NA
L
ST
VI
EW
D
ST
R
N
MA
16 Q
×
60
A
MA
RD
MA
E
P
M
RA
C
D
DOVER BORO
R
B
VE
RD
RD
RCH
RD
IG
RO
CHU
W
V IE
AR
ST
EM
YG
NG
LO
T
NA
RD
ON
ST
NS
TE
ST
AN
W
EM H
UEH
LE
IS
RL
RM
CE
NT
ER
D
GE ORGE
SM
OF U
VFW
LR
BUL
l
54
l
N 02
CA
HA
ST
EAST MANCHESTER TWP
DR
D
RD
LE
AP
SHE
R
T
DE
BO
AR
Y
LR
W
EM H
IS
BE
RR
NA
SM
OF U
VFW
LE
W
CA
VIE
WR
ST
AN
N GEO RGE ST
NT RD
LOCUST POI
CONEWAGO TWP
M
ZIO
NS
IN
N
TO
W
CR
PB
MANCHESTER
BORO
MA
RD
O
AG
W
RAM
DE
RS
ON
GREATER YORK WEST PLANNING REGION 3
NE
CO
SUSQ
UEHA
NN
A TR
BOW ERS BRID
GE RD
D
D
ST
AT
IO
N
RD
AFFORDABLE HOME OWNERSHIP
AND RENTAL UNITS
ROSS
AV
GREEN-
W
LE
RR
BE
IS
Y
RD
RD
MARSH
NORTHERN PLANNING REGION 4
RUN RD
D
RD
FISHING CRE
EK RD
M
ME
RD
HIL
L
M OU
YS R
D
FI LE
D
W
R
D
CR
N
AG
M
OO
R
RD
YO
R
MT AIRY RD
D
MA
GE ST
N GEOR
D
LE
W
EL
LS
V IL
R
O
NY
G
R
RO
D
E
SL
LI
BLU
R
RM
Y LN
BRITTAN
A
ST
RD
IN
WELLSVILLE
BORO
C
E-G
RAY
HW
SR
KE
RD
HA
RD
RID
G
E
VE
CHURCH
RD
Location of the Northern Planning Region 4 within York County
FRANKL IN
E-G
RA
YH
W
O
ST
D
R
S
O
YORK
HAVEN
BORO
RD
FIC
RD
BLU
KISE MILL RD
K
RD
D
R
YO
N
NR
D
OL
LE
IS
RL
TA
I
RD
R
GO
WA
D
CA
UN
RD
RD
ER
E ST
MO
D
ER
SL
INE
ALP
M
GA
IM OR
V IE
W
P
HI
W
WARRINGTON TWP
BALT
OW
M
D
KR
ISB
U
RR
HA
N
SR 0194 SH
ME
AD
SR
NEWBERRY TWP
TO W
D
E ST
FRANKLIN TWP
PO
TT
S
GE
TT
YS
BU
PK
PIN
E
CARROLL TWP
IM OR
FRANKLINTOWN
BORO
E
PIN
RA
R
BALT
ER
L
×
K
MP
GOLDSBORO
4
BORO
D
R
MU
D
LEWISBERRY BORO
SIDDONSBURG RD
RG
RD
UND
YR
D
NR
CLY RD
PG RO
LE
W IS
BE
RR
YO
CAM
RD
MO O
RE S
RG
PIK
E
NTAIN
RD
HW
RG
W
TO
OAD ST
US
OF
WY
ND
W
VF
YO RK RD
D
BU
NS
MONAGHAN TWP
DILLSBURG
50 F BORO
ll l l
15
l
46
l
A 36 75
C 25
DO
UM
RAILR
E RD
ERE
RD
RIDG
B
E
SID
C
YO
D
RD
RD
CAS
SE L
R
E
FAIRVIEW TWP
RD
YO RK HAV
EN RD
AG
ST
RD
VALLEY
YORK ST
D
OL
ARS
CED
NA
UV
OO
AM
E
RG
MIL
LR
IKE
K
FO
ER
S
NP
R
YO
D
OL
GL
R
TU
EVERGREEN RD
/W
ST
EA
SP
AN
T
ES
D
OL
LAN DR
LIMEKI LN RD
KRA
LLT
OW
NR
D
WASHINGTON TWP
VID
DA
SB
UR
G
RD
LEGEND
l
BR
A - Dillsburg Heights
B - The Fairmont
C - Fairmont Village
D - Fielding Way
E - Green Meadow
F - Proctor House (PHI)
G - R-Towne Development
l
D
OA
T
YS
WA
*
*
×
NEED ADDRESS
12 NUMBER OF UNITS
HOMES
D - Goldsboro Project - HICDC
