Financing Preservation – The Oregon Experience<br />Moderator: John Epstein, Wells Fargo Bank<br />Presenters: Patrick Shea, HUD<br /> Bob Gillespie, Oregon Housing & Community Services <br /> Bill Van Vliet, NOAH<br /> MA Leonard, Enterprise<br /> David Fuks, Cedar Sinai<br />
Patrick sheaSupervisory project managerUS Dept. Housing and Urban Development<br />HUD Section 8 Contract Renewals<br />
HUD Portland MFH Portfolio<br />The Portland MFH Program Center has jurisdiction for the States of Oregon and Idaho.<br />The Portland MFH Portfolio consists of approximately 580 projects of all HUD program types, which are monitored by 8 HUD Project Managers.<br /> There are 276 contracts with 9,922 units of project based Section 8 in Oregon, which are administered by Oregon Housing & Community Services (OHCS). <br /> In Idaho there are 119 contracts with 3,786 units of project based Section 8, which are administered by Idaho Housing Finance Association.<br />A subset of the Portland Section 8 Portfolio is the Housing Finance Agency (HFA) Section 8 contracts funded under Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 883.<br />
HUD Portland MFH Portfolio<br />In Oregon, there were 122 projects and 4, 085 units of Section 8 generated under the 883 program.<br />In Idaho, there 60 projects and approximately 2,000 units of generated under the 883 program.<br />Both OHCS & IHFA have been significant partners with HUD in generating the bond financed mortgages over 30 years ago, while HUD has funded the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments (HAP) contracts for these projects for the same period. <br />These 883 projects, whose mortgages and Section 8 contracts began to expire concurrently in 2006 and will continue to do so for until 2013 in Oregon and 2020 in Idaho. <br />
883 Contracts<br />This panel will focus on the Oregon Experience, but the lessons learned could be applied to other 883 Portfolios in the Nation.<br />Contract expiration and mortgage maturity date are generally within 90 days of one another<br />Two versions of 883 HAP contracts exist: <br />Old Regulation 883 – pre 1981<br />New Regulation 883 – post 1981<br />May 10<br />5<br />
The HUD Role<br />For Acquisition & Rehabilitation Transactions HUD will:<br />Participate in Scoping Meetings to Identify Potential Challenges and Clarify Roles<br />Coordinate with the OHCS, as the Performance Based Contract Administrator (PBCA) on Section 8 Contract Renewal Process<br />Hold Additional Meetings with Industry Partners in the Transaction for update status and review timelines.<br />Process the Determinative Criteria Review Submission<br />The Determinative Criteria Review is the HUD Approval of the Transaction for Noninsured Projects with Section 8 HAP Contracts.<br />HUD will approve new 20 year term Contract for Preservation Purposes.<br />
OHCS Role<br />Similarly, For Acquisition & Rehabilitation Transactions OHCS will:<br />OHCS, as the mortgagee must approve the prepayment of the bond financed mortgage.<br />The Prepayment of the OHCS Mortgage can trigger the early termination of the 883 Old Regulation contracts.<br />Participate in Scoping Meetings to Identify Potential Challenges and Clarify Roles<br />OHCS, as the PBCA will process the Section 8 Contract Renewal under Multifamily Assisted Housing Reform and Affordability Act of 1997 (MAHRA) Guidelines.<br />OHCS will underwrite the new permanent financing.<br />OHCS will issue Section 42 LIHTC as part the permanent financing.<br />
Timelines<br />The Section 8 Contract Expiration Date drives the process, because of the need to have new permanent financing in place with Initial MAHRA Contract Renewal effective date.<br />Sellers and Buyers should be communicating at least Two Years before the Contract Expiration.<br />The early termination of the Old Regulation 883 contract must be factored into the process, if OHCS allows prepayment of the mortgagee.<br />There is the required 1 year notice to tenants of the contract expiration.<br />In the sale of a project to a Nonprofit the required notice period to tenants of contract expiration is 6 months.<br />The OHCS timelines associated with the competition for Section 42 LIHTC must be considered.<br />
Bond Financed Mortgages - Original Players <br />The Transactions were more simple 30 years ago.<br />Project Owners<br />OHCS – Bond Issuer & Mortgage<br />Bond Holders<br />OHCS – Traditional Contract Administrator<br />HUD – Funding the Subsidy Contract<br />
