New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Studyhousingnm.org/.../8-1...NM_Affordable_Housing_Cost_Study_by_Novo… · New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study . ... The decrease in development

New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study

Analysis of NM Construction Cost Trends, Comparison of NM Construction Costs with Surrounding States, and Analysis of NM Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Distribution

August 1, 2014

Prepared by Novogradac & Company LLP

Disclaimer: This report is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regards to the

matters described herein at the time of its writing. Readers of this report are hereby advised that the authors are not engaged in providing any legal, accounting, or other professional services with regards

to this report. Any of the information included in this report is subject to change, from time to time and without notice. Readers of this report are therefore advised to refer to the original source documents

cited herein in order to ensure access to the most up-to-date information.

This report is for the sole use of the New Mexico Housing Mortgage Finance Agency.

The New Mexico Housing Mortgage Finance Agency is responsible for making all management decisions and performing all management functions with regards to this report. Novogradac & Company LLP is

providing assistance on a consulting basis to the New Mexico Housing Mortgage Finance Agency and is not responsible for management decisions.

Certain state agencies that provided information for the cost study did so on the condition that project-

specific information remains confidential. This report does not identify projects by name or development team members, lenders, investors, or any other project participants by name; or give

specific location size or project cost data that might permit a reader to identify a project.

The report does not constitute any form of attestation engagement, such as an audit, compilation or review.

Table of Contents

I. Acknowledgements II. Introduction III. Executive Summary IV. Methodology V. New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends VI. State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) VII. New Mexico LIHTC Distribution VIII. MFA Policies and Procedures Discussion IX. Bibliography X. Appendices with Maps and Charts

• Appendix A – New Mexico Charts 1-33 • Appendix B – New Mexico LIHTC Project Data • Appendix C – State Tables 1A – 6G • Appendix D – Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) • Appendix E – New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Charts 1A – 7I • Appendix F – New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Maps

Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study

Acknowledgements

This report was prepared by Novogradac & Company LLP for the New Mexico Housing Mortgage Finance Agency. Jim Kroger, CPA and Grace Li, CPA with Novogradac & Company LLP were the primary authors and collected the data necessary to produce the report. We are grateful for assistance from Dan Foster, Housing Tax Credit Program Manager at the New Mexico Housing Mortgage Finance Agency, who assisted with data collection and analysis of our observations of New Mexico construction cost trends. We are also grateful to the state agencies listed below that provided construction cost data:

• Arizona Department of Housing • Colorado Housing and Finance Authority • Nevada Housing Division • Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs • Utah Housing Corporation

Novogradac & Company LLP - New Mexico Affordable Housing Cost Study 4

Acknowledgements

This page intentionally left blank


Introduction

Novogradac & Company LLP (“Novogradac”) was engaged by the New Mexico Housing Mortgage Finance Agency (“MFA”) in August of 2013 to analyze construction cost trends for 100% low-income housing tax credit (“LIHTC”) new construction 9% projects in New Mexico, as well as compare construction costs with surrounding states. Novogradac was also engaged to analyze the distribution of 9% LIHTCs in New Mexico between congressional districts, rural and urban areas, housing types, and various project sizes; and review MFA policies and procedures for cost containment and cost standards. The results of this analysis are shown in the attached report (the “Report”) in narrative format, and also presented in numerous graphs and charts, as well as an Appendix with supporting schedules. With the consent of MFA, individual project information for New Mexico was included in our Appendix, however, individual project information for other states is not included, except in the aggregate, at the request of other state agencies. Scope of services New Mexico Construction Cost Trends We analyzed construction cost trends of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in New Mexico from 2006 – 2013 with analysis of various cost components such as land, site work, structures, architect fee, engineering fee, contractor fees, and developer fee, as well as comparing costs in various categories such as location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), project size (less than 30 units, 30 units to 59 units, and 60 or more units), unit type (non-detached vs. detached), and developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit). State Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT) We compared construction costs of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in New Mexico and surrounding states (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Texas, and Utah) from 2006 – 2013, which included analysis of various cost components such as land, site work, structures, architect fees, engineering fees, contractor fees, and developer fee, as well as comparing costs in various categories such as location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), project size (less than 30 units, 30 units to 59 units, and 60 or more units), and unit type (non-detached vs. detached). We did not compare construction costs by developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit) between the various states. New Mexico LIHTC Distribution We analyzed the distribution of 9% LIHTC in New Mexico from 2001 – 2014 between congressional districts, location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit), construction type (new construction, acq/rehab, and combined new construction and acq/rehab), and participation by tribal entities or housing authorities. MFA Policies and Procedures Discussion We read the MFA Qualified Allocation Plan to determine how policies and procedures might influence construction costs and the allocation of 9% LIHTC in New Mexico. We had numerous discussions with Dan Foster at MFA to obtain an understanding of MFA’s objectives and priorities; and how to achieve those with cost containment in mind.


Introduction



Executive Summary

We have highlighted some of the key findings below. Readers are strongly advised to also read our Methodology Section as well as more specific methodology under “New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends” and “State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)”. New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends Development Costs – Site Work & Structures costs generally decreased from 2007 to 2010, and then generally increased from 2010 to 2013. The decrease in development costs from 2007 to 2010 was possibly due in part to increased cost competition as a result of scoring criteria introduced in 2009 and 2010 that gave points for lower costs per square foot. The decrease from 2007 to 2010 and increase from 2010 to 2013 could also be due to high cost projects built on tribal lands in 2007 and 2013, which generally have higher construction costs and may have caused the peaks in costs in those years. Project Location - The weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit for urban projects from 2006 – 2013 were generally about 25% less than rural projects, possibly due to higher cost in rural areas to obtain construction materials, hire construction crews, and other infrastructure challenges. Housing Type - Family projects and Senior projects appear to have about the same weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit, but Special Needs projects have about 30% less weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit than both of these housing types. Likely contributing factors to the lower cost for Special Needs projects include the following characteristics of the sample: 1) about 25% more of Special Needs projects were in urban areas, 2) Special Needs projects were generally much larger projects, and 3) Special Needs projects were mostly non-detached projects. Developer Type - Nonprofit developers (including housing authorities and tribal entities) had similar construction costs per unit as for-profit developers. There were some years that show nonprofit developers with higher costs and some years showing for-profit developers with higher costs, but they were similar in the aggregate for Site Work & Structures costs per unit on a weighted average basis. Project Size - Site Work & Structures costs per unit of projects with 60 or more units were about 30% less than costs per unit for projects with 30-59 units and about 20% less than costs per unit for projects with less than 30 units. However, there could be other factors contributing to the lower cost for projects with 60 or more units, such as larger projects being located in urban areas. Another big factor could be that projects with 60 or more units are all non-detached type projects, which appears to have significant cost savings as detailed in the Report. Furthermore, projects with 60 or more units have smaller bedroom sizes, therefore the smaller bedroom factor may be a primary contributor to the lower cost. Unit Type - The weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit for non-detached projects is about 40% less than detached projects. Two factors that likely contribute to non-detached projects having lower costs, aside from the obvious construction cost savings in shared walls and other shared costs for non-detached projects, include the following characteristics of the sample: 1) there are significantly more non-detached units in urban areas, where costs are generally less than rural areas, and 2) non-detached projects are generally larger projects with 60 or more units, where costs are significantly lower than for projects with less than 60 units.


Executive Summary

State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) Development Costs New Mexico’s weighted average Site Work & Structure costs per unit, Adjusted Total Development Costs per unit, and Total Development Costs per unit for 2006 - 2013, after adjusting for bedroom size and project size, was lower than most states in our sample.

• Site Work & Structures costs per unit includes direct construction costs, costs of accessory/community buildings and amenity structures, construction contingency, landscaping and fencing, and demolition (if categorized separately from land costs).

• Adjusted Total Development Costs per unit includes Site Work & Structures listed above, as well as off-sites, contractor fees/profit/overhead, furniture and fixtures, architect fees, engineering fees, impact fees, and developer fee.

• Total Development Costs per unit includes Adjusted Total Development Costs listed above, as well as land, insurance, loan interest, loan fees and origination costs, legal & accounting, appraisal, inspection and title report fees, taxes, environmental studies, market study, marketing, state agency fees, syndication, and reserves.

Cost Components New Mexico’s weighted average Cost Components per unit for 2006 – 2013, after adjusting for bedroom size and project size, was lower than the total weighted average for the six states for several components (land, architect fees, and engineering fees).

Average Site Work & Structures

Average Adjusted TDC

Average TDC

Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 95,039 137,602 172,835 Colorado 113,782 159,678 199,185 Nevada 101,687 143,783 164,781 New Mexico 87,897 129,284 143,615 Texas 72,038 103,943 123,652 Utah 90,483 115,967 141,473 Weighted Average 82,139 116,565 140,083

STATE

Average Land Acquisition

Costs

Average Architect Fees

Average Engineering Fees

Average Contractor Fees

Average Developer Fee

Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 10,532 4,318 1,648 10,715 19,381 Colorado 12,991 6,979 1,191 14,342 17,979 Nevada 4,973 3,747 2,605 9,078 17,060 New Mexico 4,269 4,367 1,136 11,153 16,818 Texas 7,014 N/A N/A 9,432 14,108 Utah 12,179 2,504 576 9,710 9,695 Weighted Avg 8,313 4,500 1,194 10,191 14,731

STATE


Executive Summary

Cost Components as an average percent of Total Development Costs from 2006 – 2013 do not vary significantly between New Mexico and the total weighted average for the six states, especially with regards to contractor fees, architect fees, engineering fees, and developer fees, and aside from land acquisition.

New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Distribution of 9% LIHTC in New Mexico from 2001 – 2014 between congressional districts, location (rural and urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit), construction type (new construction, acq/rehab, and combined new construction and acq/rehab), and projects with or without participation by tribal entities or housing authorities, can be volatile over the years due to the small amount of credits that are allocated annually in the state, resulting in generally about five to nine projects that are allocated credits each year. LIHTC distribution is likely influenced by factors such as LIHTC demand and construction costs, which are further affected by other variables such as geographic area and available financing. LIHTC distribution between the three congressional districts in New Mexico from 2001 – 2014 was as follows:

1st Congressional District 2nd Congressional District 3rd Congressional District Total Units Produced 1,222 2,332 1,872

Total LIHTC $15,133,254 $21,803,105 $22,971,170 Average

LIHTC/Unit $13,048 $9,099 $12,150

MFA Policies and Procedures Discussion MFA and the state agencies analyzed in the Report require or encourage high quality and low cost housing through minimum and maximum requirements or scoring selection criteria detailed in each state’s QAP. In order to lower construction costs while increasing construction quality, QAPs have both downward and upward pressures on construction costs. For example, construction cost caps, such as maximum developer fee and contractor fee limits, create downward pressure on construction costs, while minimum construction standards, such as energy efficiency and amenity requirements, create upward pressure on costs. Additionally, many measures do not have a single effect and can provide both downward and upward pressures.

Weighted Average per

Project% of TDC

233,480 3.0%4,807,112 61.2%

609,988 7.8%238,841 3.0%

62,107 0.8%919,764 11.7%983,105 12.5%

7,854,397 100%

of NM Projects2006 - 2013

Weighted Average Values per Project

Cost Component

Land AcquisitionSite Work & Structures

Contractor FeesArchitect Fees

Engineering FeesDeveloper Fees

OtherTotal Development Costs

Weighted Average per

Project% of TDC

643,089 6.1%6,116,846 58.5%

756,863 7.2%225,146 2.2%

60,431 0.6%1,090,834 10.4%1,565,765 15.0%

10,458,974 100%

of AZ, CO, NV, TX, and UT Projects2006 - 2013

Other

Land Acquisition

Developer FeesEngineering Fees

Cost Component

Site Work & StructuresContractor FeesArchitect Fees

Weighted Average Values per Project

Total Development Costs


Executive Summary



Methodology This section discusses our general methodology. Please see further explanation of specific methodology as applicable in our sections “New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends” and “State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)”. Isolating Construction Cost Factors There are many factors affecting construction costs that are often intertwined, may have compounding effects, and are often difficult to isolate for their individual effects. Also, given the small sample size and limitations of available data within New Mexico and with surrounding states, it is often difficult to say whether there is causation between two variables. For example, although the data might suggest that project size is a big factor because costs per unit decrease as units per project increase, we cannot definitively conclude that project size is the reason why costs per unit decrease. In order to further analyze our observations, we considered other factors, such as bedroom size, location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), project size (less than 30 units, 30 units to 59 units, and 60 or more units), unit type (non-detached vs. detached), and developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit) that might affect these results; and we reviewed the data to determine if there was a disproportionate allocation of projects with these factors between certain categories we analyzed. For example, we observed in New Mexico that costs per unit for projects with 60 or more units are much less than costs per unit for projects with less than 30 units. However, there could be other factors contributing to the lower cost for projects with 60 or more units, such as larger projects being located in urban areas. We observed that costs per unit for urban projects are much less than rural projects, and that urban projects tend to be larger, so it may be the urban factor that is contributing to lower costs for projects with 60 or more units. It is difficult to isolate whether the lower cost per unit for urban projects is due to the urban factor, or due to the fact that urban projects are generally larger than rural projects in our sample. Furthermore, projects with 60 or more units have smaller bedrooms, so maybe the smaller bedroom factor is the primary contributor to the lower cost. Our observations considered these effects, and we commented if there was a “disproportionate” allocation of factors, but our observations are still subject to interpretation, such as what is considered “disproportionate”. In our New Mexico construction cost analysis (not in our comparable state analysis) we included a chart that measured the percentage of total units distributed between the various factors and weighted average bedroom size. The various factors include location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), project size (less than 30 units, 30 units to 59 units, and 60 or more units), unit type (non-detached vs. detached), and developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit). Our observations of the cause and effect of factors contributing to construction costs cannot be relied upon as being definitive because there are many other factors that might contribute to cost differences that we were not able to consider due to data limitations. Some of these factors include the following:

- size and experience of developer - vertically integrated contractor and

developer - construction standards - energy efficiency standards - square footage - community space and site amenities - environmental mitigation

- parking - project construction duration - weather conditions - community opposition - local design review requirements - historic artifacts or structures needing

preservation - minimum wage


Methodology

Cost Per Unit Measurement We used a cost per unit measurement, rather than cost per square foot or cost per bedroom, because the LIHTC industry generally uses a cost per unit standard. Although using cost per unit has limitations because units averaging more bedrooms would typically have higher costs per unit, we adjusted for this effect between the six states in our state construction cost comparison (see discussion under Methodology for State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons). We did not adjust for this effect when analyzing costs only within New Mexico. Although the cost per unit measurement has limitations, so does cost per square foot and cost per bedroom. Using cost per bedroom has limitations because some projects in our study have, on average, more bedrooms per unit, and therefore, would typically have lower costs per bedroom. Using cost per square foot has limitations because square footage information was not available or was unreliable in certain cases. Resident manager units are counted as part of total units. Costs for common areas are counted in total costs, and therefore, will be part of per unit costs. Development Cost Categories We used three categories of development costs as follows:

1. Site work & structures (includes direct construction costs, costs of accessory/community buildings and amenity structures, construction contingency, landscaping and fencing, and demolition if categorized separately from land costs)

2. Adjusted total development costs (“Adjusted TDC”) (includes Site Work & Structures listed above, as well as off-sites, contractor fees/profit/overhead, furniture and fixtures, architect fees, engineering fees, impact fees, and developer fee)

3. Total development costs (“TDC”) (includes Adjusted Total Development Costs listed above, as well as land, insurance, loan interest, loan fees and origination costs, legal & accounting, appraisal, inspection and title report fees, taxes, environmental studies, market study, marketing, state agency fees, syndication, and reserves)

Development costs were further analyzed using the following cost categories:

• Land acquisition costs (includes costs to acquire land, existing structures, if any, demolition, and closing costs)

• Architect fees • Engineering fees • Contractor fees (includes general requirements, builder overhead, and builder profit) • Developer fees


Methodology

Outliers In order to normalize the data under the central limit theorem (bell curve distribution theory), and to remove possible anomalies and outliers, we removed projects for each state that are three standard deviations outside the mean for our three categories of development costs (site work & structures, adjusted total development costs, and total development costs). Data that falls within three standard deviations (light, medium, and dark blue shown below) of the mean (average) of our data sets generally accounts for 99.8 percent of the data. Roughly one to three projects for each state were deemed outliers, as defined above, and were removed from our data sample.

Assumptions and Data Limitations

1. Data was collected and transcribed by hand into Microsoft Excel spreadsheets from other types of media such as PDF files, in order to analyze the data. As a result, the data is subject to human error, however, removing outliers (as described above) mitigates this effect.

2. Data was analyzed using Microsoft Excel pivot tables and graphs, which were used to filter and compare data based on specific criteria for the various factors such as location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), project size (less than 30 units, 30 units to 59 units, and 60 or more units), unit type (non-detached vs. detached), and developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit).

3. There are likely variations in the categorization of costs due to differences in the level of detail of the data provided, and varying definitions of costs for the individuals preparing the final cost certifications and LIHTC applications.

4. The years of tax allocation for each project were either provided by the state agencies, determined by reviewing credit allocation awards lists published on state agency websites, or by reviewing LIHTC applications.

5. Cost data has not been adjusted for inflation (labor or material). Summary The individual effects of any one variable are difficult to isolate and can often be affected by any number of other factors that are also present. Readers are advised to consider these other factors and refer to the methodology sections in the “New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends” and “State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)” sections for explanation of applicable additional methodology.


Methodology



New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends Novogradac analyzed the costs of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in New Mexico from 2006 – 2013 to identify trends and differences in various cost components (such as land, site work, structures, architect fee, engineering fee, contractor fees, and developer fee) and across various categories (such as location, housing types, developer type, project size, and unit type). Approach and Methodology To achieve an “apples to apples” comparison as much as possible, the projects analyzed in the Report were limited to 100% LIHTC (no market-rate units) new construction projects that applied for and generally received 9% LIHTC in New Mexico from 2006 – 2013, and does not include any 4% tax-exempt bond or mixed-income projects, or projects that are acq/rehab, rehab only, or new construction combined with rehab. The analysis herein was based on construction cost data collected from final cost certifications and LIHTC applications for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects that applied for and/or received 9% credit allocations from 2006 to 2013. The Report contains cost and project data for 26 such projects, representing 1,117 LIHTC units. The data includes projects that received 9% credit allocations as well as projects that did not receive 9% credit allocations in the time period analyzed. Data was collected from final cost certifications of the projects that received credit allocations, and from LIHTC applications of the projects that applied but did not receive credit allocations. MFA indicated that construction costs from LIHTC applications were generally representative of final costs in most cases; therefore, data from LIHTC applications have been included in our analysis to increase sample size. The sample includes the following New Mexico projects from each year in the time period analyzed:

Year Number of Projects Number of Units 2006 3 78 2007 2 85

2008* N/A N/A 2009 5 259 2010 4 168 2011 6 253 2012 1 60 2013 5 214

TOTAL 26 1,117 * Project data was unavailable for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in 2008.

• Of the 26 projects, 15 are located in rural areas and 11 are located in urban areas. • Nine of the projects are family housing type, two are senior housing type, and 15 are special

needs housing type. • The sample included 11 projects that were built by nonprofit developers and 13 projects that

were built by for-profit developers. Nonprofit developer status was unknown for two of the projects; therefore, those projects were excluded from the nonprofit participation comparison. Every project in the sample includes a nonprofit general partner, therefore, our nonprofit participation comparison focused on the nonprofit status of the developer rather than the general partner.

• Eight projects have less than 30 units each, nine projects have 30-59 units each, and nine projects have 60 or more units each.


New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends

• Nine projects are detached unit type structures and 15 projects are non-detached unit type structures. Unit type status was unknown for two of the projects; therefore, those projects were excluded from the unit type structure comparison.

Cost Analysis The variables analyzed within New Mexico are:

• Location – rural vs. urban Rural is generally defined as any area outside of the four Metropolitan Statistical Areas in New Mexico (Albuquerque, Farmington, Las Cruces, and Santa Fe).

• Housing types – family, senior, and special needs; defined as follows: 1. Family - Projects with at least 25 percent of units set-aside for households with children.

Projects with both Family and Special Needs elements will be considered Family for the cost portion of our Report.

2. Senior – Projects specifically designated for exclusive use by Senior Households. 3. Special Needs - Projects with at least 25% (in 2006 – 2011), or 20% (in 2012 – 2013), of

units set-aside for Special Needs. • Nonprofit participation – for-profit developers vs. nonprofit developers (including housing

authorities and tribal entities) • Project size – projects with less than 30 units, 30 to 59 units, and 60 or more units • Unit type structure – detached vs. non-detached

The following charts might not include data for certain years (as noted at the bottom of certain charts) due to lack of project data meeting the criteria under analysis. The following charts are not adjusted for inflation (labor or material). Observations Our observations will note a few of the more significant New Mexico LIHTC construction cost trends. Users are advised to analyze the charts for other trends not listed in our observations. Some trends are not included in our discussion because they were determined to be an aberration. Our observations considered the effects of various project characteristics, and we commented if there was a “disproportionate” allocation of these variables. We defined “disproportionate” as a difference of greater than 20% between the variables as a percentage of total units. Our observations are subject to interpretation, such as what is considered “disproportionate” and other considerations that we have not taken into account.



Development Costs (See NM Chart 1 in Appendix A) Site Work & Structures costs per unit generally decreased from 2007 to 2010 by about 30%, and then generally increased from 2010 to 2013 by about 30%. The decrease was possibly due in part to increased cost competition as a result of scoring criteria introduced in 2009 and 2010 that gave points for lower costs per square foot. The decrease from 2007 to 2010 and increase from 2010 to 2013 could also be due to a few high cost projects in 2007 and 2013, which included projects on tribal lands that generally have higher construction costs and may have caused the peaks in costs in those years. Note that land costs on tribal projects are less than most projects, thus a reverse trend for land is seen with costs increasing from 2007 to 2010, and then decreasing from 2010 to 2013 (land cost is discussed later in our cost component analysis and on NM Chart 21 in Appendix A). The graph and chart below is a summary of the weighted averages for each year and in total for the time period 2006 – 2013 (see NM Charts 19-33 in Appendix A for further cost breakdown).

Project data was unavailable for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in 2008.

