THE DEMAND AND SUPPLY OF AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING

1

Demand for Affordable Rental Housing in Chapel Hill

A Brief Summary

Affordable housing is a problem currently affecting every county in the United States. In Orange County, the demand for affordable rental housing is no different. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) defines “affordable housing” as a household spending no more than 30% of their total income on housing. For an individual working full-time, that individual would need to make at least $16.13 an hour to afford a

2-bedroom apartment in Chapel Hill at the Fair Market Housing Rate (Orange County NC, 2014). Additionally, there is a significant projected rental demand for the mid-to-upper income earners in Chapel Hill, leaving limited options for those in the lower income brackets.

One of the causes influencing this high priced rental market is the student population. Chapel Hill, home to the University of North Carolina, has a resident population that is 51% students (Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, 2012). Student growth has increased 15% since 2000, while available rental units have only seen an increase of 1.7%. As of 2013, 47% of these students live off-campus and occupy about 30% of the town’s rental units (US News & World Report, 2013). Students and low-income households are competing for affordable rental housing, causing a displacement of Chapel Hill’s most vulnerable residents. The student competition, in combination with recent apartment complexes denying Housing Choice Vouchers, has lead to many local non-profits searching for avenues to house individuals that are primarily receiving government assistance for income.

PLCY 698

2

Among these non-profits is the Community Empowerment Fund (CEF). CEF uses student volunteers (advocates) to work one-on-one with clients (members) that are transitioning out of homelessness and into permanent housing. Between March 2013 and January 2015, CEF worked with 265 individuals, searching for affordable rental housing. Of these 265 individuals, roughly 52% were homeless. Additionally, about half of CEF’s clients at this time were unemployed, and the other half were employed or receiving benefits as primary income. Many of these individuals received Housing Choice Vouchers, a government subsidy that allows “financial assistance towards rent for very low-income families, the elderly, and disabled, to afford housing in the private market,” (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2015). Few apartment complexes accept Housing Choice Vouchers as payment. The decrease in complexes accepting Housing Choice Vouchers as payment has significantly increased the demand for affordable rental housing in Chapel Hill. Particularly, the GSC Corporation decided last year to reject Housing Choice Vouchers in Chapel Hill and Carrboro, resulting in 9 apartment complexes displacing roughly 60 Orange County households (News & Observer, 2014). The decision was based on the prospect of charging higher rent prices with remodeling to appeal to UNC-CH students. While other property managers had similar policies prior to GSC’s decision, they did not affect low-income renters to the same degree, because GSC manages the majority of lower priced rental units in the Triangle with a monopoly in the sector in Carrboro and Chapel Hill (Grubb, 2013).

In addition to this displacement, the Town of Chapel Hill has a public housing waitlist of 256 households, leaving a large waiting game for those looking to live in public housing units (Town of Chapel Hill, 2010). The waitlist for Housing Choice Vouchers was in such high demand that it closed in 2010, leaving those seeking financial help in paying rent out of luck. The few affordable rental-housing organizations available: EmPOWERment and Community Alternatives for Supportive Abodes (CASA), also have waitlists, which can take years for an individual to receive housing. CEF has worked with many Chapel Hill residents, among them Donna Carrington, has worked with the organization since 2013 to find housing. As she puts it:

“There’s not as many private landlords as there used to be. It’s going to be very hard to have a Housing Choice Voucher without those landlords. I think it’s going to be very hard for anybody that’s not a student to live in this area. The town needs to re-examine their policies on affordable housing and there needs to be more affordable units, or make new apartments have a bigger percentage of affordable housing units…that’s at least a start.”

3

The affordable housing crisis is not unique to Orange County alone, and the Town of Chapel Hill has demonstrated a dedicated effort in alleviating homelessness in Chapel Hill through the Orange County HOME Consortium’s Five Year Plan to address housing needs of low and moderate income residents (the creation of which was required for HUD federal block grant recipients starting in 2010) (Newton, 2010). However, with the student population continually growing and private developers rejecting Housing Choice Vouchers as payment, Chapel Hill faces great obstacles in providing affordable rental housing for low-income households. As organizations like CEF continually work with individuals in finding and maintaining permanent housing, the Town of Chapel Hill needs to provide their utmost support for the mission and clients of these organizations.