Acquisition & Rehabilitation Players<br />Things are not so simple now to Preserve Section 8 Contracts.<br />Seller<br />Buyer<br />Interim Finance, such Network for Oregon Affordable Housing<br />OHCS – Bond Conduit Issuer<br />Bond Holders<br />Tax Credits Investors<br />Gap Finance, such HUD CPD, OHCS, City of Portland<br />OHCS - PBCA<br />HUD – Funding the Subsidy Contract<br />Nonprofit Industry Partners<br />
Successful Preservation Transactions <br />Despite the challenges briefly described here, HUD, OHCS & Our Industry Partners have been successful in Preserving the Project Based Section 8 Contracts, while providing for physical rehabilitation of the projects and generating stable financing for future.<br />Of the original 4,085 units of the 883 Section 8<br /><ul><li> 1,083 units Preserved for the Long Term
798 units – Owners have chosen to stay in the Section 8 Program
1, 934 unit – Contract Expiration Not Yet Occurred
270 units – Lost to Contract Opt Out</li></ul>The Oregon Experience has provided value lessons in how to Preserve Project Based Section 8 Contract and position the projects for another generation.<br />
Bob gillespiehousing division administratororegon housing and community services<br />State Policy and Financing Resources<br />
OHCS Early Recognition of need for Preservation<br />Uninsured Section 8 portfolio<br />10% of nation’s total<br />4,085 units<br />
OHCS is the HUD Contracts Administrator for Oregon<br />Allows department to work with existing owners to renew HAP contracts<br />798 uninsured Section 8’s renewed<br />
Legislative Support<br />$11M in Lottery-backed bonds in the ’07 Session<br />$19M in Lottery-backed bonds in the ’09 Session<br />Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credit (OAHTC)<br />CAP raised to $17M<br />Pass-through requirement for preservation properties and manufactured parks eliminated<br />
Projects preserved during the 07-09 biennium:27 projects - 1,096 units<br />Total project costs: $132,128,098<br />Total Replacement costs (@ $200,000 p/u): $219,200,000<br />Total Subsidy retained (@ $72,000 p/u over 20 yrs): $78,912,000<br />18 HUD Section 8 projects were closed/transferred - for a total of 786 units (bond/4% financed projects)<br />3 more properties received funding – for a total of 120 units; however, in September of 2008, lost lender and investor. Anticipate closing/transferring properties fall of 2010. Funding allocations have remained with the projects. (bond/4% financed projects)<br />1 project (46 units) received an allocation of preservation dollars for rehabilitation activities, with a commitment to renew for a 20-year HAP contract.<br />An additional 5 projects, for a total of 144 units, received funding through the Consolidated Funding Cycle.<br />Note: Preservation projects that received funding through the Spring 09 CFC and some Fall 08 projects will be counted in the 09-11 preserved unit count, as most required TCAP/1602 (ARRA) resources.<br />
Preservation for the 09-11 biennium<br />Goal is to preserve 1,598 units<br />Received $19 M in Lottery Backed Bonds for preservation projects<br />Approx. $11.3 M has been reserved for bond/4% projects<br />Approx. $4.7 M is available through the 2010 CFC; and, <br />Approx. $3 M for Manufactured Dwelling Parks (RFP is currently out and can be found on OHCS’ website)<br />In addition, approx. $20.7 M of TCAP/1602 (ARRA) resources were committed to 8 preservation projects<br />
Housing Preservation (unknown at this time, dependent on 2011 Legislative allocation)</li></ul>Conduit / Risk Sharing Bond Program / Elderly/Disabled Bond Program<br />4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits (w/tax exempt bonds)<br />Oregon Affordable Housing Tax Credits (out-of-cycle, preservation only)<br />Housing Preservation Funds (unknown at this time, dependent on 2011 Legislative allocation)<br />
Bill Van vlietexecutive directorNOAH<br />Interim and Permanent Lending<br />
NOAH Background:<br />Statewide not for profit lender formed in 1990 to provide interim and permanent financing for affordable multi-family housing projects <br />Formed by Oregon banks to share risk and develop lending expertise in affordable housing<br />Received CDFI designation from US Treasury in 2003<br />$160 Million in loan capital<br />