190,406 203,571

179,831 159,922 164,636 166,222

219,580

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM

2006 - 2013 (Average Costs per Unit)

Site Work & Structures per Unit Adjusted TDC per Unit TDC per Unit

YearSite Work & Structures

per Unit

Adjusted TDC per Unit

TDC per Unit Total Units

2006 122,383 173,177 190,406 78 2007 139,881 190,775 203,571 85 2009 113,665 161,569 179,831 259 2010 93,589 139,293 159,922 168 2011 98,366 148,259 164,636 253 2012 96,660 147,694 166,222 60 2013 129,442 198,570 219,580 214

Weighted Average 111,893 164,581 182,824



Site Work & Structures was the main contributing factor of costs decreasing from 2007 – 2010, and then increasing from 2010 – 2013; therefore, Adjusted TDC and TDC follow a similar trend. We also looked at the change in Adjusted TDC (excluding Site Work & Structures) from year to year, and found that the trend was the same: in the aggregate, contractor fees, furniture and fixtures, architect fees, engineering fees, impact fees, and developer fee, also decreased from 2007 to 2010 and then increased from 2010 to 2013. This makes sense because many of these fees would be directly or indirectly affected by changes in Site Work & Structures. Project costs per unit for the time period from 2006 – 2013 ranged between various projects, with the approximate ranges and the weighted averages below:

• Site work and structures $70,000 to $190,000 cost per unit $111,893 weighted average cost per unit

• Adjusted TDC $105,000 to $256,000 cost per unit $164,581 weighted average cost per unit

• TDC $118,000 to $280,000 cost per unit $182,824 weighted average cost per unit





Project Location (See NM Charts 2-4 in Appendix A) The weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit for urban projects from 2006 – 2013 were generally about 25% less than rural projects, possibly due to higher cost in rural areas to obtain construction materials, hire construction crews, and other infrastructure challenges. Project size could be another factor contributing to the lower cost for urban projects. We observed that costs per unit for projects with 60 or more units are much less than costs per unit for projects with less than 30 units (see NM Chart 15 in Appendix A); and that urban projects tend to be larger, so it may be the project size factor contributing to lower costs for urban projects. Another factor contributing to the lower cost for urban projects is that they have significantly more non-detached type units than rural projects (30% more), and our data indicates that non-detached units generally cost about 30% less than detached units. Furthermore, urban projects have smaller bedrooms (2.22 urban vs. 2.42 rural) which might also contribute to the lower cost, but it is only a 0.2 difference in bedroom size which is about a 4% cost differential (see detailed discussion about bedroom size cost differences under Methodology for State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons).


per UnitTotal Units

Site Work & Structures

per UnitTotal Units

2006 122,383 78 - - 2007 139,881 85 - - 2009 143,402 80 100,375 179 2010 99,593 24 92,589 144 2011 103,418 84 95,855 169 2012 - - 96,660 60 2013 129,442 214 - -

Weighted Average 126,878 96,556

RURAL URBAN



The following chart details the distribution of project characteristics amongst the sample of rural and urban projects analyzed in this Report:

RURAL URBAN Additional Factors to ConsiderFamily 41% 21% more family in ruralSeniors 10% 5% more senior in ruralSpecial Needs 49% 74% more special needs in urban

Nonprofit 15% 76% more nonprofit in urbanFor-Profit 85% 24% more for-profit in rural

< 30 24% 9% more < 30 in rural30-59 33% 36% diff < 20%60+ 43% 55% diff < 20%

Detached 42% 12% more detached in ruralNondetached 58% 88% more nondetached in urban

Weighted Avg Bedrooms/Unit 2.42 2.22 rural has 0.2 more avg bdr

Project Size

Unit Types

Project Characteristics

Distribution of Project Characteristics Amongst Rural and Urban Projects

as a Percentage of Total Units

Housing Types

Nonprofit



Housing Type (See NM Charts 5-8 in Appendix A) Family projects and Senior projects appear to have about the same weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit, but Special Needs projects cost about 30% less per unit than both of these housing types. The lower cost for Special Needs projects could be due to the fact that the sample of Special Needs projects consists of about 25% more projects in urban areas and consists mostly of larger and non-detached projects. Please note that the sample of Senior projects was very small, and that 100% of the sample of Senior projects was detached projects, which generally increases costs; however, this was likely offset in part by the fact that Senior projects had about one less bedroom per unit, which generally decreases costs (see detailed discussion about bedroom size cost differences under Methodology for State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons).

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cost of Site Work & Structures by Housing Type of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM


Family Senior Special Needs

YearSite Work &

Structures per UnitTotal Units

Site Work & Structures per

UnitTotal Units


per UnitTotal Units

2006 69,929 24 - - 145,696 54 2007 170,136 30 123,378 55 - - 2009 116,160 197 - - 105,737 62 2010 - - - - 93,589 168 2011 116,999 24 137,926 28 90,630 201 2012 - - - - 96,660 60 2013 172,129 74 - - 106,880 140


FAMILY SENIOR SPECIAL NEEDS



The following chart details the distribution of project characteristics amongst the sample of Family, Senior, and Special Needs projects analyzed in this Report:

FAMILY SENIOR SPECIAL NEEDS Additional Factors to ConsiderRural/Urban Rural 66% 66% 41% more family and senior in rural

Urban 34% 34% 59% more special needs in urban

Nonprofit Nonprofit 33% 34% 49% diff < 20%For-Profit 67% 66% 51% diff < 20%

Project Size < 30 19% 34% 13% diff < 20%30-59 46% 66% 25% all seniors in < 30 or 30-5960+ 35% 0% 62% more 60+ in special needs

Unit Types Detached 47% 100% 11% all seniors in detached; less family in detachedNondetached 53% 0% 89% more nondetached in special needs

family has 1.16 more avg bdr than seniorfamily has 0.52 more avg bdr than special needs special needs has 0.64 more avg bdr than senior

2.21 1.57 2.73 Bedrooms/UnitWeighted Avg


Distribution of Project Characteristics Amongst Housing Types




Developer Type (See NM Charts 9-11 in Appendix A) Nonprofit developers (including tribal entities and housing authorities) had similar construction costs per unit as for-profit developers. There were some years that show nonprofit developers with higher costs and other years that show for-profit developers with higher costs, but they were similar in the aggregate for Site Work & Structures costs per unit on a weighted average basis. Nonprofit developers have about 60% more projects in urban areas than for-profit developers, and more Special Needs projects, as well as slightly smaller bedrooms, all of which should bring costs down compared to for-profit developers. For-profit developers, in comparison, have about 20% more projects with over 60 units, which should bring costs down compared to nonprofit developers.

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cost of Site Work & Structures of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM with Nonprofit General Partners

2006 - 2013 Nonprofit vs. For-Profit Developers

(Average Costs per Unit)

Nonprofit General Partner, Nonprofit Developer Nonprofit General Partner, For-Profit Developer


per UnitTotal Units


per UnitTotal Units

2006 187,646 30 81,594 48 2007 170,136 30 123,378 55 2009 96,771 123 127,156 60 2010 103,106 84 84,073 84 2011 95,855 169 103,418 84 2012 - - 96,660 60 2013 159,543 20 126,339 194


Nonprofit General Partner, Nonprofit Developer

Nonprofit General Partner, For-Profit Developer



The following chart details the distribution of project characteristics amongst the sample of projects analyzed in this Report that have nonprofit vs. for-profit developers:

NONPROFIT FOR-PROFIT Additional Factors to ConsiderRural/Urban Rural 18% 79% more for-profit in rural

Urban 82% 21% more nonprofit in urban

Housing Types Family 20% 31% diff < 20%Seniors 6% 9% diff < 20%Special Needs 74% 60% diff < 20%

Project Size < 30 16% 16% diff < 20%30-59 44% 22% more nonprofit in 30-5960+ 40% 62% more for-profit in 60+

Unit Types Detached 24% 30% diff < 20%Nondetached 76% 70% diff < 20%

Weighted Avg Bedrooms/Unit 2.21 2.40 for-profit has 0.19 more avg bdr than nonprofit


Distribution of Project Characteristics Amongst Developer Typeas a Percentage of Total Units



Project Size (See NM Charts 12-15 in Appendix A) Site Work & Structures costs per unit of projects with 60 or more units were consistently less than projects of 30 to 59 units, but when comparing costs per unit between projects with less than 30 units and projects with 30 to 59 units, the results were inconsistent, with projects less than 30 units sometimes costing more and sometimes costing less than projects with 30 to 59 units, depending on the year. Looking at the aggregate weighted average cost for Site Work & Structures for 2006 – 2013, the costs per unit for projects with 60 or more units are about 30% less than costs per unit for projects with 30-59 units and about 20% less than costs per unit for projects with less than 30 units. However, there could be other factors contributing to the lower cost for projects with 60 or more units, such as larger projects being located primarily in urban areas. We observed that costs per unit for urban projects are much less than rural projects, and that urban projects tend to be larger, so it may be the urban factor that is contributing to lower costs for projects with 60 or more units. Another big factor is that projects with 60 or more units are all non-detached type projects, which has significant cost savings as shown in the next section. Furthermore, projects with 60 or more units have smaller bedrooms, so it could be the smaller bedroom factor that is the primary contributor to the lower cost.

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cost of Site Work & Structures by Project Size of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM


Less than 30 Units 30 - 59 Units 60 or More Units

YearSite Work &



UnitTotal Units


per UnitTotal Units

2006 81,594 48 187,646 30 - - 2007 - - 139,881 85 - - 2009 192,139 20 108,291 56 106,733 183 2010 99,593 24 103,106 84 77,865 60 2011 112,443 76 109,819 56 84,224 121 2012 - - - - 96,660 60 2013 159,543 20 172,129 74 98,102 120


Less than 30 Units 30 - 59 Units 60 or More Units



The following chart details the distribution of project characteristics amongst the sample of projects analyzed in this Report that have less than 30 units, 30-59 units, and 60 or more units:

< 30 30-59 60+ Additional Factors to ConsiderRural/Urban Rural 72% 49% 44% more < 30 in rural

Urban 28% 51% 56% less < 30 in urban

Housing Types Family 36% 34% 22% diff < 20%Seniors 15% 14% 0% all senior projects are under 60+Special Needs 49% 52% 78% more 60+ projects are special needs

Nonprofit Nonprofit 43% 61% 34% more nonprofit in 30-59For-Profit 57% 39% 66% more for-profit in 60+

Unit Types Detached 57% 57% 0% all detached projects are < 60+Nondetached 43% 43% 100% all 60+ projects are nondetached

< 30 has 0.04 more avg bdr than 30-59<30 has 0.19 more avg bdr than 60+

30-59 has 0.15 more avg bdr than 60+

Distribution of Project Characteristics Amongst Project Sizes

as a Percentage of Total UnitsProject Characteristics

Weighted Avg Bedrooms/Unit 2.43 2.39 2.24



Unit Type (See NM Charts 16-18 in Appendix A) The weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit for non-detached projects is about 40% less than detached projects. Two factors that likely contribute to non-detached projects having lower costs include the fact that significantly more non-detached units in the sample are located in urban areas, where costs are generally less than rural, and about 70% more non-detached projects have 60 or more units (there are zero detached projects of 60 or more units).

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cost of Site Work & Structures by Unit Type Structure of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM


Detached Non-Detached


per UnitTotal Units


per UnitTotal Units

2006 - - 122,383 78 2007 139,881 85 - - 2009 - - 106,733 183 2010 93,468 54 93,647 114 2011 128,267 52 90,630 201 2012 - - 96,660 60 2013 169,451 94 98,102 120


Detached Non-Detached



The following chart details the distribution of project characteristics amongst the sample of detached and non-detached projects analyzed in this Report:

DETACHED NONDETACHED Additional Factors to ConsiderRural/Urban Rural 80% 42% more detached units in rural

Urban 20% 58% more nondetached units in urban

Housing Types Family 45% 19% more of detached units are family unitsSeniors 29% 0% all seniors units are detachedSpecial Needs 26% 81% more nondetached units are special needs

Nonprofit Nonprofit 38% 46% diff < 20%For-Profit 62% 54% diff < 20%

Project Size < 30 34% 10% all detached are < 60+30-59 66% 19% all detached are < 60+60+ 0% 72% all 60+ projects are nondetached

Weighted Avg Bedrooms/Unit 2.28 2.33 nondetached has 0.05 more avg bdr than detached


Distribution of Project Characteristics Amongst Unit Type




Cost Components (See NM Charts 19-33 in Appendix A) We compared cost components per unit from 2006 – 2013. As seen with Site Work & Structures costs per unit, cost components per unit also generally decreased from 2007 to 2010, and then generally increased from 2010 to 2013. Land acquisition costs per unit, however, did not appear to follow that general trend. Land acquisition costs followed an opposite trend, and generally increased from 2007 to 2010, then generally decreased from 2010 to 2013. This is possibly due to projects on tribal lands in 2007 and 2013 which had leased land, and therefore, no land cost, thus leading to dips in land acquisition costs in those years.

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM 2006 - 2013


Land Acquisition per Unit Architect Fee per Unit Engineering Fee per Unit

Contractor Fees per Unit Developer Fee per Unit

YearLand Acquisition

per UnitArchitect Fee

per UnitEngineering Fee per Unit

Contractor Fees per

Unit

Developer Fee per Unit

Total Units

2006 5,309 9,145 1,786 14,635 21,140 78 2007 3,588 5,985 1,025 17,287 25,355 85 2009 6,789 3,872 1,312 12,775 20,706 259 2010 8,958 4,203 827 12,531 18,543 168 2011 4,179 4,534 847 13,273 18,829 253 2012 6,531 7,338 800 12,889 20,088 60 2013 2,985 7,905 3,025 17,305 26,460 214

Weighted Average 5,435 5,559 1,446 14,198 21,409



We also compared cost components as an average percent of TDC for the time period of 2006 – 2013 with 2010 – 2013 to see whether there were differences between the two time periods.

Most cost components as an average percent of TDC changed about 2% or less when comparing these two time periods. Costs did not appear to differ significantly between the two time periods.

2006-2013 Average % of TDC per

Project

2010-2013 Average % of TDC per

Project

Difference

3.0% 2.9% 0.1%61.2% 59.1% 2.1%7.8% 7.9% -0.2%3.0% 3.2% -0.1%0.8% 0.8% 0.0%

11.7% 11.8% 0.0%12.5% 14.4% -1.9%100% 100%

Developer FeesOtherTotal Development Cost

Cost Component

Land AcquisitionSite Work & StructuresContractor FeesArchitect FeesEngineering Fees

3.0%

61.2% 7.8%

3.0% 0.8%

11.7%

12.5%

Cost Components as an Average Percent of TDC for 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM

2006 - 2013 (Average per Project)

Land Acquisition


Contractor Fees

Architect Fees

Engineering Fees

Developer Fees

Other



Summary Generally, development costs and cost components trended downwards from 2007 – 2010 and trended upwards from 2010 – 2013, with the exception of land, which followed opposite trends. The downward and upward trends are possibly due to lower costs when scoring criteria was introduced in 2009 and 2010 that gave points for lower costs per square foot, and high costs projects in 2007 and 2013 in the sample, which included projects on tribal lands that generally have higher construction costs. Site Work & Structures costs per unit of projects in urban areas were generally less than in rural areas, which may be due to costs unique to rural areas for obtaining construction materials, hiring construction crews, and other infrastructure challenges. Site Work & Structures costs per unit appear to be similar for Family and Senior projects, but were generally less for Special Needs projects, possibly due to our sample of Special Needs projects being mainly larger, non-detached projects in urban areas. Site Work & Structures costs per unit of projects with nonprofit developers vs. for-profit developers were generally similar. Site Work & Structures costs per unit appear to be least for projects with 60 or more units, however, this may be due to various factors such as larger projects being normally non-detached and located in urban areas. Site Work & Structures costs per unit for non-detached projects were generally less than detached projects, which is possibly a result of our sample containing more non-detached projects in urban areas and no detached projects of 60 or more units, among other variables.



State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) Novogradac compared construction costs of 100% LIHTC new construction only 9% projects in New Mexico with surrounding states – Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Texas, and Utah. Various cost components (such as land, site work, structures, architect fee, engineering fee, contractor fees, and developer fee) were analyzed across various categories (such as location, housing types, project size, and unit type structure).

Approach and Methodology To achieve an “apples to apples” comparison as much as possible, the projects analyzed in the Report were limited to 100% LIHTC (no market-rate units) new construction projects that applied for and generally received 9% LIHTC in each state from 2006 – 2013, and does not include any 4% tax-exempt bond or mixed-income projects, or projects that are acq/rehab, rehab only, or new construction combined with rehab. In order to increase sample size, data includes some projects that might not have received allocations. Some data sets may not have projects from certain years once we have filtered the data to meet certain criteria and removed statistical outliers. Our analysis used a time period of 2006 – 2013 for averaging costs, and we also compared that time period with the more recent time period from 2010 – 2013 for some charts. The analysis herein was based on construction cost data collected from final cost certifications and LIHTC applications. MFA indicated that construction costs from LIHTC applications were generally representative of final costs in most cases. The Report contains cost and project data for 259 projects, representing 18,345 LIHTC units.


State LIHTC Construction Cost Comparisons (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)

Time Period Analyzed: 2006 - 2013 States Years

Available Number

of Projects

Number of Units

Average Number of Units

Number of

Bedrooms

Average Number of Bedrooms

Arizona 2006 – 2012 29 1,638 56 3,131 108 Colorado 2006 – 2011 32 1,930 60 2,874 90 Nevada 2010 – 2013 6 408 68 563 94 New Mexico 2006 – 2013 26 1,117 43 2,597 100 Texas 2010 – 2013 112 11,232 100 21,302 190 Utah 2006 – 2012 54 2,020 37 3,959 73 Totals 259 18,345 34,426

Time Period Analyzed: 2010 – 2013

States Years Available

Number of

Projects

Number of Units

Average Number of Units

Number of

Bedrooms

Average Number of Bedrooms

Arizona 2010 – 2012 13 814 63 1,406 108 Colorado 2010 – 2011 10 696 70 865 87 Nevada 2010 – 2013 6 408 68 563 94 New Mexico 2011 – 2013 16 695 43 1,564 97 Texas 2010 – 2013 112 11,232 100 21,302 190 Utah 2010 – 2012 23 804 35 1,537 67 Totals 180 14,649 27,237

In general, the years listed correspond to the year projects applied for and/or received allocations. Most of our data was pulled from Final Cost Certifications. For more recent years, such as 2012 and 2013, we often used data from the 9% LIHTC application because those projects weren’t in service yet.

• Arizona data includes projects from 2006 - 2012 that applied for and/or received allocations. Information was collected from Form 3 of the AZ LIHTC applications and final cost certifications.

• Colorado data includes projects from 2006 - 2011 that received allocations. Information was provided by Colorado Housing Finance Authority. No final cost certifications were reviewed.

• Nevada data includes projects from 2010 - 2013 that received allocations. Information was collected from LIHTC applications and final cost certifications.

• New Mexico data includes projects from 2006 - 2013 that applied for and/or received allocations. Information was collected from LIHTC applications and final cost certifications.

• Texas data includes projects from 2010 - 2013 that applied for and/or received allocations. Information was obtained from underwriting reports provided on the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs website.

• Utah data includes projects from 2006 - 2012 that applied for and/or received allocations. Information was provided by Utah Housing Corporation. No actual final cost certifications were reviewed.



The number of projects in our sample in the following comparison categories is detailed below: Comparison Categories

Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico

Texas Utah TOTALS

Rural 19 6 N/A 15 44 29 113 Urban 10 26 6 11 68 25 146 Family 15 18 N/A 9 43 N/A 85 Senior 12 10 6 2 43 N/A 73 < 30 Units 1 6 N/A 8 1 27 43 30 to 59 Units 15 12 2 9 18 14 70 60+ Units 13 14 4 9 93 13 146 Detached 2 N/A N/A 9 6 N/A 17 Non-Detached 27 N/A 6 15 60 N/A 108 3 or Less Stories 25 17 6 24 45 45 162

Qualified Allocation Plans Construction costs for LIHTC properties will likely vary between states due to different state housing agency qualified allocation plans (“QAP”). QAPs will differ between states with regards to minimum construction standards, energy efficiency requirements, square footage guidelines, site amenity incentives, design requirements, and other variables that affect construction costs. Some states might have a higher standard for certain building features, such as energy efficiency, and provide competitive preference to projects providing more units and amenities, such as laundry rooms, community rooms, daycare centers, parking structures, pools, etc. Although we reviewed other state QAPs for these items, it was very difficult to closely compare these items between states. For example, energy efficiency standards were often required but it was difficult to quantify the effects and determine how to normalize the data for the difference between states, if any, for this variable. However, we found that most state agency QAPs have some minimum construction standards and minimum energy efficiency standards, such that LIHTC projects analyzed in the Report are mostly comparable in terms of construction quality. Therefore, we have not adjusted for construction standard differences, if any, between various states. However, we did adjust for variables mentioned above, such as location, housing types, and project size. Cost per Unit Measurement Adjustments Adjustments for average number of bedrooms per unit (“Bedroom Size”) and average number of units per project (“Project Size”) were made on a statewide basis for all projects in the sample. Project data was not further adjusted for additional variations in weighted average Bedroom Size and weighted average Project Size as the sample sizes got smaller when analyzing various factors such as location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), project size (less than 30 units, 30 units to 59 units, and 60 or more units), and unit type (non-detached vs. detached). In other words, we assumed that the Bedroom Size and Project Size was proportionate for the aforementioned factors. Bedroom Size Adjustment We adjusted per unit costs to account for differences in weighted average Bedroom Size between states. We used HUD 221(d)(3) mortgage limits as our standard for determining bedroom cost differences because those limits are nationally recognized by many state agencies as a reasonable benchmark. In addition, HUD 221(d)(3) limits were used because of challenges inherent with using the data we had within each state to isolate the cost differences due to varying Bedroom Sizes within each state (for example, no data on number of bathrooms and square footage information). The 2010 HUD



221(d)(3) limits were used because 2010 is generally the median point in our 2006 - 2013 time period. For purposes of calculating average Bedroom Size per project, studio and SRO units were given a value of zero bedrooms.

Our weighted average Bedroom Size is 1.9 bedrooms per unit for all states (see table below), so when using the 2010 HUD 221(d)(3) mortgage limits as the standard for bedroom cost differences we will use 2 bedrooms as our baseline for normalizing cost differences. The range of weighted average bedrooms per unit for the states is 1.4 to 2.3, so we analyzed differences between 1, 2, and 3 bedroom HUD 221(d)(3) mortgage limits.

States Total

Projects Total Units

Total Bedrooms

Weighted Average

Total Units

Weighted Average Total

Bedrooms

Weighted Average Bedrooms per Unit

Arizona 29 1,638 3,131 56 108 1.9 Colorado 32 1,930 2,874 60 90 1.5 Nevada 6 408 563 68 94 1.4 New Mexico 26 1,117 2,597 43 100 2.3 Texas 112 11,232 21,302 100 190 1.9 Utah 54 2,020 3,959 37 73 2.0 TOTAL 259 18,345 34,426 WEIGHTED AVG 71 133 1.9

We made adjustments to each state's costs based on each state's Bedroom Size difference from the 1.9 bedroom baseline using 0.1 Bedroom Size increments. Each 0.1 bedroom increment was assigned a percentage change, shown below, based on the 2010 HUD 221(d)(3) differences between 1, 2, and 3 bedrooms with 2 bedrooms as the baseline. This adjustment will make the data more comparable between the states by attempting to eliminate cost differences due to Bedroom Size differences between states.

These adjustments were derived from the 2010 HUD Multifamily Loan Program Mortgage Limits shown below. The change in limit from 1 bedroom to 2 bedrooms is a 20.60% increase, and from 3 bedrooms to 2 bedrooms is a 21.88% decrease.

Therefore, to account for differences in weighted average Bedroom Size between states, we will adjust the weighted average unit cost as follows:

1. Increase costs by 2.060% for every 0.10 weighted average bedrooms per unit below the 1.9 weighted average bedrooms per unit base; or

2. Decrease costs by 2.188% for every 0.10 weighted average bedrooms per unit above the 1.9 weighted average bedrooms per unit base.

Bedrooms (Non-Elevator) HUD 221 (d)(3) Mortgage Limit 1 Bedroom $57,488 2 Bedrooms $69,332 3 Bedrooms $88,747

Source: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-02-04/pdf/2010-2361.pdf



For example, New Mexico has 2.3 bedrooms as its weighted average Bedroom Size, which is 0.4 increments above the 1.9 bedroom per unit baseline. Because New Mexico has more bedrooms per unit, the costs per unit need to be reduced to compare to the lower baseline. The adjustment equals an 8.751% decrease (4 increments x 2.188%). Project Size Adjustment We adjusted per unit costs to account for differences in weighted average Project Size between states. We used the data we had within each state to isolate the cost differences due to Project Size within each state, by comparing these categories: under 30 units, 30-59 units, and 60 plus units. The following table summarizes the unadjusted weighted average site work & structures cost per unit of each state in each of the categories:

Weighted Average Site Work & Structures per Unit

States Projects with

< 30 Units Projects with 30-59 Units

Projects with 60+ Units

Arizona 120,209 107,496 94,611 Colorado 132,941 113,430 104,295 Nevada N/A 168,133 128,086 New Mexico 116,415 132,810 95,528 Texas 53,552 83,058 71,928 Utah 99,352 101,462 92,405

The following table summarizes the total number of units in each category (under 30 units, 30 - 59 units, and 60 plus units) in each state:

All Projects

Projects with < 30 Units

Projects with 30-59 Units

Projects with 60+ Units

States Total Units Total Units

% of Total Units

Total Units

% of Total Units

Total Units

% of Total Units

Arizona 1,638 28 2% 722 44% 888 54% Colorado 1,930 147 8% 566 29% 1,217 63% Nevada 408 N/A 0% 88 22% 320 78% New Mexico 1,117 188 17% 385 34% 544 49% Texas 11,232 24 0% 772 7% 10,436 93% Utah 2,020 223 11% 647 32% 1,150 57% TOTAL 18,345 610 3,180 14,555

The following table summarizes the weighted average Project Size in each state. The overall weighted average Project Size of all states is 71 units.

