300 likes | 309 Views
9% LIHTC and HOME NOFA Policy Review & Project Recommendations. Tai Dunson-Strane , Tax Credit Program Manager Natasha Detweiler-Daby Senior Policy Analyst Oregon Housing and Community Services July 12, 2019 Housing Stability Council. Todays Presentation.
E N D
9% LIHTC and HOME NOFA Policy Review &Project Recommendations • Tai Dunson-Strane, Tax Credit Program Manager • Natasha Detweiler-DabySenior Policy Analyst Oregon Housing and Community Services July 12, 2019 Housing Stability Council
Todays Presentation • LIHTC Framework Elements & Performance • MWESB • Total Development Costs • Vulnerable Gentrification Areas/Opportunity Areas • Preservation Set-Asides • Location Efficiencies • Housing Trust Funds • 5-year Look-Back on Geographic Distribution 2. LIHTC and HOME Project Recommendations
9% LIHTC and HOME NOFA Review LIHTC Framework Elements and Performance Project Application Threshold and Scoring Criteria and Summary of Applications Received
Minority, Women, and Emerging Small Business Membership and Mission • Commitment to engage Minority Women and Emerging Small Business (MWESB) including contractors / subcontractors in the construction or operations of the proposed project. • Certified Firms through Business Oregon • Applicants submit their plan, and then once complete they will report their performance against their goals. • Some urban jurisdictions have established targets; much of the state does not. • Looking toward future implementation where we would have a comprehensive statewide approach to further this work. THRESHOLD ELEMENT – Must be submitted • Projects are also scored on MWESB and Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing strategies; giving preference to projects that go above minimum requirements. • 2019 recommended projects: all received points for these measures which together are weighted 7 points
Total Development Costs Membership and Mission • Baseline Total Development Costs are estimated for Urban/Metro areas v.s. Balance of State based on recent 5 years of funded 9% LIHTC project cost data with the idea that 80% of projects should be covered; excludes cost of acquisition. • Projects that don’t have costs within the established thresholds must provide narrative explanation. THRESHOLD ELEMENT – Must be submitted
Total Development Costs (cont.) Membership and Mission • 2019 Recommended Projects: • 92% of the projects selected had overall costs within the established Total Development Cost limit • Several had increased costs just for larger unit sizes • Of those with higher costs than established the explanations focused on: • Design that addresses community need • Large bedroom sizes • Construction Cost escalation • Davis Bacon Wages • Unique Infrastructure needs
Vulnerable Gentrification Areas/Opportunity Areas Membership and Mission • Projects receive scoring preference for being located in a: • Vulnerable Gentrification Area • With a Revitalization Plan / Strategy • High Poverty Qualified Census Tract • Concentration of Race/Ethnicities • Concentration of Low Educational Achievement • Concentration of Renters • Opportunity Area • Low Poverty Census Tract • High Ratio of Jobs to Population • Below Average Unemployment Rate • High Scoring Schools SCORED CRITERIA
Vulnerable Gentrification Areas/Opportunity Areas Membership and Mission • Vulnerable Gentrification Area: • Of the recommended projects, 4 projects received points for being in a Vulnerable Gentrification Area; • Includes rural project where the city was making deliberate investment choices that were serving to revitalize the downtown core; identified connections with those efforts
Vulnerable Gentrification Areas/Opportunity Areas Membership and Mission • Opportunity Area: • 7 projects received points indicating some evidence of being an opportunity area; projects get points for each criteria that is met • One projects maximized all points available • Balance of projects got an average of half of the points available – meaning their Census Tract had about half of the Opportunity Area criteria
Preservation Membership and Mission 9% LIHTC has a 35% Preservation set-aside within each region • LIHTC NOFA: 18 applications • 11 recommended for funding; 2 are Preservation projects • Metro Region: 1 Preservation project recommended • 21% of Regions LIHTC funds to Preservation projects • 21% of Regions LIHTC units are in Preservation projects • Non-Metro PJ Region: no Preservation projects applied • Balance of State Region: 1 Preservation project recommended • 20% of Regions LIHTC funds to Preservation projects • 23% of Regions LIHTC units are in Preservation projects • HOME NOFA: 1 application • 1 recommended; no Preservation project applied
Location Efficiencies Membership and Mission • Gives application preference to projects located: • In a Walkable Community (based on walk score) • In proximity to Major Grocery Store / Not in a Food Desert • With adequate Public Transit access/ adequate Transit Score • In proximity to Medical Services • In proximity to Public Schools or Libraries • Have different identified targets based on whether it is in a (USDA) rural area or not. 2019 Recommended Projects: • All 12 recommended projects received maximum points available, indicating that they were in a location efficient area; includes both urban and rural project SCORED CRITERIA
Serving Extremely Low Income Households Membership and Mission • 2019 NOFA was the second time that the Federal Housing Trust Funds (HTF) were offered; these are HUD resources specifically used to fund 30% AMI / Extremely Low Income housing units. • Focused gap resources on serving households earning 30% AMI / Extremely Low Income Households. 2019 recommendations: 231 of the 636 recommended units are able to serve Extremely Low Income households through income restrictions or project based rent assistance!
