Rural Activities   HOUSING – Both MF & SF   ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT   MIGRANT HEADSTART   SMALL BUSINESS LENDING   COMME...
NSP II NATIONAL COALITIONLOCATIONS CHISPA - $3.52M                                                                 Norris ...
How Are We Doing?   50% Expenditure Goal Met on 10/11/2011!!       4 Months Ahead of 2-year requirement   Expenditures ...
How are we Doing within our Consortium?Grantee      % Expended   Grantee         $ ExpendedDel Norte      138%       CPLC ...
Total $$ Expended:(633 grantees as of 10/22/2012):                                                                        ...
Program Income – SimplifiedIllustration……this is a key reason as to why wewere results-driven…and now how weintend to maxi...
Rehab = $40,000                     (used NSP2 $)                                                     Sales Price = $80,00...
Program Income Expended                                                                    This Means Jobs!!              ...
Section 3 –> Jobs -> Defined!What does the term “Section 3 resident” mean? A “section 3 resident” is:       a public hou...
NSP2 National Program -Economic Impact   850 Employment Opportunities   $30 Million in Construction-Related Contracts  ...
Data Tracking/Collection/Evaluation   NALCAB leads data tracking   Data we track       REO suppliers (who do we buy fro...
NSP2 Consortium: Seller Market Share    (393 Properties – Activity B SFR Only, 4/17/2012)                           1.53% ...
What’s Next   Grant Expiration   100% Goal Met       No RISK of Grant funds being „swept‟       NSP2 LOC will not clos...
Close-out Program Strategies   Leverage, Leverage, Leverage     100% Goal Met     No longer “disadvantaged” by leveragi...
What’s Next – Leverage Success   CPLC through our NSP2 engagement has/is demonstrating a    successful implementation for...
Thank You!             GR 10/24/2012
Gracias!12/14/2012   GR 10/24/2012   21
$10 Million Commitment
Thank You!
D8 housing and econ dev   david adame - cplc
D8 housing and econ dev   david adame - cplc
D8 housing and econ dev   david adame - cplc
D8 housing and econ dev   david adame - cplc
D8 housing and econ dev   david adame - cplc
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

D8 housing and econ dev david adame - cplc

2,504 views

Published on

Affordable housing can do more than provide safe, secure homes to those in need. Communities have been able to maximize their housing infrastructure projects to create a better quality of life for their families, seniors, and veterans, while also creating a stronger local economy. Learn how affordable housing projects can be used to strengthen economic development and mixed-use projects in rural settings.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,504
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