States Total Projects

Total Units

Weighted Average Units per Project

Arizona 29 1,638 56 Colorado 32 1,930 60 Nevada 6 408 68 New Mexico 26 1,117 43 Texas 112 11,232 100 Utah 54 2,020 37 TOTAL 259 18,345 71



Because the baseline for Project Size (71 units) is in the 60 plus units category, we adjusted all states to that category. Costs in each state were adjusted based on the percentage of units in that state in the smaller categories (under 30 units and 30-59 units). For each state, the Project Size adjustment factor was determined by multiplying the percentage of units in each of the smaller categories by the respective change in unadjusted cost per unit from the smaller category to the 60 plus units category. To account for differences in weighted average Project Size between states, we will adjust the weighted average unit cost as follows:

1. Arizona: Decrease costs by 5.65%; 2. Colorado: Decrease costs by 4.00%; 3. Nevada: Decrease costs by 5.14%; 4. New Mexico: Decrease costs by 12.70%; 5. Texas: Decrease costs by 0.85%; and 6. Utah: Decrease costs by 3.63%.

For example, New Mexico’s downward adjustment of 12.70% to get to the baseline of 60 plus units is comprised of:

3.02% adj for % of units in NM with less than 30 units (17.94% decrease x 16.83% of units) + 9.68% adj for % of units in NM with 30-59 units (28.07% decrease x 34.47% of units) 12.70% total adjustment

Net Adjustment for Bedroom and Project Sizes Per unit costs in each state are adjusted by the net adjustments due to the Bedroom Size and Project Size adjustments discussed above. The net adjustments for each state to account for differences in both weighted average Bedroom Size and weighted average Project Size between states are shown below:

States Bedroom Size Adjustment

Increase (Decrease)

Project Size Adjustment

Increase (Decrease)

NET Adjustment

Increase (Decrease) Arizona 0% (5.65%) (5.65%) Colorado 8.24% (4.00%) 4.24% Nevada 10.30% (5.14%) 5.16% New Mexico (8.75%) (12.70%) (21.45%) Texas 0% (0.85%) (0.85%) Utah (2.19%) (3.63%) (5.82%)

For example, New Mexico’s downward adjustment of 21.45% is comprised of adjustment for the fact that New Mexico generally has larger bedrooms than most states, 2.3 bedrooms per unit, and smaller projects, 43 units per project:

8.75% decrease for Bedroom Size adjustment + 12.70% decrease for Project Size adjustment 21.45% total decrease adjustment

Cost Analysis The variables analyzed in the Report are:

• Location – rural vs. urban • Housing types – family and senior (special needs was not analyzed due to insufficient data) • Project size – projects with less than 30 units, 30 to 59 units, and 60 or more units • Unit type structure – detached, non-detached, and 3 or less stories



The following charts may not include data for certain years and/or certain states (as noted on each set of charts) due to lack of project data meeting the criteria under analysis. The following charts are not adjusted for inflation (labor or material). Observations Our observations will note a few of the more significant comparisons between states. Users are advised to analyze the charts for other comparisons and relationships not listed in our observations. Some comparisons are not included in our discussion because they were determined to be insignificant or an aberration. Although we have normalized the data for Project Size differences and Bedroom Size differences as mentioned earlier in this section, there are obviously many variables that will affect differences in costs between states and that would be very difficult to quantify such as differences in state demographics (weather conditions, community opposition, local design review requirements, environmental mitigation, minimum wage requirements) and/or QAP requirements (energy efficiency, minimum construction cost standards, minimum square footage requirements, site amenities, parking requirements, etc.).





Average TDC

Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 106,143 153,679 193,029 Colorado 123,151 172,827 215,588 Nevada 128,374 181,518 208,027 New Mexico 123,574 181,761 201,909 Utah 97,456 124,904 152,376 Weighted Avg 112,303 156,710 189,860

TEXAS DATA REMOVED FROM SAMPLE

STATE

172,835 199,185

164,781 143,615

123,652 141,473

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas Utah

Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects 2006 - 2013


Site Work & Structures per unit Adjusted TDC per unit TDC per unit

Development Costs (See State Tables 1A-2C in Appendix C) New Mexico Site Work & Structures weighted average costs per unit for 2006 - 2013, after adjusting for Bedroom Size and Project Size, was lower than most states in our sample. New Mexico’s Adjusted TDC and TDC were also lower than most states in our sample.

We noted that Texas data accounted for more than half of the sample (more projects and more units) and has low costs per unit compared to all the states in our sample. In fact, all states aside from Texas, had costs higher than the aggregate weighted average of all states (except Adjusted TDC for Utah).

We removed Texas from the data to analyze the effects on the resulting weighted average costs per unit. We found that the weighted averages were not so dominant towards one state, meaning that the states were more evenly split above and below the aggregate weighted average, as opposed to Texas being the only state below the aggregate weighted average. Removing Texas data increased the weighted average of all states for all cost categories. Removing Texas also decreased the baseline Bedroom Size from 1.9 to 1.8 and the baseline Project Size from 60 plus units to 30-59 units, which changed the relationships between states primarily due to the baseline shift in the Project Size adjustment to 30-59 units.



Average TDC

Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 95,039 137,602 172,835 Colorado 113,782 159,678 199,185 Nevada 101,687 143,783 164,781 New Mexico 87,897 129,284 143,615 Texas 72,038 103,943 123,652 Utah 90,483 115,967 141,473 Weighted Average 82,139 116,565 140,083

STATE



Cost Components (See State Tables 1A-2C in Appendix C) New Mexico Cost Components weighted average costs per unit for 2006 – 2013, after adjusting for bedroom size and project size, were less than some states for some components and less than the aggregate weighted average for several components (land, architect fee, and engineering fee).

Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects; therefore, these costs are not analyzed for TX in the tables and charts above.

Average Land Acquisition

Costs





Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 10,532 4,318 1,648 10,715 19,381 Colorado 12,991 6,979 1,191 14,342 17,979 Nevada 4,973 3,747 2,605 9,078 17,060 New Mexico 4,269 4,367 1,136 11,153 16,818 Texas 7,014 N/A N/A 9,432 14,108 Utah 12,179 2,504 576 9,710 9,695 Weighted Avg 8,313 4,500 1,194 10,191 14,731

STATE

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000


Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects 2006 - 2013


Architect Fee Contractor Fees Developer Fee



Cost components as an average percent of TDC from 2006 – 2013 do not vary significantly, aside from land, between New Mexico and the other states combined, especially with regards to contractor fees, architect fees, engineering fees, and developer fees, as seen in the two pie charts below.

We also looked at cost components as an average percent of TDC from 2010 – 2013 (see State Tables 2C in Appendix C) between New Mexico and the other states combined, and we noted that cost components as an average percent of TDC between the two time periods of 2006 – 2013 and 2010 – 2013 was very close, with percentages often within 0.10% of each other.

6.1%

58.5% 7.2%

2.2% 0.6%

10.4%

15.0%

Cost Components as an Average Percent of TDC for 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, TX, and UT


Land Acquisition


Contractor Fees

Architect Fees

Engineering Fees

Developer Fees

Other

3.0%

61.2% 7.8% 3.0% 0.8%

11.7%

12.5%

Cost Components as an Average Percent of TDC for 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM


Land Acquisition


Contractor Fees

Architect Fees

Engineering Fees

Developer Fees

Other



Project Location (See State Tables 3A-3E in Appendix C) Our observation in the previous section regarding New Mexico costs indicated the weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit for urban projects from 2006 – 2013 in New Mexico were generally about 25% less than rural projects. When comparing to other states we noticed a similar pattern of lower costs per unit for urban projects compared to rural projects (with the exception of Nevada, because the Nevada sample did not include rural projects). New Mexico’s weighted average costs per unit for rural projects is more than all six states’ aggregate weighted average, but New Mexico’s weighted average costs per unit for urban projects is less than all six states’ aggregate weighted average.

- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000

100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000


Cost of Site Work & Structures of Rural vs. Urban 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects


Rural Urban

States Rural UrbanArizona 95,720 93,836 Colorado 124,774 110,410 Nevada N/A 143,783 New Mexico 99,667 75,849 Texas 73,737 71,398 Utah 99,334 86,330 Weighted Avg 87,106 81,221

Average Site Work & Structures per Unit



Housing Type (See State Tables 4A-4E in Appendix C) Our observation in the previous section regarding New Mexico costs indicated that Family projects and Senior projects have about the same weighted average Site Work & Structures costs per unit. When comparing to other states we noticed that Family and Senior projects had similar costs but that Family project costs per unit were consistently slightly more than Senior project costs (with the exception of Nevada, because the sample did not include Family projects). New Mexico’s weighted average costs per unit for both Family and Senior projects is more than all six states’ aggregate weighted average. Special Needs projects were not included in this analysis because we did not have sufficient data from the other states on Special Needs housing type projects.

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

Arizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas

Cost of Site Work & Structures by Housing Type 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects


Family Senior

States Family SeniorArizona 97,483 92,342 Colorado 125,341 106,956 Nevada N/A 143,783 New Mexico 101,763 100,773 Texas 77,756 69,985 Utah N/A N/AWeighted Avg 89,956 81,452




Project Size (See State Tables 5A-5G in Appendix C) Site Work & Structures costs per unit of projects with 60 or more units were consistently less than projects of 30 to 59 units for all states and less than projects with less than 30 units for all states except Texas. However, when comparing costs per unit between projects with less than 30 units and projects with 30 to 59 units, the results were inconsistent, with projects less than 30 units sometimes costing more (NM, TX, UT) and sometimes costing less (AZ, CO) than projects with 30 to 59 units. Please note that the Nevada sample did not have any projects less than 30 units, and the Arizona and Texas samples each had only one project with less than 30 units. New Mexico’s weighted average costs per unit for less than 30 unit projects and for 60 or more unit projects are less than all six states’ aggregate weighted average, while New Mexico weighted average costs per unit for 30-59 unit projects are greater than all six states’ aggregate weighted average.

-

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000


Cost of Site Work & Structures by Project Size 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects


Less than 30 Units 30 to 59 Units 60 or More Units

StatesLess than 30

Units30 to 59 Units

60 or More Units

Arizona 113,420 101,425 89,267 Colorado 138,575 118,237 108,715 Nevada N/A 176,815 134,700 New Mexico 91,448 104,327 75,041 Texas 53,098 82,353 71,318 Utah 93,571 95,558 87,028 Weighted Avg 103,081 101,031 78,314




Project Structure (See State Tables 6A-6G in Appendix C) New Mexico is the only state that had a clear difference in Site Work & Structures costs per unit between project structure types within the state. In Arizona and Texas, Site Work & Structures costs per unit appeared to be generally similar within each state. Colorado and Utah did not provide information identifying which projects were detached or nondetached, or number of stories of each project, therefore, there was no data analyzed for these states. The Nevada sample did include any projects that were detached.

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000


Cost of Site Work & Structures by Project Structure 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects


Detached Non-Detached 3 or Less Stories

States Detached Non-Detached3 or Less Stories

Arizona 100,104 94,621 94,381 Colorado N/A N/A 116,496 Nevada N/A 143,783 143,783 New Mexico 108,970 78,494 86,838 Texas 72,038 73,603 73,929 Utah N/A N/A 94,388 Weighted Avg 73,243 81,177 88,416




Summary New Mexico’s weighted average Development Costs per unit for 2006 – 2013, after adjusting for Bedroom Size and Project Size, were lower than most states in our sample. Certain weighted average cost components per unit for 2006 – 2013 in New Mexico, such as land, architect fee, and engineering fee, after adjusting for Bedroom Size and Project Size, were lower than the aggregated weighted average of all states in the sample, and other cost components, such as contractor fees and developer fee, were higher. Cost components as an average percent of Total Development Costs from 2006 – 2013 did not vary significantly between New Mexico and the other states combined.





New Mexico LIHTC Distribution

Novogradac analyzed the distribution of 9% LIHTC in New Mexico from 2001 – 2014 between categories, such as congressional districts, location (rural vs. urban), housing types (family, senior, and special needs), developer type (nonprofit vs. for-profit), construction type (new construction, acq/rehab, and combined new construction and acq/rehab), and participation by tribal entities or housing authorities. Projects that received 9% LIHTC in New Mexico from 2001 – 2014 are plotted in red below on the map of New Mexico’s three congressional districts.

Our observations will note a few trends and comparisons of 9% LIHTC distribution in New Mexico. Users are advised to analyze the charts in Appendix E for other relationships not listed in our observations. As discussed earlier in the Report, there are many variables that will affect differences in costs, which can also affect LIHTC distribution, and these variables need to be considered when comparing credits allocated between Congressional Districts and the other categories in our charts. LIHTC distribution differences could be from construction costs differences as a result of varying state demographics (topography, weather conditions, community opposition, local design and building code requirements, environmental mitigation, impact fees, etc.), location (rural/urban), construction type (new/acq/rehab, detached, etc.) and project size, which all affect construction costs and hence credits per unit. LIHTC distribution could also be driven by LIHTC demand which is affected by factors such as number of feasible projects in a certain category. As the number of feasible projects decreases in a certain category then LIHTC demand decreases, and possibly less LIHTC is distributed in that category. Even if all projects are feasible in a certain category, LIHTC is also affected by the degree to which individual



projects are feasible. For example, certain geographic areas or developer types or housing types might have different financing available or different credit prices, etc., all of which can affect the degree to which projects need credits. Available financing could be affected by the income/rent level of the targeted population or income/rent level of the geographic location which might result in lower rents, and therefore, possibly less net operating income, which results in less debt, which then requires more equity (credits per unit) to fill the financing gap, thereby increasing demand for credits. Note that the projects in our sample used for the “New Mexico LIHTC Construction Cost Trends” from 2006 – 2013 do not match the projects that were actually allocated credits for that same period in our “New Mexico LIHTC Distribution”. The sample for the Cost Trends section did not include all projects that were allocated credits, because we excluded acq/rehab and mixed income projects from Cost Trends, and included projects in Cost Trends, that were not allocated credits, in order to increase our Cost Trends sample size. Additionally, note that the projects in our sample have been grouped to their respective congressional districts based on current rather than historical district boundaries. Congressional Districts (See NM Distribution Charts 2A – 2I in Appendix E) Over the 14 year time period from 2001 to 2014, New Mexico’s Congressional Districts received the following amount of credits based on data provided by MFA.

First Congressional District……….$15,133,254 ($151,332,540 over total 10-year credit period) Second Congressional District….$21,803,105 ($218,031,050 over total 10-year credit period) Third Congressional District……..$22,971,170 ($229,711,700 over total 10-year credit period)

Year District 1 District 2 District 3 Grand Total2001 - 712,269 1,746,166 2,458,435 2002 - 983,295 666,396 1,649,691 2003 - 3,096,382 2,902,505 5,998,887 2004 1,373,054 1,773,197 - 3,146,251 2005 - 1,754,906 1,523,029 3,277,935 2006 - 1,197,493 3,153,259 4,350,752 2007 507,176 1,721,907 2,709,997 4,939,080 2008 2,881,663 1,330,866 828,406 5,040,935 2009 1,140,845 2,009,248 1,821,103 4,971,196 2010 2,136,240 487,493 1,055,077 3,678,810 2011 - 1,838,126 2,567,053 4,405,179 2012 2,858,687 896,512 1,441,630 5,196,829 2013 1,150,000 766,994 2,116,241 4,033,235 2014 3,085,589 3,234,417 440,308 6,760,314

Grand Total 15,133,254 21,803,105 22,971,170 59,907,529

Annual 9% Credits Allocated in Each NM Congressional District from 2001 - 2014



Distribution between the Congressional Districts can be volatile over the years because of the relatively small amount of credits allocated in New Mexico that results in only a handful of projects allocated credits each year.

Although the population in each District is roughly the same, there was a disproportionate amount of credits allocated over the years, which might reflect differences in construction costs or less financing available between Districts, or other demographics mentioned earlier.

-

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual 9% Credits Allocated in Each NM Congressional District 2001 - 2014

District 1 District 2 District 3

Year District 1 District 2 District 3 Grand Total2001 - 148 188 336 2002 - 140 139 279 2003 - 567 467 1,034 2004 198 198 - 396 2005 - 191 139 330 2006 - 124 216 340 2007 48 154 175 377 2008 159 144 60 363 2009 60 139 111 310 2010 130 60 59 249 2011 - 131 225 356 2012 165 87 109 361 2013 83 75 119 277 2014 163 212 43 418

Total Units 1,006 2,370 2,050 5,426 Total LIHTC $15,133,254 $21,803,105 $22,971,170 $59,907,529

Average LIHTC/Unit $15,043 $9,200 $11,205 $11,041

Total Units Produced per NM Congressional District from 2001 - 2014



As discussed earlier, there are many variables that can influence LIHTC distribution and units constructed, such as construction costs, LIHTC demand, and available financing, all of which are affected by varying demographics (topography, weather conditions, community opposition, local design and building code requirements, environmental mitigation, impact fees, etc.) between Congressional Districts. First Congressional District received the lowest number of total credits from 2001 – 2014, and had the highest average amount of credits per LIHTC unit. First Congressional District had the highest percentage of new construction units (see following table), which might have contributed to the highest average amount of credits per LIHTC unit. Second Congressional District received slightly less than the Third Congressional District in aggregate annual credits 2001 from 2014, but produced the most LIHTC units of the congressional districts and has the lowest average credit awarded per LIHTC unit. Second Congressional District had the highest percentage of acq/rehab units (see following table), which might have contributed to the lowest average amount of credits per LIHTC unit. Third Congressional District received the highest number of total credits from 2001 – 2014, but did not produce the most LIHTC units. This could be due to several factors such as the Third Congressional District having the lowest average units per project, varying construction costs, or less financing available than the other Districts. The table below lists a few of the factors to consider that might contribute to construction costs differences which could affect credits per unit and resulting number of units built:

1st District 2nd District 3rd District Total Credits 15,133,254 21,803,105 22,971,170

Total LIHTC Units 1,006 2,370 2,050 Average Credits per Unit 15,043 9,200 11,205 Average Units per Project 59 53 50

Rural 0% 48% 56% Urban 100% 52% 44%

New Construction 74% 68% 66% Acq/Rehab 14% 23% 26%

Combined New Const/Acq/Rehab 12% 9% 8% Family 27% 45% 46% Senior 11% 18% 15%

Special Needs 62% 37% 39% Summary Distribution of 9% LIHTC in New Mexico from 2001 – 2014 was volatile between Congressional Districts due to the small amount of credits that are allocated annually in the state, resulting in only a few projects that are allocated credits each year. LIHTC distribution is likely influenced by factors such as LIHTC demand and construction costs, which are further affected by other variables such as geographic area and available financing.



Please refer to the charts in Appendix E for other 9% LIHTC distribution trends in New Mexico: • Location (rural and urban) – NM Distribution Charts 3A – 3I in Appendix E • Developer Type (nonprofit vs. for-profit) – NM Distribution Charts 4A – 4I in Appendix E • Construction Type (new construction, acq/rehab, combined new construction and acq/rehab) –

NM Distribution Charts 5A – 5I in Appendix E • Housing Types (family, senior, and special needs – NM Distribution Charts 6A – 6I in Appendix E • Tribal Entity or Housing Authority Participation – NM Distribution Charts 7A – 7I in Appendix E

Please see the maps in Appendix F of the location of projects awarded 9% LIHTC throughout the state.





MFA Policies and Procedures Discussion

MFA, like most state agencies, wants to build as many low-income units as possible that are both high quality and low cost. We observed many similarities between MFA and the state agencies we analyzed in the Report when reading each state’s QAP, and observed that QAPs either require or encourage both high quality and low cost housing through minimum and maximum requirements or scoring selection criteria. Many states have adopted measures in their QAP that follow NCSHA Recommended Practices such as developer fee and contractor limits, minimum rehabilitation thresholds, and green building and sustainable development features. Each state strives to strike the right balance with regards to lowering construction costs (downward pressure on costs) and with regards to increasing construction quality (upward pressure on costs). We analyzed various measures detailed in each state’s QAP that address construction costs and construction standards, and summarized these similarities and differences in the QAP Matrix. We discuss the effects of these measures below. Maximum and Minimum Requirements Maximum Allocation per Project Setting a maximum on the amount of credits that can be requested per project primarily provides downward pressure on construction costs because it discourages excess costs beyond the amount necessary to claim the maximum amount of credits. All states in the matrix have a maximum limit on credits requested. There may be also some upward pressure on construction costs, if projects attempt to incur enough costs to reach the maximum amount of credits. Developer Fee Limits Setting developer fee limits primarily creates downward pressure on construction costs because 1) if it is a cost limit, not eligible basis limit, there will not be any additional developer fee project costs above the maximum developer fee, and 2) it discourages costs beyond the amount at which developers can receive the maximum allowed fee. All of the states in the chart have set limits on the allowable developer fee as a percent of costs. For some states (NM, AZ, CO, and TX), the maximum decreases as the project size (number of units) increases. In Nevada, the maximum does not decrease as project size increases, but encourages lower developer fees by awarding extra points to a project if the developer fee is below the maximum. In Utah, the developer fee cannot exceed a certain percentage of costs, or a certain dollar amount per unit, whichever is less. There may be some upward pressure on construction costs, if projects attempt to incur enough costs to maximize the developer fee. Contractor Fee Limits (Profit / Overhead/ General Requirements) Setting contractor fee limits primarily creates downward pressure on construction costs because 1) if it a cost limit, not eligible basis limit, there will not be any additional contractor fee project costs above the maximum contractor fee, and 2) it discourages costs beyond the amount at which contractors can receive the maximum allowed fee. All of the states in the chart have set limits on the allowable contractor fees as a percent of costs. In New Mexico, the contractor fees are limited at a set percentage of costs. For some states (AZ and CO), the maximum decreases as the project size (number of units) increases, and in Texas, the maximum decreases as total development costs increase. In Nevada, the maximum does not decrease as project size increases, but encourages lower contractor fees by awarding extra points to a project if the fees are below the maximum. In Utah, the contractor fees cannot exceed a certain percentage of costs, or a certain dollar amount per unit, whichever is less. There may be some upward pressure on construction costs, if projects attempt to incur enough costs to maximize the contractor fees.



Eligible Basis Limits Setting a limit on eligible basis primarily provides downward pressure on construction costs because it discourages excess costs beyond the amount necessary to claim the maximum amount of credits. New Mexico’s limit for a project in each allocation round is based on total development costs per unit, up to 130% of the weighted average total development costs per unit of projects in the same allocation round. In Arizona, each project’s limit is based on a maximum amount of construction costs allowed per square foot, which varies for different project types. Colorado’s eligible basis limits are based on HUD 221(d)(4) mortgage limits. In Texas, the limits are determined by program limits, an underwriter’s estimate using Marshall and Swift indices, or the amount of basis by which credits were requested on the initial LIHTC application. No eligible basis limits were established in Nevada or Utah. There may be some upward pressure on construction costs, if projects attempt to incur more costs to maximize eligible basis. Minimum Rehab Costs per Unit Requiring minimum rehab costs per unit potentially ensures increased quality of rehabilitated units; however, this creates upward pressure on construction costs because it requires greater expenditures in order to meet the minimum for credits to be claimed. Each of the states in the chart requires minimum rehab expenditures per unit. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs due to this requirement. Unit Size Limitations Requiring minimum unit sizes creates upward pressure on construction costs because it requires greater expenditures in order to meet the minimum size requirements. With the exception of Colorado and Utah, each of the states in the chart requires certain minimum square footages per unit for varying bedroom sizes. Texas has a minimum project size of 16 units and maximum project size of 80 units for rural projects. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs due to size limitations. Energy Efficiency Requiring minimum energy efficiency measures ensures increased quality and durability of projects; however, this creates upward pressure on construction costs because it necessitates greater expenditures in order to put these measures in place. All states either require or encourage energy efficiency to some extent. In order to receive LIHTC in Colorado, Nevada, and Utah, projects are required to comply with Enterprise Green Communities, meet certain minimum energy efficiency requirements, or become Energy Star certified. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs due to this requirement; however, operating expenses are expected to be less in the long run as a result of the energy efficient features. Project Amenities Requiring project amenities increases quality of projects; however, this creates upward pressure on construction costs because it necessitates greater costs to construct the amenities. All states either require or encourage amenities to some extent. In Texas, some development amenities are mandatory, such as dishwashers. In Nevada, safety and security measures are mandatory, and specific project amenities are required depending on the project’s housing type. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs due to these requirements.