OL
D
HA
NO
VE
R
RD
SOUTHWESTERN PLANNING REGION 5
IRO N RID
LEGEND
GE RD
BR
l
l
D
OA
T
YS
WA
JAC
ER
RT
R
ILL
SM
PO
OB
S
RD
D
M
O
O
ST
UL
N
W
RD
HEIDELBERG TWP
EISENHOWE R DR
NO
VE
R
HA
L AV
E
*
NEED ADDRESS
D
PARK RD
RD
CH
UR
CH
BS
DU
CODORUS TWP
BLOO MI
NG
GROVE
RD
RD
KREBS
RO
CK
RD
RD
02
16
SH
Location of the Southwestern
Planning Region 5
DR
DR
V IL
EN
GL
MANHEIM TWP
LE
RD
CK
RO
V IL
RD
LE
IC
ST
K
S
R
D
HIL
DEB
RA
RD
RD
N
LI
O
EB
RO
RD
PIE
EIM
RD
NH
EV
IL
LE
CK
RO
RD
MA
RC
K
D
KS
EC
RO
RD
RD
ND
D
WN R
LETO
ER
IL L
EB
O
MIDD
V
EN
GL
LI
N
EBR
A
RD
HIL D
LE
RD
IL
GRAV E RUN RD
V
EN
GL
OD
B
PK
AC
BL
E
OR
RD
RD
ND
IM
LT
RT
N MI LL
ALLISO
BA
WEST MANHEIM TWP
BA
HO
BR
BECKMILL RD
SR 0216 SH
WN
TO
KE
SR
DV IEW
RD
KR
GRANDVIEW RD
AV
MINI ST
ER
VIE
W
O
SM
L RD
BLUE HIL
FA
IR
K
*
RD
WE ST
BL
AC
GRAN
RO
CK
YO
R
ES
T
DL
MID
AV
RY
DA
BO
UN
G GROV
E
SH
ST
UN
BO
Y
E
OR
AV
R
DA
16
BLOO MIN
IM
LT
NE
R
AV
05
H
PENN TWP
ST
SR
ST
YO R
K
BA
BL
ET
T
JEFFERSON BORO
RD
RD
K
IM
HE
N
IC
S
SIN
IO
AT
ST
R
I
D
TH
E
FR
HOF
I
SM
ED
ST
EY
FR
ST
GL
EN
ST
MO U
ER
NT
CE
TN
ES
ST
CH
RN
AD
RO
FO
IL
PO PL
A R ST
RA
B&E
ST
K
ST
RIDG E
AV
STO CK ST
UT
R
YO
E
OR
ST
ELM
3R THIRD ST
D
ST
ST
IM
LT
HA
T DR
R
VE
NO
BA
AV
ER ST
BE RG
EICHEL
T
ES
LISL
CAR
ELM
ST
HIGH ST
llll
24
l 33l
3l
9
C19
11 G
34
D
GRA
N
IN
RL
BE
F70
KRAF
TS MI
LL RD
A - Clearview Terrace I & II
B - Housing Authority Scattered Site
C - Kain Rehab
D - M'Calister Inn
E - Housing Authority Scattered Site
F - Proctor House (PHI)
G - R-Towne Development
RD
HANOVER BORO
YORK CITY PLANNING REGION 6
LEGEND
l
U
LO
HW
C
LIN
N
OL
HW
D
SR
U
LO
CK
A - 131 East Maple
B - 222 West College Avenue
C - Boundary Avenue
D - Broad Park Manor
E - Cable House
G - Crispus Attucks
H - Delphia House
I - Dutch Kitchen
J - Housing Authority Scattered Site
K - Helfrich Building
L.- Historic Fairmont Apartments
M - Hudson Park
N - King Street Apartments
O - Liberty Apartments
P - Parkway Homes
Q - Penn Apartments
D
SR
T
EL
EV
OS
RO
AV
N
LI
LN
CO
CK
PHILA
A ST
DELPHI
HARR
ISO N
ST
l
l
11
×
l21
1l
03 1l
7
17
38
l l120
1
1
l31l0l6 ×590ll6 281l
0l4
14
7
3
l
l
25
22
×
l
01
19
34
l
01
l l
l
60
l 02l35 21l 21l
l
270 P
