Affordable Housing Investment Fund (AHIF)

Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for FY 2018

December 6, 2016

1

DRAFT

Affordable Housing Master

Plan (AHMP) and

Implementation

Framework (IF)

unanimously approved by

County Board Sept. 2015

AHMP Goals

○ Supply

○ Access

○ Sustainability

“Initiate a NOFA process for

AHIF funds for competitive

low income housing tax

credit projects.” –

Implementation Framework2

Affordable Housing Master Plan

• Consistency with Affordable Housing Master Plan

• Supply, Access, Sustainability

• Desire for AHIF tools that

address geographic distribution

• Clarifies process and schedule

• Allows concurrent review

• Competitive applications

NOFA Rationale

3

• Communities of all sizes throughout country have a

NOFA/RFP process. Peer examples include:

Other Jurisdictions with NOFA/RFP

4

• Washington, DC

• Philadelphia, PA

• San Francisco, CA

• Los Angeles, CA

• Miami, FL

• Madison, WI

• East King County, WA

• Seattle, WA

• Portland, OR

• Cleveland, OH

• Tompkins County, NY

• Non-staff participation and scoring

• As drafted, staff would score applications, which would then

be reviewed by Housing Commission (similar to current process)

• Criteria (mixed opinions)

• Geographic Distribution

• “MARKS/Preservation” and “Time Sensitivity”

• Experience and Readiness

• Concern NOFA would increase predevelopment costs

• NOFA should not increase predevelopment costs

• Schedule was created to be consistent with current planning

processes (AHIF and Site Plan/FBC could continue concurrent

public process)

• Do not require final architectural plans, suggest conceptual

plans only

Comments from Housing Commission/Advisory Group

5

Staff revised recommendations based on input from Advisory

Group and Housing Commission. Changes included:

• Revisions to eligibility requirement

• Experience developing or owning housing added as

“threshold” criteria

• Minimum 30-year affordability commitment period

• Revisions to geographic distribution

• Underwent multiple iterations and reflects poverty level and

proximity to metro

• Revisions to application criteria and points

• Advisory Group had input into distribution of points within

policy, budget, experience and readiness categories

• Tried to balance differing opinions of group

• Schedule

• Revised application deadline to one month earlier (March)

• Revision to the release of scores

• Will release scores upon request in aggregate form

Revisions due to Public Feedback

6

• Created Internal Staff Working Group (members of each team

within Housing Division)

• Formed NOFA Advisory Group (AG)

• 9-members including developers, residents, advocates, Housing

Commissioners and Fiscal Affairs Advisory Commissioner

• Met six times over 7 month period

• Staff formed recommendations (with AG input) on following

topics:

• Scoring guidance (criteria and max points)

• Application schedule

• Scoring process

Development of Staff Recommendations

7

• Applicant MUST meet the following criteria

• Minimum 30-year affordability commitment

• Used for units affordable up to 80% Area Median Income (AMI)

• If mixed-income, County funds apply to portion of units that are

affordable up to 80% AMI

• Must have previous experience developing housing or be

partnering with a developer who has previous experience

• Applications

• Structured schedule

• Scored comparatively

• Created companion guidance document

• Scoring details on next slide

Application Overview

8

Draft Max Points Available

9

Policy Goals - 40% Max Points

Supply 84

Access 6

Sustainability 10

Policy Total 100 x .4 = 40%

Budget – 40%

Capital Budget 50

Operating Budget 50

Budget Total 100 x .4 = 40%

Project Experience and

Readiness – 20%

Team Experience 55

Readiness 45

Experience/Readiness Total 100 x .2 = 20%

• Policy = 40% of

total score

• Budget = 40%

of total score

• Experience

and Readiness

= 20% of total

score

• Tiered Point Structure based on proximity to metro and level of

poverty

• Tier 1: Located in metro corridor or ¼ mile radius from Lee Hwy. (25

Points)

• Tier 2: Located in a census tract below avg. poverty rate and not in

metro corridor (20 points)

• Tier 3: Located in a census tract with 1x -2x avg. poverty rate and

not in metro corridor (15 points)

• Tier 4: Located in a census tract with 2x-3x avg. poverty rate and

not in metro corridor (10 points)

• Tier 5: Located in a census tract that has 3x or greater avg. poverty

rate at any point over the past 3 years (0 points)

• Mixed-income developments in Tiers 4 and 5 that contain at

least 40% of unrestricted units will receive the next highest Tier

points.