Scoring Selection Criteria Experience Encouraging projects with participation by experienced development teams primarily provides downward pressure on construction costs because experienced development teams may be more knowledgeable about the LIHTC construction process, which can reduce time and costs spent. Projects are awarded points for developer experience in Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. It is unclear whether there is any upward pressure on costs due to this factor. Local Support/ Contributions Encouraging projects with demonstrated local government support through monetary contributions generally creates downward pressure on construction costs, but may also create upward pressure on construction costs. Downward pressure results from an incentive to decrease costs to score more points because as total development costs decrease, the percentage of local funding increases (assuming the local funding is an absolute fixed dollar amount). Upward pressure results from additional financing that may encourage additional costs. Many states in the QAP Matrix, including New Mexico, award points to projects based on the percentage of local government funding as a percentage of total development costs. Sustainable Design / Energy Efficiency Encouraging sustainable design, energy efficiency, and energy conservation ensures increased quality and durability of projects; however, this creates upward pressure on construction costs because it necessitates greater expenditures in order to put these measures in place. All states require or encourage sustainability and efficiency through scoring selection criteria. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs due to this scoring criteria; however, operating expenses are expected to be less in the long run as a result of sustainable and efficient features. Mixed Income Encouraging mixed income projects encourages development of units at the market rate standard; however, this creates upward pressure on construction costs because the design and quality may be higher than for affordable housing. New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah award points to such projects. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs. Project Size Encouraging certain project sizes may meet certain housing needs or demands, but can create upward pressure on construction costs per unit (ignoring the effects of bedroom size) if project sizes are too small (see earlier discussions regarding effect of project size on construction costs). New Mexico and Colorado award points to projects that do not exceed a certain maximum amount of units, and Texas and Utah award points to projects with larger units. Conversely, larger project sizes generally create downward pressure on costs per unit. Tenant Ownership Encouraging production of properties for eventual tenant ownership primarily creates upward pressure on construction costs because the structures of such projects generally need to be suited for that purposes, which means the structures are typically single family, detached units or townhomes, and these types of structures are generally more costly (see earlier discussions regarding effect of detached units on construction costs). New Mexico and Colorado award points to projects intended for eventual tenant ownership; however, there are also other scoring selection criteria, such as for cost and credit



efficiency, that offer offsetting incentives against properties for eventual tenant ownership. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs. Additional Amenities Encouraging construction of amenities beyond the required minimum amenities may increase quality of housing; however, it primarily creates upward pressure on construction costs because it necessitates greater costs. Nevada, Texas, and Utah award points to projects for specific additional amenities, up to a maximum amount. It is unclear whether there is any downward pressure on costs. Cost Efficiency / Credit Efficiency Encouraging cost and credit efficiency creates downward pressure on construction costs because it promotes lower construction costs and maximizes the use of tax credits. Most of the states in the chart, with the exception of Arizona and Colorado, award points to projects that demonstrate cost efficiency and/or credit efficiency by each state’s own measure of determining efficiency. It is unclear whether there is any upward pressure on costs. Tie Breakers The use of tie breakers is another opportunity to provide downward pressure on construction costs because projects are encouraged to be as cost and credit efficient as possible to ensure selection for allocation of credits in favor of other projects. All of the states in the chart, with the exception of Colorado, promote efficiency by using measures of cost and/or credit efficiency to select projects. It is unclear whether there is any upward pressure on costs from tie breakers that reward cost and credit efficiency. Summary In order to lower construction costs while increasing construction quality, QAPs have both downward and upward pressures on construction costs. For example, construction cost caps, such as maximum developer fee and contractor fee limits, create downward pressure on construction costs, while minimum construction standards, such as energy efficiency and amenity requirements, create upward pressure on costs. Many measures do not have a single effect and can provide both downward and upward pressures.



New Mexico Arizona Colorado Nevada Texas Utah

Maximum Allocation per Project

$1,150,000 $1,500,000 $1,250,000 $1,000,000

lesser of 150% of credit amount

available (estimates released by TDHCA),

or $1,500,000

$1,000,000

Developer Fee Limits

15% (if <30 units), % decreases as #

units increase {MFA considering hard cap at $1M per

project}

17% (if 1‐30 units), % decreases as # units increase

15% (if <50 units), % decreases as # units increase; extra 5% if homeless project

for <30% AMI tenants

max 15%; but extra scoring points given if less than 15%

20% (if <50 units), 15% (if >50)

developer fee and contractor fee

combined max at 18%, or $17,200 per unit, whichever is less

Contractor Fee Limits

(Profit/Overhead/ General Reqs)

14%15%, and %

decreases as # units increase

10% (w/ IOI) or 12% (w/o IOI); and %

decreases as # units increase

max 14%; but extra scoring points given if less than 14%

18%, and % decreases as TDC increases

developer fee and contractor fee

combined max at 18%, or $17,200 per unit, whichever is less

Eligible Basis Limits

TDC per unit (excluding land costs) not to

exceed 130% of weighted average TDC per unit of projects in the same round

limits based on const costs/sq ft; allowed amounts vary for different project types

based on HUD 221(d)(4) limits

none

1. program limit method, 2. Gap/DCR

method (underwriter's estimate using

marshall and swift), 3. requested amount

none

Minimum rehab costs per unit

greater of $6,000 or 20% of building

qual basis$6,200

greater of $7,600 or 20% of building qualified basis

$30,000 $25,000 greater of $6,000 or 20% of building qualified basis

Size Limitationsminimum sqft requirements

minimum sqft requirements

none

maximum sqft for new senior units; no minimum sqft requirements

minimum sqft requirements; min

project size = 16 units; rural max project size = 80 units; otherwise no max project size

none

MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS





Energy Efficiency (Mandatory)

some required in MFA mandatory design standards

some required in ADOH mandatory design guidelines

must comply with Enterprise Green Communities to be eligible for LIHTC

minimum energy efficiency req's are a condition of

receiving allocation

not mandatory (but encouraged through scoring selection

criteria)

project needs to be Energy Star certified

Project Amenities (Mandatory)

some required in MFA mandatory design standards (ie. common area

and laundry facilities)

some required in ADOH mandatory

design guidelines (ie. common area and laundry facilities)

some required in QAP (ie. covered

parking)

certain project amenities required (differs for housing types); mandatory security measures

some mandatory development amenities (ie.

dishwashers, central heating and air conditioning)

not mandatory (but encouraged through scoring selection

criteria)


Experience nonedeveloper experience

noneprevious successful developments in

NVnone developer experience

Local Support/ Contributions

local govt contribution as %

of TDC

local govt contribution as % of

TDCnone

local govt contribution as %

of TDC

local support & contribution (includes

non‐monetary support)

none

Sustainable Design/ Energy Efficiency/ Conservation

green building features

sustainable development (materials, air quality, water

efficiency, energy efficiency)

none (required)

"smart design" ‐ combination of

location efficiency and energy

efficiency, water efficiency



Mixed Incomemixed income

projects (at least 15% market rate)

nonemixed income

projects (no more than 80% LIHTC)

none nonemixed income

projects

SCORING SELECTION CRITERIA

MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS (continued)





Project Size60 or fewer units {MFA considering eliminating this}

none 50 or fewer units nonemeet minimum sq ft

per unitlarger units (more 3&4 bedroom units)

Tenant Ownershipeventual tenant

ownershipnone

eventual tenant ownership

none none none

Additional Amenitiesnone (earned as part of housing type points)

none nonespecific additional

amenitiesspecific additional

amenitiesspecific additional

amenities

Cost Efficiency/ Credit Efficiency

credits requested per unit and per sq ft are less than a certain amount (credit efficiency)

none none

credit efficiency measured by multiplying 1.5

persons/bdr times # of bedrooms,

then divided by TC requested; or by

combining TDC/unit plus

TC/unit

low costs/sq ft (cost efficiency); and

credits requested < certain % of TDC (credit efficiency)

cost efficiency measured by low hard costs and TDC per unit and by low hard costs

and TDC per net residential sq ft

Tie Breakersproject with lower

TDC/unit

credit efficiency (measured by

credits/total project sqft); then by order in which application was received by

ADOH

none

greatest level of non‐TC funding

(credits/TDC), then by lottery

Opportunity Index; then by greatest linear distance from nearest

LIHTC project

credit efficiency (credits/net

residential sqft); then by % of SPN units

SCORING SELECTION CRITERIA (continued)




Bibliography

“Arizona Department of Housing 2014 Qualified Allocation Plan for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program.” Approved by Governor Janice K. Brewer December 20, 2013. (http://www.azhousing.gov/azcms/uploads/RENTAL%20APPLICATIONS/LIHTC/14%20QAP/2014%20Final%20QAP.pdf)

Bay Area Economics ARCH.Research. “Comparison of Market-Rate and Affordable Rental Projects.” Prepared for The California Affordable Housing Cost Task Force. January 1993. (http://www.hcd.ca.gov/2012_affordable_housing/1993_Study_Comp_of_Market_and_AH.pdf)

“Colorado Housing and Finance Authority low income housing tax credit allocation plan 2014.” Approved by Governor of Colorado January 7, 2014. (http://www.chfainfo.com/documents/CHFA_LIHTC_Allocation_2014.pdf)

DeLisle, Ph.D, Jim., Angela Kanevski, Lea Mitchell, Leslie Wolff. “Washington Affordable Housing Cost Study (2009).” September 2009. (http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/HTF-Cost-Study-Report-Final.pdf)

Jakabovics, Andrew, Lynn M. Ross, Molly Simpson, and Michael Spotts. “Bending the Cost Curve – Solutions to Expand the Supply of Affordable Rents.” Urban Land Institute: Washington, DC. 2014. (http://www.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ULI-Documents/BendingCostCurve-Solutions_2014_web.pdf)

Kadduri, Jill and David Rodda. “Making the Best Use of Your LIHTC Dollars: A Planning Paper for State Policy Makers.” Prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. Abt Associates, Inc. July 2004. (http://www.prrac.org/pdf/Khadduri.pdf)

Montee, Susan. “Analysis of Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program.” Missouri State Auditor. Report No. 2008-23. April 2008. (http://www.auditor.mo.gov/press/2008-23.pdf)

“Report of the National Council of State Housing Agencies’ Housing Credit Task Force on Recommended Practices in Housing Credit Allocation and Underwriting.” National Council of State Housing Agencies. December 6, 2010.

“State of Nevada Housing Division Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program Qualified Allocation Plan 2014.” Adopted December 6, 2013. (http://housing.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/housingnvgov/content/programs/LIH/2014QAPDEC19FINAL.pdf)

“State of New Mexico Housing Tax Credit Program Qualified Allocation Plan.” Approved by Governor Susana Martinez October 29, 2013. (http://www.housingnm.org/low-income-housing-tax-credits-lihtc-allocations)

“State of Utah 2014 Federal Housing Credit Program Allocation Plan.” Approved by Governor Gary R. Herbert August 20, 2013. (http://www.utahhousingcorp.org/PDF/2014FinalQAP.pdf)

“Texas Department of Housing & Community Affairs Qualified Allocation Plan 2014.” (http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/multifamily/docs/14-GovApprvdQAP.pdf)


http://www.azhousing.gov/azcms/uploads/RENTAL%20APPLICATIONS/LIHTC/14%20QAP/2014%20Final%20QAP.pdf

http://www.azhousing.gov/azcms/uploads/RENTAL%20APPLICATIONS/LIHTC/14%20QAP/2014%20Final%20QAP.pdf

http://www.hcd.ca.gov/2012_affordable_housing/1993_Study_Comp_of_Market_and_AH.pdf

http://www.chfainfo.com/documents/CHFA_LIHTC_Allocation_2014.pdf

http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/HTF-Cost-Study-Report-Final.pdf

http://www.commerce.wa.gov/Documents/HTF-Cost-Study-Report-Final.pdf

http://www.prrac.org/pdf/Khadduri.pdf

http://housing.nv.gov/uploadedFiles/housingnvgov/content/programs/LIH/2014QAPDEC19FINAL.pdf

http://www.housingnm.org/low-income-housing-tax-credits-lihtc-allocations

http://www.housingnm.org/low-income-housing-tax-credits-lihtc-allocations

http://www.utahhousingcorp.org/PDF/2014FinalQAP.pdf

http://www.tdhca.state.tx.us/multifamily/docs/14-GovApprvdQAP.pdf



NM CHART 1.

YearSite Work & Structures per

Unit



2006 122,383 173,177 190,406 78 2007 139,881 190,775 203,571 85 2009 113,665 161,569 179,831 259 2010 93,589 139,293 159,922 168 2011 98,366 148,259 164,636 253 2012 96,660 147,694 166,222 60 2013 129,442 198,570 219,580 214


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2008.

190,406 203,571

179,831 159,922 164,636 166,222

219,580

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


2006 ‐ 2013(Average Costs per Unit)


APPENDIX A - New Mexico Charts


NM CHART 2.


Unit



2006 122,383 173,177 190,406 78 2007 139,881 190,775 203,571 85 2009 143,402 187,387 204,254 80 2010 99,593 153,339 174,119 24 2011 103,418 155,019 167,077 84 2013 129,442 198,570 219,580 214


Note: Project data for rural 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2008 and 2012.

190,406 203,571 204,254

174,119 167,077

219,580

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013

Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction RURAL 9% Projects in NM





NM CHART 3.


Unit



2009 100,375 150,031 168,915 179 2010 92,589 136,952 157,556 144 2011 95,855 144,900 163,422 169 2012 96,660 147,694 166,222 60


Note: Project data for urban 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2007 and 2008.

168,915 157,556 163,422 166,222

‐ 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000

100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000

2009 2010 2011 2012

Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction URBAN 9% Projects in NM





NM CHART 4.


UnitTotal Units


UnitTotal Units

2006 122,383 78 ‐ ‐ 2007 139,881 85 ‐ ‐ 2009 143,402 80 100,375 179 2010 99,593 24 92,589 144 2011 103,418 84 95,855 169 2012 ‐ ‐ 96,660 60 2013 129,442 214 ‐ ‐


Note: Project data for rural 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2008 and 2012. Project data for urban 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2007 and 2008.

RURAL URBAN

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cost of Site Work & Structures of Rural v. Urban100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM


Rural Urban



NM CHART 5.


Unit



2006 69,929 105,434 117,883 24 2007 170,136 239,114 248,176 30 2009 116,160 163,871 180,303 197 2011 116,999 185,531 204,152 24 2013 172,129 245,947 263,457 74


Note: Project data for family housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2008, 2010, and 2012.

117,883

248,176

180,303 204,152

263,457

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2006 2007 2009 2011 2013


2006 ‐ 2013Housing Type: Family





NM CHART 6.


Unit



2007 123,378 164,409 179,241 55 2011 137,926 217,398 235,024 28


Note: Project data for senior housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2006, 2008‐2010, and 2012‐2013.

179,241

235,024

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2007 2011


2006 ‐ 2013Housing Type: Senior





NM CHART 7.


Unit



2006 145,696 203,285 222,639 54 2009 105,737 154,255 178,328 62 2010 93,589 139,293 159,922 168 2011 90,630 134,178 150,112 201 2012 96,660 147,694 166,222 60 2013 106,880 173,527 196,387 140


Note: Project data for special needs housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2007 and 2008.

222,639

178,328 159,922 150,112

166,222

196,387

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


2006 ‐ 2013Housing Type: Special Needs(Average Costs per Unit)




NM CHART 8.

YearSite Work &



UnitTotal Units


UnitTotal Units

2006 69,929 24 ‐ ‐ 145,696 54 2007 170,136 30 123,378 55 ‐ ‐ 2009 116,160 197 ‐ ‐ 105,737 62 2010 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 93,589 168 2011 116,999 24 137,926 28 90,630 201 2012 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 96,660 60 2013 172,129 74 ‐ ‐ 106,880 140


Note: Project data for family housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2008, 2010, and 2012. Project data for senior housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2006,

2008‐2010, and 2012‐2013. Project data for special needs housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2007 and 2008.

FAMILY SENIOR SPECIAL NEEDS

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cost of Site Work & Structures by Housing Typeof 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM


Family Senior Special Needs



NM CHART 9.


Unit



2006 187,646 255,687 279,028 30 2007 170,136 239,114 248,176 30 2009 96,771 145,693 162,917 123 2010 103,106 151,519 174,238 84 2011 95,855 144,900 163,422 169 2013 159,543 221,162 228,850 20


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with nonprofit general partners & nonprofit developers was unavailable for 2008 and 2012.

279,028 248,176

162,917 174,238 163,422

228,850

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013


2006 ‐ 2013Nonprofit General Partner, Nonprofit Developer





NM CHART 10.


Unit



2006 81,594 121,609 135,018 48 2007 123,378 164,409 179,241 55 2009 127,156 166,518 185,004 60 2010 84,073 127,067 145,605 84 2011 103,418 155,019 167,077 84 2012 96,660 147,694 166,222 60 2013 126,339 196,240 218,624 194


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with nonprofit general partners & for‐profit developers was unavailable for 2008.

135,018

179,241 185,004 145,605

167,077 166,222

218,624

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


2006 ‐ 2013Nonprofit General Partner, For‐Profit Developer





NM CHART 11.


UnitTotal Units


UnitTotal Units

2006 187,646 30 81,594 48 2007 170,136 30 123,378 55 2009 96,771 123 127,156 60 2010 103,106 84 84,073 84 2011 95,855 169 103,418 84 2012 ‐ ‐ 96,660 60 2013 159,543 20 126,339 194


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with nonprofit general partners & nonprofit developers was unavailable for 2008 and 2012. Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with

nonprofit general partners & for‐profit developers was unavailable for 2008.

Nonprofit General Partner, Nonprofit Developer

Nonprofit General Partner, For‐Profit Developer

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cost of Site Work & Structures of 100% LIHTC New Construction9% Projects in NM with Nonprofit General Partners

2006 ‐ 2013Nonprofit vs. For‐Profit Developers


Nonprofit General Partner, Nonprofit Developer Nonprofit General Partner, For‐Profit Developer



NM CHART 12.


Unit



2006 81,594 121,609 135,018 48 2009 192,139 249,993 262,003 20 2010 99,593 153,339 174,119 24 2011 112,443 176,197 197,820 76 2013 159,543 221,162 228,850 20


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with less than 30 units was unavailable for 2007‐2008 and 2012.

135,018

262,003

174,119 197,820

228,850

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2006 2009 2010 2011 2013

Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction9% Projects in NM

2006 ‐ 2013Projects with Less Than 30 Units





NM CHART 13.


Unit



2006 187,646 255,687 279,028 30 2007 139,881 190,775 203,571 85 2009 108,291 159,558 182,089 56 2010 103,106 151,519 174,238 84 2011 109,819 157,301 182,107 56 2013 172,129 245,947 263,457 74


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with 30 to 59 units was unavailable for 2008 and 2012.

279,028

203,571 182,089 174,238 182,107

263,457

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013


2006 ‐ 2013Projects with 30 to 59 Units(Average Costs per Unit)




NM CHART 14.


Unit



2009 106,733 152,521 170,159 183 2010 77,865 116,558 134,200 60 2011 84,224 126,527 135,706 121 2012 96,660 147,694 166,222 60 2013 98,102 165,588 190,977 120


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with 60 or more units was unavailable for 2006‐2008.

170,159

134,200 135,706 166,222

190,977

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


2006 ‐ 2013Projects with 60 or More Units





NM CHART 15.

YearSite Work &



UnitTotal Units


UnitTotal Units

2006 81,594 48 187,646 30 ‐ ‐ 2007 ‐ ‐ 139,881 85 ‐ ‐ 2009 192,139 20 108,291 56 106,733 183 2010 99,593 24 103,106 84 77,865 60 2011 112,443 76 109,819 56 84,224 121 2012 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 96,660 60 2013 159,543 20 172,129 74 98,102 120


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with less than 30 units was unavailable for 2007‐2008 and 2012. Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with 30 to 59 units was unavailable for 2008 and 2012. Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction

9% projects in NM with 60 or more units was unavailable for 2006‐2008.

Less than 30 Units 30 ‐ 59 Units 60 or More Units

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cost of Site Work & Structures by Project Size of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM


Less than 30 Units 30 ‐ 59 Units 60 or More Units



NM CHART 16.


Unit



2007 139,881 190,775 203,571 85 2010 93,468 143,647 162,938 54 2011 128,267 202,690 220,776 52 2013 169,451 240,674 256,093 94


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with detached unit type structures was unavailable for 2006, 2008‐2009, and 2012.

203,571 162,938

220,776 256,093

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

2007 2010 2011 2013


2006 ‐ 2013Detached Unit Type Structures





NM CHART 17.


Unit



2006 122,383 173,177 190,406 78 2009 106,733 152,521 170,159 183 2010 93,647 137,231 158,493 114 2011 90,630 134,178 150,112 201 2012 96,660 147,694 166,222 60 2013 98,102 165,588 190,977 120


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with non‐detached unit type structures was unavailable for 2007 and 2008.

190,406 170,159 158,493 150,112

166,222 190,977

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


2006 ‐ 2013Non‐Detached Unit Type Structures





NM CHART 18.


UnitTotal Units


UnitTotal Units

2006 ‐ ‐ 122,383 78 2007 139,881 85 ‐ ‐ 2009 ‐ ‐ 106,733 183 2010 93,468 54 93,647 114 2011 128,267 52 90,630 201 2012 ‐ ‐ 96,660 60 2013 169,451 94 98,102 120


Detached Non‐Detached

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cost of Site Work & Structures by Unit Type Structureof 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM


Detached Non‐Detached



NM CHART 19.

Average Cost per Project

Average % of TDC per Project

233,480 3.0%4,807,112 61.2%609,988 7.8%238,841 3.0%62,107 0.8%

919,764 11.7%983,105 12.5%

7,854,397 100%

Cost Component

Land Acquisition

Other



Total Development Cost

3.0%

61.2%7.8%

3.0%0.8%

11.7%

12.5%

Cost Components as an Average Percent of TDCfor 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM

2006 ‐ 2013(Average per Project)

Land Acquisition


Contractor Fees

Architect Fees

Engineering Fees

Developer Fees

Other



NM CHART 20.

Average Cost per Project

Average % of TDC per Project

224,564 2.9%4,631,865 59.1%621,246 7.9%249,063 3.2%65,532 0.8%

921,676 11.8%1,128,740 14.4%7,842,686 100%

Architect FeesEngineering FeesDeveloper Fees


Contractor Fees

Total Development Cost

Cost Component

Other

2.9%

59.1%7.9%

3.2%0.8%

11.8%

14.4%



Land Acquisition


Contractor Fees

Architect Fees

Engineering Fees

Developer Fees

Other



NM CHART 21.

YearLand Acquisition per

UnitArchitect Fee


Contractor Fees per Unit


Total Units

2006 5,309 9,145 1,786 14,635 21,140 78 2007 3,588 5,985 1,025 17,287 25,355 85 2009 6,789 3,872 1,312 12,775 20,706 259 2010 8,958 4,203 827 12,531 18,543 168 2011 4,179 4,534 847 13,273 18,829 253 2012 6,531 7,338 800 12,889 20,088 60 2013 2,985 7,905 3,025 17,305 26,460 214


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2008.

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM2006 ‐ 2013






NM CHART 22.


UnitArchitect Fee




Total Units

2006 5,309 9,145 1,786 14,635 21,140 78 2007 3,588 5,985 1,025 17,287 25,355 85 2009 5,041 2,910 588 11,308 24,301 80 2010 3,333 4,584 1,354 13,447 21,869 24 2011 976 3,904 569 14,733 20,562 84 2013 2,985 7,905 3,025 17,305 26,460 214


Note: Project data for rural 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2008 and 2012.

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013

Cost Components of Rural100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM






NM CHART 23.


UnitArchitect Fee




Total Units

2009 7,570 4,302 1,636 13,431 19,100 179 2010 9,896 4,140 739 12,379 17,989 144 2011 5,772 4,847 985 12,548 17,968 169 2012 6,531 7,338 800 12,889 20,088 60


Note: Project data for urban 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2007 and 2008.

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2009 2010 2011 2012

Cost Components of Urban100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM






NM CHART 24.


