Stakeholder Engagement and Program Changes for LIHTC Administration

Welcome to Session 1 Qualified Allocation Plan Stakeholder Engagement Friendly Reminders 1. Mute yourself when not speaking 2. Introduce yourself before you comment 3. Watch the chat for supplemental PDFs and a links to our online commenting platform Please use the chat window to 1. introduce yourself, 2. your organization, and 3. The last thing that made you smile. September 23, 2021 at 2pm

Summary Changes set to be adopted: Discussion: Goals: HOME layered back into the 9% offering State Basis Boost tweaks to remove economic development regions and public improvement districts and include projects sited on tribal lands and those with a high percentage of Extremely Low Income units. Set-Asides LIHTC Effectiveness Cost Effectiveness Development team Performance Alternative to Cost Effectiveness and Development Team performance Continue in more boldly advance equity and racial justice in the LIHTC program. Maintain open communication with stakeholders, so they see their input reflected in the LIHTC program administration. Written comments can be left on the Easyretro Board link in chat or can be emailed to HCS.QAP@oregon.gov

Set-Aside Changes Current Language Potential Changes Should we take it from a different set aside(s)? Reduce Regional Soft-Set asides to 55% Adjust the regional pools to Metro, Mid-sized (includes PJs), and Rural* Include a new 10% Culturally Specific set-aside for projects sponsored by ownership entities represented by 50% BIPOC identifying individuals. (Remainder to Regional Pools) 10% - Non-Profit (IRC required) 25% - Preservation (Federal rent sub) 10% - Tribal Lands 65% - Regional Soft Set-Asides Other ideas include using the RHNA regions or ideas proposed during the rural engagement conversation. Something like our tribal lands set-asides requirement. Lots of support for this set-aside is this what folks were envisioning? Written comments can be left on the Easyretro Board link in chat or can be emailed to HCS.QAP@oregon.gov

LIHTC Effectiveness Changes Does this reduction meet the growing conversations that less priority should be given to this point section? Current Language Potential Changes Reduce the total max score to 2 points. Up to 3 pts max. Total LIHTC requested is divided per bedroom to arrive at an average Thirds assist in delineating a scale for point assignment. Would others recommend something different? Maintain project is compared to like projects in the same set- aside. This figure is taken from the application, confirmed, and then compared to the other projects of the same construction type and set-aside or region Maintain projects divided into thirds. This process isn t currently outlined in the QAP does this meet the need for additional transparency? Clarify procedure in QAP - projects falling outside of a clear 1/3 grouping will join the grouping closest in dollar figure inclusive of positive or negative grouping. Full 3 pts are awarded to those projects in the lowest third. Bedroom count has been noted to be included on the pre-app stats released before final app is due. Written comments can be left on the Easyretro Board link in chat or can be emailed to HCS.QAP@oregon.gov

Cost Effectiveness Changes Current Language Potential Changes Factoring in the idea of a hypothetical industry standard for unit occupancy standards. Maintain 1 point max. Up to 1 pt max. Total development costs divided by total potential persons housed. Total development costs divided by total bedrooms. Does this sound like your current occupancy standards? FHCO s recommended 2 +1 per bedroom The figures are taken from the application, confirmed, and then compared to other projects of the same construction type and set-aside. Parse out PSH (As like projects) Potential changes would award to lowest half instead of lowest third. Calculate a median cost per potential persons housed and award 1 point for those at/or below the median in their set- aside Full point is awarded to those projects in the lowest third. Written comments can be left on the Easyretro Board link in chat or can be emailed to HCS.QAP@oregon.gov

Development Team Performance Changes Current Language Potential Changes Allows for an understanding of how sponsors are managing current like properties. Matrix to be compiled for LIHTC/Mixed layered funding properties only. Eliminate the 3 s currently allowed in scoring of portfolio viability. Allow for new space in the narrative section for explanation of issues of consequence to the portfolio compliance and viability scoring. Make available a template matrix scoring sheet. Up to 2 pts max Portfolio Compliance Uses REAC Score, Physical Review, File Review, Response Review, PPCP and ongoing compliance issues Up to 3 pts max Portfolio Viability Uses Financial submissions, most recent financial audit, most recent DCR, and asset management Ensure that this is reviewed by scorers in case of recent acquisition or extenuating circumstance. Currently a matrix of all properties to the applicant is compiled by our Portfolio Administration Team and points of 0,1,3 are awarded for positive or negative remarks at all properties with ownership on the application. These points are converted into a percentage out of the total points possible. The percentage falls into a range and final points are awarded by this range. Could be used to forecast their project scores in this section. Written comments can be left on the Easyretro Board - link in chat; or can be emailed to HCS.QAP@oregon.gov

Rethinking the Cost Efficiency and Development Team - Performance Scoring Current Language Potential Changes Initial thoughts? Complete removal of the current language for all the highlighted point areas. As has been discussed there is a total of 6 points available for these three individual categories. Instead implement a cost efficiency performance scoring Starting in 2022 project sponsors funded would have their costs tracked from initial application to final app. Thoughts on how to score to project sponsors that haven t been awarded funds under the new criteria? Cost Efficiency (1 pt) Development Team: Compliance (2 pts) Sponsors who come in for additional funds in other NOFAs rounds would have the opportunity to gain up to max 4 points for being within a median established margin for cost consistency from initial to final app. Is 6 points too many? Other important considerations should we implement this potential change? Portfolio Viability (3 pts) Written comments can be left on the Easyretro Board link in chat or can be emailed to HCS.QAP@oregon.gov

Thank you Session 2 of QAP Outreach will be Thursday - 9/30/2021@ 10am Conversations are slated to include our location and partnership sections of the QAP scoring. Please feel free to forward any additional thoughts to HCS.QAP@oregon.gov