NOAH Loan Programs<br />Program Loan Capital <br />Permanent Loan Fund $119,432,000 <br />Preservation (OHAF) $ 32,700,000 <br />Predevelopment Fund $ 4,696,141 <br />TE Bond Fund $ 3,291,546<br />Total Loan Capital: $160,119,687<br />
Preservation Initiative <br />Oregon Housing Acquisition Project (OHAP)<br />Statewide initiative to maximize preservation of expiring federally subsidized apartments<br />Strong collaboration with State of Oregon and City of Portland<br />Guided by Steering Committee of industry partners<br />Meyer Memorial Trust launched the program with significant early grant and PRI support<br />One of 12 programs nationally selected for significant funding by the MacArthur Foundation<br />
Preservation Initiative<br />Oregon Housing Acquisition Project—Goals:<br /><ul><li>Collaborate to preserve 80% of federally rent-assisted units
Establish Comprehensive Data Base and Web Site
First projects under construction</li></li></ul><li>Preservation Initiative<br />Oregon Housing Acquisition Fund<br />$32 Million fund<br />Interim acquisition financing <br />Higher loan amounts to expedite closings<br />Acquisition loans without identified takeout sources<br />Interest-only to maximize cash flow to support debt <br />
Preservation Initiative<br />OHAF Funding:<br /> Foundation PRIs: $ 8,500,000<br /> State of OR (OHCSD): $ 2,000,000<br /> Sr. Bank Debt: $22,200,000<br /> Total: $32,700,000<br />Foundations: MacArthur, Meyer Memorial Trust, Collins<br />Banks: Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Key Bank, Chase<br />
OHAF Loan Terms<br />Rate: 6.75%-7.50%, interest only fixed at funding<br />Fee: 1%<br />Term: Lesser of contract term or 36 months, with one year extensions aligned with one year contract renewals<br />DCR: 1.10 primary at lowest point during term<br />LTV: 75%-95% of unrestricted as-is market<br />Rents: Varies. Possibly up to contract. Assume no rent increases during OHAF period (but inflate expenses) <br />Require borrower-prepared “reasonable” exit strategies <br />
OHAF Loans<br />Experience to date:<br />Loan amts limited many ways-- cash flow, LTV, or maximum allowable debt service (some flexibility during OHAF)<br />LTV (mkt) range: 43%-95%<br />DCR range: 1.13-2.13<br />Challenges:<br />Estimating rents at contract renewal<br />Plausible exit strategies in current environment<br />Project valuations at different stages<br />
Permanent Loans--Preservation<br />Rate: 7.50% (current floor)<br />Fee: 1.0-2.0%<br />Amortization: 25 years <br />Term: 20 years or contract exp.<br />DCR: 1.20 primary/1.10 overall<br />LTV: 75% of restricted (w/HAP contract)<br />HAP Contract: 20 year required<br />Rents: Underwrite to contract, perform downside analysis—breakeven at lesser of Mkt/LIHTC rents<br />
Permanent Loans<br />Experience to Date:<br />LTV: 38%-80% (restricted)<br />DCR: 1.18-1.64<br />Challenges:<br />Establishing UW rents prior to construction<br />Timing of contract renewals for “new reg” contracts<br />Analyzing downside risk of future RCS adjustments<br />Certain operating expenses not recognized by HUD <br />
Preservation Challenges<br />Weak capital markets threaten preservation activity<br />limited OHAF take-out strategies<br />Less capital—both tax credits and perm debt<br />Planned financial structures not viable (bonds/4% credits)<br />More rigorous borrower financial capacity requirements <br />Geographic limitations on capital<br />Project scale limitations<br />Buyers need even more capital<br />Acquisition prices<br />Closing costs<br />Reserves<br />Predevelopment expenses<br />
Preservation Challenges<br />Sellers waiting for markets to recover<br />Buyers risk averse<br />Reliance on future public sector resources<br />More interim financing needed<br />
Preservation Challenges<br />Economy has slowed progress<br />Preservation effort will take more time, money<br />Creative interim solutions will be required<br />
MA LeonardVP & Impact Market LeaderEnterprise Community Partners<br />Tax Credit Equity and Preservation<br />
Radical Changes in Market<br />Availability/Supply of Equity<br />Pricing<br />Underwriting<br />
Supply of Equity<br />Exit of Equity from Market<br />Geographic Focus of Remaining Equity<br />Challenges to Raising Equity<br />The Discriminating Investor<br />Size Matters<br />No tolerance for Risk<br />In today’s market, investors call the shots<br />