The lack of affordable rental housing is not only costly to the low-income individuals in Chapel Hill, but the community at large. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Law recognizes a specific right for everyone to have access to adequate housing. Additionally, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (Fair Housing Act) as amended, “prohibits discrimination in the sale or rental and financing of dwellings and in other housing-related transactions based on race, color, national origin, sex, familial status and disability.” The refusal of these corporations to accept Housing Choice Voucher holders may become a pretext for discrimination as defined by the Title VIII Act. Many families with children and people of color are disproportionately represented among Housing Choice Voucher Program participants and the refusal to accept a voucher may have a disparate impact by limiting housing choice and increasing segregation of members of a protected class (Austin Tenant Council, 2012). The Town of Chapel Hill must work to ensure those with limited options have a right to live in the town they call home.

PLCY 698

4

Supply of Affordable Rental Housing in Chapel Hill

A Brief Report:

1.1 INTRODUCTION:

Housing is best analyzed as a good with 3 suppliers: the private market, public sector, and non-profit sector. National policy shifts in the United States have enlarged the role of the private market in supplying affordable housing, leaving the government a role in attempting to bridge the gap.

1.2 PRIVATE MARKET:

While the majority of housing occupants in Chapel Hill are renters, the growth in the housing market over the past 10 years has been driven by single family, owner-occupied homes. These accounted for 85-90% of units built in the 2000s, reflecting the tastes of the Town’s most recent residents. Chapel Hill’s total population has increased 24% since 2000, driven primarily by growth in residents aged 45 years and over. While the Town’s population distribution typically reflects the presence of the university (concentrating around ages 15 to 34), growth in this age group has been strikingly outpaced by residents aged 45 years

5

and over during the past two decades. The result of this trend has been a pronounced demographic shift with implications helping to explain housing market developments over the past decade.

Foremost, is the preference of older age groups to own homes rather than rent. The fastest growing segments of the population are significantly more likely to buy homes rather than rent, contributing to the preeminence of single family housing in construction since 2000.

Additionally, since 2000, Chapel Hill’s income distribution has shifted significantly towards higher brackets. In fact, incomes over $100,000 were the only to experience growth as a percentage of the population, while all other income brackets decreased. Furthermore, the highest growth in proportional representation has been those making $200,000 or more, increasing over 150% since 2000. These demographic and income distribution shifts have combined with other market forces to significantly increase home prices in Chapel Hill.

PLCY 698

6

Since 2000, the median owner-occupied housing price has risen 63% to $357,300, making single family homes very lucrative for developers. However, the primary focus on single family, owner-occupied units since 2000 has stunted the growth of rental units in the area. According to a recent housing market analysis, only 1.7% of Chapel Hill’s existing rental units were added within the last 10 yrs. The lack of additional rental has provided little price relief for growing demand. Since 2000 the median gross rent has increased 27%, due to a mixture of several dynamics, policies, and events in the rental market.

CEF members have noted the difficulty of finding private landlords not already renting to students. The student body’s 15% growth between 2000 and 2010 has contributed to landlords’ and developers’ increasing focus on renting to students. Due to a Town law forbidding rentals from having more than 4 unrelated students per lease, growth in off- campus renters is absorbed through spreading rather than concentrating. Yet with the stock of rental units growing only 1.7% since 2000, such spreading inherently brings students into competition for low-cost housing with both current and potential non-student renters. Nowhere was this more evident than the GSC Corporation choosing to no longer accept Housing Choice Vouchers as payment. The Northside neighborhood has experienced the same pattern of “studentification,” which, without a recent joint intervention by UNC, the Town, and local non-profits, would likely have displaced the majority of the neighborhood’s low-income residents. The preference of landlords for student and mid to upper-income residents is understandable given the profitability constraints on rental managers and investors. A developer must balance expected cash flows of a project with the risk and costs of constructing it.