5 Years of Competitive LIHTC Awards Membership and Mission
9% LIHTC and HOME NOFA Review • LIHTC and HOME Project Recommendations 18 applications received. 12 projects recommended for Housing Stability Council consideration.
Process - Scoring • Applications Scored within 3 Regions: • Metro Region: Clackamas, Multnomah and Washington Counties • Non-Metro-Participating Jurisdiction Region: Eugene/Springfield, Salem/Keizer • Balance of State Region • 50% target for rural communities under 25,000 • 2019 recommendations: • 73% of Balance of State funds went to rural communities under 25,000 • 68% of Balance of State units are in rural communities under 25,000 • Rural communities are scoring well in the balance of state • Internal committees review Capacity, Financial Viability, and Data Driven Measures • External committee reviews Impact and Preferences by Region
Process - Overview • Staff assembled all scores from Internal and External Scoring Committees; evaluated ability to fund projects based on available resources and regional allocations in order to make overall funding recommendations to the OHCS Executive Team and OHCS Director Margaret Salazar • Director reviewed and made final funding recommendations to Housing Stability Council • Housing Stability Council takes action loans and grants equal to or greater than $1,000,000, more than half of the total development budget, or outside agency policy standards
Metro Region • 5 applications submitted • 4 applications recommended for funding • 1 recommendation is Preservation • 228 units
Metro Region • Oregon City Terracein Oregon City, RPH Corporation • 48 unit preservation project serving large families, seniors, and people with disabilities • Rose Bowlin Portland, Cascadia Housing Inc • 71 unit new construction project providing permanent supportive housing • Going 42 in Portland, Community Development Partners • 55 unit new construction serving American Indian/Alaska Native households • The Mary Ann in Beaverton, REACH CDI • 54 unit new construction serving families
Non-Metro Participating Jurisdiction Region • 1 application submitted • 1 application recommended for funding • 60 units
Non-Metro Participating Jurisdiction Region • River Road Affordable Housing in Eugene, St. Vincent de Paul • 60 units new construction serving single, couples, and families at or below 50% AMI and survivors of domestic violence
Balance of State Region • 10 applications submitted • 6 applications recommended for funding • 1 recommendation is Preservation • 331 units
Balance of State Region • Rogue Valley Apartments in White City and Eagle Point, Chrisman Development • 76 unit preservation project serving families • Snowberry Brook II in Ashland, Jackson County Housing Authority • 71 new construction units serving family, workforce households, and homeless youth • Carnelian Place and Phoenix Crossing in Bend, Housing Works • 48 units in new construction serving seniors, homeless, veterans, and survivors of domestic violence • Applegate Landing in Lebanon, Applegate Landing LLC • 36 units of new construction serving families and veterans • Bridge Meadowsin Redmond, Bridge Meadows • 40 new construction intergenerational units • Patriot Heights in Stanfield, Umatilla County Housing Authority • 53 units in new construction serving individuals and families
HOME NOFA – Recommendations • Colonia Paz I in Lebanon, Farmworker Housing Development Corp • 24 units in new construction serving families and agricultural workers
Project Recommendations Motion for Consideration
HOME NOFA – Recommendations • Motion: To approve the funding reservation of the following resources, • Applegate Landing in Lebanon, $885,000 in HTF, and $1,855,000 in HOME • Bridge Meadows in Redmond, $778,125 in Gap, $1,089,000 in HTF, $1,029,010 in HOME, and $93,015 in MEP • Carnelian Place & Phoenix Crossing in Bend, $1,027,500 in Gap, $600,000 in HTF, $1,000,000 in HOME, and $17,640 in MEP • Colonia Paz I in Lebanon, $500,000 in Gap, and $2,759,915 in HOME • Going 42 in Portland, $1,023,750 in Gap, $1,271,000 in HTF, and $69,293 in MEP • Mary Ann in Beaverton, $1,078,125 in Gap, $1,129,904 in HTF, and $147,312 in MEP • Oregon City Terrace in Oregon City, $200,000 in Gap and $500,000 in HTF • Patriot Heights in Stanfield, $610,000 in HTF, and $1,148,000 in HOME • Rogue Valley Apartments in White City and Eagle Point, $200,000 in Gap, $500,000 in HTF, $500,000 in HOME and $42,442 in MEP • Rose Bowl in Portland, $400,000 in Gap, $700,000 in HTF, and $47,215 in MEP • Snowberry Brook II in Ashland, $750,000 in HTF, and $750,000 in HOME
FINAL THOUGHTS / CLOSING REMARKS Comments? Questions? Thank you.