2. Developers Workshop Agenda Welcome & Introductions Property Events
Appendix B & Common Mistakes
Draft 2018 QAP
Questions

3. Draft 2018 QAP

4. Disclaimers Not covering every topic
Focusing on significant changes and what you need to know before submitting an application
Applicants are responsible for knowing rules
If questions are not covered, ask today or follow up with staff
Opportunity to ask questions on topics not covered at the end of the presentation
Questions are also welcome during the presentation
– If you have a question, please raise your hand and Tara or Suma will bring a microphone

5. QAP Status First draft released July 31
Public Hearing was held September 14
10 comments were made during the Hearing
Second draft was released October 10
Anticipate final approval in next several weeks
Application will be available in early December
All comments received are posted on web site

6. Fund Availability
LIHTC – approximately $24.6 million; $613K increase over 2017
WHLP - $20 million (same as 2017)
RPP – was $16 million in 2017; amount not yet finalized for 2018 but hope to be similar to 2017

7. National Housing Trust Fund
Is another source of RPP
Only available in High income counties
Project must commit to at least 25% of units at or below 30% of AMI
$2,952,212 was available for 2017 (funded 4 projects); 2018 amount will be $3,990,025 (approximately 5 projects)
Agency can adjust awards to insure all money has been allocated

8. Workforce Housing Loan Program
$20 million appropriation for 2018
All counties are eligible; available for 9% projects only
Funds split between regions using same percentages as credits
Maximum loan is the lesser of calculated amount or statutory maximum; any amount can be requested up to the maximum loan amount
Requesting WHLP may result in an application being ineligible due to inadequate funds; same as RPP or credits

9. Workforce Housing Loan Program
Statutory maximums are set by the legislature, not the Agency
Statutory Maximums:
- High Income county: $250,000
- Moderate Income county: $1,500,000
- Low Income county: $2,000,000

10. QAP Topics Site Scoring Credits per Unit Average Applicant Bonus Point
Charts A and B
Number of Awards
Bond Cycle

11. QAP Changes There were 18 significant changes to the 2018 QAP
Of those, 13 were suggestions from development partners during Listening Sessions, written comments or phone calls

12. Site Scoring - Amenities
Double or triple-counting an establishment is permitted. For example:
Walmart Supercenter or Super Target can count as Grocery, Shopping and Pharmacy
Harris Teeter with a pharmacy can count as Grocery and Pharmacy

13. Site Scoring - Maps
The drivable route must be shown in map format using Google Maps
Must have a separate map showing route for each amenity
Make certain pins are dropped at entrance to the amenity and entrance to the site
Map should be the satellite view and clearly show both entrances
A photo of each amenity must be provided

14. Example Map

15. Site Scoring Bonus & Negative Points
Site Bonus Points will be awarded to best overall site or sites in the state (if any)
Points will be awarded during site scoring review and reflected in the final site scoring
Site Negative Points will be deducted for any site deemed unsuitable for housing (if any)
Points will be deducted during site scoring review and reflected in the final site scoring
Expectation is both of these categories will be used rarely, if at all

16. Credits per Unit Average
Points will be awarded based on a project’s per unit credit request as it relates to the average per unit credit request for a given region
All full application projects in a region will be used to calculate the average, including those that may be determined to be ineligible for award
Average is derived by taking per unit credit request for each project in a region, then determining the average of those amounts within a given region
Chris

17. Credits per Unit Average - Points
Change for 2018 will be to award points as follows:
4% to 8% below the average: 3 points
Between the average and 4% below the average: 2 points
No more than 4% above the average: 1 point
More than 8% below or 4% above the average: 0 points

18. Credits per Unit Average Rationale
In 2017, a project requesting $11,941 per unit in credits scored more points than a project requesting $9,768
Change rewards Applicant for efficient use of the credit within reasonable levels
Using 10% rather than 8% would have affected 6 out of 104 applications in 2017
Conversely, using 6% rather than 8% would have affected 3 out of 104 applications

19. Credits per Unit Average Rationale
Max score in 2016: 97
Plus or minus 3 points for credit per unit average
61 out of 100 applications had scores between 93 and 97 (with a CPU score of 0 to 3) – 5 point spread
97 – – – – – 13
Max score in 2017: 98
2 points for credit per unit average
77 out of 104 applications had scores between 96 and 98 – 3 point spread
98 – – – 22

20. Applicant Bonus Point 1 point per Applicant or Principal
No application can receive more than 1 bonus point
Election will be made at full application
Should an Applicant / Principal place a bonus point on 2 or more applications, the Agency will determine which application receives the bonus point. Assumption should be the point will be placed on the lowest scoring project.

21. Charts A and B
2017 amounts: $68,000 and $79,000 ($2,000 increase over 2016)
Average per unit cost of all 2017 new construction apps: $65,761
2018 first draft amounts: $70,000 and $81,000
Multiple comments at public hearing that amounts in first draft were not sufficient; we asked folks to tell us what the correct amounts should be;
Received no comments, s or phone calls with proposed number before release of second draft
2018 second draft amounts: $73,000 and $84,000
7.35% increase over 2017 maximums and 11.01% over the application average of $65,761
Removed building permits as part of calculation for 2018
Chris

22. Number of Awards
46 awards in 2016 when awarding points for requesting the least amount of credits per unit
32 awards in 2017 when awarding points for having a credit request within 5% or 10% of the average
Additional credits for 2016 projects equated to approximately 5 projects and 271 units
2016 credit per unit average: $7,867
2017 credit per unit average: $10,827
With policies in the second draft QAP, we expect awards in 2018
Chris

23. Bond Cycle
First cycle: follows same time line as 9% beginning in January
Second cycle: preliminary application can be submitted any time between May 1 and October 1
Schedule for project milestones will be developed once preliminary application is submitted
Expect time between milestones to be similar to 9% round
Preliminary application submission date will determine whether Applicant receives 2018 or volume cap
Chris

24. Questions?