Development costs in Chapel Hill are expensive given the Town’s comparatively high property values and tax rates. Furthermore, the conditional zoning laws in Chapel Hill (aimed at including affordable units in any new rental developments) raise the risk of production by increasing the time required to receive a permit and adding more potentially problematic stages to the approval process. While these barriers are not prohibitive, private developers and investors will require higher cash flows to compensate for increased costs and risk. Thus, by adding a requirement that rents be affordable, these cash flows are limited to the point of unprofitability in many

7

cases. This offers some explanation as to why only one of the 24 rental/condo units developed or permitted in Chapel Hill since 2005 was affordable. Others included a few affordable units, but the large majority has been out of the price range of low-income income residents. More common in recent years has been the development of luxury apartments and mixed commercial-residential complexes. These offer higher and better-guaranteed cash flows with tenants being businesses or high-income residents. Yet if anything, this proves that there are investors and developers willing to build in Chapel Hill; there is just a finance-based disconnect between these private suppliers and the large demand for affordable housing. The policies available to address this are considered later in this report along with other government and non-profit initiatives aimed at supplying the affordable housing not provided by the private market.

1.3 PUBLIC SECTOR:

All urban planning in the towns of both Carrboro and Chapel Hill is framed by the town’s goal to maintain a “small town” feel. This means lower density development and population controls, usually associated with higher rent costs. The comprehensive plan for Chapel Hill (2012) does still include a theme for Chapel Hill as “a place for everyone” by addressing the need for affordable housing in addition to other goals. The plan’s definition of affordable housing though as housing that is affordable to households with incomes 80% or less of the area median income is a much greater group of individuals than CEF’s member focus of 30% or less of area median income.

The town of Chapel Hill and Carrboro also has 336 public-housing apartments collectively. Federal housing policy moved away from building public-housing units in the 1980s with a greater focus on private and nonprofit roles in building affordable housing (“HUD Historical,” 2007). A focus on more diverse communities is another and more modern reason for the lack of support to build or expand public housing neighborhoods. In a sense by placing only low-income households in the communities created through public housing, the programs were segregating the housing of low-income individuals. Encouraging the inclusion of affordable units within private development that includes units for varying incomes does promote community diversity, however policies focused on this have yet to supply a

PLCY 698

8

sufficient number of units. Funding from the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) does go into the upkeep and renovation of public housing units as well as the supply of community programs. Since there have been no new public-housing units built since 1994, the supply still reflects what was needed for the area in the 1990s and is insufficient for current needs.

To encourage developers to build units for purchase priced to be affordable to those earning 80% of the town’s median income, Chapel Hill has attempted to pursue inclusionary zoning. Chapel Hill’s inclusionary zoning adds requirements to the development of multi-family units and multiple single or two-family units so that 10% or 15% of the units must be affordable depending on whether or not the units are located in the town center. Half of the units set aside as affordable would be offered to households at or below 65% of the area median income (AMI) and the remaining units would go to households at or below 80% of the AMI (2010-06-21/O-11, p. 3-11). This policy does not address the needs of CEF members, because it is targeted towards homeownership and those around the 65% and 80% of area median income range, but it could be modified to apply to rental units.

Obey Creek is a private development that is planned to be across South 15-501 from Southern Village and whose developers, East West Partners, are still in negotiation with the town. East West Partners need the town to rezone portions of where they plan to build, make an amendment to a land use ordinance, and sell a parcel of town owned land that is within the current Obey Creek Plans (“TOCH: Obey Creek,” n.d.). What East West Partners have offered in return are affordable units in addition to what they are required to build by the inclusionary zoning ordinance. Obey Creek is currently proposed to include 30 out of its 600 rental units as affordable (5%). Fifteen of the thirty units would eligible to Housing Choice or Veterans Affairs Voucher holders and designed to accommodate households at 30-60% of the AMI. The other half of the affordable rental units would go to residents who earn 60-80% of AMI. Obey Creek would also still have 15% of the units proposed for purchase affordable to those earning up to 80% of AMI as Chapel Hill’s inclusionary zoning ordinance (Mac, 2015). Their offer of affordable rental units falls under one of the exemptions in rent control classification and should serve as a model from what the town of Chapel Hill

9

can aim to negotiate when considering rezoning applications or other town actions required on the part of developers.

