NALHFA 2012 A NNUAL C ONFERENCE C ASE E XAMPLES OF A FFORDABLE H OUSING P RESERVATION By Aseem Nigam Director Real Estate Finance and Grants Management Fairfax County, Department of Housing and Community Development

Project Description 319-units located in Alexandria, Fairfax County – Built 1976 Original configuration: – 2 phases- both phases purchased by developer – Phase 1: 110 units; HUD Section 236 financing; additionally, 50 of 110 units receive Rental Assistance Payment (RAP) contract- both expire 2018 – Phase 2: 209 units; “market” rate not subject to HUD restrictions but rents affordable to 50% AMI Project needed renovation in order to provide upgrades in appearance, security, energy efficiency and long term durability (preservation) Creekside Village 2

3 Summary of Sources and Uses For both phases:  Construction costs/unit: $38,131  Acquisition cost/unit: $126,066 (buildings only)  Land Cost/unit: $15,000 (ground lease Uses Phase 1Phase 2Total Acquisition$27,734,500$12,480,500$40,215,000 Hard Costs$7,874,955$3,440,093$11,315,048 Soft Costs$4,789,996$2,370,715$7,160,711 Developer’s Fee$5,070,000$2,685,450$7,755,450 TOTAL$45,469,451$20,976,758$66,446,209

4 Creekside Village Sources Phase 1Phase 2Total VHDA Existing Mortgage $1,450,033 New VHDA Tax- Exempt Bonds $4,100,000 VHDA Taxable$4,575,000 VHDA- SPARC$3,000,000$5,000,000$8,000,000 VHDA- REACH$2,000,000$1,000,000$3,000,000 SPARC Deferred$1,000,000 LIHTC Equity$21,247,875$4,080,542$25,328,417 AHPP$9,700,000$4,515,000$14,215,000 Deferred Dev Fee$2,496,543$2,281,216$4,777,759 TOTAL$45,469,451$20,976,758$66,446,209

5 Creekside Village Unit & Income Targeting- Phase 1 Reconfigured Bedroom SizeNo. of UnitsMaximum AMI (%) 1br, 1ba2550% 1br, 1ba2660% 1br, 1ba480% 2br, 1.5ba2550% 2br, 1.5ba1560% 2br, 1.5ba580% 2br, 2ba3050% 2br, 2ba3260% 2br, 2ba480% 3br, 2ba3050% 3br, 2ba2060% 3br, 2ba480% Total Units220

6 Creekside Village Unit & Income Targeting- Phase 2 Reconfigured Bedroom SizeNo. of UnitsMaximum AMI (%) 2br, 1.5ba2560% 2br, 1.5ba2080% 3br, 2ba3060% 3br, 2ba2480% Total Units99

7 Creekside Village  Roadblocks Section 236 financing limited rent increases over time and rents/revenues from Phase 1 were very low  Financially infeasible without cash flow from Phase II to carry it  As a result, the project was limited to how much debt it could carry Non-displacement of tenants  Solutions In order to make Phase 1 financially feasible, changed distribution of units between Phase 1 and Phase 2  Phase units with the following levels of affordability: % AMI, 93 60% AMI, and 17 80% AMI  Phase units with the following affordability % AMI and 44 80% AMI Created condominium regime to maximize LIHTC for the property Needed to preserve some units as market rate so as not to displace tenants

8 Creekside Village  Purchase of Land Using Penny Funds Helps to reduce the overall cost the developer needs to finance Unsubordinated ground lease 99-year lease to borrower, 75-year to lender; at end of term, land and improvements revert back to the FCRHA and therefore, the FCRHA can maintain perpetual affordability Long term preservation is achieved  Preservation and the AHPP Requirements such as the ROFR, affordability covenants and in cases where we have a ground lease, the FCRHA is able to maintain and preserve units as affordable for the long term  With the ROFR, the FCRHA can purchase the property  Affordability covenants may extend affordable restrictions beyond the credit compliance period  Ground leases also revert land/buildings back to the FCRHA’s ownership

Crescent Apartments 181 units in Reston Va. – Built 1967 Redevelopment / revitalization opportunity Adjacent to Lake Anne – oldest planned community Acquisition cost per unit $276,316 Affordability – 20% units at 50% AMI – 80% units at 60% AMI Unusual Aspects – Part of a larger portfolio sale (Mark Winkler) – Purchased to redevelop the site 9

Crescent Apartments Property is owned by Fairfax County Ground Lease to the Fairfax County Redevelopment and Housing Authority (FCRHA) for property management Payment agreement for the County to make the bond payments Property contributes some revenues to the bond payments. 10

Crescent Apartments Purchased in 2006 for $49,500,000 Sources of financing : – BANs - $40,600,000 – Penny for Affordable Housing - $9,136, the original BANS were rolled over for another year at 4% interest rate 2008 County issued 5 year BANS to allow time for the redevelopment plans to be completed. – Note had a 3 year call provision – Interest rate of 3.308% – County paid interest payment – Property contributed to principal pay down. – Bond ratings: Moody’s Aa2 and S&P AA+ 11

Crescent Apartments 5 year note refinanced in 2011 – Same maturity – Lowered the interest rate to 0.75% – Net present value of Interest savings $1,642,152 Responses to the RFP for redevelopment are due April 30,

Crescent Apartments Recommendations from the RFP – Preservation of the 181 units as follows 10% affordable to households earning up to 30% of AMI 20% affordable to households earning up to 50% of AMI 70% affordable to households earning up to 60% of AMI – Non-replacement Units 20% affordable pursuant to the ADU and WDU ordinance – Land Unit consolidation options Unit A acres Unit B acres Unit C – 3.8 acres Unit D – 17.3 acres (Crescent Apartments) Unit E – 6.0 acres Unit F – 5.75 acres (Current Shopping Area ) 13

Crescent Apartments Land UnitFull Consolidation OptionRedevelopment Option AResidential 175 Units Commercial 105,000 SF Residential 125 units Commercial 85,000 SF BResidential 120 Units Commercial 130,000 SF CResidential 100 Units DResidential 935 Units Commercial 8,000 SF Residential 750 Units Commercial 4,000 SF EResidential 425 Units Commercial 4,000 SF Residential 320 Units Commercial 2,000 SF FCurrent Shopping Area TotalResidential 1,755 Units Commercial 247,000 SF Residential 1,415 Units Commercial 210,000 SF 14

Crescent Apartments 15

Q UESTIONS ? 16 Contact Information: Aseem Nigam