Pricing<br />Returns have risen rapidly since 2007<br />Prices have taken a corresponding drop<br />Syndicators do not buy “on spec”<br />Losses are no longer as attractive<br />
Underwriting Considerations<br />Level of Rehabilitation<br />Needs to be rehabilitated such that is will not need additional rehabilitation for 15 years<br />Light, moderate and substantial rehabilitation<br />Sponsor-Investor Fit – talk to your investor early<br />Serious Capital Needs Assessment<br />Determine Scope prior to Setting Purchase price<br /> <br />
Underwriting Considerations<br />Revenue and Subsidy Risk<br />Rent levels<br />Duration of Contract<br />Termination Risk<br />Transition<br />Reserves <br />
Underwriting Considerations<br />Credit Delivery<br />Critical to have same understanding as your investor<br />Know start date<br />Understand delivery dates<br />Ideal project from a delivery perspective<br />
Additional Thoughts<br />Preservation is good policy<br />Deal type<br />FHA Loans<br />Structuring <br />Seller Stays in deal<br />Early delivery / Late pay helps pricing<br />Green retrofit<br />Other assistance<br />
Cedar Sinai Park’s Mission<br />Cedar Sinai Park provides residential and community-based care to our elders and adults with special needs, allowing them to live with comfort, independence and dignity in a manner and in an environment based on Jewish values.<br />
Motivations for the Preservation<br /><ul><li>Seller – As business model moved in another direction, the seller was motivated by maintaining continuity in service to the community and in promoting the growth of a community not-for-profit organization.
Buyer – CSP was motivated by the opportunity to increase service to the community, make affordable housing more appealing to its historical constituency and participate in the creation of a housing with services model that would help low income elders and people with disabilities to remain independent for as long as possible.
Statutory Agencies – Prevention of the conversion of the Rose Schnitzer Tower to private apartments or hotel space assured continuity of services and quality of life for 250 low income residents.</li></li></ul><li>Elements of Transaction<br />Sources:<br /><ul><li>Low income Housing Tax Credits (4% LIHTC) – resulted in capital infusion through a limited partner (Wells Fargo Community Development) - $12,160,000
Pre-paid Annual State Inspection Fee - $749,000</li></li></ul><li>Rose Schnitzer Tower Assessment<br />Sample Description<br /><ul><li>Approximately 130 residents were assessed, with a response rate of over 50% in each of the language groups.
The summary report does not include the Farsi and Korean speakers.
The mean age of the entire sample was 74 years.
Russian residents were significantly older than other groups (mean age of 82.3).
The Chinese residents are composed of Mandarin and Cantonese speakers, who tend to differ in immigration and socio-economic characteristics.</li></li></ul><li>Rose Schnitzer Tower Assessment<br />Summary of Illness Status<br /><ul><li>RST residents reported a mean total of 4.4 illnesses per person (range of 0 – 10 illnesses).
Russian and English residents reported significantly more illnesses per person than the Chinese.
23% of the English, 30% of the Russian speakers and only 2 Chinese residents reported insufficient resources to pay for medical expenses.
Russian speakers also report a larger number of illnesses that interfere with their activities than do the other groups.
The top ten illnesses reported by resident groups suggest targets for intervention.</li></li></ul><li>Rose Schnitzer Tower Assessment<br />Medication Use of RST Residents<br /><ul><li>The mean number of prescribed medications was 6.28 per resident with a range of 0 – 22 (not including over the counter medications, vitamins or non-Western medications).
35% of residents do not have a workable strategy for remembering to take their medications on time and in the correct dosage.
Residents frequently reported voluntarily altering their prescription regimens.
Implications: voluntary and involuntary non-adherence leading to hospitalization and institutionalization, increased morbidity and mortality, falls increase with more than 4 medications due to interactions.</li></ul>Resident Scores on the Geriatric Depression Scale by %<br />*90% of this level accounted for by English and Russian groups<br />