1.4 NON-PROFIT SECTOR:

The Town of Chapel Hill has collaborated with several non-profits to promote the affordable housing initiatives and homelessness prevention outlined in their HOME Consortium Response document. Among these non-profits include the leading affordable rental housing options in Chapel Hill for low-income households: EmPOWERment and Community Alternatives for Supportive Abodes (CASA). Another non-profit of note is Housing for New Hope, although this organization does not provide affordable housing rentals in Chapel Hill, they received funding through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) as well as from the HOME Program to increase their efforts and support for homeless outreach in Orange County. Each of these non-profits works with CEF in efforts to house CEF’s clients. Unfortunately, due to limited funding and increased demand, CASA and EmPOWERment are unable to garner enough supply.

The goal of EmPOWERment is “to provide affordable rental units to individuals and families struggling to find homes available and in-line with their financial institutions,”(EmPOWERment, 2015). EmPOWERment is one of the few affordable rental-housing options available to low-income households with similar demographics to CEF’s members. EmPOWERment “works with people whose household income falls between 30-80% of AMI and any and all subsidies are accepted through their program,” (EmPOWERment, 2015). Despite receiving funds from both the CDBG and HOME Program, EmPOWERment struggles to reach their goal of purchasing 2 homes a year due to competition from private investors who are willing to pay twice a property’s value (Ball, 2015). EmPOWERment currently has no vacancies in their 46 units in Chapel Hill and a waitlist that has extended to years. The organization estimates that it has roughly 20-25 people on a waitlist per housing unit.

For the fiscal year 2014-2015, EmPOWERment requested $10,000 of CDBG funds and received $2,000 to support their Career Explorers Program,

PLCY 698

10

which provides summer employment for youth ages 18-21 from households earning less than 80% AMI (Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, 2014) (Fig. 1). For the fiscal year 2013-2014, EmPOWERment requested $45,000 in HOME Program funds to rehab a condo unit in Collins Crossings in Carrboro for lease to households earning less than 50% of AMI. Additionally, the organization also requested $140,000 to acquire a duplex unit in Chapel Hill for lease to households earning less than 50% AMI. The town of Chapel Hill allocated $178,159 of HOME Program funds for EmPOWERment’s property acquisition and renovations (Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, 2013) (Fig.2). Despite this funding, EmPOWERment’s demand still exceeds its supply, much like the situation of CASA.

CASA “develops attractive high quality communities and then manages those properties, providing a long term investment in the community,” (CASA, 2015). The organization provides housing to individuals who live with disabilities and have experienced homelessness, much like CEF’s clients. In order to receive housing or a spot on CASA’s waitlist, an applicant must be “referred by an individual or agency that can provide support to a tenant living,” while they live in a CASA owned property (CASA, 2014). Like EmPOWERment, CASA has an extensive waiting list. CASA’s Chief Executive Officer Debra King estimates that the waitlist is at least a 5-year waiting period, with over 600 individuals on the list (Ball, 2015).

11

For the fiscal year 2014-2015, CASA requested CDBG funds for its Supportive Housing Program which “pairs tenants who are homeless or at risk of being homeless with a safe, quality, and affordable apartment.” According to the Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department’s documents, the organization asked for $30,000 and received $9,000 and for the fiscal year 2013-2014 (Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, 2014). Additionally, the organization received a total of $64,900 from the HOME Program towards public service activities that benefits households earning less than 80% of AMI (Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, 2013). CASA also requested $25,000 towards administrative support during the fiscal year 2014-2015 from the HOME Program and received $5,800, roughly 1.28% of total HOME Program funds (Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, 2014). Although CASA has received financial assistance from Orange County in the past to renovate 5 duplexes on Pritchard Avenue in Chapel Hill, CASA’s limited supply of housing is creating long wait times for many low-income, disabled, and homeless individualsto receive housing from the organization, (Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, 2014).

Housing for New Hope is an organization whose mission is to “prevent and end homelessness by providing increased access to housing, integrated services and healthcare in the Triangle,” (Housing for New Hope, 2015). Housing for New Hope does not have any affordable rental properties in

PLCY 698

12

Orange County, but they do provide services such as case management, emergency financial assistance, and engagement and outreach to homeless individuals and families. For the fiscal year 2014-2015, Housing for New Hope requested $7,150 in CDBG funds and was allocated $6,500 to fund a portion of the salary for a Homeless Outreach Worker. Orange County has allocated CDBG funds to Housing for New Hope since 2008 and the organization predicted they would assist 45 households in obtaining and maintaining housing, as well as 223 individuals through outreach efforts and services in the year 2014-2015, (Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, 2014). Additionally, they requested $50,000, but received $44,096 for tenant-based rental assistance support in 2013-2014 HOME Program funds (Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, 2013).