D8 housing and econ dev david adame - cplc

  1. 1. Rural Activities HOUSING – Both MF & SF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MIGRANT HEADSTART SMALL BUSINESS LENDING COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH IMMIGRATION
  2. 2. NSP II NATIONAL COALITIONLOCATIONS CHISPA - $3.52M Norris Square – $9.2M TRP - $13.9M CRHDC - $12.5M Mi Casa – $7.5M Del Norte - $10.3M NEW - $24.7M YES - $2.3M CPLC ($32.9M) TDS - $5.9M El Paso CUSO - $2.7M AHSTI - $2.9M CDCB - $4.5M
  3. 3. How Are We Doing? 50% Expenditure Goal Met on 10/11/2011!!  4 Months Ahead of 2-year requirement Expenditures as of 10/17/2012  100% Goooooal MET and Surpassed!  $137,107,134.04  101.30%  One Month ahead of “stretch goal” How are our consortium members doing individually...
  4. 4. How are we Doing within our Consortium?Grantee % Expended Grantee $ ExpendedDel Norte 138% CPLC AZ $ 39,616,381.51CRHDC 136% NEW $ 25,593,929.00YES 126% CRHDC $ 17,050,130.86CPLC AZ 121% Del Norte $ 14,123,642.94CHISPA 113% TRP $ 8,498,555.44TDS 104% TDS $ 6,148,280.39NEW 104% MI CASA $ 5,813,501.89AHSTI 96% CHISPA $ 3,993,736.42CDCB 86% CDCB $ 3,816,637.54MI CASA 78% NSCA $ 3,434,523.68EPAHCUSO 69% YES $ 2,884,291.19TRP 64% AHSTI $ 2,792,118.57NSCA 37% EPCUSO $ 1,837,857.50
  5. 5. Total $$ Expended:(633 grantees as of 10/22/2012): This demonstrates capacity and capability!! Appropria Drawn From State Grantee tion Grant Amount PI Received PI Drawn Grant Total Drawn CA State of California NSP1 $145,071,506 $35,090,684 $29,170,053 $124,195,346 $153,365,399 MI State of Michigan NSP2 $223,875,399 $4,573,754 $2,074,927 $149,758,600 $151,833,527 AZ Chicanos Por La Causa, Inc. NSP2 $137,107,133 $40,384,572 $40,384,572 $99,650,660 $140,035,232 GA Habitat f or Humanity International Inc NSP2 $137,620,088 $0 $0 $109,080,365 $109,080,365 OH State of Ohio NSP1 $116,859,223 $0 $0 $107,537,381 $107,537,381 FL State of Florida NSP1 $91,141,478 $15,048,820 $12,090,195 $82,651,405 $94,741,600 CA Los Angeles, CA NSP2 $100,000,000 $5,527,102 $4,810,887 $79,521,303 $84,332,190 GA State of Georgia NSP1 $77,085,125 $18,160,970 $17,875,018 $63,569,075 $81,444,093 MI State of Michigan NSP1 $98,653,915 $4,568,160 $4,074,048 $77,210,599 $81,284,647 IL Chicago, IL NSP2 $98,008,384 $0 $0 $79,239,665 $79,239,665 IN State of Indiana - IHCDA NSP1 $83,757,048 $3,444,289 $2,452,696 $76,782,846 $79,235,542 MA The Community Builders, Inc. NSP2 $78,617,631 $14,025,963 $2,389,080 $70,257,238 $72,646,317 Neighborhood Housing Services of FL South Florida, Inc. NSP2 $89,375,000 $970,377 $954,587 $67,925,817 $68,880,404 CA Riverside County, CA NSP1 $48,567,786 $31,184,515 $30,415,372 $37,995,058 $68,410,430 TX State of Texas - TDHCA NSP1 $91,323,273 $1,651,490 $1,651,490 $59,943,079 $61,594,569 PA State of Pennsylvania NSP1 $59,631,318 $7,223,450 $5,576,823 $49,202,580 $54,779,402 Neighborhood Lending Partners of FL West Florida, Inc. NSP2 $50,000,000 $10,899,463 $10,117,734 $39,335,525 $49,453,259 NC State of North Carolina NSP1 $52,303,004 $3,849,815 $1,905,460 $46,761,701 $48,667,161 VA State of Virginia NSP1 $38,749,931 $19,566,524 $19,094,011 $27,834,164 $46,928,175 FL Dade County, FL NSP1 $62,207,200 $2,221,501 $2,221,266 $44,243,256 $46,464,522 TN State of Tennessee NSP1 $49,360,421 $530,311 $530,311 $45,115,515 $45,645,825 MN State of Minnesota NSP1 $38,849,929 $10,722,488 $8,950,614 $34,564,183 $43,514,798 SC South Carolina State Program NSP1 $44,673,692 $3,646,750 $1,686,254 $40,975,545 $42,661,799 NJ State of New Jersey NSP1 $51,470,620 $0 $0 $42,624,694 $42,624,694 AZ Phoenix, AZ NSP2 $60,000,000 $4,535,790 $4,535,790 $37,530,070 $42,065,860 CPLC NY State of New York NSP1 $54,556,464 $401,908 $401,908 $41,483,878 $41,885,786 MO State of Missouri NSP1 $42,664,187 $7,129,289 $4,907,116 $35,132,755 $40,039,871 IL State of Illinois NSP1 $53,113,044 $1,828,048 $1,785,689 $36,370,006 $38,155,696 AZ Arizona State Program NSP1 $38,370,206 $28,749 $28,749 $38,036,139 $38,064,888 MA State of Massachusetts NSP1 $43,466,030 $2,541,247 $255,615 $37,778,511 $38,034,125 IL Chicago, IL NSP1 $55,238,017 $3,027,887 $1,678,739 $36,048,906 $37,727,645