UnitArchitect Fee




Total Units

2006 2,824 4,597 559 10,402 14,637 24 2007 ‐ 12,438 713 21,980 32,160 30 2009 4,357 3,567 1,141 12,470 21,338 197 2011 3,333 5,942 1,563 17,607 25,799 24 2013 3,497 9,576 1,397 22,727 31,059 74


Note: Project data for family housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2008, 2010, and 2012.

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2006 2007 2009 2011 2013

Cost Components of Family Housing Type100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM






NM CHART 25.


UnitArchitect Fee




Total Units

2007 5,545 2,465 1,194 14,727 21,644 55 2011 ‐ 7,847 1,498 18,133 26,864 28


Note: Project data for senior housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2006, 2008‐2010, and 2012‐2013.

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2007 2011

Cost Components of Senior Housing Type100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM






NM CHART 26.


UnitArchitect Fee




Total Units

2006 6,413 11,167 2,332 16,516 24,030 54 2009 14,516 4,839 1,855 13,746 18,698 62 2010 8,958 4,203 827 12,531 18,543 168 2011 4,863 3,904 671 12,079 16,878 201 2012 6,531 7,338 800 12,889 20,088 60 2013 2,714 7,021 3,886 14,439 24,029 140


Note: Project data for special needs housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM was unavailable for 2007 and 2008.

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Cost Components of Special Needs Housing Type100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in NM






NM CHART 27.


UnitArchitect Fee




Total Units

2006 9,162 16,423 3,664 18,917 28,054 30 2007 ‐ 12,438 713 21,980 32,160 30 2009 7,359 4,146 1,876 13,015 17,695 123 2010 13,095 4,383 786 13,909 19,387 84 2011 5,772 4,847 985 12,548 17,968 169 2013 ‐ 6,850 2,826 19,719 30,125 20


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with nonprofit general partners & nonprofit developers was unavailable for 2008 and 2012‐2013.

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011

Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction9% Projects in NM

2006 ‐ 2013Nonprofit General Partner, Nonprofit Developer






NM CHART 28.


UnitArchitect Fee




Total Units

2006 2,900 4,597 613 11,959 16,819 48 2007 5,545 2,465 1,194 14,727 21,644 55 2009 6,721 1,199 643 11,583 20,182 60 2010 4,821 4,023 867 11,154 17,700 84 2011 976 3,904 569 14,733 20,562 84 2012 6,531 7,338 800 12,889 20,088 60 2013 3,292 8,013 3,046 17,056 26,082 194


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with nonprofit general partners & for‐profit developers was unavailable for 2008 and 2011.

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


2006 ‐ 2013Nonprofit General Partner, For‐Profit Developer






NM CHART 29.


UnitArchitect Fee




Total Units

2006 2,900 4,597 613 11,959 16,819 48 2009 ‐ 8,042 425 10,483 36,658 20 2010 3,333 4,584 1,354 13,447 21,869 24 2011 4,676 6,083 1,335 15,710 22,768 76 2013 ‐ 6,850 2,826 19,719 30,125 20


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with less than 30 units was unavailable for 2007‐2008 and 2012.

‐

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

2006 2009 2010 2011 2013


2006 ‐ 2013Projects with Less Than 30 Units






NM CHART 30.


UnitArchitect Fee




Total Units

2006 9,162 16,423 3,664 18,917 28,054 30 2007 3,588 5,985 1,025 17,287 25,355 85 2009 8,036 4,643 1,107 14,345 22,185 56 2010 13,095 4,383 786 13,909 19,387 84 2011 12,500 3,667 848 14,276 18,762 56 2013 3,497 9,576 1,397 22,727 31,059 74


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with 30 to 59 units was unavailable for 2008 and 2012.

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2006 2007 2009 2010 2011 2013


2006 ‐ 2013Projects with 30 to 59 Units






NM CHART 31.


UnitArchitect Fee




Total Units

2009 7,150 3,180 1,472 12,546 18,511 183 2010 5,417 3,798 673 10,237 16,032 60 2011 17 3,961 540 11,278 16,387 121 2012 6,531 7,338 800 12,889 20,088 60 2013 3,167 7,050 4,063 13,559 23,013 120

Weighted Average 4,425 4,734 1,674 12,270 18,932 109

Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with 60 or more units was unavailable for 2006‐2008.

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


2006 ‐ 2013Projects with 60 or More Units






NM CHART 32.


UnitArchitect Fee




Total Units

2007 3,588 5,985 1,025 17,287 25,355 85 2010 8,889 4,800 602 13,159 20,646 54 2011 1,538 6,968 1,528 17,890 26,373 52 2013 2,753 8,996 1,701 22,087 30,860 94


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with detached unit type structures was unavailable for 2006, 2008‐2009, and 2012.

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

2007 2010 2011 2013


2006 ‐ 2013Detached Unit Type Structure






NM CHART 33.


UnitArchitect Fee




Total Units

2006 5,309 9,145 1,786 14,635 21,140 78 2009 7,150 3,180 1,472 12,546 18,511 183 2010 8,991 3,920 933 12,234 17,548 114 2011 4,863 3,904 671 12,079 16,878 201 2012 6,531 7,338 800 12,889 20,088 60 2013 3,167 7,050 4,063 13,559 23,013 120


Note: Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NM with non‐detached unit type structures was

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2006 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013


2006 ‐ 2013Non‐Detached Unit Type Structure






New Mexico Applications and Cost Certifications Summary ChartData compiled from 8609 applications and final cost certifications submitted between 2009‐2013, and LIHTC applications received by MFA between 2009‐2013.

Project Name Source County Rural/Urban Housing Type LIHTC Units # of Bedrooms Unit Type Nonprofit

Participation (GP)Nonprofit is Developer

Chuska Apartments FCC McKinley Rural Special Needs 30 75 Non‐Detached Y YI‐Sah‐din‐dii FCC Otero Rural Family 30 90 Detached Y YLolomas FCC Curry Rural Senior 55 91 Detached Y NLa Pradera FCC Lea Rural Family 60 132 Non‐Detached Y NFranklin Vista VI FCC Dona Ana Rural Family 24 56 Non‐Detached Y NFranklin Vista VII FCC Dona Ana Rural Special Needs 24 80 Non‐Detached Y NCampo Apartments FCC Santa Fe Urban Senior 28 39 Detached Y YParkside Apartments LIHTC app Luna Rural Special Needs 24 64 Detached Y NSierra Vista LIHTC app Luna Rural Family 24 60 Detached Y NSilver Vistas LIHTC app Grant Rural Special Needs 60 180 Non‐Detached Y NCottonwood Apartments LIHTC app Eddy Rural Special Needs 60 117 Non‐Detached Y NThe Elms Apartments LIHTC app Lea Rural Special Needs 60 107 Non‐Detached Y NI‐Sah‐din‐dii Phase II LIHTC app Otero Rural Family 34 90 Detached Y NWhite Sands Village Phase III LIHTC app Santa Fe Rural Special Needs 20 52 Detached Y YEl Camino Real Apartments LIHTC app Dona Ana Rural Family 40 116 Detached Y NMesa del Sol Apartments LIHTC app Bernalillo Urban Family 61 225 Non‐Detached Y YThe Artisan at Sawmill Village LIHTC app Bernalillo Urban Special Needs 62 100 Non‐Detached Y YMontana Pointe LIHTC app Dona Ana Urban Special Needs 60 153 Non‐Detached Y NCasas de Vida Nueva LIHTC app Valencia Urban Special Needs 30 48 Detached Y YArtisan East LIHTC app Bernalillo Urban Special Needs 54 144 Non‐Detached Y YTNT LIHTC app Bernalillo Urban Special Needs 24 46 Non‐Detached Y YAlameda 575 LIHTC app Dona Ana Urban Special Needs 61 44 Non‐Detached Y YMadera Crossing LIHTC app Bernalillo Urban Special Needs 56 144 Non‐Detached Y YPeachtree Canyon LIHTC app Dona Ana Urban Special Needs 60 160 Non‐Detached Y NDeer Tail Vista Underwriting Report Santa Fe Rural Family 20 60 N/A Y N/ALa Rambla Underwriting Report Dona Ana Urban Family 56 124 N/A Y N/ATotal Projects = 26

APPENDIX B - New Mexico LIHTC Project Data


New Mexico Applications and Cost Certifications Summary ChartData compiled from 8609 applications and final cost certifications submitted between 2009‐2013, and LIHTC applications received by MFA between 2009‐2013.

Project Name Site Work & Structures Adjusted TDC TDC Land Acquisition Costs Architect Fees Engineering Fees Contractors Fees Developer Fee

Chuska Apartments 5,629,367 7,670,599 8,370,835 274,856 492,686 109,908 567,499 841,623 I‐Sah‐din‐dii 5,104,074 7,173,415 7,445,265 ‐ 373,154 21,403 659,403 964,788 Lolomas 6,785,799 9,042,475 9,858,267 305,000 135,561 65,695 810,000 1,190,402 La Pradera 7,629,387 9,991,056 11,100,234 403,283 71,942 38,572 695,000 1,210,916 Franklin Vista VI 1,678,291 2,530,404 2,829,197 67,764 110,326 13,405 249,656 351,288 Franklin Vista VII 2,238,216 3,306,808 3,651,645 71,451 110,325 15,996 324,358 456,018 Campo Apartments 3,861,922 6,087,148 6,580,677 ‐ 219,721 41,942 507,722 752,204 Parkside Apartments 2,390,227 3,680,144 4,178,852 80,000 110,025 32,500 322,721 524,866 Sierra Vista 2,807,983 4,452,747 4,899,653 80,000 142,603 37,500 422,557 619,174 Silver Vistas 5,879,092 8,568,827 9,134,827 2,000 185,300 10,300 815,000 1,108,000 Cottonwood Apartments 5,892,726 10,016,246 11,574,699 85,000 450,000 272,500 813,386 1,399,321 The Elms Apartments 5,879,550 9,854,305 11,342,549 295,000 396,000 215,000 813,680 1,362,288 I‐Sah‐din‐dii Phase II 6,093,320 8,331,022 8,669,769 ‐ 328,348 65,000 812,441 990,189 White Sands Village Phase III 3,190,862 4,423,239 4,576,990 ‐ 137,000 56,525 394,377 602,500 El Camino Real Apartments 6,644,204 9,869,076 10,826,013 258,742 380,268 38,380 869,335 1,308,151 Mesa del Sol Apartments 5,347,118 8,356,472 8,982,488 5,100 210,000 115,798 748,596 1,017,234 The Artisan at Sawmill Village 6,555,711 9,563,786 11,056,358 900,001 300,000 115,000 852,241 1,159,297 Montana Pointe 4,671,881 6,993,453 8,052,000 325,000 227,892 40,367 614,194 961,909 Casas de Vida Nueva 2,657,032 4,076,788 4,619,814 400,000 149,201 ‐ 387,846 590,000 Artisan East 6,003,870 8,650,832 10,016,187 700,000 219,000 66,000 780,503 1,038,514 TNT 1,875,747 2,851,084 3,554,022 275,400 100,000 22,000 263,690 359,000 Alameda 575 4,311,964 6,740,933 7,285,654 ‐ 294,023 55,000 549,682 874,768 Madera Crossing 6,149,843 8,808,853 10,197,970 700,000 205,370 47,500 799,480 1,050,658 Peachtree Canyon 5,799,619 8,861,664 9,973,306 391,885 440,264 48,000 773,325 1,205,267 Deer Tail Vista 3,842,784 4,999,867 5,240,056 ‐ 160,848 8,500 209,659 733,150 La Rambla 6,064,318 8,935,246 10,197,000 450,000 260,000 62,000 803,332 1,242,343 Total 124,984,907 183,836,489 204,214,327 6,070,482 6,209,857 1,614,791 15,859,683 23,913,868

APPENDIX B - New Mexico LIHTC Project Data


Comparable States: GENERAL SUMMARYNote (1): Architect and engineering fee detail were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects. Therefore, these costs are not analyzed for TX in the tables and charts below

STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013. 1A. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.

STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted Average

Total Units

Weighted Average Total Bedrooms *


Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 29 1,638 3,131 56 108 1.9 Colorado 32 1,930 2,874 60 90 1.5 Nevada 6 408 563 68 94 1.4 New Mexico 26 1,117 2,597 43 100 2.3 Texas 112 11,232 21,302 100 190 1.9 Utah 54 2,020 3,959 37 73 2.0 Total 259 18,345 34,426 71 133 1.9

STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013. 1B. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.



Average TDCAverage Land

Acquisition CostsAverage Architect

FeesAverage Engineering

FeesAverage

Contractor FeesAverage

Developer Fee

Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 95,039 137,602 172,835 10,532 4,318 1,648 10,715 19,381 Colorado 113,782 159,678 199,185 12,991 6,979 1,191 14,342 17,979 Nevada 101,687 143,783 164,781 4,973 3,747 2,605 9,078 17,060 New Mexico 87,897 129,284 143,615 4,269 4,367 1,136 11,153 16,818 Texas 72,038 103,943 123,652 7,014 N/A N/A 9,432 14,108 Utah 90,483 115,967 141,473 12,179 2,504 576 9,710 9,695 Weighted Avg 82,139 116,565 140,083 8,313 4,500 1,194 10,191 14,731

STATE

172,835 199,185

164,781 143,615

123,652 141,473

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000


Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects2006 ‐ 2013



‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000


Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects2006 ‐ 2013


Architect Fees Contractor Fees Developer Fee

APPENDIX C - State Tables


STATE TABLE Cost components as an average percent of TDC for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.1C. NOTE: Architect and engineering fee detail were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects. These costs are included in "Other" for TX in the tables and pie chart below

Average per Project

% of TDCAverage per

Project% of TDC Average per Project % of TDC

Average per Project

% of TDCAverage per

Project% of TDC

Average per Project

% of TDC

630,474 6.1% 751,689 6.5% 321,567 3.0% 233,480 3.0% 709,387 5.7% 483,726 8.6%5,689,387 55.0% 6,583,446 57.1% 6,575,183 61.7% 4,807,112 61.2% 7,286,110 58.3% 3,593,839 64.0%641,415 6.2% 829,848 7.2% 587,015 5.5% 609,988 7.8% 953,978 7.6% 385,654 6.9%258,488 2.5% 403,818 3.5% 242,283 2.3% 238,841 3.0% N/A N/A 99,456 1.8%98,648 1.0% 68,892 0.6% 168,417 1.6% 62,107 0.8% N/A N/A 22,894 0.4%

1,160,222 11.2% 1,040,254 9.0% 1,103,134 10.4% 919,764 11.7% 1,426,935 11.4% 385,079 6.9%1,867,914 18.1% 1,846,981 16.0% 1,657,312 15.6% 983,105 12.5% 2,130,133 17.0% 648,447 11.5%

10,346,547 100% 11,524,929 100% 10,654,910 100% 7,854,397 100% 12,506,543 100% 5,619,095 100%

Weighted Average per Project

% of TDC

643,089 6.1%6,116,846 58.5%756,863 7.2%225,146 2.2%60,431 0.6%

1,090,834 10.4%1,565,765 15.0%

10,458,974 100%


% of TDC

233,480 3.0%4,807,112 61.2%609,988 7.8%238,841 3.0%62,107 0.8%919,764 11.7%983,105 12.5%

7,854,397 100%


Cost Component



Land Acquisition

Other

Weighted Average Values per Project of AZ, CO, NV, TX, and UT Projects


Weighted Average Values per Project of NM Projects

Cost Component







Utah

Cost Component

Site Work & StructuresLand Acquisition


6.1%

58.5%

7.2%

2.2%0.6%

10.4%

15.0%

Cost Components as an Average Percent of TDCfor 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, TX, and UT

2006 ‐ 2013 (Average per Project)

Land Acquisition


Contractor Fees

Architect Fees

Engineering Fees

Developer Fees

Other

3.0%

61.2%7.8%

3.0%0.8%

11.7%

12.5%


2006 ‐ 2013 (Average per Project)

Land Acquisition


Contractor Fees

Architect Fees

Engineering Fees

Developer Fees

Other



STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2010 ‐ 2013.2A. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.


Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 13 814 1,406 63 108 1.7 Colorado 10 696 865 70 87 1.2 Nevada 6 408 563 68 94 1.4 New Mexico 16 695 1,564 43 98 2.3 Texas 112 11,232 21,302 100 190 1.9 Utah 23 804 1,537 35 67 1.9 Total 180 14,649 27,237 81 151 1.9

STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2010 ‐ 2013.2B. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)



Average TDCAverage

Land/Building Acquisition Costs






STATE

171,772 185,831

164,781

141,830

123,652

143,142

‐

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000


Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects2010 ‐ 2013



‐

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000


Cost Components as an Average Percent of TDCfor 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects





STATE TABLE Cost components as an average percent of TDC for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2010 ‐ 2013.2C. NOTE: Architect and engineering fee detail were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects. These costs are included in "Other" for TX in the tables and pie chart below

Average per Project

% of TDCAverage per

Project% of TDC Average per Project % of TDC

Average per Project

% of TDCAverage per

Project% of TDC

Average per Project

% of TDC

671,059 5.9% 751,065 6.1% 321,567 3.0% 224,564 2.9% 709,387 5.7% 375,510 7.1%6,285,595 55.1% 6,879,980 55.4% 6,575,183 61.7% 4,631,865 59.1% 7,286,110 58.3% 3,485,371 65.6%770,814 6.8% 855,464 6.9% 587,015 5.5% 621,246 7.9% 953,978 7.6% 392,063 7.4%292,280 2.6% 457,612 3.7% 242,283 2.3% 249,063 3.2% N/A N/A 91,589 1.7%86,456 0.8% 83,982 0.7% 168,417 1.6% 65,532 0.8% N/A N/A 22,745 0.4%

1,227,783 10.8% 1,151,025 9.3% 1,103,134 10.4% 921,676 11.8% 1,426,935 11.4% 364,801 6.9%2,065,352 18.1% 2,228,840 18.0% 1,657,312 15.6% 1,128,740 14.4% 2,130,133 17.0% 580,820 10.9%

11,399,338 100% 12,407,968 100% 10,654,910 100% 7,842,686 100% 12,506,543 100% 5,312,899 100%


% of TDC

647,877 5.7%6,622,997 58.4%841,221 7.4%229,539 2.0%67,257 0.6%

1,233,521 10.9%1,693,747 14.9%

11,336,159 100%


% of TDC

224,564 2.9%4,631,865 59.1%621,246 7.9%249,063 3.2%65,532 0.8%921,676 11.8%

1,128,740 14.4%7,842,686 100%

UtahArizona Colorado Nevada New Mexico Texas

Cost Component




Engineering Fees



Cost Component

Weighted Average Values per Project of AZ, CO, NV, TX, and UT Projects

Developer FeesOther


Land Acquisition

Weighted Average Values per Project of NM Projects

Cost Component





5.7%

58.4%

7.4%

2.0%0.6%

10.9%

14.9%

Cost Components as an Average Percent of TDCfor 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, TX, and UT


Land Acquisition


Contractor Fees

Architect Fees

Engineering Fees

Developer Fees

Other

2.9%

59.1%7.9%

3.2%0.8%

11.8%

14.4%



Land Acquisition


Contractor Fees

Architect Fees

Engineering Fees

Developer Fees

Other



Comparable States: RURAL v. URBANNote (1): Project data for rural 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV was unavailableNote (2): Architect and engineering fee detail were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects. Therefore, these costs are not analyzed for TX in the tables and charts below

STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: RURAL 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.3A. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.


Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 19 1,046 2,098 55 110 2.0 Colorado 6 453 647 76 108 1.4 Nevada N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 15 565 1,370 38 91 2.4 Texas 44 3,071 5,981 70 136 1.9 Utah 29 645 1,571 22 54 2.4 Total 113 5,780 11,667 51 103 2.0

STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of RURAL 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.3B. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)Average Site Work &

Structures


Average TDCAverage






Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit

Arizona 95,720 138,677 170,541 10,337 3,785 1,824 9,984 19,491 Colorado 124,774 170,636 214,740 15,954 6,271 778 17,512 17,318 Nevada N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 99,667 144,470 158,079 2,674 4,983 1,392 12,206 18,996 Texas 73,737 106,219 122,885 4,232 N/A N/A 9,730 14,734 Utah 99,334 124,925 149,806 9,895 2,254 731 11,310 9,937 Weighted Avg 87,106 122,968 145,153 6,735 4,086 1,299 10,804 15,679

STATE

170,541

214,740

158,079

122,885 149,806

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Arizona Colorado New Mexico Texas Utah

Development Costs of Rural100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects



‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000


Cost Components of Rural100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects





STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: URBAN 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.3C. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.


Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 10 592 1,033 59 103 1.7 Colorado 26 1,477 2,227 57 86 1.5 Nevada 6 408 563 N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 11 552 1,227 50 112 2.2 Texas 68 8,161 15,321 120 225 1.9 Utah 25 1,375 2,388 55 96 1.7 Total 146 12,565 22,759 86 156 1.8

STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of URBAN 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.3D. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.


Structures


Average TDCAverage







Arizona 93,836 135,703 176,890 10,876 5,259 1,337 12,005 19,187 Colorado 110,410 156,317 194,414 12,083 7,196 1,317 13,370 18,181 Nevada 143,783 143,783 164,781 4,973 3,747 2,605 9,078 17,060 New Mexico 75,849 113,741 128,810 5,902 3,736 873 10,076 14,588 Texas 71,398 103,086 123,940 8,061 N/A N/A 9,320 13,873 Utah 86,330 111,765 137,564 13,250 2,621 504 8,959 9,582 Weighted Avg 81,221 113,620 137,750 9,039 4,754 1,129 9,908 14,295

STATE

176,890 194,414

164,781

128,810 123,940 137,564

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000


Development Costs of Urban100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects



‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000


Cost Components of Urban100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects





STATE TABLE Weighted average site work & structures costs per unit of RURAL VS. URBAN 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.3E. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.

States Rural UrbanArizona 95,720 93,836 Colorado 124,774 110,410 Nevada N/A 143,783 New Mexico 99,667 75,849 Texas 73,737 71,398 Utah 99,334 86,330 Weighted Avg 87,106 81,221


‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000


Cost of Site Work & Structures of Rural vs. Urban100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects


Rural Urban



Comparable States: HOUSING TYPENote (1): Project data for family housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV was unavailable.Note (2): Data on housing types for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in UT was unavailable.Note (3): Architect and engineering fee detail were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects. Therefore, these costs are not analyzed for TX in the tables and charts below.

STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: FAMILY housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.4A. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.

STATETotal

ProjectsTotal Units Total Bedrooms

Weighted Average Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 15 780 1,921 52 128 2.5 Colorado 18 1,075 1,776 60 99 1.7 Nevada N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 9 349 953 39 106 2.7 Texas 43 3,937 8,888 92 207 2.3 Utah N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 85 6,141 13,538 72 159 2.2

STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of FAMILY housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.4B. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.


Structures


Average TDCAverage




Average Contractor

Fees

Average Developer

Fee


Arizona 97,483 139,030 174,280 10,869 3,501 1,619 10,321 19,169 Colorado 125,341 171,396 210,744 15,034 6,934 1,044 14,401 18,106 Nevada N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 101,763 145,492 157,985 2,847 4,586 902 12,312 18,991 Texas 77,756 112,496 132,514 7,515 N/A N/A 10,000 15,130 Utah N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AWeighted Avg 89,956 128,052 152,961 8,992 5,347 1,225 10,942 16,384

STATE

174,280 210,744

157,985 132,514

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Arizona Colorado New Mexico Texas

Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsHousing Type: Family



‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Arizona Colorado New Mexico Texas

Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsHousing Type: Family





STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: SENIOR housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.4C. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.

STATETotal

ProjectsTotal Units Total Bedrooms

Weighted Average Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 12 742 1,014 62 85 1.4 Colorado 10 598 789 60 79 1.3 Nevada 6 408 563 68 94 1.4 New Mexico 2 83 130 42 65 1.6 Texas 43 4,392 6,599 102 153 1.5 Utah N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 73 6,223 9,095 85 125 1.5

STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of SENIOR housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.4D. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.