Each of these organizations works with clientele similar to CEF, and CEF has referred many clients to these organizations. Despite receiving continuous funding from Orange County through the CDBG and HOME Programs, these nonprofits are struggling to keep up with increased demand. As the Town of Chapel Hill notes in the HOME Consortium Response document, each of these organizations “provided a key role in the development of this 5-year consolidated plan,” (Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department, 2013). As the Town of Chapel Hill and Orange County continues to execute their affordable housing and homeless prevention goals, it may require looking at additional funding options for these non-profits that are financially strapped with exhausted resources.

1.5 POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS:

Current mandatory inclusionary zoning policies do not apply to rental units because a mandatory inclusionary policy that includes new rental units would be classified as rent control in North Carolina. The North Carolina General Statute does however offer some exceptions in their definition of rent control that conditional inclusionary zoning would fit into. If a developer and local government enters into an agreement to define the rent charged for a unit or if there are ordinances or resolutions that define rent for rental units that received Community Development Block Grant Funds the regulation of rental rates is allowed for (Mulligan & Joyce, 2010, pp. 151-152).

13

Under a policy of conditional inclusionary rental zoning, if developers need the area they plan to build on rezoned or other action on the part of the Town Council of Chapel Hill, the council can encourage developers to include affordable units or contribute to the affordable housing fund in lieu as a condition of the rezoning or council action. Payments made in lieu would have similar requirements to those in Chapel Hill’s current inclusionary zoning ordinance with rental units in mind rather than for purchase units. Money gathered from the payments would also go towards a fund for the establishment of additional affordable rental housing for low-income residents, rather than the Community Home Trust, which is only focused on homeownership. In the case of conditional inclusionary zoning, the developer and local government would be entering into an agreement on the rent charged for certain units and would be exempt from prohibitions on rent control.

In addition to conditional inclusionary rental zoning, the Town of Chapel Hill should implement density or additional floor bonuses to developers whose affordable units will accept Housing Choice and/or be priced for very low-income households (<30% AMI). The density bonuses would combat the growing trend by large property management firms to not accept Housing Choice Vouchers. The bonuses would also increase the supply of housing affordable to very-low income residents, which has remained stagnant for multiple years now.

Finally, the lack of landlords willing to accept Housing Choice Vouchers is severely limiting affordable rental options for CEF’s clients and other low-income individuals in Chapel Hill. According to a Georgetown Law study, many states, counties, and cities have adopted ordinances and statues to forbid income-based discrimination (Daniel, 2010). The study argued that “increasing housing options for voucher holders by preventing voucher discrimination is important for ensuring low-income individuals have access to one of the most basic human needs,” (Daniel, 2010). Although Chapel Hill is unable to enact such an ordinance, The Town of Chapel Hill can advocate on behalf of these voucher holders for Congress to consider protecting these individuals under the Fair Housing Act.

PLCY 698

14

1.6 CONCLUSION:

It is clear that while there is a large demand for affordable rental housing in Chapel Hill, there is a huge shortage in supply for affordable rental housing, which makes it very hard for low-income individuals to be able to find housing in Chapel Hill. Over the last decade there has been a 15% increase in the growth of students who live in Chapel Hill, as well as growth in high-income wage earners. Chapel Hill has only seen a 1.7% increase in the number of rental units available. This has created a situation in which the focus of developers has been on single family, owner-occupied homes. All of this has made it harder for residents who make less than the Area Median Income pay for rental units in Chapel Hill. Non-profits are trying to address this issue by providing affordable rental units to people whom they serve or through direct services. CEF, EmPOWERment, CASA and Housing for New Hope are 3 such organizations that are working on this.