PARKWAY BL
X
AV
E
IA
HILL ST
ST
SY
LV
AN
AN
PE
NN
M
ER
SH
PRO SPE CT
ST
GE
AV
BOU
N
S
QU
N
EE
AV
ST
T
V
DA
F 5
ND
YS
LE
AN
×
×
ST
A
EL
EV
CL
NT
H 3
JAC
KS
ON
ST
E - Thomas Street Project - YHFH/HICDC
F - YHFH Projects
G - Olde Towne East - Dorgan & Zuck
H - Crispus Attucks/HICDC
I - HICDC - Kings Mill Project
KE
L LE
CO
12 NUMBER OF UNITS
Y AV
DAR
AV
TE
ET
FAY
LA
R - Pullman Apartments
S - Pullman Building
T - SKW Housing Project
V - Shady Oak Apartments
W- Sherrill Apartments
X - Smyser Street Apartments
Y - South George Street Apartments
Z - Southeast Historic Partnership
AA - Southeast Neighborhood
CC - Village of York
DD - Wellington Homes
EE - YMCA/SMB Properties
FF - YMCA
GG - Yorkbuild
HH - Yorktowne Apartments
II - Yorktowne House
ST
RG
BE
Z
DU
C
PRO SPECT ST
COLLEG E AV
D
LIN
IN
PR
T
ES
Y
A
GR
HL
V
EA
T
GS
T
SS
ES
l
HH E 83
ST
E
AV
RIC
LE G
AV
KIN
D
G
T
V
GA
RE
25 I
×
M
LE
SA
COL
C
V
S
R
AVE
BE
E
LVID
BE
l
EL
S
ET
N
T
H IN
RS
PE
72 DD
ST
AD
ST
RL
ISL
E
F
IL
PH
T
PS
RK
HS
HOMES
l
T
MA
N
PEN
CA
µ
I
O
GG N
G
B
CC
AA
T
A
ST
RT
NO
×
ST
G
OR
GE
RLIS
LE
FF
EE
AV
H
L
CH
S
EN
CA
J
AR
E
QU
RO
OS
EV
EL
T
M 70
E
E - ELDERLY
APARTMENTS FOR
FAMILIES
SB
GE TT
SPRIN
URY
ST
D
NR
HT O
RAT
T
TH
RA
ON
RD
G
OR
GE
T
ES
SOUTHEASTERN PLANNING REGION 7
RICHMO
ND RD
D
WO O
BINE
RD
LEGEND
BUR
LDER
KHO
Y
RD
LU
C
K
Y
R
D
RR
FE
CHANCEFORD TWP
RD
RD
EE
N
TO
TR
N
OW
GU
M
BR
AL
EY
RD
NEED ADDRESS
CR
12 NUMBER OF UNITS
DELTA RD
R
PE
HR
SEC
M RD
RD
AM
ST
FELT ON
RD
GO RA
*
S
N RD
HOGTOW
HOMES
K
EN
SH
HO USE RD
*
×
RD
RD
A - Eldon R. Gemmill Rehab
ACE
CANNING
l
N
FUR
D
AT R
IST FL
AIN
ST
RED LION AV
M
ER
RD
M
D C
RA
FELTON BORO
L
WA
C
LA
E
RD
BINE
FEN
M
OR
D
WO O
ER
D
TE
RD
FO
ER
RG
D
M
FO
RK
S
LOWER CHANCEFORD TWP
RD
RD
CROSS ROADS BORO
G
D
AD
ET
O
SA
EE
K
N
RD
CR
FROST Y HILL RD
IG
H
U
LA
CR
H
R
O
OS
S
C
K
RO
R
ID
CH
V
Y
UR
NT
CHU
CE
R
M
DY
BR
R
FA
S
RD
UD
GOOD RD
D
OL
L
RE
RD
ROUND HILL CHURCH RD
EAST HOPEWELL TWP
M
U
D
D
OO
W
LT
HO
Y
C
R
EE
K
FO
R
K
S
R
D
RD
D
RD
RY
RD
OW
AD
PAP
ER
DEER RD
MIL L
LE
T VIL
RD
BRYA
MO UN
E
KILG
ORE
ET
T OL IV
O
W
O
IL L E
NS V
RD
RD
E
IS
W
R
D
PEACH BOTTOM TWP
N
CHUR
LE
M
IL
R
CH RD
L
RK
RD
EA R
D
PA
CAR
W
NE