Structures


Average TDCAverage




Average Contractor

Fees

Average Developer

Fee


Arizona 92,342 135,570 168,351 10,209 4,843 1,776 10,650 19,542 Colorado 106,956 156,525 198,482 11,331 8,387 1,620 15,279 18,791 Nevada 143,783 143,783 164,781 4,973 3,747 2,605 9,078 17,060 New Mexico 100,773 143,192 155,583 2,887 3,363 1,019 12,471 18,385 Texas 69,985 100,605 121,684 7,449 N/A N/A 9,217 13,723 Utah N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AWeighted Avg 81,452 113,546 137,906 7,928 5,689 1,875 10,005 15,185

STATE

168,351

198,482

164,781 155,583

121,684

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000


Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsHousing Type: Senior



‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000


Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsHousing Type: Senior





STATE TABLE Weighted average site work & structures costs per unit by HOUSING TYPE of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.4E. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.

States Family SeniorArizona 97,483 92,342 Colorado 125,341 106,956 Nevada N/A 143,783 New Mexico 101,763 100,773 Texas 77,756 69,985 Utah N/A N/AWeighted Avg 89,956 81,452


‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000


Cost of Site Work & Structures by Housing Type100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects


Family Senior



Comparable States: PROJECT SIZENote (1): Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV with less than 30 units was unavailable.Note (2): Architect and engineering fee detail were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects. Therefore, these costs are not analyzed for TX in the tables and charts below.

STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with LESS THAN 30 UNITS in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.5A. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.

STATE Total Projects Total UnitsTotal

BedroomsWeighted Average

Total UnitsWeighted Average Total Bedrooms *


Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 1 28 84 28 84 3.0 Colorado 6 147 280 25 47 1.9 Nevada N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 8 188 457 24 57 2.4 Texas 1 24 24 24 24 1.0 Utah 27 223 552 8 20 2.5 Total 43 610 1,397 14 32 2.3

STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with LESS THAN 30 UNITS in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.5B. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.


Structures


Average TDCAverage






Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 113,420 189,363 275,123 35,788 8,024 5,132 17,636 32,567 Colorado 138,575 196,398 234,468 11,149 13,624 1,458 15,439 20,709 Nevada N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 91,448 135,094 148,379 2,401 4,558 954 11,260 18,377 Texas 53,098 86,087 108,463 ‐ N/A N/A 7,085 14,852 Utah 93,571 117,846 145,682 16,642 2,692 482 9,416 10,807 Weighted Avg 103,081 144,125 172,387 11,153 6,288 1,101 11,721 16,684

STATE

275,123

234,468

148,379

108,463

145,682

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000


Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with Less than 30 Units



‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000


Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with Less than 30 Units





STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with 30 to 59 UNITS in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.5C. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.





Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 15 722 1,520 48 101 2.1 Colorado 12 566 998 47 83 1.8 Nevada 2 88 122 44 61 1.4 New Mexico 9 385 922 43 102 2.4 Texas 18 772 1,683 43 94 2.2 Utah 14 647 1,346 46 96 2.1 Total 70 3,180 6,591 45 94 2.1

STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with 30 to 59 UNITS in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.5D. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.


Structures


Average TDCAverage






Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 101,425 147,776 184,109 10,476 4,830 1,755 10,843 20,544 Colorado 118,237 174,869 218,678 12,624 8,312 1,347 17,245 21,482 Nevada 176,815 176,815 205,085 6,262 3,585 2,737 11,354 23,928 New Mexico 104,327 148,045 163,639 6,302 5,190 971 13,242 18,805 Texas 82,353 124,326 144,598 5,529 N/A N/A 11,102 20,338 Utah 95,558 120,463 146,276 11,262 2,646 791 11,735 8,969 Weighted Avg 101,031 142,185 171,075 9,195 5,074 1,311 12,532 18,189

STATE

184,109

218,678 205,085

163,639 144,598 146,276

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000


Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with 30 to 59 Units



‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000


Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with 30 to 59 Units





STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with 60 or MORE UNITS in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.5E. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.





Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 13 888 1,527 68 117 1.7 Colorado 14 1,217 1,596 87 114 1.3 Nevada 4 320 441 80 110 1.4 New Mexico 9 544 1,218 60 135 2.2 Texas 93 10,436 19,595 112 211 1.9 Utah 13 1,150 2,061 88 159 1.8 Total 146 14,555 26,438 100 181 1.8

STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with 60 or MORE UNITS in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.5F. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.


Structures


Average TDCAverage







STATE

160,444

185,857

153,698

127,797 122,137 137,954

‐

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000


Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with 60 or More Units



‐

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000


Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with 60 or More Units





STATE TABLE Weighted average site work & structures costs per unit by PROJECT SIZE of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.5G. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.

StatesLess than 30

Units30 to 59 Units

60 or More Units

Arizona 113,420 101,425 89,267 Colorado 138,575 118,237 108,715 Nevada N/A 176,815 134,700 New Mexico 91,448 104,327 75,041 Texas 53,098 82,353 71,318 Utah 93,571 95,558 87,028 Weighted Avg 103,081 101,031 78,314


‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000


Cost of Site Work & Structures by Project Size100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects


Less than 30 Units 30 to 59 Units 60 or More Units



Comparable States: PROJECT STRUCTURENote (1): Data on detached vs. non‐detached units for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in CO and UT was unavailable.Note (2): Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV with detached units was unavailable.Note (3): Architect and engineering fee detail were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects. Therefore, these costs are not analyzed for TX in the tables and charts below.

STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: DETACHED 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.6A. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.




Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 2 125 226 63 113 1.8 Colorado N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANevada N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 9 285 650 32 72 2.3 Texas 6 347 1,047 58 175 3.0 Utah N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 17 757 1,923 45 113 2.5

STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of DETACHED 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.6B. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.


Structures


Average TDCAverage






Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 100,104 132,831 152,727 6,162 3,866 1,579 10,745 16,502 Colorado N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANevada N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 108,970 157,483 169,939 3,097 5,446 989 14,295 20,789 Texas 98,823 139,104 157,906 4,655 N/A N/A 12,882 19,416 Utah N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AWeighted Avg 102,855 144,987 161,581 4,317 4,964 1,169 13,061 19,452

STATE

152,727 169,939

157,906

‐

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

Arizona New Mexico Texas

Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsDetached Unit Type Structure



‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Arizona New Mexico Texas

Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsDetached Unit Type Structure





STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: NON‐DETACHED 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.6C. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.




Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 27 1,513 2,905 56 108 1.9 Colorado N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANevada 6 408 563 68 94 1.4 New Mexico 15 756 1,763 50 118 2.3 Texas 60 5,790 11,206 97 187 1.9 Utah N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 108 8,467 16,437 78 152 1.9

STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of NON‐DETACHED 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.6D. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.


Structures


Average TDCAverage






Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per Unit Per UnitArizona 94,621 137,996 174,497 10,893 4,355 1,654 10,712 19,619 Colorado N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANevada 143,783 143,783 164,781 4,973 3,747 2,605 9,078 17,060 New Mexico 78,494 117,171 132,089 4,672 3,962 1,232 10,038 14,959 Texas 73,603 106,459 126,269 7,605 N/A N/A 9,548 14,325 Utah N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AWeighted Avg 81,177 114,850 137,262 7,804 4,152 1,679 9,777 15,460

STATE

174,497 164,781

132,089 126,269

‐

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

Arizona Nevada New Mexico Texas

Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsNon‐Detached Unit Type Structure



‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Arizona Nevada New Mexico Texas

Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsNon‐Detached Unit Type Structure





STATE TABLE DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE: 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with 3 OR LESS STORIES in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.6E. * Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.




Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 25 1,357 2,687 54 107 2.0 Colorado 17 778 1,306 46 77 1.7 Nevada 6 408 563 68 94 1.4 New Mexico 24 1,041 2,413 43 101 2.3 Texas 45 4,147 8,565 92 190 2.1 Utah 45 1,539 3,155 34 70 2.1 Total 162 9,270 18,689 57 115 2.0

STATE TABLE Weighted average costs per unit of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects with 3 OR LESS STORIES in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.6F. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.


Structures


Average TDCAverage







STATE

173,040

205,833

164,781 142,451

126,767 143,559

‐

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000


Development Costs of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with 3 or Less Stories



‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000


Cost Components of 100% LIHTC New Construction 9% ProjectsProjects with 3 or Less Stories





STATE TABLE Weighted average site work & structures costs per unit by PROJECT STRUCTURE of 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.6G. Weighted average costs per unit in the table and charts below have been adjusted for bedroom and project size.

States Detached Non‐Detached3 or Less Stories

Arizona 100,104 94,621 94,381 Colorado N/A N/A 116,496 Nevada N/A 143,783 143,783 New Mexico 108,970 78,494 86,838 Texas 98,823 73,603 73,929 Utah N/A N/A 94,388 Weighted Avg 102,855 81,177 88,416


‐

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000


Cost of Site Work & Structures by Project Structure100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects


Detached Non‐Detached 3 or Less Stories



EXHIBIT A: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ 2006 ‐ 2013100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.

STATE Total Projects Total Units Total BedroomsWeighted

Average Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 29 1,638 3,131 56 108 1.9 Colorado 32 1,930 2,874 60 90 1.5 Nevada 6 408 563 68 94 1.4 New Mexico 26 1,117 2,597 43 100 2.3 Texas 112 11,232 21,302 100 190 1.9 Utah 54 2,020 3,959 37 73 2.0 Total 259 18,345 34,426 71 133 1.9

STATETotal Site Work &

StructuresTotal Adj TDC Total TDC

Total Land Acquisition Costs

Total Architect Fees

Total Engineering Fees

Total Contractor Fees

Total Developer Fee

Arizona 164,992,212 238,883,469 300,049,862 18,283,733 7,496,148 2,860,790 18,601,024 33,646,438 Colorado 210,670,279 295,648,680 368,797,717 24,054,048 12,922,165 2,204,553 26,555,128 33,288,141 Nevada 39,451,095 55,783,065 63,929,457 1,929,400 1,453,700 1,010,500 3,522,087 6,618,803 New Mexico 124,984,907 183,836,489 204,214,327 6,070,482 6,209,857 1,614,791 15,859,683 23,913,868 Texas 816,044,316 1,177,466,142 1,400,732,803 79,451,310 N/A N/A 106,845,507 159,816,751 Utah 194,067,327 248,726,816 303,431,118 26,121,198 5,370,641 1,236,255 20,825,314 20,794,258 Total 1,550,210,136 2,200,344,661 2,641,155,284 155,910,171 33,452,511 8,926,889 192,208,743 278,078,259







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 155,674,183 225,392,390 283,104,376 17,251,149 7,072,799 2,699,226 17,550,521 31,746,236 Colorado 219,598,406 308,178,160 384,427,226 25,073,450 13,469,801 2,297,981 27,680,524 34,698,880 Nevada 41,488,311 58,663,648 67,230,712 2,029,032 1,528,768 1,062,681 3,703,964 6,960,592 New Mexico 98,180,439 144,410,614 160,418,187 4,768,596 4,878,081 1,268,480 12,458,389 18,785,261 Texas 809,126,789 1,167,484,877 1,388,858,929 78,777,809 N/A N/A 105,939,788 158,462,000 Utah 182,774,938 234,253,901 285,775,069 24,601,258 5,058,134 1,164,320 19,613,531 19,584,282 Total 1,506,843,066 2,138,383,591 2,569,814,499 152,501,294 32,007,583 8,492,688 186,946,718 270,237,250

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013)


100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013)(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)

(Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)

APPENDIX D ‐ Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT)


EXHIBIT B: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ 2010 ‐ 2013100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2010 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.


Average Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 814 13 1,406 63 108 1.7 Colorado 696 10 865 70 87 1.2 Nevada 408 6 563 68 94 1.4 New Mexico 695 16 1,564 43 98 2.3 Texas 11,232 112 21,302 100 190 1.9 Utah 804 23 1,537 35 67 1.9 Total 14,649 180 27,237 81 151 1.9







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 81,712,736 116,957,011 148,191,395 8,723,762 3,799,643 1,123,924 10,020,578 15,961,181 Colorado 68,799,803 96,930,357 124,079,681 7,510,647 4,576,117 839,824 8,554,641 11,510,249 Nevada 39,451,095 55,783,065 63,929,457 1,929,400 1,453,700 1,010,500 3,522,087 6,618,803 New Mexico 74,109,842 112,266,361 125,482,982 3,593,027 3,985,015 1,048,514 9,939,939 14,746,809 Texas 816,044,316 1,177,466,142 1,400,732,803 79,451,310 N/A N/A 106,845,507 159,816,751 Utah 80,163,524 101,524,997 122,196,666 8,636,728 2,106,547 523,136 9,017,446 8,390,430 Total 1,160,281,316 1,660,927,933 1,984,612,984 109,844,874 15,921,022 4,545,898 147,900,198 217,044,223







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 77,097,963 110,351,798 139,822,202 8,231,082 3,585,056 1,060,450 9,454,661 15,059,764 Colorado 71,715,513 101,038,229 129,338,131 7,828,945 4,770,051 875,415 8,917,183 11,998,049 Nevada 41,488,311 58,663,648 67,230,712 2,029,032 1,528,768 1,062,681 3,703,964 6,960,592 New Mexico 58,216,124 88,189,533 98,571,696 2,822,461 3,130,382 823,648 7,808,203 11,584,184 Texas 809,126,789 1,167,484,877 1,388,858,929 78,777,809 N/A N/A 105,939,788 158,462,000 Utah 75,498,969 95,617,461 115,086,287 8,134,174 1,983,971 492,696 8,492,739 7,902,208 Total 1,133,143,668 1,621,345,546 1,938,907,957 107,823,504 14,998,228 4,314,891 144,316,539 211,966,797

(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2010 ‐ 2013) (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)





EXHIBIT C: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ RURALRURAL100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.** Project data for rural 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV was unavailable.


Average Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 19 1,046 2,098 55 110 2.0 Colorado 6 453 647 76 108 1.4 Nevada ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 15 565 1,370 38 91 2.4 Texas 44 3,071 5,981 70 136 1.9 Utah 29 645 1,571 22 54 2.4 Total 113 5,780 11,667 51 103 2.0







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 106,116,057 153,738,452 189,063,066 11,460,018 4,196,169 2,022,057 11,068,566 21,607,708 Colorado 54,224,408 74,155,510 93,322,432 6,933,205 2,725,393 338,048 7,610,548 7,526,052 Nevada ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 71,685,882 103,910,230 113,698,851 1,923,096 3,584,386 1,001,184 8,779,072 13,662,674 Texas 228,382,268 328,986,037 380,606,915 13,107,132 N/A N/A 30,136,093 45,635,049 Utah 68,028,971 85,555,214 102,594,832 6,776,812 1,543,591 500,945 7,745,686 6,805,423 Total 528,437,586 746,345,443 879,286,096 40,200,263 12,049,539 3,862,234 65,339,965 95,236,906







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 100,123,093 145,055,986 178,385,622 10,812,807 3,959,188 1,907,860 10,443,462 20,387,400 Colorado 56,522,418 77,298,193 97,277,402 7,227,032 2,840,894 352,374 7,933,080 7,845,003 Nevada ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 56,312,010 81,625,471 89,314,809 1,510,666 2,815,673 786,468 6,896,298 10,732,554 Texas 226,446,294 326,197,255 377,380,548 12,996,024 N/A N/A 29,880,632 45,248,205 Utah 64,070,501 80,576,927 96,625,044 6,382,483 1,453,773 471,796 7,294,980 6,409,429 Total 503,474,316 710,753,832 838,983,425 38,929,011 11,069,527 3,518,499 62,448,453 90,622,592


100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ RURAL (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ RURAL

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ RURAL



EXHIBIT D: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ URBANURBAN100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.


Average Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 10 592 1,033 59 103 1.7 Colorado 26 1,477 2,227 57 86 1.5 Nevada 6 408 563 N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 11 552 1,227 50 112 2.2 Texas 68 8,161 15,321 120 225 1.9 Utah 25 1,375 2,388 55 96 1.7 Total 146 12,565 22,759 86 156 1.8







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 58,876,155 85,145,017 110,986,796 6,823,715 3,299,979 838,733 7,532,458 12,038,730 Colorado 156,445,871 221,493,170 275,475,285 17,120,843 10,196,772 1,866,505 18,944,580 25,762,089 Nevada 55,783,065 55,783,065 63,929,457 1,929,400 1,453,700 1,010,500 3,522,087 6,618,803 New Mexico 53,299,025 79,926,259 90,515,476 4,147,386 2,625,471 613,607 7,080,611 10,251,194 Texas 587,662,048 848,480,105 1,020,125,888 66,344,178 N/A N/A 76,709,414 114,181,702 Utah 126,038,356 163,171,602 200,836,286 19,344,386 3,827,050 735,310 13,079,628 13,988,835 Total 1,038,104,520 1,453,999,218 1,761,869,188 115,709,908 21,402,972 5,064,655 126,868,778 182,841,353







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 55,551,090 80,336,404 104,718,754 6,438,342 3,113,611 791,366 7,107,059 11,358,836 Colorado 163,075,988 230,879,967 287,149,824 17,846,418 10,628,907 1,945,607 19,747,444 26,853,877 Nevada 58,663,648 58,663,648 67,230,712 2,029,032 1,528,768 1,062,681 3,703,964 6,960,592 New Mexico 41,868,429 62,785,142 71,103,378 3,257,931 2,062,408 482,012 5,562,092 8,052,706 Texas 582,680,495 841,287,623 1,011,478,381 65,781,785 N/A N/A 76,059,156 113,213,795 Utah 118,704,437 153,676,973 189,150,025 18,218,775 3,604,362 692,524 12,318,551 13,174,853 Total 1,020,544,087 1,427,629,758 1,730,831,074 113,572,282 20,938,056 4,974,189 124,498,265 179,614,658


100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ URBAN (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ URBAN

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ URBAN



EXHIBIT E: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ FAMILY HOUSING TYPEFAMILY HOUSING TYPE 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.** Project data on housing types for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in UT was unavailable.*** Project data for family housing type 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV was unavailable.


Average Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 15 780 1,921 52 128 2.5 Colorado 18 1,075 1,776 60 99 1.7 Nevada *** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 9 349 953 39 106 2.7 Texas 43 3,937 8,888 92 207 2.3 Utah ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 85 6,141 13,538 72 159 2.2







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 80,588,002 114,934,601 144,074,942 8,985,067 2,894,507 1,338,320 8,531,893 15,846,731 Colorado 129,263,801 176,759,630 217,338,957 15,504,590 7,151,093 1,076,316 14,851,188 18,672,511 Nevada *** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 45,211,479 64,639,305 70,189,675 1,264,889 2,037,489 400,558 5,469,979 8,437,233 Texas 308,743,966 446,683,905 526,167,959 29,841,279 N/A N/A 39,706,793 60,078,002 Utah ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 563,807,248 803,017,441 957,771,533 55,595,825 12,083,089 2,815,194 68,559,853 103,034,477







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 76,036,749 108,443,604 135,938,228 8,477,630 2,731,038 1,262,738 8,050,050 14,951,778 Colorado 134,741,952 184,250,637 226,549,700 16,161,669 7,454,154 1,121,930 15,480,576 19,463,845 Nevada *** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 35,515,351 50,776,654 55,136,682 993,619 1,600,526 314,654 4,296,878 6,627,770 Texas 306,126,774 442,897,409 521,707,685 29,588,317 N/A N/A 39,370,202 59,568,727 Utah ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 552,420,826 786,368,304 939,332,296 55,221,235 11,785,717 2,699,321 67,197,706 100,612,120

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ FAMILY HOUSING TYPE(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)

(Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ FAMILY HOUSING TYPE

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ FAMILY HOUSING TYPE



EXHIBIT F: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ SENIOR HOUSING TYPESENIOR HOUSING TYPE 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.** Project data on housing types for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in UT was unavailable.


Average Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 12 742 1,014 62 85 1.4 Colorado 10 598 789 60 79 1.3 Nevada 6 408 563 68 94 1.4 New Mexico 2 83 130 42 65 1.6 Texas 43 4,392 6,599 102 153 1.5 Utah ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 73 6,223 9,095 85 125 1.5







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 72,618,895 106,613,889 132,393,621 8,028,126 3,808,482 1,396,633 8,375,682 15,367,931 Colorado 61,359,031 89,796,686 113,866,591 6,500,554 4,811,316 929,159 8,765,417 10,780,120 Nevada 55,783,065 55,783,065 63,929,457 1,929,400 1,453,700 1,010,500.0 3,522,087.0 6,618,803.0 New Mexico 10,647,721 15,129,623 16,438,944 305,000 355,282 107,637 1,317,722 1,942,606 Texas 310,000,497 445,632,657 539,005,746 32,996,448 N/A N/A 40,828,066 60,785,596 Utah ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 510,409,209 712,955,920 865,634,359 49,759,528 10,428,780 3,443,929 62,808,974 95,495,056







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 68,517,701 100,592,810 124,916,616 7,574,733 3,593,396 1,317,758 7,902,661 14,500,018 Colorado 63,959,404 93,602,236 118,692,214 6,776,045 5,015,218 968,536 9,136,892 11,236,977 Nevada 58,663,648 58,663,648 67,230,712 2,029,032 1,528,768 1,062,681.2 3,703,964.2 6,960,591.6 New Mexico 8,364,193 11,884,899 12,913,421 239,589 279,088 84,553 1,035,121 1,525,992 Texas 307,372,653 441,855,073 534,436,647 32,716,740 N/A N/A 40,481,971 60,270,322 Utah ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 506,877,600 706,598,666 858,189,611 49,336,140 10,416,469 3,433,528 62,260,609 94,493,901


100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ SENIOR HOUSING TYPE (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ SENIOR HOUSING TYPE

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ SENIOR HOUSING TYPE



EXHIBIT G: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ LESS THAN 30 UNITSPROJECTS WITH LESS THAN 30 UNITS100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.** Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV with less than 30 units was unavailable.


Average Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 1 28 84 28 84 3.0 Colorado 6 147 280 25 47 1.9 Nevada ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 8 188 457 24 57 2.4 Texas 1 24 24 24 24 1.0 Utah 27 223 552 8 20 2.5 Total 43 610 1,397 14 32 2.3







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 3,365,838 5,619,519 8,164,543 1,062,050 238,123 152,290 523,379 966,462 Colorado 19,542,262 27,696,794 33,065,549 1,572,282 1,921,304 205,655 2,177,280 2,920,467 Nevada ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 21,886,032 32,331,441 35,511,092 574,615 1,090,848 228,368 2,694,740 4,398,200 Texas 1,285,250 2,083,750 2,625,370 ‐ N/A N/A 171,500 359,500 Utah 22,155,420 27,903,387 34,494,268 3,940,447 637,329 114,120 2,229,515 2,558,822 Total 68,234,802 95,634,891 113,860,822 7,149,394 3,887,604 700,433 7,796,414 11,203,451







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 3,175,750 5,302,153 7,703,446 1,002,070 224,675 143,689 493,821 911,881 Colorado 20,370,456 28,870,574 34,466,855 1,638,915 2,002,728 214,371 2,269,552 3,044,235 Nevada ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 17,192,318 25,397,587 27,895,325 451,382 856,903 179,392 2,116,822 3,454,955 Texas 1,274,355 2,066,086 2,603,115 ‐ N/A N/A 170,046 356,453 Utah 20,866,240 26,279,745 32,487,116 3,711,160 600,244 107,480 2,099,784 2,409,929 Total 62,879,119 87,916,145 105,155,856 6,803,527 3,684,550 644,931 7,150,025 10,177,452

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH LESS THAN 30 UNITS(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH LESS THAN 30 UNITS (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH LESS THAN 30 UNITS



EXHIBIT H: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ 30 ‐ 59 UNITSPROJECTS WITH 30 ‐ 59 UNITS100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.