• Exception: Applications preserving existing CAFS will receive full

points

Geographic Distribution

10

Geographic Distribution Map

11

• Staff selections form the FY18 Pipeline Recommendations

• Projects still required to participate in four to eight month public

process (SPRC or FBC AWG, PC, and HC/Bricks & Mortar meetings)

• County Board Hearing for AHIF allocation at conclusion of public

process

• Staff will release score upon request

• Scores released:

• Supply (including Geographic Distribution)

• Access

• Sustainability

• Budget

• Experience and Readiness

• Staff will meet and debrief with applicants who are not selected

Draft Scoring Process

12

Housing Commission

Action

Housing Commission

Info

Bricks and Mortar

Selections Announced

Housing Commission

Update

Staff Review

Housing Commission

Update

SubmitAHIF

Application

By Due Date

13

NOFA PROCESS*

CURRENT PROCESS*

Month 1 Month 2 – 4 Month 5 – 8 Month 9 Month 10 – 12

Jan– March March – May May Dec – Jan Jan-Feb

Housing Commission

Action

Housing Commission

Info

Bricks and Mortar

Application Received/

Staff Review

Housing Commission

Update

Staff Review/

Invitation to Submit

Preliminary Proposal

Rolling Basis

Current Process and NOFA Process

County

Board

meeting

for

allocation

of loan

*Process timelines are approximate.

• Created to be consistent with VHDA tax credit and County

planning processes

• AHIF application and Site Plan/FBC applications could go through

process concurrently (similar to current process)

• In-cycle Applications due March 2017 (full schedule next slide)

• Out-of-cycle applications on case-by-case basis

• County historically receives about 1 acquisition application/year

• Time-Sensitive 3rd Party Acquisitions may apply to be considered

out-of-cycle

• On open market or owner intent to sell

• Will provide verifiable justification

Schedule

14

Draft Schedule for In-Cycle Applications

15

*Notes: 9%/hybrid LIHTC applications may need to be heard by County Board in

Feb., depending on schedule/public process. Other applications may be heard

earlier than January if schedule/public process allows.

Jan. Feb. March April May June

NOFA is issued with application packet posted to website (Jan. 9, 2017)

Application Period (Jan. 9 - March 10, 2017)

Conceptual Site Plan or FBC Review [1]

Developer Forum Q&A (Jan. 17, 2017)

Staff Review (March 13 - April 28, 2017)

Housing Commission Update - Information Items (April and May meetings)

Developer Notification (May 1, 2017)

Debrief meeting with applicants who did not get selected

4.1 Site Plan or FBC Preliminary Filing [2]

Public Process/Site Plan/FBC Review (June - January 2018)

Year 2017

July August Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.

Public Process/Site Plan/FBC Review (June - January 2018)

4.1 Site Plan Final Filing [2]

FBC Final Submission [2]

Commission Meetings (December - January 2018)

Year 2018

Jan. Feb. March

Public Process/Site Plan/FBC Review (June 2017 - January 2018)

Commission Meetings (December 2017 - January 2018)

County Board Meeting (January 2018)

9% Low Income Housing Tax Credit Deadline (March 2018)

[2] This is a suggested filing date in order to be heard at a January/February County Board meeting.

2017

2017

2018

[1] Applicant can submit a Conceptual Site Plan Application or meet to discuss the FBC application at anytime prior to AHIF application submittal.

Wrap-Up

16

• Policy Goals and Limited Resources

• Bring recommendations to County Board that best meet policy goals

• Consistency with Affordable Housing Master Plan

• Maximize leveraging of scarce financial resources

• Encourage competitive applications

• Concurrent review to improve decision making

• Clarify process and schedule

• Application package posted to website and Developer Forum

(January)

• Will evaluate NOFA and re-convene Advisory Group prior to

next fiscal year’s (FY19) funding round

• Feedback on:

• Process

• Criteria

• Schedule

Discussion

17