  6. 6. Program Income – SimplifiedIllustration……this is a key reason as to why wewere results-driven…and now how weintend to maximize NSP2 ProgramValue…
  7. 7. Rehab = $40,000 (used NSP2 $) Sales Price = $80,000 (made it affordable) Acquisition = $60,000 (used NSP2 $) Total Development Cost = $100,000Recycle $$ More Admin NSP2 Subsidy = More Jobs $20,000 More (OK, proceed)Homeowners! PROGRAM INCOME = $80,000
  8. 8. Program Income Expended This Means Jobs!! $50M Feb Goal (633 grantees as of 10/22/2012): Drawn From State Grantee Appropriation Grant Amount PI Received PI Drawn Grant Total Drawn Chicanos Por La Caus a,AZ Inc. NSP2 $137,107,133 $40,384,572 $40,384,572 $99,650,660 $140,035,232CA Riverside County, CA NSP1 $48,567,786 $31,184,515 $30,415,372 $37,995,058 $68,410,430CA State of California NSP1 $145,071,506 $35,090,684 $29,170,053 $124,195,346 $153,365,399VA State of Virginia NSP1 $38,749,931 $19,566,524 $19,094,011 $27,834,164 $46,928,175GA State of Georgia NSP1 $77,085,125 $18,160,970 $17,875,018 $63,569,075 $81,444,093ID State of Idaho NSP1 $19,600,000 $19,023,021 $17,070,928 $17,116,661 $34,187,589FL State of Florida NSP1 $91,141,478 $15,048,820 $12,090,195 $82,651,405 $94,741,600 Neighborhood LendingFL Partners of West Florida, Inc. NSP2 $50,000,000 $10,899,463 $10,117,734 $39,335,525 $49,453,259MN State of Minnesota NSP1 $38,849,929 $10,722,488 $8,950,614 $34,564,183 $43,514,798FL Pasco County, FL NSP1 $19,495,805 $9,463,899 $8,933,143 $17,956,699 $26,889,842CA San Joaquin County, CA NSP1 $9,030,385 $8,789,848 $8,666,835 $7,683,546 $16,350,381 Hsg Trust of Santa ClaraCA County NSP2 $25,000,000 $9,002,748 $8,043,822 $14,831,087 $22,874,910MD Healthy Neighborhoods Inc. NSP2 $26,092,880 $8,110,230 $8,028,934 $17,499,994 $25,528,929 Los Angeles NeighborhoodCA Housing Services Inc. NSP2 $60,000,000 $12,000,599 $7,764,725 $26,085,695 $33,850,420NM New Mexico State Program NSP1 $19,600,000 $7,822,362 $7,612,964 $17,224,715 $24,837,680CA Fresno County. CA NSP1 $7,037,465 $8,031,980 $7,476,256 $7,037,465 $14,513,721NV Clark County, NV NSP1 $29,666,798 $10,026,230 $7,197,363 $22,567,194 $29,764,557GA Gwinnett County, GA NSP1 $10,507,827 $10,137,914 $7,141,924 $9,893,695 $17,035,619TX Harris County, TX NSP1 $14,898,027 $7,289,307 $7,123,119 $13,797,225 $20,920,344GA Clayton County, GA NSP1 $9,732,126 $9,186,092 $6,951,481 $8,187,510 $15,138,992PA Philadelphia, PA NSP1 $16,832,873 $6,863,123 $6,863,123 $13,812,376 $20,675,500FL Lee County, FL NSP1 $18,243,867 $6,639,830 $6,639,830 $16,228,820 $22,868,650KS State of Kansas NSP1 $20,970,242 $6,386,990 $6,386,990 $17,954,844 $24,341,834FL Orange County, FL NSP1 $27,901,773 $6,591,828 $6,361,996 $26,068,403 $32,430,399AZ Phoenix, AZ NSP1 $39,478,096 $6,156,925 $5,951,907 $27,346,130 $33,298,037PA State of Pennsylvania NSP1 $59,631,318 $7,223,450 $5,576,823 $49,202,580 $54,779,402GA Cobb County, GA NSP1 $6,889,134 $5,195,441 $5,378,873 $4,974,248 $10,353,120NV Las Vegas, NV NSP1 $14,775,270 $6,266,398 $5,348,175 $13,595,137 $18,943,312CA Riverside County, CA NSP3 $14,272,400 $6,120,943 $5,142,622 $9,214,536 $14,357,157PA Philadelphia, PA NSP2 $43,942,532 $5,110,066 $5,110,066 $32,120,843 $37,230,909IL Will County, IL NSP1 $5,160,424 $5,724,182 $5,048,516 $5,160,424 $10,208,940