Despite having limited resources, these non-profits are working towards finding their clients affordable rental housing. EmPOWERment has no free vacancies and has a waitlist of 20-25 people per housing unit. CASA has a waitlist of at least 5-years, with over 600 individuals on the list. The Town of Chapel Hill must work to ensure that there is a long-term solution to this critical problem. Even though the town uses policies such as inclusionary zoning to encourage developers to make their rental units affordable to people who do not make the average income for Chapel Hill, there are loopholes. For example, the developers can pay the town a fee that allows them to not have to practice inclusionary zoning. While inclusionary zoning is tricky given that there are state laws that prevent local governments from enforcing rental control policies, the town can better execute its policies. Since inclusionary zoning is not state policy, Chapel Hill should use its local powers such as ordinances to better incentivize developers to make their units affordable to low-income individuals. If the Town of Chapel Hill is able to increase the number of affordable rental housing units, it will be able to help many people looking for housing, especially CEF’s members.

15

SOURCES:

(2010-06-21/O-11) An ordinance amending the Chapel Hill land use management ordinance to establish inclusionary zoning regulations for residential development. (2010, June). Section 2

Austin Tenants Council. (2012, Nov). Retrieved from www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=211114 Ball, B. (2015, March 18). Retrieved from Indy Week: www.indyweek.com/indyweek/after-15-years-chapel-hill-is-stil-trying-to-get-a-grip-on-its-housing-problem/

CASA. (2014). Retrieved from www.casanc.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Application-Supportive-Housing-Part-1.pdf

CASA. (2015). Retrieved from www.casanc.org/Our-History/OurHistory

Daniel, Tamica H. (2010). Bringing Real Choice to the Housing Voucher Program: Addressing Voucher Discrimination Under the Federal Fair Housing Act. The Georgetown Law Journal. Retrieved from http://georgetownlawjournal.org/files/pdf/98-3/Daniel.PDF

EmPOWERment, I. (2015). Retrieved from EmPOWERment, Inc.: www.empowermentinc-nc.org

Grubb, T. (2013, June 23). Section 8 Renters Get Boot in Chapel Hill- Carrboro. Retrieved from News & Observer. Housing for New Hope. (2015). Retrieved from www.housingfornewhope.org/

HUD historical background. (2007, May 18). U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/about/admguide/history.cfm Mac, J. (2015, February 13). CHTC Discusses Obey Creek Affordable Housing Plan, Development Agreement. Chapelboro. Retrieved March 3, 2015

Mulligan, C. & Joyce, J. (2010). Legal Appendix. In Inclusionary zoning: A guide to ordinances and the law. Chapel Hill, NC: UNC School of Government

News & Observer. (2014, August). Chapel Hill, Carrboro Mayors Respond to Loss of Housing. Retrieved from www.newsandbobserver.com/news/local/community/chapel-hill-news/article10030268.htm

PLCY 698

16

Newton, F. W. (2010, May 14). FY 2010-2015 Consolidated Plan. Retrieved from http://www.co.orange.nc.us/housingdocuments/FY2010-2015ConPlan-51410.pdf Orange County NC. (2014). Affordable Housing Information and Stats. Retrieved from www.co.orange.nc.us/housing/info_stats.asp Town of Chapel Hill. (n.d.) Obey Creek Development Agreement Process. Retrieved March 3, 2015, from http://www.townofchapelhill.org/town- hall/departments-services/planning-and sustainability/development/development-agreement-projects/obey-creek Town of Chapel Hill. (2010, December). Residential Market Study for the Town of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. Retrieved from www.townofchapelhill.org/home/showdocument?id=8970 Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department. (2012). Snapshot of the Town of Chapel Hill. Retrieved from www.townofchapelhill.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=12177 Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department. (2013, May 15). Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Retrieved from Town of Chapel Hill: http://www.townofchapelhill.org/home/showdocument?id=22036

Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department. (2014, 17 April). Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding. Retrieved from Town of Chapel Hill: http://www.townofchapelhill.org/town-hall/departments-services/housing-and-community/funding/community-development-block-grant-cdbg-program

Town of Chapel Hill Planning Department. (2014, May 15). Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Funding. Retrieved from http://www.co.orange.nc.us/housing/documents/FY2014-2015ActionfinalPlanJ.pdf

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2015). HUD.gov. Retrieved from portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?Src=/program-indian-housing/programs/hcv/about US News & World Report. (2013). US News & World Report Education. Retrieved from colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-colleges/unc-2974/student-life