MAIN ST
MARKET ST
D
µ
OO
W
IN
DB
LA
Y
RD
RD
FAWN TWP
FL IN
D
ER R
FAWN GROVE RD
PLEASANT VALL
EY RD
HIC
KO
BLUE BALL RD
M
ATO
RD
FAWN GROVE BORO
CK
RO
S
RD
GRACETON RD
E
LIN
RD
DELTA BORO
MIL
L RD
APPENDIX E
Glossary of Terms
and Acronyms Used
67
ACT 137 -- Passed by the Pennsylvania State Legislature
in 1992 to enable counties to raise additional revenues to
be used for affordable housing needs by increasing fees
for recording mortgages and deeds. The authorizing
legislation (SB 962: Act 1992-137) requires that these
additional funds be expended for "any program or project
approved by the county commissioners which increases
the availability of quality housing, either sales or rental, to
any county resident whose annual income is less than the
median income of the county."
AHP – The Affordable Housing Program of the federal
Home Loan Bank
AMI – Area median income
CCHP – DCED’s new Core Communities Housing
Program
CDBG – Community Development Block Grant Program
CONE – YHA’s non-profit organization:
Opportunities in Neighborhood Environments
Creating
DCED – Pennsylvania Department of Community and
Economic Development
FHLB – Federal Home Loan Bank
HCP – PHFA’s Homeownership Choice Program
HOME – HOME Investment Partnership Program
HOPE VI – HUD’s Homeownership Opportunities for
Persons Everywhere VI Program
HUD – U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development
HUD 202 – HUD’s Section 202 Supportive Housing for the
Elderly Program
HUD 811 – HUD’s Section 811 Supportive Housing for
Persons with Disabilities
LBP – Lead based paint
LIHTC – Low income housing tax credit
LMI – Low and moderate income
MUFFI – PHFA’s Mixed Use Facility Financing Incentive
NAP – DCED’s Neighborhood Assistance Program
NIMBY – Not In My Back Yard
NRSA – HUD’s Neighborhood Revitalization Strategy Area
designation
68
PHA – Public housing authority
PHFA – Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency
Rural LISC – Rural Local Initiatives Support Corporation
TND – Traditional Neighborhood Development / Design
USDA – U.S. Department of Agriculture
YCDC – York Community Development Corporation
YHA – York Housing Authority
69