  9. 9. Section 3 –> Jobs -> Defined!What does the term “Section 3 resident” mean? A “section 3 resident” is:  a public housing resident; or  a low- or very low-income person residing in the metropolitan area where monies are expended What does the term Section 3 Business Concern mean?  51 percent or more owned by Section 3 residents; or  At least 30 percent of its full time employees include persons that are currently Section 3 residents  Subcontract in excess of 25 percent of the dollar award to Section 3
  10. 10. NSP2 National Program -Economic Impact 850 Employment Opportunities $30 Million in Construction-Related Contracts 120 Local Contractors/Subs employed Every 100 NSP2 Homes => $1.1M in Commissions 45% of 850 EO are Section 3 Qualified 20% of Construction-Related Contracts = Section 3 Small Business Impact Final Projection = 2330 Employment Opportunities! Previous Projection was 1500 (based on $95K grant expenditure = 1job)
  11. 11. Data Tracking/Collection/Evaluation NALCAB leads data tracking Data we track  REO suppliers (who do we buy from)  Lenders (who provides mortgage financing)  Sales Prices / development subsidies  Jobs Created  LH25 – affordable market sales  Demographics (who is buying from us) DATA dissemination critical to leveraging program‟s success
  12. 12. NSP2 Consortium: Seller Market Share (393 Properties – Activity B SFR Only, 4/17/2012) 1.53% 1.27% 2.29% 2.29% 2.29% Fannie Mae 2.80% B of A 5.60% Wells fargo 33.59% Chase5.60% HUD Freddie Mac Other US Bank Deutsche 7.63% Ocwen USDA Private Party 8.40% Citi Bank 9.41% 8.65%
  13. 13. What’s Next Grant Expiration 100% Goal Met  No RISK of Grant funds being „swept‟  NSP2 LOC will not close on 2/2013 Grant Close-out Period  Focus on Meeting “National Objectives”  MUST Meet LH25 Objective  Final Close-out Guidance not yet issued  5 year window likely for our non-profit coalition  After 5 years, any Program Income becomes unrestricted
  14. 14. Close-out Program Strategies Leverage, Leverage, Leverage  100% Goal Met  No longer “disadvantaged” by leveraging Take advantage of “NSP2” relationships  „First Look‟ to acquire discounted properties (min 1%)  Ie. leverage $2M of PI ->purchase $10M of discounted prop  Great buy and hold for appreciation benefit (after Year 5) Leverage land investments as equity in redevelopment projects  Strategy for consortium members to clear land „on their books‟ In AZ (as in some other states): Carve out some PI to leverage existing fed funding:  NSP2, NSP3 City funds  HHF, AG Funds  HOME / CDBG (add census tracts now before grant expiration)
  15. 15. What’s Next – Leverage Success CPLC through our NSP2 engagement has/is demonstrating a successful implementation for placing foreclosed, vacant and/or abandoned homes back into “productive” use. Leverage Success Stories we can tell re: homeownership and the provision of affordable rentals to:  Establish creative relationships with Major Lenders (with inventory and need to capture loans)  Large scale asset management and development opportunities (HUD M&M, FNM REO Rental, HUD Notes) ->CGI, Donation Initiative, etc.  Special Needs Projects with HUD, Municipalities or Major Lenders (for CRA credit) NSP being used by HUD as success story for Project Rebuild, part of President Obama‟s American Jobs Act  $15 Billion proposed as formula / $5 Billion competitive  INCREDIBLE Opportunity!
  16. 16. Thank You! GR 10/24/2012
  17. 17. Gracias!12/14/2012 GR 10/24/2012 21
  18. 18. $10 Million Commitment
  19. 19. Thank You!

×