Average Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 15 722 1,520 48 101 2.1 Colorado 12 566 998 47 83 1.8 Nevada 2 88 122 44 61 1.4 New Mexico 9 385 922 43 102 2.4 Texas 18 772 1,683 43 94 2.2 Utah 14 647 1,346 46 96 2.1 Total 70 3,180 6,591 45 94 2.1







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 77,612,094 113,080,482 140,883,107 8,016,512 3,696,095 1,343,250 8,297,316 15,720,328 Colorado 64,201,363 94,951,765 118,739,705 6,854,487 4,513,548 731,183 9,363,792 11,664,697 Nevada 14,795,677 14,795,677 17,161,259 524,000 300,000 229,000 950,116 2,002,283 New Mexico 51,131,827 72,558,306 80,201,120 3,088,598 2,543,588 475,886 6,489,839 9,216,668 Texas 64,120,394 96,800,455 112,584,320 4,304,585 N/A N/A 8,644,404 15,835,243 Utah 65,646,150 82,755,199 100,487,462 7,736,677 1,818,072 543,402 8,061,970 6,161,565 Total 337,507,505 474,941,884 570,056,973 30,524,859 12,871,303 3,322,721 41,807,437 60,600,784







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 73,228,907 106,694,198 132,926,654 7,563,775 3,487,356 1,267,389 7,828,720 14,832,514 Colorado 66,922,193 98,975,785 123,771,849 7,144,978 4,704,830 762,170 9,760,626 12,159,042 Nevada 15,559,711 15,559,711 18,047,450 551,059 315,492 240,825 999,179 2,105,679 New Mexico 40,166,011 56,997,333 63,001,056 2,426,212 1,998,086 373,827 5,098,017 7,240,046 Texas 63,576,852 95,979,887 111,629,954 4,268,095 N/A N/A 8,571,126 15,701,009 Utah 61,826,332 77,939,840 94,640,298 7,286,495 1,712,282 511,783 7,592,860 5,803,036 Total 321,280,006 452,146,754 544,017,260 29,240,614 12,218,046 3,155,994 39,850,529 57,841,326

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 30‐59 UNITS

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 30‐59 UNITS(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 30‐59 UNITS (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)



EXHIBIT I: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ 60 OR MORE UNITSPROJECTS WITH 60 OR MORE UNITS100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.


Average Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 13 888 1,527 68 117 1.7 Colorado 14 1,217 1,596 87 114 1.3 Nevada 4 320 441 80 110 1.4 New Mexico 9 544 1,218 60 135 2.2 Texas 93 10,436 19,595 112 211 1.9 Utah 13 1,150 2,061 88 159 1.8 Total 146 14,555 26,438 100 181 1.8







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 84,014,280 120,183,468 151,002,212 9,205,171 3,561,930 1,365,250 9,780,329 16,959,648 Colorado 126,926,654 173,000,121 216,992,463 15,627,279 6,487,313 1,267,715 15,014,056 18,702,977 Nevada 40,987,388 40,987,388 46,768,198 1,405,400 1,153,700 781,500 2,571,971 4,616,520 New Mexico 51,967,048 78,946,742 88,502,115 2,407,269 2,575,421 910,537 6,675,104 10,299,000 Texas 750,638,672 1,078,581,937 1,285,523,113 75,146,725 N/A N/A 98,029,603 143,622,008 Utah 106,265,757 138,068,230 168,449,388 14,444,074 2,915,240 578,733 10,533,829 12,073,871 Total 1,160,799,799 1,629,767,886 1,957,237,489 118,235,918 16,693,604 4,903,735 142,604,892 206,274,024







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 79,269,526 113,396,039 142,474,277 8,685,303 3,360,768 1,288,147 9,227,980 16,001,842 Colorado 132,305,758 180,331,801 226,188,522 16,289,557 6,762,243 1,321,440 15,650,346 19,495,602 Nevada 43,103,937 43,103,937 49,183,262 1,477,973 1,213,276 821,856 2,704,785 4,854,913 New Mexico 40,822,110 62,015,694 69,521,806 1,891,002 2,023,092 715,262 5,243,550 8,090,260 Texas 744,275,582 1,069,438,904 1,274,625,860 74,509,714 N/A N/A 97,198,616 142,404,538 Utah 100,082,365 130,034,316 158,647,656 13,603,602 2,745,608 545,058 9,920,887 11,371,317 Total 1,139,859,277 1,598,320,691 1,920,641,383 116,457,152 16,104,987 4,691,763 139,946,163 202,218,472

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 60 OR MORE UNITS (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)


100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 60 OR MORE UNITS

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 60 OR MORE UNITS



EXHIBIT J: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ DETACHED UNITSDETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.** Project data on unit type structure for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in CO and UT was unavailable.*** Project data for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in NV with detached units was unavailable.


Average Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 2 125 226 63 113 1.8 Colorado ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANevada *** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 9 285 650 32 72 2.3 Texas 6 347 1,047 58 175 3.0 Utah ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 17 757 1,923 45 113 2.5







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 13,262,006 17,597,765 20,233,551 816,292 512,164 209,144 1,423,501 2,186,280 Colorado ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANevada *** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 39,535,423 57,136,054 61,655,300 1,123,742 1,975,881 358,945 5,186,402 7,542,274 Texas 34,584,609 48,681,673 55,261,800 1,629,147 N/A N/A 4,508,366 6,794,905 Utah ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 87,382,038 123,415,492 137,150,651 3,569,181 2,488,045 568,089 11,118,269 16,523,459







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 12,513,026 16,603,922 19,090,850 770,191 483,239 197,333 1,343,108 2,062,809 Colorado ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANevada *** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANew Mexico 31,056,591 44,882,562 48,432,603 882,742 1,552,130 281,965 4,074,118 5,924,746 Texas 34,291,439 48,269,003 54,793,351 1,615,337 N/A N/A 4,470,149 6,737,305 Utah ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 77,861,056 109,755,487 122,316,804 3,268,270 2,035,369 479,298 9,887,375 14,724,859

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ DETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ DETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ DETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)



EXHIBIT K: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ NONDETACHED UNITSNONDETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.** Project data on unit type structure for 100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in CO and UT was unavailable.


Average Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 27 1,513 2,905 56 108 1.9 Colorado N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANevada 6 408 563 68 94 1.4 New Mexico 15 756 1,763 50 118 2.3 Texas 60 5,790 11,206 97 187 1.9 Utah N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 108 8,467 16,437 78 152 1.9







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 151,730,206 221,285,704 279,816,311 17,467,441 6,983,984 2,651,646 17,177,523 31,460,158 Colorado ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANevada 55,783,065 55,783,065 63,929,457 1,929,400 1,453,700 1,010,500 3,522,087 6,618,803 New Mexico 75,542,382 112,765,322 127,121,971 4,496,740 3,813,128 1,185,346 9,660,290 14,396,101 Texas 429,803,016 621,669,080 737,345,780 44,410,488 N/A N/A 55,757,742 83,653,135 Utah ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 712,858,669 1,011,503,171 1,208,213,519 68,304,069 12,250,812 4,847,492 86,117,642 136,128,197







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 143,161,157 208,788,469 264,013,527 16,480,957 6,589,560 2,501,893 16,207,413 29,683,428 Colorado ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ANevada 58,663,648 58,663,648 67,230,712 2,029,032 1,528,768 1,062,681 3,703,964 6,960,592 New Mexico 59,341,439 88,581,486 99,859,184 3,532,362 2,995,358 931,135 7,588,528 11,308,690 Texas 426,159,618 616,399,252 731,095,372 44,034,025 N/A N/A 55,285,089 82,944,016 Utah ** N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ATotal 687,325,862 972,432,855 1,162,198,795 66,076,376 11,113,686 4,495,709 82,784,994 130,896,724

(Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ NONDETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ NONDETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ NONDETACHED UNIT TYPE STRUCTURE



EXHIBIT L: Comparable State Aggregate LIHTC Project Data (AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, UT) ‐‐ 3 OR LESS STORIESPROJECTS WITH 3 OR LESS STORIES100% LIHTC new construction 9% projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT, inclusive of projects that applied for and/or received allocations from 2006 ‐ 2013.Note: Architect and engineering fee details were not broken out in the data gathered for TX projects.* Studios/SROs have been counted as 0 bedrooms.


Average Total Units



Per Project Per Project Per ProjectArizona 25 1,357 2,687 54 107 2.0 Colorado 17 778 1,306 46 77 1.7 Nevada 6 408 563 68 94 1.4 New Mexico 24 1,041 2,413 43 101 2.3 Texas 45 4,147 8,565 92 190 2.1 Utah 45 1,539 3,155 34 70 2.1 Total 162 9,270 18,689 57 115 2.0







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 135,740,759 196,449,795 248,869,916 16,912,372 5,808,574 2,451,835 15,517,649 27,740,400 Colorado 86,949,046 126,482,818 153,627,149 5,711,034 6,780,722 1,185,131 10,986,438 15,214,850 Nevada 55,783,065 55,783,065 63,929,457 1,929,400 1,453,700 1,010,500 3,522,087 6,618,803 New Mexico 115,077,805 169,901,376 188,777,271 5,620,482 5,789,009 1,544,291 14,846,692 21,938,375 Texas 309,205,288 446,055,796 530,197,299 31,945,285 N/A N/A 40,739,540 60,843,674 Utah 154,237,718 194,166,317 234,587,438 19,084,626 4,048,953 1,116,601 17,982,566 14,974,025 Total 856,993,681 1,188,839,167 1,419,988,530 81,203,199 23,880,958 7,308,358 103,594,972 147,330,127







Total Developer Fee

Arizona 128,074,723 185,355,182 234,814,847 15,957,236 5,480,531 2,313,367 14,641,281 26,173,745 Colorado 90,633,914 131,843,112 160,137,810 5,953,065 7,068,086 1,235,356 11,452,039 15,859,650 Nevada 58,663,648 58,663,648 67,230,712 2,029,032 1,528,768 1,062,681 3,703,964 6,960,592 New Mexico 90,398,030 133,464,048 148,291,787 4,415,104 4,547,489 1,213,100 11,662,646 17,233,435 Texas 306,584,185 442,274,625 525,702,869 31,674,488 N/A N/A 40,394,195 60,327,908 Utah 145,262,934 182,868,168 220,937,265 17,974,130 3,813,353 1,051,628 16,936,197 14,102,716 Total 819,617,434 1,134,468,783 1,357,115,290 78,003,056 22,438,227 6,876,132 98,790,322 140,658,046

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 3 OR LESS STORIES

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 3 OR LESS STORIES(Unadjusted for Bedroom and Project Size)

100% LIHTC New Construction 9% Projects in AZ, CO, NV, NM, TX, and UT (2006 ‐ 2013) ‐‐ PROJECTS WITH 3 OR LESS STORIES (Post Bedroom and Project Size Adjustments)



GENERALNM Distribution Chart 1A. 9% credits awarded each year in New Mexico from 2001 to 2014.

Year 9% Credits2001 2,458,435 2002 1,649,691 2003 5,998,887 2004 3,146,251 2005 3,277,935 2006 4,350,752 2007 4,939,080 2008 5,040,935 2009 4,971,196 2010 3,678,810 2011 4,405,179 2012 5,196,829 2013 4,033,235 2014 6,760,314

Grand Total 59,907,529

NM Distribution Chart 1B. Total LIHTC units funded from 2001 to 2014.

YearTotal LIHTC

Units2001 336 2002 279 2003 1,034 2004 396 2005 330 2006 340 2007 377 2008 363 2009 310 2010 249 2011 356 2012 361 2013 277 2014 418

Grand Total 5,426

‐

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual 9% Credits Allocated in NM2001 ‐ 2014

‐

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Total LIHTC Units Funded in NM2001 ‐ 2014

APPENDIX E - New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Charts


NM Distribution Chart 1C. Number of projects awarded 9% credits in NM from 2001 to 2014.

YearProjects Awarded

2001 8 2002 7 2003 15 2004 6 2005 6 2006 10 2007 7 2008 6 2009 6 2010 5 2011 7 2012 7 2013 4 2014 9

Grand Total 103

‐

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Projects Awarded 9% Credits in NM2001 ‐ 2014



NM Distribution Chart 1D. Average 9% credits awarded per LIHTC unit from 2001 to 2014.

YearSum of 9%

Credits AwardedSum of LIHTC

Units

Average 9% Credit Awarded per LIHTC Unit

2001 2,458,435 336 7,317 2002 1,649,691 279 5,913 2003 5,998,887 1,034 5,802 2004 3,146,251 396 7,945 2005 3,277,935 330 9,933 2006 4,350,752 340 12,796 2007 4,939,080 377 13,101 2008 5,040,935 363 13,887 2009 4,971,196 310 16,036 2010 3,678,810 249 14,774 2011 4,405,179 356 12,374 2012 5,196,829 361 14,396 2013 4,033,235 277 14,560 2014 6,760,314 418 16,173

Average 59,907,529 5,426 11,786

‐

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Average 9% Credits Awarded per LIHTC Unit in NM 2001 ‐ 2014



CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTSNM Distribution Chart 2A. Distribution of 9% credits awarded to each congressional district for the years 2001 to 2014.

Year District 1 District 2 District 3 Grand Total2001 ‐ 712,269 1,746,166 2,458,435 2002 ‐ 983,295 666,396 1,649,691 2003 ‐ 3,096,382 2,902,505 5,998,887 2004 1,373,054 1,773,197 ‐ 3,146,251 2005 ‐ 1,754,906 1,523,029 3,277,935 2006 ‐ 1,197,493 3,153,259 4,350,752 2007 507,176 1,721,907 2,709,997 4,939,080 2008 2,881,663 1,330,866 828,406 5,040,935 2009 1,140,845 2,009,248 1,821,103 4,971,196 2010 2,136,240 487,493 1,055,077 3,678,810 2011 ‐ 1,838,126 2,567,053 4,405,179 2012 2,858,687 896,512 1,441,630 5,196,829 2013 1,150,000 766,994 2,116,241 4,033,235 2014 3,085,589 3,234,417 440,308 6,760,314

Grand Total 15,133,254 21,803,105 22,971,170 59,907,529

‐

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

3,000,000

3,500,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual 9% Credits Allocated in Each NM Congressional District2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 2B. Number of projects awarded 9% credits in each congressional district for the years 2001 to 2014.

Year Awarded District 1 District 2 District 3 Grand Total2001 0 3 5 82002 0 4 3 72003 0 9 6 152004 2 4 0 62005 0 3 3 62006 0 3 7 102007 1 3 3 72008 3 2 1 62009 1 3 2 62010 3 1 1 52011 0 3 4 72012 3 1 3 72013 1 1 2 42014 3 5 1 9

Grand Total 17 45 41 103

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Projects Awarded 9% Credits in Each NM Congressional District2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 2C. LIHTC units funded in each congressional district for the years 2001 to 2014.

Year District 1 District 2 District 3 Grand Total2001 ‐ 148 188 336 2002 ‐ 140 139 279 2003 ‐ 567 467 1,034 2004 198 198 ‐ 396 2005 ‐ 191 139 330 2006 ‐ 124 216 340 2007 48 154 175 377 2008 159 144 60 363 2009 60 139 111 310 2010 130 60 59 249 2011 ‐ 131 225 356 2012 165 87 109 361 2013 83 75 119 277 2014 163 212 43 418

Grand Total 1,006 2,370 2,050 5,426

‐

100

200

300

400

500

600

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

LIHTC Units Funded in Each NM Congressional District2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 2D. Average LIHTC units per project in each congressional district from 2001 to 2014.

Year District 1 District 2 District 3 Grand Total2001 ‐ 49 38 42 2002 ‐ 35 46 40 2003 ‐ 63 78 69 2004 99 50 ‐ 66 2005 ‐ 64 46 55 2006 ‐ 41 31 34 2007 48 51 58 54 2008 53 72 60 61 2009 60 46 56 52 2010 43 60 59 50 2011 ‐ 44 56 51 2012 55 87 36 52 2013 83 75 60 69 2014 54 42 43 46

Average 59 53 50 53

‐

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Average LIHTC Units Funded per Project in Each NM Congressional District 2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 2E. Average 9% credit awarded per LIHTC unit in each congressional district for the years 2001 to 2014.

Year District 1 District 2 District 3 Average2001 ‐ 4,813 9,288 7,317 2002 ‐ 7,024 4,794 5,913 2003 ‐ 5,461 6,215 5,802 2004 6,935 8,956 ‐ 7,945 2005 ‐ 9,188 10,957 9,933 2006 ‐ 9,657 14,598 12,796 2007 10,566 11,181 15,486 13,101 2008 18,124 9,242 13,807 13,887 2009 19,014 14,455 16,406 16,036 2010 16,433 8,125 17,883 14,774 2011 ‐ 14,031 11,409 12,374 2012 17,325 10,305 13,226 14,396 2013 13,855 10,227 17,784 14,560 2014 18,930 15,257 10,240 16,173

Average 15,043 9,200 11,205 11,041

‐

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Average 9% Credits Awarded per LIHTC Unit in Each NM Congressional District2001 ‐ 2014

District 1 District 2 District 3 Average



NM Distribution Chart 2F. Total 9% credits awarded to each congressional district from 2001 to 2014.

Congressional District

Sum of 9% Credits Awarded

1 15,133,254 2 21,803,105 3 22,971,170


NM Distribution Chart 2G. Total projects awarded 9% credits in each congressional district from 2001 to 2014.


Projects Awarded

1 17 2 45 3 41

Grand Total 103

15,133,254

21,803,105 22,971,170

‐

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

1 2 3Congressional District

Total 9% Credits Allocated to Each NM Congressional District2001 ‐ 2014

17

45 41

‐

10

20

30

40

50


Total Projects Awarded 9% Credits in Each NM Congressional District

2001 ‐ 2014



NM Distribution Chart 2H. Total LIHTC units funded in each congressional district from 2001 to 2014.


Total LIHTC Units

1 1,006 2 2,370 3 2,050

Grand Total 5,426

District 2 and 3 received similar amounts of 9% credits from 2001 to 2014 (see NM Distribution Chart 1B).However, amount of total LIHTC units produced from 2001 to 2014 in District 2 is over 25% more than in District 3.

NM Distribution Chart 2I. Average 9% credits awarded per LIHTC unit in each congressional district from 2001 to 2014.


Average 9% Credit per LIHTC Unit

1 15,043 2 9,200 3 11,205

Average 11,041

Least average amount of credits per LIHTC unit but most LIHTC units funded in District 2.

15,043

9,200 11,205

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000


Average 9% Credit per LIHTC Unit in Each NM Congressional District

2001 ‐ 2014

1,006

2,370 2,050

‐

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500


Total LIHTC Units Funded in Each NM Congressional District2001 ‐ 2014



RURAL v. URBANNM Distribution Chart 3A. Allocation of 9% credits to projects in rural vs. urban areas for the years 2001 to 2014.

Year Rural Urban Grand Total2001 1,144,068 1,314,367 2,458,435 2002 591,836 1,057,855 1,649,691 2003 1,653,181 4,345,706 5,998,887 2004 1,235,400 1,910,851 3,146,251 2005 1,960,182 1,317,753 3,277,935 2006 3,374,858 975,894 4,350,752 2007 2,813,485 2,125,595 4,939,080 2008 ‐ 5,040,935 5,040,935 2009 1,140,553 3,830,643 4,971,196 2010 1,542,570 2,136,240 3,678,810 2011 1,093,247 3,311,932 4,405,179 2012 2,338,142 2,858,687 5,196,829 2013 2,883,235 1,150,000 4,033,235 2014 3,235,075 3,525,239 6,760,314

Grand Total 25,005,832 34,901,697 59,907,529

‐

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual 9% Credits Allocated to Rural vs. Urban Projects in NM2001 ‐ 2014

Rural Urban



NM Distribution Chart 3B. Number of projects awarded 9% credits in rural vs. urban areas in NM from 2001 ‐ 2014.

Year Rural Urban Grand Total2001 4 4 8 2002 3 4 7 2003 6 9 15 2004 3 3 6 2005 3 3 6 2006 5 5 10 2007 4 3 7 2008 ‐ 6 6 2009 1 5 6 2010 2 3 5 2011 2 5 7 2012 4 3 7 2013 3 1 4 2014 5 4 9

Grand Total 45 58 103

‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Projects Awarded 9% Credits Rural vs. Urban Areas of NM2001 ‐ 2014

Rural Urban



NM Distribution Chart 3C. LIHTC units funded in rural vs. urban areas in NM from 2001 ‐ 2014.

Year Rural Urban Grand Total2001 128 208 336 2002 139 140 279 2003 287 747 1,034 2004 139 257 396 2005 179 151 330 2006 231 109 340 2007 197 180 377 2008 ‐ 363 363 2009 60 250 310 2010 119 130 249 2011 71 285 356 2012 196 165 361 2013 194 83 277 2014 231 187 418

Grand Total 2,171 3,255 5,426

‐

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

LIHTC Units Funded in Rural vs. Urban Areas in NM2001 ‐ 2014

Rural Urban



NM Distribution Chart 3D. Average LIHTC units per project in rural and urban projects from 2001 to 2014.

Year Rural Urban Grand Total2001 32 52 42 2002 46 35 40 2003 48 83 69 2004 46 86 66 2005 60 50 55 2006 46 22 34 2007 49 60 54 2008 ‐ 61 61 2009 60 50 52 2010 60 43 50 2011 36 57 51 2012 49 55 52 2013 65 83 69 2014 46 47 46

Average 48 56 53

‐

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Average LIHTC Units Funded per Project in Rural vs. Urban Areas in NM2001 ‐ 2014

Rural Urban



NM Distribution Chart 3E. Average 9% credit awarded per LIHTC unit in rural and urban projects from 2001 to 2014.

Year Rural Urban Grand Total2001 8,938 6,319 7,317 2002 4,258 7,556 5,913 2003 5,760 5,818 5,802 2004 8,888 7,435 7,945 2005 10,951 8,727 9,933 2006 14,610 8,953 12,796 2007 14,282 11,809 13,101 2008 ‐ 13,887 13,887 2009 19,009 15,323 16,036 2010 12,963 16,433 14,774 2011 15,398 11,621 12,374 2012 11,929 17,325 14,396 2013 14,862 13,855 14,560 2014 14,005 18,852 16,173

Average 11,518 10,722 11,041

‐

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Average 9% Credits Awarded per LIHTC Unit in Rural vs. Urban Areas in NM2001 ‐ 2014

Rural Urban



NM Distribution Chart 3F. Total 9% credits awarded to rural and urban projects from 2001 to 2014.

Rural/UrbanSum of 9% Credits

Awarded

Rural 25,005,832 Urban 34,901,697


NM Distribution Chart 3G. Total projects awarded 9% credits in rural vs. urban areas from 2001 to 2014.

Rural/Urban Projects Awarded

Rural 45 Urban 58

Grand Total 103

25,005,832

34,901,697

‐ 5,000,000

10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 40,000,000

Rural Urban

Total 9% Credits Allocated to Rural and Urban Projects in NM

2001 ‐ 2014

45

58

‐

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Rural Urban

Total Projects Awarded 9% Credits in Rural vs. Urban Areas in NM

2001 ‐ 2014



NM Distribution Chart 3H. Total LIHTC units funded in rural and urban projects from 2001 to 2014.

Rural/Urban Total LIHTC UnitsRural 2,171 Urban 3,255

Grand Total 5,426

NM Distribution Chart 3I. Average 9% credits awarded per LIHTC unit for rural and urban projects from 2001 to 2014.

Rural/UrbanAverage 9% Credit per LIHTC Unit

Rural 11,518 Urban 10,722 Average 11,041

Less rural projects and LIHTC units were produced, however, the average 9% credit per unit is higher than for urban projects.

2,171

3,255

‐

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

Rural Urban

Total LIHTC Units Funded in Rural vs. Urban Areas in NM

2001 ‐ 2014

11,518

10,722

10,200

10,400

10,600

10,800

11,000

11,200

11,400

11,600

Rural Urban

Average 9% Credit per LIHTC Unit in Rural vs. Urban Areas in NM

2001 ‐ 2014



NONPROFIT PARTICIPATIONNM Distribution Chart 4A. Distribution of 9% credits allocated to projects with and without nonprofit participation from 2001 to 2014.

