County employee home‑buyer pilot produced one closing; staff recommend boost in assistance

Angie Welsh, representing Mountain Housing Opportunities, told the Buncombe County Affordable Housing Subcommittee that last year’s employer home‑buyer pilot began with six applicants and produced one closing that flowed through Mountain Housing Opportunities; a second closing occurred outside MHO’s participation. Welsh said two applicants remain prequalified and actively searching while three stopped responding, largely because they could not find homes within the price range tied to their loan approvals.

She said the first loan closed on July 14 and the participant ‘‘saved $5,000,’’ accessed $8,300 in matching funds and received $7,500 from Mountain Housing Opportunities through the program. Welsh described ongoing partnership with OnTrack, which helps staff follow up with applicants and provide home‑buyer counseling.

‘‘We meet monthly and quarterly and we update each other,’’ Welsh said of the MHO‑OnTrack partnership, which she credited with helping applicants through paperwork and follow up.

Welsh recommended continuing the program and, if feasible, increasing both the grant amount and the county match. She said many county employees fall just above the income thresholds used by most down‑payment assistance programs (typically tied to 80 percent of area median income), and that recent HUD changes lowered income limits in several counties, pushing previously eligible employees over the line.

Current program parameters were described in presentation: Mountain Housing provides $7,500 and the county match for the program is $8,300 (a total package of a little more than $15,000). Staff clarified the county’s participation does not require applicants to meet the standard 80 percent AMI limit used by other programs; the county‑level support was structured to be more flexible.

Committee members asked about other financing options that could be layered with the program. Welsh and members noted USDA direct loans for eligible rural areas and state employees credit union programs that offer low‑down or zero‑down options. A committee member suggested staff explore a formal partnership with the State Employees’ Credit Union to expand employee access.

The committee expressed support for continuing the program and asked staff to return with options for larger grant or match amounts and coordination with existing financing programs.

The subcommittee approved the prior meeting’s minutes at the start of the session and did not take any formal vote on altering program funding during the meeting; staff was asked to provide additional budget and program options for future meetings.