YearNo Nonprofit Participation

Nonprofit GP, For‐Profit Developer

Nonprofit GP, Nonprofit Developer

Grand Total

2001 1,209,545 67,262 1,181,628 2,458,435 2002 567,143 877,354 205,194 1,649,691 2003 5,064,277 834,437 100,173 5,998,887 2004 769,937 1,070,650 1,305,664 3,146,251 2005 ‐ 3,077,739 200,196 3,277,935 2006 930,190 1,197,493 2,223,069 4,350,752 2007 ‐ 1,673,288 3,265,792 4,939,080 2008 ‐ 984,958 4,055,977 5,040,935 2009 ‐ 2,867,280 2,103,916 4,971,196 2010 ‐ 1,055,077 2,623,733 3,678,810 2011 ‐ 1,368,223 3,036,956 4,405,179 2012 ‐ 2,934,333 2,262,496 5,196,829 2013 ‐ 1,150,000 2,883,235 4,033,235 2014 ‐ 1,309,465 5,450,849 6,760,314

Grand Total 8,541,092 20,467,559 30,898,878 59,907,529

‐

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual 9% Credits Allocated to Projects in NMWith and Without Nonprofit Participation

2001 ‐ 2014

No Nonprofit Participation Nonprofit GP, For‐Profit Developer Nonprofit GP, Nonprofit Developer



NM Distribution Chart 4B. Number of projects with and without nonprofit participation awarded 9% credits from 2001 to 2014.




Grand Total

2001 3 1 4 8 2002 1 5 1 7 2003 9 5 1 15 2004 1 2 3 6 2005 ‐ 5 1 6 2006 2 3 5 10 2007 ‐ 2 5 7 2008 ‐ 1 5 6 2009 ‐ 4 2 6 2010 ‐ 1 4 5 2011 ‐ 2 5 7 2012 ‐ 4 3 7 2013 ‐ 1 3 4 2014 ‐ 2 7 9


‐ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Projects Awarded 9% Credits in NMWith and Without Nonprofit Participation

2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 4C. Number of LIHTC units funded in projects with and without nonprofit participation from 2001 to 2014.




Grand Total

2001 145 28 163 336 2002 60 169 50 279 2003 732 278 24 1,034 2004 139 119 138 396 2005 ‐ 310 20 330 2006 77 124 139 340 2007 ‐ 127 250 377 2008 ‐ 84 279 363 2009 ‐ 199 111 310 2010 ‐ 59 190 249 2011 ‐ 110 246 356 2012 ‐ 209 152 361 2013 ‐ 60 217 277 2014 ‐ 103 315 418

Grand Total 1,153 1,979 2,294 5,426

‐

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

LIHTC Units Funded in Projects in NMWith and Without Nonprofit Participation

2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 4D. Average LIHTC units per project in projects with and without nonprofit participation from 2001 to 2014.




Grand Total

2001 48 28 41 42 2002 60 34 50 40 2003 81 56 24 69 2004 139 60 46 66 2005 ‐ 62 20 55 2006 39 41 28 34 2007 ‐ 64 50 54 2008 ‐ 84 56 61 2009 ‐ 50 56 52 2010 ‐ 59 48 50 2011 ‐ 55 49 51 2012 ‐ 52 51 52 2013 ‐ 60 72 69 2014 ‐ 52 45 46

Average 72 52 47 53

‐ 20 40 60 80

100 120 140 160

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Average LIHTC Units Funded per Project in NMWith and Without Nonprofit Participation

2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 4E. Average 9% credit awarded per LIHTC unit to projects with and without nonprofit participation from 2001 to 2014.




Grand Total

2001 8,342 2,402 7,249 7,317 2002 9,452 5,191 4,104 5,913 2003 6,918 3,002 4,174 5,802 2004 5,539 8,997 9,461 7,945 2005 ‐ 9,928 10,010 9,933 2006 12,080 9,657 15,993 12,796 2007 ‐ 13,175 13,063 13,101 2008 ‐ 11,726 14,538 13,887 2009 ‐ 14,408 18,954 16,036 2010 ‐ 17,883 13,809 14,774 2011 ‐ 12,438 12,345 12,374 2012 ‐ 14,040 14,885 14,396 2013 ‐ 19,167 13,287 14,560 2014 ‐ 12,713 17,304 16,173

Average 7,408 10,342 13,469 11,041

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Average 9% Credits Awarded per LIHTC Unit in NM ProjectsWith and Without Nonprofit Participation

2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 4F. Total 9% credits awarded to projects with and without nonprofit participation from 2001 to 2014.

Nonprofit ParticipationSum of 9% Credits Awarded

No Nonprofit Participation 8,541,092 Nonprofit GP, For‐Profit Developer 20,467,559Nonprofit GP, Nonprofit Developer 30,898,878Grand Total 59,907,529

NM Distribution Chart 4G. Total projects with and without nonprofit participation awarded 9% credits from 2001 to 2014.

Nonprofit ParticipationProjects Awarded

No Nonprofit Participation 16 Nonprofit GP, For‐Profit Developer 38 Nonprofit GP, Nonprofit Developer 49 Grand Total 103

8,541,092

20,467,559

30,898,878

‐

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

No Nonprofit Participation Nonprofit GP, For‐ProfitDeveloper

Nonprofit GP, NonprofitDeveloper

Total 9% Credits Allocated to Projects in NMWith and Without Nonprofit Participation

2001 ‐ 2014

16

38

49

‐

10

20

30

40

50

60



Total Projects Awarded 9% Credits in NMWith and Without Nonprofit Participation

2001 ‐ 2014



NM Distribution Chart 4H. Total LIHTC units funded in projects with and without nonprofit participation from 2001 to 2014.

Nonprofit ParticipationSum of LIHTC

UnitsNo Nonprofit Participation 1,153 Nonprofit GP, For‐Profit Developer 1,979 Nonprofit GP, Nonprofit Developer 2,294 Grand Total 5,426

NM Distribution Chart 4I. Average 9% credits awarded per LIHTC unit in projects with and without nonprofit participation from 2001 to 2014.

Nonprofit ParticipationAverage 9% Credit per LIHTC Unit

No Nonprofit Participation 7,408 Nonprofit GP, For‐Profit Developer 10,342 Nonprofit GP, Nonprofit Developer 13,469 Average 11,041

1,153

1,979 2,294

‐

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500



Total LIHTC Units Funded in Projects in NMWith and Without Nonprofit Participation

2001 ‐ 2014

7,408

10,342

13,469

‐

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000



Average 9% Credit per LIHTC Unit in Projects in NMWith and Without Nonprofit Participation

2001 ‐ 2014



CONSTRUCTION TYPENM Distribution Chart 5A. Distribution of 9% credits allocated to projects by construction type from 2001 to 2014.

Year Acq/RehabNew

Construction

Combined New Construction & Acq/Rehab

Grand Total

2001 ‐ 2,458,435 ‐ 2,458,435 2002 311,136 1,338,555 ‐ 1,649,691 2003 ‐ 5,998,887 ‐ 5,998,887 2004 1,064,702 2,081,549 ‐ 3,146,251 2005 ‐ 2,640,586 637,349 3,277,935 2006 357,067 3,993,685 ‐ 4,350,752 2007 328,473 4,610,607 ‐ 4,939,080 2008 ‐ 3,710,069 1,330,866 5,040,935 2009 868,695 4,102,501 ‐ 4,971,196 2010 1,886,690 1,792,120 ‐ 3,678,810 2011 2,133,211 1,232,135 1,039,833 4,405,179 2012 1,706,281 2,220,000 1,270,548 5,196,829 2013 1,733,235 ‐ 2,300,000 4,033,235 2014 1,406,418 5,353,896 ‐ 6,760,314

Grand Total 11,795,908 41,533,025 6,578,596 59,907,529

‐

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual 9% Credits Allocated to Projects in NM by Construction Type

2001 ‐ 2014

Acq/Rehab New Construction Combined New Construction & Acq/Rehab



NM Distribution Chart 5B. Number of projects in NM awarded 9% credits by construction type from 2001 to 2014.

Year Acq/RehabNew

Construction


Grand Total

2001 ‐ 8 ‐ 8 2002 2 5 ‐ 7 2003 ‐ 15 ‐ 15 2004 2 4 ‐ 6 2005 ‐ 5 1 6 2006 1 9 ‐ 10 2007 1 6 ‐ 7 2008 ‐ 4 2 6 2009 2 4 ‐ 6 2010 3 2 ‐ 5 2011 3 3 1 7 2012 3 2 2 7 2013 2 ‐ 2 4 2014 3 6 ‐ 9


‐

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Projects Awarded 9% Credits in NMby Construction Type

2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 5C. Number of LIHTC units funded in NM by construction type from 2001 to 2014.

Year Acq/RehabNew

Construction


Grand Total

2001 ‐ 336 ‐ 336 2002 94 185 ‐ 279 2003 ‐ 1,034 ‐ 1,034 2004 178 218 ‐ 396 2005 ‐ 270 60 330 2006 25 315 ‐ 340 2007 52 325 ‐ 377 2008 ‐ 219 144 363 2009 79 231 ‐ 310 2010 149 100 ‐ 249 2011 193 103 60 356 2012 166 105 90 361 2013 134 ‐ 143 277 2014 111 307 ‐ 418

Grand Total 1,181 3,748 497 5,426

‐

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

LIHTC Units Funded in Projects in NMby Construction Type

2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 5D. Average LIHTC units per project by construction type from 2001 to 2014.

Year Acq/RehabNew

Construction


Grand Total

2001 ‐ 48 ‐ 48 2002 47 46 ‐ 46 2003 ‐ 77 ‐ 77 2004 90 55 ‐ 67 2005 ‐ 59 61 60 2006 25 38 ‐ 37 2007 52 54 ‐ 54 2008 ‐ 61 74 65 2009 41 64 ‐ 56 2010 59 61 ‐ 60 2011 68 37 60 54 2012 56 70 51 58 2013 68 ‐ 79 74 2014 37 57 ‐ 50

Average 56 57 66 57

‐

20

40

60

80

100

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Average LIHTC Units Funded per Project in NMby Construction Type

2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 5E. Average 9% credits awarded per LIHTC unit by construction type from 2001 to 2014.

Year Acq/RehabNew

Construction


Grand Total

2001 ‐ 7,317 ‐ 7,317 2002 3,310 7,235 ‐ 5,913 2003 ‐ 5,802 ‐ 5,802 2004 5,981 9,548 ‐ 7,945 2005 ‐ 9,780 10,622 9,933 2006 14,283 12,678 ‐ 12,796 2007 6,317 14,186 ‐ 13,101 2008 ‐ 16,941 9,242 13,887 2009 10,996 17,760 ‐ 16,036 2010 12,662 17,921 ‐ 14,774 2011 11,053 11,962 17,331 12,374 2012 10,279 21,143 14,117 14,396 2013 12,935 ‐ 16,084 14,560 2014 12,670 17,439 ‐ 16,173

Average 9,988 11,081 13,237 11,041

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Average 9% Credit Awarded per LIHTC Unit in NM Projectsby Construction Type

2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 5F. Total 9% credits awarded to projects by construction type from 2001 to 2014.

Construction Type

Sum of 9% Credits Awarded

Acq/Rehab 11,795,908 New Construction 41,533,025 Combined New Con 6,578,596 Grand Total 59,907,529

NM Distribution Chart 5G. Total projects awarded 9% credits by construction type from 2001 to 2014.

Construction Type

Projects Awarded

Acq/Rehab 22 New Construction 73 Combined New Con 8 Grand Total 103

11,795,908

41,533,025

6,578,596

‐ 5,000,000

10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 40,000,000 45,000,000

Acq/Rehab New Construction Combined New Construction& Acq/Rehab

Total 9% Credits Allocated to Projects in NMby Construction Type

2001 ‐ 2014

22

73

8

‐

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Acq/Rehab New Construction Combined New Construction &Acq/Rehab

Total Projects Awarded 9% Credits in NMby Construction Type

2001 ‐ 2014



NM Distribution Chart 5H. Total LIHTC units funded by construction type from 2001 to 2014.

Construction Type

Sum of LIHTC Units

Acq/Rehab 1,181 New Construction 3,748 Combined New Con 497 Grand Total 5,426

NM Distribution Chart 5I. Average 9% credits awarded per LIHTC unit by construction type from 2001 to 2014.

Construction Type

Average 9% Credit Awarded per LIHTC

Unit Acq/Rehab 9,988 New Construction 11,081 Combined New Con 13,237 Average 11,041

Average 9% credit per LIHTC unit highest for combined new const/acq/rehab, likely due to small sample of only 8 such projects which included a few high cost projects in high cost areas.

1,181

3,748

497

‐ 500

1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000


Total LIHTC Units Funded in NMby Construction Type

2001 ‐ 2014

9,988 11,081

13,237

‐ 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000

10,000 12,000 14,000


Average 9% Credit per LIHTC Unit in NMby Construction Type

2001 ‐ 2014



HOUSING TYPENM Distribution Chart 6A. Distribution of 9% credits allocated to projects by housing type from 2001 to 2014.

Year Family Senior Special Needs None Grand Total

2001 ‐ 1,633,796 ‐ 824,639 2,458,435 2002 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,649,691 1,649,691 2003 795,876 ‐ 334,023 4,868,988 5,998,887 2004 1,240,344 532,853 769,937 603,117 3,146,251 2005 1,781,715 ‐ 1,296,024 200,196 3,277,935 2006 1,682,520 1,174,668 1,493,564 ‐ 4,350,752 2007 2,430,143 1,258,880 507,176 742,881 4,939,080 2008 1,330,866 947,376 1,777,735 984,958 5,040,935 2009 2,972,319 ‐ 1,998,877 ‐ 4,971,196 2010 2,078,468 ‐ 1,600,342 ‐ 3,678,810 2011 1,131,857 603,542 2,669,780 ‐ 4,405,179 2012 2,851,861 ‐ 2,344,968 ‐ 5,196,829 2013 2,300,000 ‐ 1,733,235 ‐ 4,033,235 2014 1,454,019 1,072,150 4,234,145 ‐ 6,760,314

Grand Total 22,049,988 7,223,265 20,759,806 9,874,470 59,907,529

‐

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual 9% Credits Allocated to Projects in NMby Housing Type2001 ‐ 2014

Family Senior Special Needs None



NM Distribution Chart 6B. Number of projects awarded 9% credits by housing type from 2001 to 2014.


2001 ‐ 4 ‐ 4 8 2002 ‐ ‐ ‐ 7 7 2003 2 ‐ 2 11 15 2004 3 1 1 1 6 2005 3 ‐ 2 1 6 2006 5 2 3 ‐ 10 2007 3 2 1 1 7 2008 2 1 2 1 6 2009 4 ‐ 2 ‐ 6 2010 2 ‐ 3 ‐ 5 2011 2 1 4 ‐ 7 2012 3 ‐ 4 ‐ 7 2013 2 ‐ 2 ‐ 4 2014 2 1 6 ‐ 9

Grand Total 33 12 32 26 103

‐

2

4

6

8

10

12

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Projects Awarded 9% Credits in NMby Housing Type2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 6C. Number of LIHTC units funded by housing type from 2001 to 2014.


2001 ‐ 232 ‐ 104 336 2002 ‐ ‐ ‐ 279 279 2003 120 ‐ 103 811 1,034 2004 138 60 139 59 396 2005 190 ‐ 120 20 330 2006 133 93 114 ‐ 340 2007 150 107 48 72 377 2008 144 44 119 56 363 2009 190 ‐ 120 ‐ 310 2010 114 ‐ 135 ‐ 249 2011 111 28 217 ‐ 356 2012 135 ‐ 226 ‐ 361 2013 143 ‐ 134 ‐ 277 2014 98 55 265 ‐ 418

Grand Total 1,666 619 1,740 1,401 5,426

‐ 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of LIHTC Units Funded in NMby Housing Type2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 6D. Average LIHTC units per project funded by housing type from 2001 to 2014.


2001 ‐ 58 ‐ 26 42 2002 ‐ ‐ ‐ 40 40 2003 60 ‐ 52 74 69 2004 46 60 139 59 66 2005 63 ‐ 60 20 55 2006 27 47 38 ‐ 34 2007 50 54 48 72 54 2008 72 44 60 56 61 2009 48 ‐ 60 ‐ 52 2010 57 ‐ 45 ‐ 50 2011 56 28 54 ‐ 51 2012 45 ‐ 57 ‐ 52 2013 72 ‐ 67 ‐ 69 2014 49 55 44 ‐ 46

Average 50 52 54 54 53

‐

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Average LIHTC Units Per Project in NMby Housing Type

2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 6E. Average 9% credit awarded per LIHTC unit funded by housing type from 2001 to 2014.


2001 ‐ 7,042 ‐ 7,929 7,317 2002 ‐ ‐ ‐ 5,913 5,913 2003 6,632 ‐ 3,243 6,004 5,802 2004 8,988 8,881 5,539 10,222 7,945 2005 9,377 ‐ 10,800 10,010 9,933 2006 12,651 12,631 13,101 ‐ 12,796 2007 16,201 11,765 10,566 10,318 13,101 2008 9,242 21,531 14,939 17,589 13,887 2009 15,644 ‐ 16,657 ‐ 16,036 2010 18,232 ‐ 11,854 ‐ 14,774 2011 10,197 21,555 12,303 ‐ 12,374 2012 21,125 ‐ 10,376 ‐ 14,396 2013 16,084 ‐ 12,935 ‐ 14,560 2014 14,837 19,494 15,978 ‐ 16,173

Average 13,235 11,669 11,931 7,048 11,041

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Average 9% Credit Awarded per LIHTC Unit in NMby Housing Type2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 6F. Total 9% credits awarded to projects by housing type from 2001 to 2014.

Housing Type Sum of 9% Credits

Awarded Family 22,049,988 Senior 7,223,265 Special Needs 20,759,806 None 9,874,470 Grand Total 59,907,529

NM Distribution Chart 6G. Total projects awarded 9% credits by housing type from 2001 to 2014.

Housing Type Projects Awarded

Family 33 Senior 12 Special Needs 32 None 26 Grand Total 103

22,049,988

7,223,265

20,759,806

9,874,470

‐

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000


Total 9% Credits Allocated to Projects in NMby Housing Type2001 ‐ 2014

33

12

32

26

‐

5

10

15

20

25

30

35


Total Projects Awarded 9% Credits in NMby Housing Type2001 ‐ 2014



NM Distribution Chart 6H. Total LIHTC units funded in projects by housing type from 2001 to 2014.

Housing Type Sum of LIHTC Units

Family 1,666 Senior 619 Special Needs 1,740 None 1,401 Grand Total 5,426

NM Distribution Chart 6I. Average 9% credit awarded per LIHTC unit by housing type from 2001 to 2014.

Housing Type Average 9% Credit Awarded per LIHTC

Unit Family 13,235 Senior 11,669 Special Needs 11,931 None 7,048 Average 11,041

1,666

619

1,740

1,401

‐ 200 400 600 800

1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 2,000


Total LIHTC Units Funded in NMby Housing Type2001 ‐ 2014

13,235 11,669 11,931

7,048

‐

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000


Average 9% Credit Awarded per LIHTC Unit in NMby Housing Type2001 ‐ 2014



HOUSING AUTHORITY OR TRIBAL ENTITY PARTICIPATION

YearHousing Authority

Tribal Entity Neither Grand Total

2001 286,398 307,779 1,864,258 2,458,435 2002 105,942 ‐ 1,543,749 1,649,691 2003 132,585 100,173 5,766,129 5,998,887 2004 ‐ 702,547 2,443,704 3,146,251 2005 1,350,326 200,196 1,727,413 3,277,935 2006 ‐ 1,563,557 2,787,195 4,350,752 2007 742,881 1,526,091 2,670,108 4,939,080 2008 ‐ ‐ 5,040,935 5,040,935 2009 963,071 ‐ 4,008,125 4,971,196 2010 ‐ ‐ 3,678,810 3,678,810 2011 1,440,445 ‐ 2,964,734 4,405,179 2012 ‐ ‐ 5,196,829 5,196,829 2013 1,150,000 ‐ 2,883,235 4,033,235 2014 ‐ 584,862 6,175,452 6,760,314

Grand Total 6,171,648 4,985,205 48,750,676 59,907,529

NM Distribution Chart 7A. Distribution of 9% credits allocated to projects by participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.

‐

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Annual 9% Credits Allocated to Projects in NMwith Participation fronm Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities, or Neither

2001 ‐ 2014

Housing Authority Tribal Entity Neither



NM Distribution Chart 7B. Number of projects awarded 9% credits with participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.



2001 1 1 6 8 2002 1 ‐ 6 7 2003 1 1 13 15 2004 ‐ 2 4 6 2005 2 1 3 6 2006 ‐ 4 6 10 2007 1 2 4 7 2008 ‐ ‐ 6 6 2009 1 ‐ 5 6 2010 ‐ ‐ 5 5 2011 3 ‐ 4 7 2012 ‐ ‐ 7 7 2013 1 ‐ 3 4 2014 ‐ 1 8 9


‐

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of Projects Awarded 9% Credits in NMwith Participation from Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities, or Neither

2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 7C. Number of LIHTC units funded in projects with participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.



2001 60 31 245 336 2002 44 ‐ 235 279 2003 48 24 962 1,034 2004 ‐ 79 317 396 2005 130 20 180 330 2006 ‐ 109 231 340 2007 72 90 215 377 2008 ‐ ‐ 363 363 2009 51 ‐ 259 310 2010 ‐ ‐ 249 249 2011 139 ‐ 217 356 2012 ‐ ‐ 361 361 2013 83 ‐ 194 277 2014 ‐ 38 380 418

Grand Total 627 391 4,408 5,426

‐

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Number of LIHTC Units Funded in NMwith Participation from Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities, or Neither

2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 7D. Average LIHTC units per project with participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.



2001 60 31 41 42 2002 44 ‐ 39 40 2003 48 24 74 69 2004 ‐ 40 79 66 2005 65 20 60 55 2006 ‐ 27 39 34 2007 72 45 54 54 2008 ‐ ‐ 61 61 2009 51 ‐ 52 52 2010 ‐ ‐ 50 50 2011 46 ‐ 54 51 2012 ‐ ‐ 52 52 2013 83 ‐ 65 69 2014 ‐ 38 48 46

Average 57 33 55 53

‐ 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Average LIHTC Units per Project in NMwith Participation from Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities, or Neither

2001 ‐ 2014






2001 4,773 9,928 7,609 7,317 2002 2,408 ‐ 6,569 5,913 2003 2,762 4,174 5,994 5,802 2004 ‐ 8,893 7,709 7,945 2005 10,387 10,010 9,597 9,933 2006 ‐ 14,345 12,066 12,796 2007 10,318 16,957 12,419 13,101 2008 ‐ ‐ 13,887 13,887 2009 18,884 ‐ 15,475 16,036 2010 ‐ ‐ 14,774 14,774 2011 10,363 ‐ 13,662 12,374 2012 ‐ ‐ 14,396 14,396 2013 13,855 ‐ 14,862 14,560 2014 ‐ 15,391 16,251 16,173

Average 9,843 12,750 11,060 11,041

NM Distribution Chart 7E. Average 9% credits awarded per LIHTC unit in projects with participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.

‐

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Average 9% Credit Awarded per LIHTC Unit in NMwith Participation from Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities, or Neither

2001 ‐ 2014




NM Distribution Chart 7F. Total 9% credits awarded to projects with participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.

Participation Sum of 9% Credits

Awarded Housing Authority 6,171,648 Tribal Entity 4,985,205 Neither 48,750,676 Grand Total 59,907,529

NM Distribution Chart 7G. Total projects with participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.

Participation Projects Awarded

Housing Authority 11 Tribal Entity 12 Neither 80 Grand Total 103

6,171,648 4,985,205

48,750,676

‐

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000


Total 9% Credits Allocated to Projects in NMwith Participation from Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities,

or Neither2001 ‐ 2014

11 12

80

‐

20

40

60

80

100


Total LIHTC Projects in NMwith Participation from Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities,




NM Distribution Chart 7H. Total LIHTC units funded in projects with participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.

Participation Sum of LIHTC Units

Housing Authority 627 Tribal Entity 391 Neither 4,408 Grand Total 5,426

Participation Average 9% Credit Awarded per LIHTC

Unit Housing Authority 9,843 Tribal Entity 12,750 Neither 11,060 Average 11,041

NM Distribution Chart 7I. Average 9% credit awarded per LIHTC unit in projects with participation from tribal entities, housing authorities, or neither from 2001 to 2014.

627 391

4,408

‐

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000


Total LIHTC Projects in NMwith Participation from Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities,


9,843

12,750 11,060

‐

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000


Average 9% Credit Awarded per LIHTC Unit in NM

with Participation from Housing Authorities, Tribal Entities, or Neither

2001 ‐ 2014



APPENDIX F - New Mexico LIHTC Distribution Maps


